Quantcast
Channel: Military Overall | Defense Industry Daily
Viewing all 2675 articles
Browse latest View live

Phalanx CIWS: The Last Defense, On Ship and Ashore

$
0
0
Phalanx CIWS Firing
Phalanx, firing
(click to view full)

The radar-guided, rapid-firing MK 15 Phalanx Close-In Weapons System (CIWS, pron. “see-whiz”) can fire between 3,000-4,500 20mm cannon rounds per minute, either autonomously or under manual command, as a last-ditch defense against incoming missiles and other targets. Phalanx uses closed-loop spotting with advanced radar and computer technology to locate, identify and direct a stream of armor piercing projectiles toward the target. These capabilities have made the Phalanx CIWS a critical bolt-on sub-system for naval vessels around the world, and led to the C-RAM/Centurion, a land-based system designed to defend against incoming artillery and mortars.

This DID Spotlight article offers updated, in-depth coverage that describes ongoing deployment and research projects within the Phalanx family of weapons, the new land-based system’s new technologies and roles, and international contracts from FY 2005 onward. As of Feb 28/07, more than 895 Phalanx systems had been built and deployed in the navies of 22 nations.

The Phalanx Platform: Competition, Upgrades & Developments

click for video

The MK 15 Phalanx system was originally developed as a last-ditch defense against enemy missiles, and possibly aircraft. It weighed in at around 13,600 pounds, and carries 1,550 rounds of 20mm ammunition. As radars have improved, and electronics have become both smaller and more powerful, the system has been improved to defend against a wider range of threats.

Block 1, Baseline 2. Uses high pressure air instead of hydraulics to release the rounds, boosting the MK 15’s firing rate from 3,000 rounds per minute to 4,500. That gives the system 21 seconds of full-rate firing before a reload is required, enough for several engagement sequences.

Phalanx maintenance
Phalanx maintenance
(click to view full)

Block 1B. This is the new standard for the US Navy, and the baseline for SeaRAM missile systems. Block 1B adds day/night FLIR optics that boost performance against drones, small boats, and missiles with low radar cross-sections, while boosting angle tracking against conventional targets. For conventional MK 15s, the gun barrels are tweaked, and new MK224 “Enhanced Lethality Cartridge” (ELC) ammunition has a 48% heavier tungsten penetrator that maximizes the effect of the small 20mm round.

The US Navy wants to be an all-1B fleet by 2015, at a conversion cost of about $4.5 million per unit. A number of allies are following that lead within their own time frames. Paul Gilligan, head of platform integration for Raytheon’s UK subsidiary, was quoted saying that:

“This upgrade is vitally important, especially in the context of the evolving threats worldwide… It provides protection to ships and their crews against an increased number of threats including small, fast gunboats; standard and guided artillery; helicopters; mines and a variety of shore-launched, anti-ship missiles.”

Block IB Baseline 2. Radar modifications swap out some hard-to-get analog components for digital off-the-shelf signal processing electronics, a new signal source and mixer, and a “surface mode” software upgrade that improves performance against targets on or near the water’s surface.

The US Navy wants to standardize at this level by 2019, using upgrade kits that cost just under $1 million.

Phalanx: New Frontiers

SeaRAM
SeaRAM
(click to view full)

The high speed and hence low warning time provided by many supersonic anti-ship missiles are also an evolving concern for global navies. Given the Phalanx’s limited range of just a couple of miles, coping with saturation attacks by missiles traveling at speeds of 0.5 – 1 mile per second requires layered defenses. To that end, the MK 15 Phalanx Block 1B’s mountings and electronics are also the base platform for the SeaRAM short range anti-air missile system. Unlike vertically-launched missiles, the SeaRAM’s RIM-116 missile is fired on a flat trajectory from an 11-round launcher. That saves precious seconds compared to vertical launch, allowing the system to provide an intermediate zone of defense between Phalanx guns and medium-range vertically-launched missiles like the RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow or SM-2.

RIM-116 missiles can also be used against surface targets, and a number of ships use RAM or SeaRAM systems instead of standard Phalanx guns.

Another option to extend the system’s range involves an entirely new technology: lasers. Kevin Peppe, Raytheon’s Phalanx program director, has said that “a robust but relatively low power, low beam-quality commercial laser” is under investigation. It could offer an effective range about 3 times that of the existing M61A1 20mm gun, along with lower life-cycle costs and fewer worries about civilian casualties when used on land. Even so, this concept is a long way from becoming a practical battlefield weapon. More powerful solid-state lasers will probably be required in order to make the concept feasible against the full range of threats, and other complications like the effects of fog on lasers, and stopping power issues, must also be overcome.

Land, Ho! C-RAM/ Centurion

Phalanx C-RAM
Phalanx C-RAM
(click to view full)

One area of clear progress for the Phalanx system is on land. Back in June 2005, “Phalanx R2D2s to Counter Land Mortars” drew attention to the US Army’s land-based version, imaginatively known as the “Land-based Phalanx Weapon System” and also known as MK 15 MOD 29 Centurion. The MK 15 MOD 29 Centurions are Block 1B CIWS weapon systems mounted on low-boy trailers, with self contained diesel electric power and cooling water.

Centurion fires explosive rounds that self-destruct if they don’t hit a target, so that falling 20mm bullets don’t kill people in the base itself or in nearby populated areas.

Unofficially, many refer to these weapons as “R2D2s,” after the Star Wars robot they resemble. Originally developed to defend US bases against mortar attack, these trailer-mounted weapons could also provide defensive options against the kinds of rocket attacks encountered in Round 1 of Israel’s 2006 war with Hezbollah, Iran & Syria. This appears to be a spiral development contract, with fielding of interim solutions as development progresses.

AN-TPQ-36 Firefinder
AN/TPQ-36 Firefinder

Centurion can reach beyond its own array and use other target acquisition sensors to detect and track fired rounds, including Northrop Grumman’s AN/TPQ-36 short-range Firefinder radar and the Lightweight Counter Mortar Radar.

C-RAM (Counter Rockets, Artillery and Mortars) is both a term used to refer to Centurion’s general role, and a specific command and control program that makes use of the weapon. The fire-control subsystem Northrop Grumman Mission Systems provides for C-RAM uses software modified from their Forward Area Air Defense Command and Control (FAAD C2) system, which ties together the sensors and weapons of the Army’s short-range air-defense battalions. Northrop Grumman is the prime contractor for FAAD C2, which is operational throughout the world and has been especially critical to homeland security efforts in the Washington, DC area.

Once a threat is detected by Army sensors FAAD C2/C-RAM triggers audio and visual alarms sound to warn exposed soldiers. A fire-control subsystem predicts the mortar’s flight path, prioritizes targets, activates the warning system, and provides cueing data to help Centurion defeat the mortar round while still in the air.

Centurion has been deployed by the USA, and Britain. In October 2008, Raytheon and Oshkosh unveiled the Mobile Centurion, which mounts the system on a hybrid-electric HEMTT A3 heavy truck.

Phalanx: Competitors

CIWS Goalkeeper and Sea Harrier
Thales Goalkeeper
(click to view full)

Phalanx is not alone on the market. Its principal competitor is the Thales Nederland Goalkeeper system, which uses the same GAU-8 30mm tank-killer gatling gun mounted on the A-10 Thunderbolt close support aircraft, and a dual frequency I/K-band track while scan radar. The GAU-8/A offers a firing rate of 4,200 rounds per minute, and the heavier projectiles offer more hitting power, which may help stop fragments of a supersonic missile from hitting a ship and doing damage. On the flip side, Goalkeeper takes up a larger footprint of space on board ship, and requires significant “deck penetration” and integration instead of being a bolt-in offering like Phalanx. The Goalkeeper is a distant second in the market, but it has a solid foothold. It’s currently in service with the British Royal Navy, as well as Belgium, Chile, the Netherlands, Portugal, Qatar, South Korea, and the UAE.

There are no reports of a 30mm Phalanx, but Raytheon is taking other steps to keep its platform on top of the market, and relevant to modern threats.

Phalanx Contracts and Key Events

Unless otherwise specified, all contracts are issued by the US Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC to Raytheon Co. in Tucson, AZ.

FY 2014 – 2016

Korea buys Block 1Bs for FFX frigates; Japanese multi-year support; Australia requests upgrades; Other contracts.

MK15 Phalanx on Canadian frigate
MK15, HMCS Ottawa
(click to view full)

November 11/15: Raytheon has received a $10.4 million contract modification for Navy Close-In Weapon System (CIWS) SeaRAM upgrades. The company received a $159 million production contract in October for CIWS systems, with the contract also covering support equipment for the Rolling Airframe Missile-based SeaRAM system. The SeaRAM improves the CIWS’s Phalanx Block 1B radar system with an eleven-missile RAM launcher to expand the system’s defensive capabilities.

October 27/15: The Navy has awarded Raytheon a $159 million production contract for the company’s Phalanx Close-In Weapon System. The contract also includes an option valued at $291 million for FY2016. The company will manufacture, inspect and test the new systems and provide support equipment for the Rolling Airframe Missile-based SeaRAM air defense system, including Block 1B radar upgrades, which equips Independence-class Littoral Combat Ships.

May 22/15: Turkey has requested upgrades for its Phalanx close-in weapon systems, as well as four new systems, in a potential $310 million deal. The deal would also include Remote Weapons Stations, equipment, parts and training, as well as contractor (Raytheon) support. The Phalanx has been exported to several countries, with Australia recently requesting an upgrade package, with the UK and South Korea having imported the system, alongside other international customers. The CIWS is designed to provide a final tier defensive capability, with radar guiding a cannon to shoot down missiles and aircraft.

Oct 30/14: Japan. Raytheon announces a multi-year, $205 million bulk-buy contract to provide Phalanx upgrade kits, support equipment, and hardware spares to the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF). Sources: Raytheon, “Raytheon awarded $205 million Phalanx upgrade contract”.

Japan: multi-year support

Oct 14/14: Australia. The US DSCA announces Australia’s formal export request for up to 3 Phalanx Block 1B Baseline 1 to Block 1B Baseline 2 upgrade kits; overhaul and upgrade of up to 9 Phalanx Block 1A mounts to Block 1B Baseline 2 systems; 11 Remote Control Stations; 11 Local Control Stations, spare and repair parts; support equipment; test equipment; personnel training and training equipment; publications and technical documentation; and other forms of US Government and contractor logistics and technical support.

The principal contractor will be Raytheon Missile Systems Company in Tucson, AZ, and the estimated cost is up to $76 million. Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Australia. Sources: US DSCA #14-50, “Australia – Close-In Weapon System Block 1B Baseline 2 Upgrade”.

DSCA request: Australia

Sept 26/14: Support. Raytheon Co. in Tucson, AZ, receives a $15.5 million contract modification, which buys spares for Land-based Phalanx systems. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2013 and 2014 US Army budgets.

Work will be performed in Williston, VT (23.4%); Louisville, KY (16.9%); Andover, MA (11.6%); Grand Rapids, MI (6.2%); Phoenix, AZ (4.5%); Tucson, AZ (3%); and other locations under 1% (34.4%), and is expected to be complete by February 2017. US Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, DC manages the contract (N00024-13-C-5406).

June 27/14: Support. Serco Inc. in Reston, VA, received a $31.2 million cost-plus-fixed-fee/ firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for Close-In Weapons System (CIWS) waterfront installation support. they’ll help with installation of Ship Alterations, Ship Change Documents, and Ordnance Alterations for Phalanx systems on US Navy and US Coast Guard vessels, and for the US Army. Only $114,000 is committed immediately, with the rest awarded as required.

Work will be performed in Norfolk, VA (41%); San Diego, CA (30%); Pearl Harbor, HI (5%); Everett, WA (6%); Mayport, FL (6%); and various overseas ports (12%); and is expected to be complete in June 2017. This contract was competitively procured via FBO.gov with 3 offers received by the US Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technology Division in Indian Head, MD (N00174-14-D-0028).

May 22/14: Support. Raytheon in Tucson, AZ receives a $115.5 million contract modification for MK15 Phalanx upgrades and conversions, system overhauls and associated hardware.

All funds are committed using various FY 2013 & 2014 budgets, with $43.6 million expiring on Sept 30/14. Work will be performed in Williston, VT (13%); Melbourne, FL (9%); Andover, MA (6%); Louisville, KY (5%); Tempe, AZ (5%); Pittsburgh, PA (5%); Ottobrunn, Germany (5%); Bloomington, MN (3%); Ashburn, VA (3%); Phoenix, AZ (3%); El Segundo, CA (2%); Hauppauge, NY (2%); Syracuse, NY (2%); Salt Lake City, UT (2%); Joplin, MO (2%); Bracknell, United Kingdom (2%); Grand Rapids, MI (1%); Norcross, GA (1%); and various other locations less than 1% each (29%); it is expected to be completed by September 2017. US NAVSEA in Washington, District of Columbia, is the contracting activity (N0024-13-C-5406).

Feb 24/14: South Korea. Raytheon announces a $123 million Direct Commercial Sale (DCS) contract to deliver 9 Phalanx Block 1Bs for installation aboard the ROK Navy’s FFX Batch II light frigates, and aboard the AOE II successors to their 3 Cheonji Class fast combat support ships. Phalanx deliveries will begin in 2016, and are scheduled to be complete in 2022.

DCS contracts are subject to different announcement rules than Foreign Military Sale contracts, and are managed directly by the buyer instead of by a US military surrogate. This is Raytheon’s largest DCS contract for Phalanx systems, and it was actually signed in Summer 2013. Sources: Raytheon, “Raytheon awarded $123 million Phalanx contract from Republic of Korea”.

9 Block 1Bs for ROK FFX

Jan 3/14: Support. Raytheon in Tucson, AZ receives a $52.1 million Design Agent Engineering and Technical Support Services modification for maintainence of, and improvements to, the Mk15 Phalanx, Land-based Phalanx, and SeaRAM weapon systems.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ, and is expected to be complete by January 2015. $12.5 million is committed immediately from a wide array of USN FY 2014 and FY 2013 R&D, weapons, and shipbuilding budget lines, plus a US Army budget. Of that, $4 million will expire on Sept 30/13 (N00024-12-C-5405).

FY 2012 – 2013

British order; US upgrades.

Target shoot-down
(click for video)

Sept 10/13: FY 2013-14. A $136.2 million contract to overhaul and upgrade 19 MK 15 Phalanx systems, and produce 4 new SeaRAM systems. This contract provides purchases for the U.S. Navy (80%), Japan (15%), the US Army (4%) and Pakistan (1%) under the foreign military sales (FMS) program; and all funds are committed immediately. $55 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/13.

Another $94.8 million in options exist for a FY 2014 buy of 12 more Phalanx upgrades, and another 4 SeaRAM systems, to bring the total contract to $231 million.

Work will be performed in Louisville, KY (26%); Anaheim, CA (16%); Melbourne, FL (11%); Dayton, OH (11%); Syracuse, NY (10%); McKinney, TX (5%); Andover, MA (5%); Bloomington, MN (5%); Radford, VA (5%); Salt Lake City, UT (3%); and Tucson, AZ (3%), and is expected to be complete by September 2017. This contract was not competitively procured in accordance with FAR 6.302-1(a)(2)(iii) “one responsible supplier” provisions (N00024-13-C-5406). Sources: Pentagon | Raytheon Sept 11/13 release.

FY 2013 order

Oct 23/12: 5 for RFA. Raytheon signs a GBP 42.8 million (about $68.6 million) contract to deliver 5 Phalanx Block 1B systems to Britain, beginning in 2013. Installation and in-service support will be provided by Babcock Marine.

The weapons are destined for Royal Fleet Auxiliary support vessels. At the moment, Raytheon’s Phalanx system is installed on 14 Royal Navy vessels, including their 6 new Type 45 destroyers. Other British ships use Thales’ Goalkeeper 30mm system. Royal Navy | Raytheon.

British order

May 17/12: FY 2012. Raytheon in Tucson, AZ receives a $57.9 million contract modification, covering FY 2012 requirements for MK 15 Phalanx Close-In Weapon Systems (CIWS). It includes Phalanx Block 1B BL2 upgrade kits and conversions; MK 15 Mod 31 CIWS SeaRAM missile upgrade kits and conversions in support of Austal’s forthcoming LCS 10 and 12; 2 Phalanx Block 1Bs for the forthcoming DDG 116 destroyer; MK 15 CIWS hardware product improvements and ancillary equipment; Block 1B Ordalt (Ordnance Alternation) kits; and MK 15 CIWS Block 1B Class A overhauls.

Raytheon’s release cites 9 Phalanx overhauls and upgrades, 20 Phalanx radar upgrade kits, and 2 SeaRAM systems that use the Phalanx system as the chassis for an 11-shot RIM-116 short-range anti-aircraft missile launcher, instead of a 20mm gatling gun.

Work will be performed in Louisville, KY (39%); Germany (12%); Palm Bay, FL (12%); Tucson, AZ (9%); Pittsburgh, PA (8%); Burlington, VT (6%); Andover, MA (4%); Syracuse, NY (4%); Long Beach, CA (1%); Radford, VA (1%); Bloomington, MN (1%); Salt Lake City, UT (1%); Norcross, GA (1%); and New Albany, IN (1%); and is expected to be complete by September 2015. $24.2 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12 (N00024-10-C-5427).

FY 2012 order

FY 2011

Japan; South Korea; Poland; UK.

Phalanx on JS Hyuga
MK.15 IB on JS Hyuga
(click to view full)

Dec 27/11: Support. A $45.6 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for Phalanx, SeaRAM, and Land-based Phalanx design agent engineering and technical support services covering overall maintainability, reliability, and improvements. The contract is initially funded with $726,000, with more to be allocated as needed.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ, and is expected to be completed by January 2013. This contract was not competitively procured by US NAVSEA in Washington, DC (N00024-12-C-5405).

Sept 12/11: Raytheon signs a $65.5 million Direct Commercial Sale contract to deliver 5 Phalanx Block 1B Close-In Weapon Systems to the Republic of Korea Navy for the new 3,200 ton Ulsan-1 Class FFX inshore patrol frigates.

The contract calls for the systems to be installed starting in April 2013, and represents Phalanx’s largest sale to the ROK fleet – which generally uses Thales’ larger 30mm Goalkeeper instead. Raytheon.

South Korea: FFX buy

Aug 31/11: Support. A 5-year, $162.2 million not-to-exceed fixed-price requirements contract for performance based logistics support for the Phalanx CIWS. This announcement includes service to the governments of Australia, United Kingdom, New Zealand, Japan, Poland, and Bahrain, which will be issued as separate delivery orders, on an as-required basis.

Work will be performed in Louisville, KY, and is expected to be completed August 2016. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to FAR 6.302-1, by US NAVSUP Weapon Systems Support in Mechanicsburg, PA (N00104-11-D-ZD43).

Aug 25/11: FY 2011. A not-to-exceed $161 million contract modification to previously awarded contract for MK 15 Mod 31 SeaRAM systems in support of Independence Class ships LCS 6 Jackson and LCS 8 Montgomery, and Japan’s “DDH 2405 helicopter destroyer”; as well as Phalanx CIWS Block 1B class “A” overhauls, and land-based Phalanx Weapon System class “A” overhauls.

The SeaRAM systems differ from other RAM launchers by having the full Phalanx enclosure, including the accompanying radar, as well as added infrared sensors. This creates a bolt-on missile system that can be operated semi-autonomously, or integrated and coordinated via the ship’s combat system. In exchange, it holds just 11 missiles in its launcher, instead of 21. DID covers it as a separate system.

As for Japan’s “DDH-2405,” this is the first ship of Japan’s new 22DDH project to field 800 foot, 30,000t vessels that are larger than its existing 18,000t Hyuga Class. These ships are properly characterized as escort carriers, but Japan’s constitution forbids them from owning carriers. The SH-60 Seahawk helicopters on board JMSDF Hyuga and JMSDF Ise certainly proved themselves in the wake of the 2011 tsunami, however, which should mute any domestic criticism.

The Pentagon adds that Phalanx CIWS is currently installed on approximately 152 US Navy and 14 US Coast Guard ships, and is in use in 23 foreign navies. Work will be performed in Louisville, KY (30%); Andover, MA (19%); Tucson, AZ (9%); Germany (7%); Syracuse, NY (7%); Long Beach, CA (6%); Radford, VA (6%); Burlington, VT (6%); Palm Bay, FL (2%); Pittsburgh, PA (2%); Bloomington, MN (2%); Salt Lake City, UT (2%); Norcross, GA (1%); and New Albany, IN (1%). Work is expected to be complete by September 2015, but $90.7 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11 (N00024-10-C-5427).

FY 2011: USA, (Japan)

Aug 1/11: Support. A $7 million contract modification for MK 15 Phalanx engineering and technical services to the US military, and the governments of Japan and Saudi Arabia (1%) under the Foreign Military Sales Program. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ, and is expected to be complete by April 2012. $200,000 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11 (N00024-07-C-5437).

July 26/11: Poland submits a DSCA notice for service life extensions of its FFG-7 frigates, which includes upgrades to its MK 15 systems from Block 0 to Block 1B/ Baseline 2. Read “Poland to Extend, Improve its FFG-7 Frigates” for full coverage.

Poland request

June 21/11: UK. Babcock International Group announces the pending qualification and testing of Raytheon’s Phalanx 1B 20mm close-in weapon system on HMS Daring. The Type 45 air defense destroyers were not delivered with secondary defensive systems for use against UAVs, small boats, and incoming missiles, so the pending qualification will help to patch the gaps in their defenses.

Babcock will supervise the installation of 2 systems in HMS Daring at Portsmouth Naval Base, as a lead-in to Naval Weapon Sea Trials (NWST), including a towed target firing. Most British ships have used Thales larger 30mm Goalkeeper system, but the Phalanx is an easier and cheaper “bolt-on” addition. Babcock’s previous Phalanx installations have been upgrades on the Type 42 destroyer HMS York, and the fleet replenishment ship RFA Fort Victoria.

April 29/11: The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency announces [PDF] Britain’s official request for Ordnance Alteration Kits for 36 MK 15 Phalanx Close-In Weapon System (CIWS) upgrade (Ordnance Alternation, or OrdAlt) kits. The request includes 20 kits for converting Phalanx Block 1A systems to Block 1B Baseline 2, and 16 kits that raise systems from Block 1B Baseline 1 to Baseline 2. Spare and repair parts, support equipment, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical documentation, software support, and other US government and contractor support are also included. The estimated cost is up to $137 million, but exact costs will depend on a negotiated contract.

The Block 1B Baseline 2 upgrades improve optical and radar close-in detection, tracking and engagement, and extend Block 1A capabilities to include targets like helicopters, UAVs, and fast boats. Raytheon Systems Company in Tucson, AZ will be the contractor, but implementation will not require any contractor or US government support personnel.

Britain request

April 11/11: Raytheon announces that it has delivered the 1st 20mm Phalanx Block 1B Close-In Weapon System to the Republic of Korea Navy. The direct commercial sale calls for the Phalanx Block 1B system to be installed on the lead FFX light frigate in 2011.

Other South Korean ships use Thales 30mm Goalkeeper system, but Phalanx’s bolt-on nature makes it a friendlier choice for smaller vessels. Raytheon expects to sign another contract with South Korea for an additional 5 Phalanx systems in the near future, representing the other 5 FFX ships.

South Korea: initial order & delivery

FY 2010

Support and tests.

Phalanx reloading
Phalanx, reloaded
(click to view full)

Sept 29/10: Support. A $35.2 million contract modification for engineering and technical services in support of the MK 15 Phalanx close-in-weapon system. Work will be performed in Tucson, Z, and is expected to be complete by December 2011. $8,379,133 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/10 (N00024-07-C-5437).

May 19/10: Support. A $22.9 million modification to a previously awarded contract (N00024-07-C-5437) for engineering and technical services in support of the MK 15 Phalanx CIWS. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ, and is expected to be complete by September 2010. Contract funds in the amount of $5.3 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.

March 31/10: FY 2010. A $204 million not-to-exceed contract for MK 15 Phalanx Close-in Weapon System (CIWS) upgrades and conversions, system overhauls, and associated hardware.

Work will be performed in Louisville, KY (30%); Andover, MA (19%); Tucson, AZ (16%); Syracuse, NY (7%); Long Beach, CA (6%); Radford, VA (6%); Burlington, VT (6%); Palm Bay, FL (2%); Pittsburgh, PA (2%); Bloomington, MN (2%); Salt Lake City, UT (2%); Norcross, GA (1% ); and New Albany, IN (1%). Work is expected to be complete by September 2014, and $51.3 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured (N00024-10-C-5427).

FY 2010

March 24/10: Support. A $5.8 million modification to a previously awarded contract (N00024-07-C-5437), exercising options for engineering and technical services in support of the MK 15 Phalanx Close-In-Weapon System. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ, and is expected to be complete by September 2010.

March 9/10: Testing. USS Abraham Lincoln [CVN-72] successfully completes a PACFIRE test firing of her 20mm Phalanx Close In Weapons System (CIWS), while exercising the boat’s combat systems. Upgrades to the close-in self-defense weapon system included transition from block 1 baseline 0, to block 1 baseline 2.

The main improvement uses compressed high pressure air instead of hydraulics to release the rounds faster, allowing the gun to fire 4,500 rounds per minute instead of 3,000. US Navy.

FY 2009

Israel; Canada.

Boat beat-down
(click for video)

Sept 23/09: Support. A $13.7 million modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-07-C-5437), exercising options for engineering and technical services in support of the MK 15 Phalanx Close-In-Weapon System. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ and is expected to be complete by September 2010. Contract funds in the amount of $1.3 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.

June 19/09: The Government of Canada awards Raytheon Canada Limited of Calgary, AB an 8-year, C$ 180 million contract to overhaul, repair and upgrade the Canadian Navy’s Phalanx Close-In Weapon Systems (CIWS). The Phalanx serves on Canada’s Halifax class frigates, its aged Iroquois/Tribal class “air defense” destroyers, and its Protecteur class supply ships. The upgrades will likely take the systems to Phalanx Block 1B status, which improves capabilities against fast boats, helicopters, and UAVs.

Canada’s Industrial and Regional Benefit (IRB) Policy applies to this procurement. It requires that Raytheon Canada Limited undertake “high quality and advanced-technology business activities in Canada valued at 100 per cent of the contract value.”

Canada support & upgrades

May 15/09: FY 2009. A $259.9 million contract modification for MK 15 Phalanx Close-In-Weapon System (CIWS) Block 1B upgrades and conversions, system overhauls, and associated hardware. This includes the MK 15 MOD29 Centurion land-based system. $8.8 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/09.

Work will be performed in Louisville, KY (30%); Andover, MA (19%); Tucson, AZ (16%); Syracuse, NY (7%); Long Beach, CA (6%); Radford, VA (6%); Burlington, VT (6%); Palm Bay, FL (2%); Pittsburg, PA (2%); Bloomington, MN (2%); Salt Lake City, UT (2%); Norcross, GA (1%); and New Albany, IN (1%), and is expected to be completed by September 2012 (N00024-07-C-5444).

FY 2009

May 13/09: Training. A $5.8 million contract modification for phalanx simulated infrared/visible engagement target simulator kits with shorting plugs in support of the Phalanx CIWS Program. The shorting plugs are useful, in order to make sure the simulated targets can’t lead to live firing.

Raytheon will work on the contract in England (80%); Louisville, KY (15%); and Tuscon, AZ (5%); and expects to complete work by January 2011. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command manages the previously awarded contract (N00024-07-C-5444).

April 21/09: Israel. Despite news reports that Israel would order the land-based Mobile Centurion system, the Jerusalem Post quotes “senior defense officials” who say that a decision won’t be made until Israel can watch live tests in summer 2009. The report adds that Israel is interested in the system’s potential along the Gaza Strip border, but there are still several obstacles that must be overcome first.

One is its effectiveness against Kassam rockets and mortars, which will be answered by the live tests. The second obstacle is cost, given that each system covers 1.2 square km and costs about $25 million. That works well for protecting a base, but protecting a city like Sderot become far more costly. In a democracy, issues like noise levels are an obstacle that must be evaluated under environmental regulations, though that’s likely to be a minor hindrance at best. The final obstacles would involve American approval of the sale, which is very likely, and the willingness of American military customers to give up their own production slots, which is less certain. If they do not expedite delivery with production slot swaps, the required wait time might affect the rationale for choosing the Phalanx-based system over other options.

Jan 30/09: Laser Phalanx. White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico state continues to test a solid-state laser version of the Phalanx weapons system. The laser has proven capable of “rapidly” penetrating armor plating even when not at full power, and the next step is to test the system on mortar rounds.

The exact time required for burn-through or detonation of incoming rounds is a very important number. US Army release.

Oct 8/08: Mobile Centurion. Raytheon and Oshkosh unveil the “Mobile Centurion,” which mounts the Phalanx system on a hybrid-electric HEMTT A3 heavy truck. To make room, the truck’s normal load-handling system was removed, in favor of a fixed platform for the Phalanx. The ProPulse drive A3 model was picked because it has 120 kW of power to divide between the truck’s drive train and the Pahlanx as needed, which removes the need to tow a bulky generator.

The other benefit is air mobility. Instead of fitting just 1 current model Centurion/C-RAM trailer into a C-17 strategic transport plane, 3-4 Mobile Centurions could be fitted instead. Defense News.

FY 2008

Australia, New Zealand.

Over Baghdad
click for video

Sept 22/08: Support. A $31.3 million modification to previously awarded contract N00024-07-C-5437, exercising an option for engineering and technical services in support of the MK 15 Phalanx CIWS.

Phalanx CIWS is currently installed on approximately 187 USN ships and is in use in 20 foreign navies. This modification combines support for the US Navy, US Army and the Governments of Egypt, Portugal and Australia under the Foreign Military Sales Program. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ, and is expected to be complete by September 2009. Contract funds in the amount of $1.7 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.

Sept 18/08: FY 2008. A not-to-exceed $220.5 million modification to a previous contract for MK 15 Phalanx Close-In-Weapon System Block 1B upgrades and conversions, system overhauls, and associated hardware. Contract funds in the amount of $19.9 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.

Most Phalanx Block 1B conversions involve naval ships, due to the upgrade’s defensive value against small boats. The land-based C-RAM system is also based on Block 1B, however, and they will require system overhauls and spares of their own as part of their regular maintenance.

Work will be performed in Louisville, KY (30%); Andover, MA (19%); Tucson, AZ (16%); Syracuse, NY (7%); Long Beach, CA (6%); Radford, VA (6%); Burlington, VT (6%); Palm Bay, FL (2%); Pittsburg, PA (2%); Bloomington, MN (2%), Salt Lake City, UT (2%); Norcross, GA (1%); and New Albany, IN (1%), and is expected to be complete by September 2012 (N00024-07-C-5444).

FY 2008

May 23/08: Support. A $14.3 million modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-07-C-5437) provides more incremental funding for engineering and technical services, bringing the contract’s current exercised value to $57.6 million. This modification combines purchases for the U.S. Army (45%); U.S. Navy (42%) and the Government of Pakistan, (13%) under the Foreign Military Sales Program. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ and is expected to be completed by September 2008. The Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington Navy Yard, DC issued the contract.

May 16/08: New Zealand’s TV3 reports that the country’s 2 ANZAC Class frigates will upgrade their Phalanx guns to Block 1B status, as the first step in a larger overhaul and upgrade. See “NZ Looks to Upgrade ANZAC Frigates.”

NZ upgrade

May 12/08: Centurion. A not-to-exceed $61.2 million modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-07-C-5444) for MK 15 Phalanx Close-In-Weapon System (CIWS) ordnance alteration kits, spares, and associated hardware for Land-Based configurations to support the Global War on Terrorism.

Work will be performed in Louisville, KY (22%); Andover, MA (19%); Tucson, AZ (16%); Syracuse, NY (9%); Long Beach, CA (9%); Radford, VA (7%); Burlington, VT (7%); Palm Bay, FL (3%); Pittsburg, PA (2%); Bloomington, MN (2%); Salt Lake City, UT (2%); Norcross, GA (1%); and New Albany, IN (1%); and is expected to be complete by September 2010. Contract funds in the amount of $1.5 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.

Jan 22/08: Support. An $18.7 million modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-07-C-5437) for engineering and technical services in support of the MK 15 Phalanx Close-In-Weapon System. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ and is expected to be complete by September 2008. Contract funds in the amount of $3.6 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.

“PHALANX CIWS is currently installed on approximately 187 USN ships and is in use in 20 foreign navies.”

Nov 9/07: FY 2007. Raytheon Co. in Tucson, AZ received a $225.1 million firm-fixed-price contract for MK 15 Phalanx Close-In Weapon Systems (CIWS) Block 1B Upgrade and Conversion equipment, plus U.S. Army Block 1B Land-based Phalanx Weapon System (LPWS) Upgrade and Conversion equipment, and U.S Army Block 1B LPWS’s and associated spares and support equipment. This effort also includes purchases for the Governments of Portugal (1.23%) and Australia (1.09%) under the Foreign Military Sales Program.

A subsequent Raytheon release adds more details: they will overhaul and upgrade 34 Phalanx CIWS systems for the U.S. Navy and 1 system for the Royal Australian Navy, and will build 12 Land-Based Phalanx Weapon Systems for the U.S. Army, while providing associated hardware to all customers under the agreements.

Work will be performed in Louisville, KY (55.7%), Burlington, VT (12.4%), Palm Bay, FL (8%), Andover, MA (4.9%), Pittsburg, PA (4.8%), Carson, CA (4.1%), Tucson, AZ (3.4%), Brooklyn, NY (3.4%), Bloomington, MN (3.3%), and is expected to be complete by November 2010. Contract funds in the amount of $7.3 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The contract was not competitively procured by the Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington Navy Yard, Washington DC (N00024-07-C-5444).

FY 2007: USA, Australia

Oct 1/07: Overhauls. A $16.7 million firm-fixed-price modification under previously awarded contract (N00024-04-C-5460) for 7 Phalanx Close-In Weapon System (CIWS) Class A Overhauls. PHALANX CIWS is currently installed on approximately 187 USN ships and is in use in 20 foreign navies. Work will be performed in Louisville, KY and is expected to be complete in February 2011. All contract funds will expire at the end of the fiscal year.

FY 2007

FLIR; Lasers?

Phalanx UK Firing Night
UK Phalanx at night
(click to view full)

Sept 27/07: Centurion. Jane’s International Defence Review reports that Raytheon is planning to approach NATO with a strategy to lease or sell a number of its Centurion land-based Phalanx systems for deployment at fixed bases in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sept 25/07: Ammo. Alliant Techsystems Inc. (ATK) in Mesa, Ariz., USA, won an estimated $44.6 million firm-fixed-price contract for MK 244 Mod 0, linked armor-piercing discarding sabot (APDS) 20mm cartridges, electric-primed 20mm rounds designed to be fired by the M61A1 20mm gatling cannon mounted in the shipboard Phalanx CIWS. This cartridge is referred to as the Enhanced Lethality Cartridge, as it contains a heavier projectile and inflicts more damage to the target than the precursor to this round, the MK149 Mod 4.

Work will be performed in Independence, MO, and is expected to be complete by September 2010. Contract funds in the amount of $512,519 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured and advertised via the Internet, with 2 offers received [General Dynamics ATP was almost certainly the other bidder]. The US Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division in Crane, Ind. issued the contract. (N00164-07-D-4285)

Sept 11/07: Laser Phalanx. Jane’s reports from the British DSEi exhibition that Raytheon is working on a Phalanx variant that can fire lasers. What advantages would a laser system offer? Would it really be an advance over the current Phalanx system? DID explains.

Aug 23/07: Sub-contractors. DRS Technologies, Inc. announced a $26 million contract, with an option for an additional $23 million contract, to produce, integrate, test and deliver Phalanx Thermal Imagers for the MK 15 Phalanx Close-In Weapon System (CIWS). The contract was awarded to DRS by the Missile Systems business of Raytheon in Louisville, KY. The imagers were developed by the company’s DRS Sensors & Targeting Systems unit – California Division in Cypress, CA, and DRS-produced work for this contract will be accomplished by the unit’s Optronics Division in Palm Bay, FL. DRS will start delivering the imagers immediately, with completion expected by July 2008.

DRS’s Phalanx Thermal Imagers incorporate 2nd-generation FLIR (Forward Looking Infra-Red) technology, similar to that used by the company in the Horizontal Technology Integration series of sighting system products being delivered to the U.S. Army and Marines for ground combat systems like the M2/M3 Bradley IFV and M1 Abrams tanks, LRAS3, et. al. The new systems will replace 1st generation FLIR technologies currently in use on MK 15 Phalanx mounts.

May 25/07: UK C-RAM. Jane’s Defence Weekly reports that Britain will deploy a C-RAM system to protect UK forces in southern Iraq. Speaking at the Royal United Services Institute’s (RUSI’s) Air Power conference in London on May 17/07, Air Chief Marshal Sir Clive Loader, Commander-in-Chief of the RAF’s Air Command, disclosed that the Raytheon Land-based Phalanx Weapon System (LPWS) was being acquired “to protect the UK’s deployed bases in operational theaters.”

May 2/07: EDO Corporation announces a $15 million follow-on award for expanded support of the Army’s C-RAM (Counter Rocket, Artillery, and Mortar) system, which includes a land-based Phalanx weapon coupled with self-destructing explosive bullets. The task order was effective April 1, 2007 and includes in-theater support.

EDO services have included testing and validation of the systems at test facilities and in the field, assistance in fielding systems, and logistics services to ensure their continued operation. These services are being provided in the U.S. and in support of nearly 20 locations in combat zones. EDO release

Feb 28/07: Call UPS! Raytheon announces a 5-year, $169.9 million Performance Based Logistics contract to manage the spare parts for the U.S. Navy’s Phalanx CIWS. More than 1,100 part numbers amounting to more than 30,000 individual Phalanx parts are warehoused in Louisville, KY, where, for a firm-fixed-price, Raytheon, in partnership with United Parcel Service Supply Chain Solutions, guarantees delivery of spares to drop points within an agreed-to time frame.

The distribution and management functions allow for worldwide delivery using the best commercial carrier available, while maintaining process control through in-transit tracking. This process also allows for retail and wholesale spares modeling, spares procurement and, perhaps most importantly, inventory management. The provisions and benefits of the contract apply to both the U.S. Navy and the 24 international navies that have Phalanx in their inventories. Frank Wyatt, vice president for Raytheon’s Naval Weapon Systems in Tucson, AZ:

“The partnership with United Parcel Service, developed through the previous Phalanx logistics contract, has greatly improved inventory accuracy. Currently, Phalanx inventory accuracy stands at 99.9 percent resulting in a substantial increase in supply availability and a reduced wait time… Future cost savings and improved responsiveness can be anticipated by reducing parts demands through engineering redesign of selected high-demand, high-cost parts.”

Feb 8/07: Shingo. Raytheon Missile Systems’ Louisville, KY facility has captured a prestigious Shingo Prize for Excellence in Manufacturing, marking the 4th consecutive year that Raytheon facilities have won. The Louisville facility manufactures the Phalanx CIWS and RAM/SeaRAM systems.

Jan 3/07: Northrop Grumman Mission Systems in Huntsville, AL received a delivery order amount of $29.9 million as part of a $144.5 million firm-fixed-price and cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for the Forward Area Air Defense Command and Control/ Counter-Rocket Artillery Mortar Systems (FAAD C2/ C-RAM) Integration contract. Work will be performed in Huntsville, AL and is expected to be complete by Sept. 28, 2009. This was a sole source contract initiated on Nov. 20, 2006 by the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command in Redstone Arsenal, AL (W31P4Q-06-D-0029).

Northrop Grumman’s Jan 17/07 release describes it as “a contract valued at up to $71 million to continue their support in system engineering, integration, and installation for…C-RAM… In addition to continuing to support systems engineering, integration and installation of C-RAM capabilities, the indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) C-RAM installation and support contract includes logistics and training support.”

FY 2006

Pakistan; Australia; UK.

Phalanx calibration
Calibration on CVN 73
(click to view full)

Sept 29/06: Northrop Grumman Mission Systems in Huntsville, AL received a delivery order amount of $28.6 million as part of a $670 million firm-fixed-price and cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for Forward Air Defense Command and Control/ Counter-Rocket Artillery and Mortar Systems (C-RAM) Integration. Work will be performed in Huntsville, AL and is expected to be complete by Sept. 28/08. This was a sole source contract initiated on May 4, 2006 by The U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command in Redstone Arsenal, AL (W31P4Q-06-D-0029).

Under a $38 million contract awarded in October 2005, Northrop Grumman was tasked with integration, deployment, and installation of the C-RAM command and control systems architecture; assisted in integrating the command and control with target acquisition and tracking radars, warning, and response subsystems; and trained soldiers to operate and support the “system of systems.”

Sept 13/06: FY 2006. A $369.1 million firm-fixed-price modification under previously awarded contract N00024-04-C-5460 for Phalanx CIWS and associated spares for FY 2006 US Navy (51%) and US Army (35%) purchases, and the Governments of Pakistan (12.8%) and Australia (1.2%) under the foreign military sales requirements.

Work will be performed in Louisville, KY and is expected to be complete December 2009. Contract funds in the amount of $7.3 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.

FY 2006: USA, Pakistan, Australia

Aug 9/06: Centurion. A $6.9 million firm-fixed-price modification under previously awarded contract (N00024-04-C-5460) for land-based Phalanx weapon system ancillary equipment. This is the land-based configuration for the US Army’s counter-rocket, artillery, mortar program. Work will be performed in Louisville, KY and is expected to be complete by April 2007.

Feb 7/06: Support. Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, AZ received a $169.9 million firm-fixed-price requirements contract for performance-based logistics in support of the Phalanx CIWS.

This contract combines procurements between the US Navy (74.79%); US Coast Guard (4.6%); and the Governments of Australia (5%); Israel (5%); New Zealand (5%); Japan (1%); United Kingdom (1%); Canada (1%); Taiwan (1%); Poland (1%); Bahrain (0.4%); and Saudi Arabia (0.21%) under the Foreign Military Sales Program. Work will be performed in Louisville, KY (90%), and Tucson, AZ (10%), and is expected to be complete by April 2011. This contract was not competitively procured by the Naval Inventory Control Point in Mechanicsburg, PA (N00104-06-D-L007).

January 2006: UK. The British Defence Logistics Organization’s (DLO) Maritime Gunnery and Missile Systems (MGMS) Integrated Project Team signs a 10-year support, maintenance and availability contract with DML, with incentives to increase the number of days the guns are available and fit for use.

On Oct 31/06, the DLO noted that the target time each Phalanx spends having operational defects fixed was 1.56 days per operational mount, but DML was already achieving 1.24 days. As of October 2006, there were 36 Phalanx guns in service on Royal Navy Ships and Royal Fleet Auxiliaries; an upgrade of these units to Mk 15 Phalanx 1B status is slated to begin entering service by May 2008.

British long-term support

Oct 24/05: Northrop Grumman announces that the U.S. Army has selected them the prime contractor for the Counter-Rocket, Artillery, Mortar (C-RAM) Integration and Fielding contract. Northrop Grumman’s Mission Systems sector is developing a systems architecture and integrating the C-RAM target acquisition, fire control, warning and engagement subsystems. Under a $38 million contract, Northrop Grumman will first deploy a mortar-attack warning capability and install that capability at 8 forward operating bases in Iraq. Northrop Grumman Mission Systems will also train soldiers to use the system and integrate an intercept subsystem as it is fielded. Northrop Grumman release | DID article.

FY 2005

Canada; Portugal.

Phalanx CIWS White
Phalanx CIWS

May 16/05: FY 2005. A $45 million not-to-exceed, firm-fixed-price modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-04-C-5460) for Block 1B Upgrade and Conversion performance enhancement equipment for United States and Portuguese Navy Phalanx Close-In Weapon Systems (CIWS). This contract combines purchases for the U.S. Navy (31%) and the government of Portugal (69%) under the Foreign Military Sales program: 3 upgrade and conversions for the U.S. Navy, and 3 Phalanx MK-15 CIWS and ancillary hardware are planned in support of Portugal requirements.

Work will be performed in Louisville, KY and is expected to be complete by December 2007.

FY 2005: Portugal, USA

March 24/05: A $5.3 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to previously awarded contract N00024-04-C-5460 for production of 99 sets of Reliability and Maintainability Spares in support of the MK 15 Phalanx Close In Weapon System (CIWS) program. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ (10%) and Louisville, KY (90%), and is expected to be complete by July 2007.

March 3/05: A not to exceed $129 million firm fixed price modification to previously awarded contract N00024-04-C-5460 for the Phalanx Close In Weapon System (CIWS). The contract includes Block 1B upgrades, overhauls, parts and support equipment, and other ancillary equipment. This equipment will be installed aboard several Arleigh Burke Class Destroyers (DDGs 107, 108, 109, 110, 111 & 112) and backfit upon various classes of ships. Additionally, 2 mounts will be provided to the United States Army. Work will be performed in Louisville, KY (90%) and Tucson, AZ (10%), and is expected to be complete by May 2009.

Dec 8/04: Canada exercised a contract option, engaging engage Raytheon Canada to repair, overhaul and upgrade its 16 Phalanx Close in Weapon Systems (CIWS). The contract lasts to 2009 and will cost at least C$ 82.5 million (about $68 million).

The original multi-million dollar contract was signed between Raytheon Canada and Canada’s Department of Public Works and Services in 2003. Under that contract, Raytheon Canada was to provide total life-cycle support for Canada’s 21 Phalanx CIWS systems, including fleet repair work, field service support, overhauls, upgrades, overhaul support material and engineering services.

The new contract extends Raytheon’s service to the Royal Canadian Navy to 2009, and the new C$ 44.6 million modification means the contract is now valued at in excess of $82.5 million. Work, including upgrade to the Mk 15 Phalanx 1B configuration, will be performed in Calgary, Alberta, at Raytheon Canada’s Naval Systems Support (NSS) facility.

Canadian upgrades & support

Additional Readings

Competitors


A Higher-Tech Hog: USAF A-10C Upgraded, Refurbished, Unloved – But More in Demand

$
0
0
A-10 over Germany
A-10A over Germany
(click to view full)

The Precision Engagement modification is the largest single upgrade effort ever undertaken for the USA’s unique A-10 “Warthog” close air support aircraft fleet. While existing A/OA-10 aircraft continue to outperform technology-packed rivals on the battlefield, this set of upgrades is expected to make them more flexible, and help keep the aircraft current until the fleet’s planned phase-out in 2028. When complete, A-10C PE will give USAF A-10s precision strike capability sooner than planned, combining multiple upgrades into 1 time and money-saving program, rather than executing them as standalone projects. Indeed, the USAF accelerated the PE program by 9 months as a result of its experiences in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

This is DID’s FOCUS Article for the PE program, and for other modifications to the A-10 fleet. It covers the A-10’s battlefield performance and advantages, the elements of the PE program, other planned modifications, related refurbishment efforts to keep the fleet in the air, and the contracts that have been issued each step of the way.

A/OA-10 Thunderbolt II: Experiences on the Ground

A-10 takeoff Bagram
A/OA-10 at Bagram, AF
(click to view full)

The Major’s Email: British Harrier Support in Afghanistan, Revisited” examined the statements of a British officer who had criticized British close air support, and openly stated a preference for USAF A-10s over any aircraft the British could deploy in theater.

As we explained at the time, this comes as no surprise. The O/A-10 “Warthog” has the advantage of armored protection, along with a purpose-built design that allows slower speed forward flight and longer loiter time over the battlefield. Not to mention its infamous GAU-8 Avenger 30mm gatling gun that can take apart a tank – or just about anything else in its field of fire. This is what allowed it to do a substantially better job in Desert Storm than fast-moving fighters like the quickly-abandoned “A-16” F-16 experiment, and it’s currently keeping them very busy in Afghanistan.

It kept them busy in Iraq, too. A July 2003 report in Air Force News quoted Lt. Col. Dave Kennedy:

“Kennedy said during a Pentagon interview that in the first week of the war, close-air support requests went to the Combined Air Operations Center “open-ended” — meaning no specific aircraft type was requested. After the first week, he said, 80 to 90 percent of the requests for close-air support were A-10-specific.”

As one can see, the British Major is hardly alone in his preferences. Why is this?

As this National Defense magazine article notes, fast jets simply aren’t an ideal choice for close air support, and the British aren’t alone in having this issue. US Army Sgt. First Class Frank Antenori discuss his recent experiences in Iraq:

“The aircraft that we have are awesome, but they are too awesome, they are too fast, too high speed. The older technology, the A-10, is far better than the new technology, Antenori said. “The A-10s never missed, and with the F/A-18s we had to do two or three bomb runs to get them on the target,” he said, recalling his recent experiences in combat.”

Dispatches from Afghanistan add an additional edge, and reinforce the point:

The A-10 combines some of the best of today’s high-technology Air Force with a solid, low-tech foundation. The addition of a targeting and laser-designation pod was a huge boost to the plane’s capabilities, but still no substitute for the pilot’s eyeballs.

“Most other aircraft rely heavily on (electronic) sensors to find and target the enemy,” said Capt. Rick Mitchell, deployed here from the Air Force Reserve Command’s 442nd Fighter Wing at Whiteman Air Force Base, Mo. “In the A-10, it’s not unusual for a pilot to use binoculars.”

A-10A Battle Damaged Tail Capt Kim
“Killer Chick”
flew it home
(click to view full)

Which is not to say that technology is useless. A/OA-10s have made effective and frequent use of LITENING AT surveillance and targeting pods, for instance. Integrating them directly into the aircraft’s systems is a fine idea that lowers pilot workload, and adds scanning range and improved night/bad weather capabilities. While a second crewman would be ideal, and was part of a 1980s “A-10 Night/Adverse Weather” model that was never produced, the sensor pods are clear improvements. Likewise, adding the ability to drop additional precision weapons like JDAM or its WCMD cluster bomb counterpart can only be a plus. On the flip side, A-10s have also been involved in several notable friendly fire incidents, which makes datalink improvements a critical fix.

The difference is that conventional fast jet fighters are forced to depend on these enhancements for effectiveness, because of their aerodynamic design a vulnerability to damage. With the new Precision Engagement additions, the A-10C adds many of the newer fighters’ tricks and weapons, but its cheaper, purpose-built design and stronger protection give its pilots additional options. Those additional options contribute directly to effectiveness in combat, and can still be used if hostile fire or simple technical failure render those technological enhancements useless.

The net result is an A/OA-10A Thunderbolt II/ “Warthog” platform that is a worthy successor to its P-47 Thunderbolt/”Jug” namesake, whose top 10 aces all survived World War II.

The “Hog” is the best western close air support aircraft by a very wide margin, and the A-10C upgrades make it the best close-support aircraft in the world. It’s likely to remain so well into the future, despite competition from the upgraded Sukhoi SU-25/28 “Frogfoot”/”Scorpion”, or boasts from the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program that their aircraft will be able to replace it.

The A/OA-10 Precision Engagement Modification Program

ELEC_A-10_Cockpit.jpg
A-10 cockpit, before
(click to view alternate)

To date, A-10 fleet upgrades have been somewhat patchwork and piecemeal. The A-10C PE program changes all that. The entire A-10 fleet will be modified over 4-5 years, and an April 2/07 GAO report estimates the A-10 Precision Engagement program’s total overall cost at around $420 million.

Lockheed Martin Systems Integration – Owego is the A-10C Precision Engagement program’s prime contractor and systems integrator under the direction of the A-10 program office (508th Attack Sustainment Squadron), leading a team that includes Northrop Grumman of St. Augustine, FL; BAE Systems of Johnson City, NY; and Southwest Research Institute (SWRI) of San Antonio, TX. The Air Force awarded the Precision Engagement development contract to Lockheed Martin in 2001, and as the prime contractor Lockheed is expected to deliver a total of 356 kits over 5 years, at an estimated cost of $168 million. Lockheed Martin received the production contract in February 2005, with the first production kits delivered to Hill AFB in March 2006.

While the program was originally supposed to consist of several spirals, these plans were modified in light of USAF requests and needs. The program now consists of 2 increments, with JTRS fielding left as an open item to be addressed once the JTRS AMF equipment is available.

A-10 PE, Increment 3.2

A-10C Cockpit
A-10C, partly upgraded
(click to view full)

The Maryland ANG(Air National Guard) 175th Wing at Warfield ANG Base in Baltimore, MD was be the first unit to convert to the modified aircraft and integrate them into normal operations, beginning in September 2007. They received Increment 3.2, which will include the PE kit described below plus datalink capability (14 months early), basic JDAM and WCMD compatibility (9 months early), the Spiral 1 PE kit described below, and targeting pod compatibility.

Each Spiral 1 Precision Engagement kit consists of a new cockpit instrument panel. A new computer called the Central Interface Control Unit (CICU) adds new cockpit controls and displays, including a pair of 5×5 inch multi-function color displays that include moving digital map functions. The new integrated Digital Stores Management System (DSMS), meanwhile, keeps track of weapons and launches them; it will be linked into applications as diverse as video from the targeting pod, weapons status reports, and the data link. These upgrades require a major change to the aircraft’s wiring, and consume a lot more power. Not to worry, though; a second DC generator will double the A-10’s generator capacity.

For the pilot, a new stick grip and right throttle provide true hands-on-throttle and-stick (HOTAS) fingertip control of aircraft systems and targeting pod functionality. Using the HOTAS, the pilot can designate the targeting pod to monitor an area of interest, confirm target identification, and provide laser guidance to weapons from his A-10 or from another platform – all without taking his hands from the controls. Upgrading 6 of the A-10C’s 11 pylons to ‘smart’ weapons capability via MIL-STD-1760 is the final piece of the basic infrastructure upgrades.

AIR_A-10s.jpg
A-10s w. LITENING
(click to view full)

Key add-ons build upon these initial steps, and targeting pod integration is touted as the final piece of spiral 1. PE Program modifications will allow the A-10 to carry either the Northrop-Grumman/ Rafael LITENING AT or the Lockheed Martin Sniper XR targeting pod on an underwing pylon as fully integrated devices, with connections to all of the aircraft’s other systems. The pods, which include long-range TV and infrared cameras with zoom capabilities and a laser target designator, will enable the pilot to identify targets from medium altitudes on the order of 20,000 to 30,000 feet day or night, then illuminate them for homing, laser-guided or GPS guided bombs. During the initial deployments in Iraq, their heat-sensing capability has even proved useful for finding buried land mines, which tend to retain a differential heat signature because they’re made of different materials than the earth around them.

The targeting pods will help reduce mistaken attacks on friendly forces and noncombatants by giving the pilot a closer look at potential targets, and experience with other jets indicates that their stabilized, “point and stare” capabilities are likely to prove especially important in urban operations. Eventually, they will allow A-10 aircraft to engage targets from a higher altitude using advanced sensors and targeting pods and precision guided weapons, including the JDAM and their companion WCMD kits for cluster bombs.

Integration with ROVER devices carried by ground troops also becomes possible, allowing front line forces to communicate using annotated map displays and specific positional data.

ELEC_SADL_Display_A-10C_Concept.jpg
SADL screen
(click to view full)

Another very significant Increment 3.2 upgrade involves Raytheon’s SADL data link. SADL was added after the A-10 Precision Engagement program requirements were finalized, which is usually a predictor of trouble. Instead, it went from requirements to delivery in just 17 months, thanks to a general sense of urgency and extraordinary contractor efforts. Those efforts included hardware purchases by Lockheed Martin before they had a government contract to do so, putting their funds at risk but ultimately shortening project completion by 6 months. Back in February 207, Major Drew English, the USAF program manager for A-10C Precision Engagement, told Military Aerospace Technology that:

“I would say the biggest [change] we have coming impact wise is the data link. It will shape our tactics and it bring us into a new era, probably as much as night vision goggles did when we got those in the mid-’90s”

SADL automatically sends and receive data from the Army Enhanced Position Locating and Reporting System (ePLRS) that is part of FBCB2, a.k.a. “Blue Force Tracker.” This means that friendly troops on the ground receive the plane’s position and altitude, while the 5 closest “friendlies” will show up on the aircraft’s heads-up display and/or multi-function cockpit displays at the beginning of an attack. SADL also offers Link 16 integration with other fighters and air defense systems, allowing the A-10C to automatically known receive position data for enemy aircraft, air defenses, and other targets – including targets beyond its range of sight. Link 16 and SADL share information via gateways, which are land-based or airborne portals that permit the transfer of information between different formats.

A-10C pilot Capt. Rich Hunt of the Maryland Air National Guard’s 175th Wing said from Al-Asad AFB, Iraq:

“Previously, for me to keep track of all the other airplanes that are around me or to help us perform the mission, I would literally have to write those down with a grease pencil inside my canopy or write them down on a white piece of paper on my knee board in order to keep track of all that… Now I have a color display that has all of the other airplanes that are up supporting the same mission across all of Iraq right now. And they are all digitally displayed through that data link on my map. So now, especially at night when awareness is a little bit lower, I can look at that beautiful map display and know exactly what other airplanes are around me.”

He also praised the ROVER downlink capability, allowing the aircraft to transmit the live video feed to a joint terminal attack controller on the ground, and the new JDAM capabilities:

“In Iraq that is especially important because it’s a very difficult situation when we provide close-air support in such a densely urban environment. By the controller being able to look through my targeting pod real time, we can compare exactly what we are looking at and make sure we have an absolutely 100 percent positive identification of the target… Sometimes we find ourselves where we have to destroy a terrorist stronghold location. But in the house across the street are friendly Iraqi civilians. We know we have to destroy the stronghold, but we don’t want to cause any collateral damage whatsoever. So the JDAM has been outstanding for us. Between the situational awareness data link, the targeting pod with the ROVER down link to the controller on the ground and the JDAM, the A-10C on this deployment has been an amazing success for us.”

The USAF adds that:

“A command and control platform — such as the 12th Air Force Air Operations Center here — can send digital communication via SADL to the A-10C for a variety of purposes. Tasking messages, targeting information, threat warnings, and friendly locations can all be sent and received by the A-10C. Additionally, the A-10C is the only platform with the ability to task other fighter platforms to attack targets.”

Given past A-10-related friendly fire incidents, the appeal of a system like SADL is obvious.

Together, these Increment 3.1 and 3.2 additions create an A-10C aircraft that looks the same on the outside, but offers a very different set of capabilities and can be used in very different ways.

The Air Force has been conducting flight-testing of the A-10C at Eglin Air Force Base, FL, and at Nellis Air Force Base, NV, since early 2005. Operational Testing Certification (OT Cert) begins in July 2007, with Air Force operational test and evaluation center Operational User Evaluation (AFOTEC OUE) in August 2007 that includes a final look at JDAM integration and the SADL datalink. If everything continues to go well, operational fielding begins in early September 2007 and The AFOTEC report will follow in October 2007.

A-10 PE, Increment 3.3

A-10C gunsmoke
A-10C fires cannon
(click to view full)

A second fielded Precision Engagement release will provide for CNS/ATM, full smart weapon integration, more software upgrades, additional improvements as a result of feedback from earlier flight tests, and some maintainer functional improvements.

Releases to test were scheduled for August 2007 and December 2007, with fielding expected around May 2008.

Overall PE kit production ran to 2008. Squadrons released their jets for modification at Hill AFB, UT for upgrades, and they returned about 90 days later as A-10Cs. Installation work was scheduled to run until 2009.

A-10 Fleet: Other Planned Improvements

A-10
In service to 2028

The A-10C PE program is only part of the effort required to keep the Reagan-era fleet of A-10s battle-worthy out to 2028. A separate $2.02 billion dollar wing replacement program is underway, a multiple-award $1.72 billion contract covered overall fleet maintenance and some upgrades from 2009-2019, and more technology inserts and structural modifications were planned. The GAO’s April 2007 report placed the potential total cost of upgrades, refurbishment, and service life extension plans for the A/OA-10 force at up to $4.4 billion.

The Pentagon began pushing to retire the entire fleet early in the FY 2015 budget. If that effort fails, possible upgrades could include electronics and engines, as well as structural work.

The USAF planned to replace the “thin skin” wings on 242 aircraft with new wings, and that effort is now underway. The cost was originally estimated at $1.3 billion, but the June 2007 contract was for $2 billion. This effort will help to extend A-10 service lives to 16,000 flying hours.

At some point, the A-10s would need to install Joint Tactical Radio System-based (JTRS) radios. As of April 2007, JTRS AMF was only in the bid phase, and as of 2014 it was not a required USAF standard.

To improve the A-10’s overall power and maintainability, the USAF hoped to eventually upgrade the existing General Electric TF34-GE-100 turbofan engines. Components of the existing engine will be replaced; in particular, a more efficient fan section with wider blades would be installed by General Electric along with digital engine controls. Flight testing of the revamped engine was slated to begin in FY 2008, and production in 2009-2010. Instead, this effort was downgraded in priority and deferred.

An April 2/07 GAO report places the potential total cost of upgrades, refurbishment, and service life extension plans for the A/OA-10 force at up to $4.4 billion.

Contracts & Key Events

Unless otherwise specified, all contracts are awarded to Lockheed Martin in Owego, NY as leader of the A-10 Prime Team; and they are issued by the Headquarters Ogden Air Logistics Center at Hill Air Force Base, UT.

FY 2016

A-10 firing run

November 12/15: The Air Force is considering pushing back the retirement schedule for the A-10, following a spike in demand from US forces operating in the Middle East. The venerable Close Air Support platform has been on the service’s chopping block for years, with recent efforts to retire the aircraft early blocked by lawmakers in September. The Air Force also recently released a RFI to identify sources for a new A-10 re-winging program, with the Thunderbolt Lifecycle Program Support effort intended to extend a portion of the Air Force’s A-10 fleet out to 2028.

October 23/15: The US Air Force deployed a dozen A-10 Thunderbolt II ground attack aircraft to the south of Turkey last week in anticipation of the aircraft seeing more combat against ISIS in Syria, according to reports Thursday. The first Warthogs were first deployed to the Middle East in November 2014, with the Air Force remaining adamant that the fleet should be retired. The aircraft have been deployed to Incirlik Air Force Base, having relocated from their home base at Moody AFB, Georgia.

FY 2015

Election results make retirement tougher.

September 21/15: The Air Force released a Request for Information on Friday to identify potential industry sources for the re-winging of an unspecified number of A/OA-10A close air support aircraft. Over half of the A-10 Warthog fleet is already undergoing a re-winging program, with Boeing acting as prime contractor for 173 of the aircraft, with options for an additional 69. The RFI comes despite repeated calls by the Air Force’s top brass to retire the fleet early in order to free up money and resources. These calls have been blocked, with this latest RFI part of the A-10’s Thunderbolt Lifecycle Program Support (TLPS) program, intended to keep the aircraft flying until at least 2028.

September 4/15: The Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James told Congress that their rejection of her branch’s decision to retire the A-10 – a cut projected to save about a couple billion dollars per year – could cause major problems and delays for programs such as the F-35, the new long-range bomber and the KC-46 refueler – programs that together constitute unprecedented expenditures for any nation in history.

September 1/15: The on-again, off-again Air Force comparison test between the F-35 and the A-10 for close air support is back on again, according to the Washington Times. The F-35 doesn’t carry – and isn’t anticipated to carry – the sorts of weapons that have proven useful in the typical CAS mission. It has but a few seconds of canon ammunition and its weapons bay was once compared to a purse after the F-35C variant further infringed on internal storage. A test between the platforms would likely hinge on the scenario imagined by the Air Force brass, so a cynic might expect a profusion of bogeys best handled by stealth fighters.

August 26/15: In what is perhaps the biggest reality perception difference between the Air Force and the rest of the military and civilian government, the Air Force has been working hard to shut down the A-10 program, maintaining that the close air support stalwart isn’t earning its keep. The several billion dollars saved would go to more F-35 work, as that platform has been tipped to be the replacement, although some senior Air Force officers have suggested that perhaps a completely new craft would be in order. So it was newsworthy that a senior officer for testing had suggested a shoot-out between the A-10 and F-35. That test is now taking fire from the Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh, who called such a test “silly.” Still, Welsh said that the F-35 was never intended as an A-10 replacement, so that leaves observers scratching heads as to which parts of the Air Force desire what outcome, especially as few believe an A-X replacement would be cheaper.

July 27/15: The Air Force has quashed Boeing’s hopes of selling refurbished A-10s to international customers, following the floating of the idea in May. With the House protecting the A-10 from comprehensive retirement for another year, the Air Force is planning to mothball outgoing A-10s, thereby saving a reported $4.2 billion in sustainment over a five year period.

June 26/15: The Government Accountability Office slammed the Air Force’s body of evidence and cost projections used to make the case for retiring the A-10. A report published on Thursday claims that the Air Force did not fully quantify the economic argument for favoring more advanced multi-role aircraft over the time-tested A-10. Manufacturer Boeing recently floated the idea of selling refurbished US A-10s to international customers.

May 22/15: Boeing wants to sell refurbished A-10s to international customers. The US is the only operator of the Warthog, with the House recently voting to fund the fleet for another year, despite the Air Force chiefs’ efforts to cut down numbers. Boeing is currently engaged in an extensive re-winging program for the aircraft, following a $2 billion 2007 contract.

May 1/15: On Thursdaythe House Armed Services Committee voted to keep the A-10 operational for another year, with the 2016 defense policy bill including an amendment to prohibit the Air Force from retiring the plane. The amendment – proposed by Rep. McSally – passed while a “middle ground” amendment proposed by Rep. Moulton failed. That amendment would have allowed the Air Force to retain a hundred of the aircraft while retiring up to 164.

April 28/15: The House is seeking to block the A-10 from being retired, with Rep. Martha McSally reportedly planning to introduce an amendment to prevent the Air Force from pushing the aircraft aside. This amendment will be attached to Thornberry’s version of the defense budget, with the A-10 fleet fully-funded. An A-10 recently had to conduct an emergency landing while deployed to Iraq, with the aircraft’s engine reportedly suffering “catastrophic damage.”

Nov 11/14: Politics. The USAF has a new angle in the A-10 fight, proposing to retire 72 A-10s in order to switch their maintenance workers over to the F-35. It’s being sold as part of having the F-35A reach Initial Operational Capability, but A-10 proponents like Sen. McCain and Kelly Ayotte say the USAF has other choices. The USAF says that their previous plan B has been blown apart by renewed needs in Iraq and Syria. Sources: Defense News, “USAF Discussing A-10 Compromise With Congress”.

Nov 4/14: Elections. American mid-term elections leave the Republican Party with a bigger House Majority, and recapture the Senate from the Democrats. That result leaves John McCain [R-AZ] as the new chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee. There are 80 A-10s at Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ in Tucson, and McCain is very much a proponent of engagement in places like Iraq, Syria, and other places where the A-10’s unique capabilities make a big difference. He’s going to be a staunch opponent of any retirement plans.

The election also features A-10 pilot Lt. Col. Martha McSally [AZ-2], who was the first woman to command an American fighter squadron, and has been described as one of the Republicans’ top House recruits. McSally is narrowly ahead in a traditionally-Democratic district, but the vote count and recount process is going to take a little while. If she is elected, it will have obvious implications for A-10 lobbying in Congress. Sources: AP, “Sen. John McCain vows to save A-10 from retirement” | McSally for Congress, “McSally Campaign Statement on Challenge to Uncertified Ballots” | Politico, “The House GOP’s top recruit”.

FY 2014

Attempted retirement of the fleet.

Boeing: A-10Cs
A-10Cs
(click to view full)

Sept 19/14: Ki Ho Military Acquisition Consulting, Inc. in Layton, UT wins a $31.4 million firm-fixed-price, engineering support, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract to identify new and developing technologies that can “support the accomplishment of A-10 missions, and either eliminate or minimize operational and/or sustainability gaps.” $5.3 million is committed immediately, using FY 2014 USAF O&M funds.

Is this operational consulting, or payment to make more arguments for retiring the A-10? Poor results so far against in Iraq and Syria aren’t making fantastic arguments for other systems.

Work will be performed at Hill AFB, UT, and is expected to be complete by Sept 15/19. This award is the result of a competitive acquisition, with 3 offers received by the USAF Life Cycle Management Center at Hill AFB, UT (FA8202-14-D-0002).

Sept 9/14: Support. Korean Air Lines’ Aerospace Division in Seoul, South Korea receives an estimated $46 million firm-fixed-price maintenance and repair contract for depot level support to A-10 aircraft stationed in the Asia/Pacific region. Funds will be committed as needed.

Work will be performed at KAL’s facility in Seoul, South Korea, with an expected completion date of Sept. 30/20. This contract was a competitive acquisition, with 2 offers received by USAF Life Cycle Management Center at Hill AFB, UT (FA8202-14-D-0001).

Week of June 20/14: Politics. Things continue to move at a brisk pace in the House, with floor action starting for HR 4870 then leading to a vote within days. The White House issued its usual set of “strong” disagreements [PDF], with C-130 AMP, E-3s, and AH-64 transfers among the points of contention. At least the executive appreciated that someone in Congress sided with them to retire A-10s. But it was not meant to be, as an amendment against divesting A-10s easily passed with a 300-114 roll call. This was expected given the fact A-10 retirement was at odds with the already approved authorization bill.

The Administration will now have to find Senatorial opponents to the A-10, among other cuts the House doesn’t want, that are convinced enough to push the issue all the way through reconciliation. The odds are not in their favor.

On June 20 the bill was wrapped up with a 340-73 roll call, showing even broader bipartisan support than the authorization bill: amendments [PDF] | Bill report [PDF].

June 10/14: Politics. The House Appropriations Committee votes 13-23 against Rep. Jack Kingston’s [R-GA-1] amendment to transfer $339 million from the Pentagon’s operations and maintenance account to sustain the A-10 fleet. Former USAF pilot Chris Stewart [R-UT-2] was one of the speakers in favor from both parties, and he outlined the inherent issues with the close-air support mission, but it was to no avail.

What really matters is what the House ends up approving by final vote, but these kinds of losses can hurt politically. Sources: DoD Buzz, “House Panel Votes to Scrap the A-10 Warthog”.

May 23/14: Political. The Senate Armed Services Committee has completed the mark-up of the annual defense bill, which passed by a 25-1 vote. The section relevant to the A-10 is explained this way:

“Prohibits the Air Force from retiring or preparing to retire any A-10 or Airborne Warning and Control Aircraft (AWACS), or making any significant changes in manning levels in FY15.”

That isn’t as comprehensive or as long-term as Sen. Ayotte’s S.1764 bill (q.v. Nov 21-Dec 5/14), but it fulfills the same purpose in the immediate term. If the measure remains in the Senate’s FY 2015 NDAA bill, it will have to be reconciled with similar but different provisions in the House bill (q.v. May 8/14). Bottom line? Unless these measures are stripped from the final bill in either the House or the Senate, the A-10C fleet isn’t going anywhere just yet. Sources: US Senate Armed Services Committee, “Senate Committee on Armed Services Completes Markup of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015”.

May 8/14: Political. A 41-20 voice vote in the House Armed Services Committee changes the language of Rep. McKeon’s A-10 compromise, and institutes terms that are similar to HR.3657. Ron Barber [D-AZ-2] and Vicky Hartzler [R-MO-4] and Austin Scott [R-GA-8] from HR.3657 are the amendment’s sponsors, and they’ve added interesting requirements. One example would have the Comptroller General’s Office assess the cost per-plane for close air support missions, as part of the set of activities necessary before retiring the A-10s. The F-35’s high operating costs, and heavy depreciation due to its high initial cost, would cripple it in any comparison with the A-10. The F-35’s figures per mission would probably be at least 100% higher, and could easily be worse than that.

May 5/14: Political. House Armed Services Committee chair Buck McKeon [R-MO] proposes a compromise measure that would require “Type 1000 storage” for the retired A-10C fleet. Planes kept in that condition can be recalled to duty and fly again within 30-120 days, because after the initial removal and proper storage of key items like engines and weapons, no parts can be pulled without the express permission of the program office at Wright-Patterson AFB. That’s significantly better than Type 2000/4000 storage, but a step below Type 3000 “temporary storage” planes that receive engine runs, tow-outs to lubricate their bearings, and fluids servicing every 30 days.

Defense News estimates the cost for the 283-plane fleet at $25.7 million over 5 years ($12.17M initial storage + $283k/year + $12.17M refurb every 4 years). Sources: Air Force Magazine, “Living Boneyard” | Defense News Intercepts, “The Price of Storing the A-10 in “Type-1000″ Storage” | House Armed Services Committee, “McKeon Releases Full Committee Mark”.

Feb 24/14: Scrap the A-10Cs. The announcement isn’t a surprise (q.v. Sept 15/13), but Chuck Hagel’s FY 2015 pre-budget briefing explains the official justification for removing the A-10 fleet:

“For the Air Force, an emphasis on capability over capacity meant that we protected its key modernization programs, including the new bomber, the Joint Strike Fighter, and the new refueling tanker. We also recommended investing $1 billion in a promising next-generation jet engine technology, which we expect to produce sizeable cost-savings through reduced fuel consumption and lower maintenance needs. This new funding will also help ensure a robust industrial base – itself a national strategic asset.

To fund these investments, the Air Force will reduce the number of tactical air squadrons including the entire A-10 fleet. Retiring the A-10 fleet saves $3.5 billion over five years and accelerates the Air Force’s long-standing modernization plan [to replace it with the F-35]…. the A-10… cannot survive or operate effectively where there are more advanced aircraft or air defenses. And as we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan, the advent of precision munitions means that many more types of aircraft can now provide effective close air support, from B-1 bombers to remotely piloted aircraft. And these aircraft can execute more than one mission.

Moreover, the A-10’s age is also making it much more difficult and costly to maintain. Significant savings are only possible through eliminating the entire fleet, because of the fixed cost of maintaining the support apparatus associated with the aircraft. Keeping a smaller number of A-10s would only delay the inevitable while forcing worse trade-offs elsewhere.”

The A-10’s original concept did, in fact, aim to survive and operate in the face of advanced fighters and air defense, which makes Hagel’s statement questionable. Expect to see others question Hagel’s use of the term “effective” as well. The A-10 remains peerless in the close support role, and the use of fighter guns for close-in attacks on the front lines remains reality. That isn’t possible for drones, and it’s problematic for the vulnerable F-35A, which carries only 14% as much ammunition (only 180 rounds) in a lesser caliber. It would be possible to defend the decision by saying that the USAF is downgrading Close Air Support in order to build up other capabilities, but that isn’t how the Pentagon is selling this. Sources: US DoD, “Remarks By Secretary Of Defense Chuck Hagel FY 2015 Budget Preview Pentagon Press Briefing Room Monday, February 24, 2014”.

FY 2015 Budget: Retire the fleet

Nov 21-Dec 5/13: Politics. House and Senate members introduce bills in each chamber that would restrict the USAF’s ability to retire its A-10Cs. The Senate’s S.1764 is introduced by Kelly Ayotte [R-NH], While the House’s HR.3657 is introduced by Vicky Hartzler [R-MO-4]. Both have cosponsors from each party, but they’ll need more cosponsors to improve the chances of getting to a vote and being passed into law.

The core condition in both bills is that the USAF must have a fleet of F-35As with Block 4A software, including integration with the GBU-53 Small Diamater Bomb II or equivalent capability, all certified by an audit by the Comptroller General that also says that there are enough F-35s to replace the A-10s. In practice, that would defer A-10C retirement to 2025 at least, and might even push all the way to the A-10’s planned 2028 retirement.

FY 2013

APKWS laser-guided rockets added; A-10s out of Europe.

APKWS-II 70mm rocket
BAE/GD APKWS
(click to view full)

Sept 26/13: TLPS. Northrop Grumman Technical Services in Herndon, VA receives an estimated maximum $11.3 million task order under a combined firm-fixed-price and cost-plus-fixed-fee engineering support contract. They’ll provide evaluations, analysis, repair designs, and/or testing to support the requirements for the A-10 aircraft structural integrity program and maintenance of operational safety, suitability, and effectiveness. All funds are committed immediately.

This award is a result of a competitive acquisition under the Thunderbolt Life Cycle Program Support contract, but only 1 bid was received.

Work will be performed at Hill AFB, UT, although various portions of the work will take place at subcontractor facilities, and work is expected to be completed by Sept 18/16. The USAF Life Cycle Management Center/WWAK at Hill AFB, UT manages the contract (FA8202-09-D-0003, 0012).

Sept 25/13: Political. Sen. Kelly Ayotte [R-NH], whose husband Joe was an A-10 pilot, puts a hold on the nomination of Deborah Lee James to be Secretary of the Air Force, until she gets clear and acceptable answers regarding the USAF’s proposal to kill the platform. Sources: Defense News, “Ayotte Blocks Air Force Secretary Nominee Over Possible A-10 Cuts”.

Sept 20/13: Political. House Armed Services Committee member Rep. Ron Barber [R-AZ-02] initiates a letter signed by 8 colleagues, calling the A-10:

“…a critical capability…. In Operation Desert Storm, the A-10 was responsible for the destruction of 4,000 military vehicles and artillery pieces. In Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, the A-10 has performed nearly one third of the combat sorties…. The Department of Defense must maintain its ability to wage ground combat and support those at the tip of the spear.”

The letter is co-signed by Reps. Rob Bishop [R-UT-01, HASC on leave to Rules]; Paul Gosar [R-AZ-04]; Vicky Hartzler [R-MO-04 HASC]; Jack Kingston [R-GA-01, Ways & Means]; Candice S. Miller [R-MI-10]; C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger [D-MD-02, Intel.]; Austin Scott [R-GA-08, HASC]; and Mike Simpson [R-ID-02, Budget/ Approp.]. Sources: Rep. Ron Barber Release | Full letter [PDF].

Sept 17/13: Political. Gen. Mike Hostage reiterates to reporters at the Air Force Association’s Air and Space Conference that the A-10 may be on the chopping block, and repeats the point about savings only becoming substantial when you remove entire fleets. He adds:

“You can’t get your money out of installations because they won’t support [base realignment and closure]. You can’t get money out of people fast enough. It takes about a year to get savings out of people.”

Gen. Welsh’s address
click for video

Sept 15/13: End of the A-10? USAF Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh, Air Force chief of staff, is quoted as saying that “You can cut aircraft from a fleet, but you save a lot more money if you cut all the infrastructure that supports the fleet.”

That’s a step beyond initial reports about the Strategic Choices and Management Review, and current reports have the USAF considering the removal of all 343 A-10Cs, all 59 KC-10 tankers, and more of the 249 or so F-15C/Ds. The CRH successor to the HH-60 Pave Hawk helicopters is also up for review.

The KC-10 option seems to make zero sense as a “single-role” retirement, as it’s far more capable and multi-role than the smaller KC-135s, giving it especial value in the huge Pacific theater. It’s also the USAF’s key insurance against a grounding of its 1950s-era KC-135 aerial tanker fleet – which may explain the decision. If the USAF is trying to protect its KC-46 program, removing any operational insurance for the aged KC-135s makes the KC-46 program that much harder to mess with, or even to delay.

The F-15Cs, on the other hand, have had serious aging out problems, including maneuvering restrictions, and even a months-long grounding after one of the planes broke in 2 in mid-air. The F-22 Raptor fleet’s small size means that retiring the F-15Cs would be a big hit to US air superiority assets, but the multi-role F-15E Strike Eagles can perform the air superiority role almost as well. It’s just a continuing data point in the long-term downsizing of American TacAir. Sources: Defense News, “USAF Weighs Scrapping KC-10, A-10 Fleets” and “USAF General: A-10 Fleet Likely Done if Sequestration Continues”.

Sept 4/13: Wings. Boeing announces a $212 million follow-on order for 56 A-10C replacement wings, bringing total orders so far under the $2 billion program (q.v. June 29/07 entry) to 173 of a maximum 242.

Work will be performed at Boeing’s plant in Macon, GA. Sources: Boeing, Sept 4/13 release.

Aug 12-13/13: Cut the USAF? Prof. Robert Farley makes a condensed argument for abolishing the USAF as a separate service, in advance of his book “Grounded! The Case for Abolishing the United States Air Force.” Farley argues that the USA needs air power, but not a service that’s divorced from the ground and naval forces they support. A misguided focus on strategic effect, which he argues hasn’t panned out in wartime experience, will interfere and has interfered with effective contributions to a land/ sea/ air team.

Michael Auslin of the neoconservative AEI think tank responds, arguing that the USAF’s space role and global fast-reaction capabilities make it a unique asset that can reach areas far inland where the Navy cannot go, and go overseas in a way the Army is unable to. An independent Air Force, he says, will wring every advantage out of the air and space domains, just as the Navy does at sea.

Here’s the thing. What if the USAF is seen as a non-team player, one who consistently short-changes the needs of other services? It then becomes very hard to argue that the USAF is in fact wringing every advantage out of the aerial domain for the USA. At a time of significant budget cuts, cutting an entire service offers much bigger administrative savings than removing aircraft fleets, and removing fleets the other services see as their top priorities could create a level of friction that will place that kind of radical option on the table. Sources: War Is Boring, “America Does Not Need the Air Force” | Breaking Defense, “Why America Needs The Air Force: Rebuttal To Prof. Farley”.

Aug 6/13: Combat. An engagement in Afghanistan illustrates the A-10’s strengths, and underscores why high-altitude bombing simply isn’t going to replace what it does on the front lines:

“Even with all our (top-of-the-line) tools today, we still rely on visual references,” said the lead pilot, who is on his first deployment from Moody Air Force Base, Ga. “Once we received general location of the enemy’s position, I rolled in as lead aircraft and fired two rockets to mark the area with smoke. Then my wingman rolled in to shoot the enemy with his 30 millimeter rounds.”…. “We train for this, but shooting danger-close is uncomfortable, because now the friendlies are at risk,” the second A-10 pilot said. “We came in for a low-angle strafe, 75 feet above the enemy’s position and used the 30-mm gun — 50 meters parallel to ground forces — ensuring our fire was accurate so we didn’t hurt the friendlies.

The engagement lasted two hours that day, and in that time, the A-10s completed 15 gun passes, fired nearly all their 2,300, 30-mm rounds, and dropped three 500-pound bombs on the enemy force.”

As a reference point, the F-35s the USAF wants to use as replacements can’t fly as slowly for visual references, are highly vulnerable to battle damage, and carry just 180 25mm cannon rounds. Sources: USAF, “Bagram pilots save 60 Soldiers during convoy ambush”.

Front-line reality

Aug 5/13: Political. Defense News reports that the 4-month Strategic Choices Management Review will report that the USAF could eliminate most of its older C-130E/H transports, and 5 of 55 tactical A-10, F-15, or F-16 squadrons (up to 120 jets, based on 24-plane squadrons).

The USAF’s problem is that Congress wants to cut money, but won’t countenance closing bases. They’re also not receptive to aircraft retirements, which has left the USAF with several squadrons’ worth of unflyable planes that can’t be retired. FY 2013 budget proposals to retire 22 C-130Hs and shut down two A-10 squadrons were blocked by Congress. Sources: Air Force Times, “AF considers scrapping A-10s, KC-10s, F-15Cs, CSAR helos”

June 18/13: Basing. As part of budget cuts (q.v. Feb 1/12 entry), a ceremony at Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany inactivates the 81st Fighter Squadron and its A-10Cs. The ceremony marks the end of A-10 operations in Europe.

The A-10 was originally designed for combat in Europe, and was seen as a crucial fast-reaction asset that could stop heavy armored thrusts through NATO’s defenses. Now, the 52nd Fighter Wing is left with only F-16 fighters on its roster. Considering the situation in Europe, and likely threats, wouldn’t it have made more sense to remove and retire F-16s? That would have left the A-10s as an inexpensive but uniquely reassuring deterrent for NATO’s eastern flank, with fast deployability to the CENTCOM AOR if needed. Pentagon DVIDS.

Europe, Adieu

April 2/13: APKWS guided rockets. Eglin AFB announces successful tests of the APKWS laser-guided 70mm rocket from an A-10C, marking the 2nd test from a fixed-wing aircraft (a Beechcraft AT-6B was the 1st). For the final A-10C test sortie, 2 APKWS rockets were fired at a surface target at altitudes of 10,000 and 15,000 feet. The first rocket hit within inches, and the 15,000 foot shot hit within 2 meters despite a 70-knot headwind.

The USAF used a US Navy rocket launcher, because the guidance section adds 18″ to the Hydra rocket. If the USAF continues to move forward with APKWS on the A-10C and F-16, they’ll buy the Navy’s modified launchers to replace their 7-rocket LAU-131s. The US Navy is preparing to qualify APKWS on the MQ-8C VTUAV, USMC AV-8B Harrier II V/STOL jets, and F/A-18 family fighters. Pentagon DVIDS.

FY 2012

A-10C fleet cut; 1st re-winged A-10C rolls out; A-10C flies on biofuel; Thales acquires Scorpion HMD.

A-10C on Alcohol
Alcohol-to-Jet
(click to view full)

Nov 5/12: Thales buys Scorpion HMD. Thales announced that it has signed a definitive agreement to acquire Gentex Corp.’s Visionix subsidiary for Helmet Mounted Displays (HMD) and motion tracking. Products include “Intersense” motion tracking, and the Scorpion HMD that equips American A-10Cs. Thales has a strong position in helicopter HMDs with its TopOwl, but it hasn’t had quite as much luck with fighter HMDs. Visionix has good technologies, which can help Thales improve that position against the Elbit/Rockwell joint venture VSI, and secondary competitors BAE systems and Saab Group.

Visionix will operate as a subsidiary of radio supplier Thales Communications, Inc., a Thales USA company that operates independently under a proxy agreement with the U.S. Department of Defense. Its management team will remain, and they’ll continue to operates from Aurora, IL and Billerica, MA. Thales Group.

July 12/12: Sub-contractors. Boeing calls South Korea’s KAI “a key supplier on the A-10 Wing Replacement Program,” while discussing the Korean company’s role in delivering AH-64D Block III attack helicopter fuselages. Boeing is a huge customer for KAI, who supplies parts for commercial jets and F-15s, as well as helicopter fuselages, A-10 wings, etc.

July 10/12: Lockheed Martin Corp. in Owego, NY receives a $7.3 million firm-fixed-price contract for repair service for the A-10 central interface control unit (CICU), and related Circuit Card Assemblies. This computer is also knows as a Signal Data Processor, and the idea is to provide a support bridge, while the USAF gets ready to perform maintenance in-house.

Work will be performed in Owego, NY, and will be complete by Sept 9/12. The USAF GLSC at Hill AFB, UT manages the contract (FA8251-12-D-0005). See also FBO.gov announcement.

June 29/12: Liquored up. An A-10C from Eglin AFB, FL flies using a cellulosic alcohol derivative, called “Alcohol-to-Jet.” That trick works better for the jets than it does for the pilots, apparently. The fuel comes from Colorado’s Gevo, Inc., and can be had for the bargain price of just $56 per gallon.

The $700,000 flight was just a test, obviously. The A-10 is a good test platform for this sort of thing, because its fuel system was segregated in order to help the plane survive hits. The system allows the 2 engines to run off of different fuel supplies, allowing simple performance comparisons. If a test fuel creates failures, the plane can still make it back on one engine. Daily Mail | Terra.com.

Alcohol flight

May 16/12: Flight International:

“The US Air Force has concluded that the short take-off vertical landing (STOVL) Lockheed Martin F-35B- model aircraft cannot generate enough sorties to meet its needs; therefore the service will not consider replacing the Fairchild Republic A-10 Warthog close air support jet with that variant.”

The short take-off F-35B’s ability to base near the battle does multiply the number of flight sorties from each plane, and improves total time over the battlefield. On the other hand, that’s multiplied relative to the F-35A. The A-10 has excellent endurance, whereas the F-35B has to sacrifice fuel capacity in exchange for its short-takeoff and vertical landing capabilities. Beyond that, F-35s of any vintage lack the armoring or gun for in-close support, remove most of their stealth protection if they carry the same array of weapons as an A-10, suffer from the usual problem identifying targets at fast jet speeds, and don’t offer significantly better battlefield sensors than the LITENING-SE or Sniper-SE pods on current A-10s. No matter what the sortie rates may be, replacement of the A-10 with any F-35 is a poor idea.

Feb 15/12: Boeing and the USAF officially roll out of the 1st re-winged A-10C Thunderbolt II in a ceremony at Hill AFB, UT. Boeing is under contract with the Air Force to deliver 233 wing sets through 2018, and delivered the 1st set in March 2011. In the intervening year, the new wings had to be installed, verified, and conduct initial test flights. Boeing.

1st re-winged A-10C

Feb 1/12: US Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz released a short white paper [PDF] outlining its priorities and choices within forthcoming budget constraints. The A-10 fleet bears the largest cuts by far, even though it has been the most consistently requested plane by troops on the ground in recent wars, and offers high value in both counterinsurgency and full-war scenarios:

“More than 280 aircraft have been identified… for elimination… over the next five years. This includes 123 fighters (102 A-10s [emphasis DID’s] and 21 older F-16s), 133 mobility aircraft (27 C-5As, 65 C-130s, 20 KC-135s, and 21 C-27s), and 30 select ISR systems (18 RQ-4 Block 30s, 11 RC-26s, and one E-8 damaged beyond repair)”

That’s 102 of 345 total A-10s flown, leaving 243 in service. It remains to be seen whether Boeing’s re-winging contract will be cut, but if not, 233/243 A-10Cs left will be re-winged planes. Unconfirmed reports point to the elimination of 2 regular USAF units, plus 3 Guard units: the 107th Fighter Squadron at Selfridge Air National Guard Base (ANGB), MI; the 163rd Fighter Squadron at Fort Wayne ANGB, IN; and the 184th Fighter Squadron at Ebbing ANGB, AK. See Military.com | Salt Lake Tribune | Neoconservative AEI think-tank’s Weekly Standard.

A-10 fleet cuts

FY 2011

A-10Cs to South Korea; TLPS support contracts.

A-10 Takeoff Bagram
A-10 wing work
(click to view full)

Sept 6/11: TLPS. Boeing announces a 1-year, $2.9 million contract to develop and validate a modification of the A-10’s Digital Video Audio Data Recorder (DVADR), which was becoming difficult to support. That’s not uncommon with electronics, which become obsolete much faster than their fighter jets do.

This contract is the 6th Boeing task order under the A-10 Thunderbolt Life-Cycle Program Support (TLPS) program.

Dec 7/10: TLPS. Northrop Grumman announces a set of 3 small task orders under the A-10 Thunderbolt Life-cycle Program Support (TLPS) indefinite delivery/ indefinite quantity contract, worth almost $2 million. Under the terms of the 2-year Aircraft Structural Integrity Program Modernization II task order, Northrop Grumman and its teammate Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, TX will develop and document non-destructive inspection (NDI) procedures and source data, and report discrepancies found between current technical data program requirements.

The Critical Safety Item (CSI) Technical Deficiency Improvement task order has 1 base year with 3 option years. Along with Wyle Laboratories in El Segundo, CA, and Rowan Catalyst Inc. in Libertyville, IL, the team will identify the engineering and technical correct CSI technical and acquisition data deficiencies.

Northrop Grumman is also teamed with Wyle Laboratories and Rowan Catalyst Inc., for the Critical Systems Component Analysis task, which has 1 base year with 2 option years. The team will perform component analysis of critical systems and provide solutions for increasing system reliability, safety, and aircraft availability; and reducing maintenance requirements and man-hours.

Nov 16/10: To Korea. Brahmand relays reports that the USAF 25th Fighter Squadron has deployed A-10Cs on the Korean peninsula at Osan AB, near Seoul. Subsequent USAF reports indicate that the last A-10A left the base on Dec 4/10, marking the 25th fighter squadron’s transition to an all A-10C force.

FY 2010

A-10C getting a Scorpion HMD, but not Hellfire missiles.

A-10A fires AGM-65 Maverick
A-10A fires Maverick
(click to view full)

Sept 27/10: OFP Suite 7, no Hellfire. A $48 million contract modification which will allow for the “completion of the full A-10 Suite 7 Operational Flight Program.”

Asked about this, Lockheed Martin confirmed that this is part of the A-10C program, adding that the government had reached its ceiling on this contract for mission software, also called Operational Flight Programs (OFPs) or Suites. Like the current modification, the original Oct 19/07 sole source contract ceiling for Suites 6, 7 and 8 was not an award, just a maximum. The government awards funds suite by suite, and based on additional things they wanted to add to the A-10C fleet, they requested this ceiling extension to $123 million total. The USAF has since separated Suite 7 into Suite 7A and Suite 7B, and Lockheed Martin recently received a contract for the remainder of OFP Suite 7A work.

The 2007 award also mentioned Hellfire II missiles, which are not normally fired from jets. Lockheed Martin says that the high cost of developing and purchasing a special missile launch rail for the A-10 caused the USAF to change its mind. The AGM-65 Maverick missile can perform the same role at a higher cost per missile, and Hellfire’s forthcoming JAGM missile successor is expected to work with fast jets (FA8635-07-D-6000, PO0012).

July 19/10: Scorpion HMD. Raytheon announces a $12.6 million USAF contract for Phase 1 integration and qualification of the Helmet Mounted Integrated Targeting (HMIT) system for USAF and Air National Guard A-10C and F-16C Block 30/32 aircraft. Raytheon Technical Services Company LLC (RTSC), the prime contractor, is teamed with Gentex Corp. in Simpson, PA to produce the system, based on Gentex’s Visionix Scorpion(TM) Helmet Mounted Cueing System.

HMIT will be a night-vision compatible helmet-mounted display that shows crucial information in high-resolution color imagery directly in the pilot’s field of vision. The color imagery is a step forward, and information displayed will include weapons-cueing, targeting and situational data from on-board and remote sensors. Like other HMDs, the system will track helmet movement to display accurate imagery, regardless of the direction the pilot’s head is turned. The program includes 5 one-year production options, with a potential total value up to $50 million.

April 13/10: Sub-contractors. CPI Aerostructures, Inc. of Edgwood, NY announces an additional $10 million in orders from Boeing in support of the A-10 fleet’s $2 billion re-winging effort. The original contract with Boeing was for $70 million (see July 1/08 entry).

Boeing has added additional structural assemblies and subsystem installations to the CPI Aero contract. These additions include pylon covers, center trailing edge wedge fittings, lower outer trailing edge panels, wingtip covers, wingtip light installations and aileron light installations.

Nov 20/09: OFP. Lockheed Martin announces a $17.8 million contract from the US Air Force to upgrade software that integrates communications and situational awareness capabilities on the A-10C close air support aircraft. The software upgrade is the 3rd in an annual series planned for the A-10 and is scheduled for release in May 2011. The earlier two upgrades were also performed by Lockheed Martin; the first was fielded on schedule in May 2009 and the second is on target for release in May 2010.

The software upgrade will provide improved pilot vehicle interface (PVI) and weapons delivery. Also included with the upgrade are software baselines for the helmet-mounted cueing system that provides situational awareness through improved visual cues for the pilot and for the lightweight airborne recovery system that integrates search and rescue capability. The upgrades will be integrated in Lockheed Martin’s A-10 Systems Integration Lab in Owego, NY. Lockheed Martin A-10 industry team includes Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, TX and Northrop Grumman in St. Augustine, FL.

Nov 11/09: TLPS. Northrop Grumman announces an 18-month, $3.3 million A-10 TLPS contract to develop and test an anti-jam embedded GPS and an inertial navigation unit (EGI) for the A-10C. Northrop Grumman Technical Services will perform an integrated architecture and life cycle costs analysis and install a temporary modification. The company will then develop a system safety program, and provide program and engineering management support in order to conduct an operational assessment of the EGI capability during flight test. Northrop Grumman’s team includes subcontractors BAE Systems Control Inc., Johnson City, N.Y., and Borsight Aerospace, Farmington, Utah.

FY 2009

$1.72 billion TLPS multi-award maintenance contract; A-10C adds Laser JDAM; Wing cracking in 130 planes.

LJDAM from A-10C
LJDAM test from A-10C
(click to view full)

Sept 24/09: Boeing announces that it received 2 separate contracts from the US Air Force to support modernization of its 365 A-10A+ and A-10C Thunderbolt II aircraft. The contracts, which have a total value of $4.2 million, consists of several tasks ranging in duration from 3 to 18 months as part of the A-10 Thunderbolt Life-Cycle Program Support (TLPS) contract. For details on the TLPS contract, see the June 11/09 entry.

Under the 1st contract, Boeing and the Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) will provide engineering services for the A-10 Aircraft Structural Integrity Program (ASIP), which involves updating and aligning modern structural analysis tools, processes and standards for the A-10 fleet. Under the 2nd contract, Boeing, Raytheon Technical Services, and BAE Systems Platform Solutions will conduct a trade study analysis and operational assessment/proof of concept for the A-10 Upgraded Data Transfer Unit (UDTU). The goal of this contract is to update the aircraft’s avionics architecture to improve memory and data capability.

Other A-10 contracts Boeing has received include a contract to provide on-site engineering support and 3-D models of the A-10 wing, and a contract for fuselage lofting – the transfer of a scaled-down plan to full size. The $2 billion A-10 Wing Replacement Program, which Boeing received in June 2007 (see June 29/07 entry), plans to manufacture up to 242 enhanced wing assemblies. The 3-D models allow the Air Force to resolve wing-crack issues that temporarily grounded the A-10 fleet in 2008 (see Oct 3/08 entry).

June 11/09: TLPS. The A-10 Thunderbolt Life-Cycle Program Support (TLPS) “provides a multiple-award indefinite delivery/ indefinite quantity contract vehicle to sustain and modernize all A-10 weapon system configuration.” It’s a follow-on to the A-10 Prime Contract, which was competitively awarded to Lockheed Martin in 1997. A-10 TLPS could run for up to 10 years, with an initial 4-year award that can be followed by up to 3 more 2-year option periods. All funds have been obligated, and the A-10 TLPS is managed by the 538 ACSG/PK at Hill Air Force Base, UT.

The Aug 29/08 entry explains the key rule change from the USA’s 2008 Defense Authorization Act, which requires DoD task & delivery order contracts exceeding $100 million to be awarded to multiple contractors. The USAF will select up to 3 contractors to compete for individual A-10 TLPS orders over the life of the contract, which will include avionics, mechanical, structural, and propulsion system upgrade work and a program integration support. The 3 winners of the $1.72 billion total contract are:

  • Lockheed Martin Systems Integration in Owego, NY (FA8202-09-D-0002). Current incumbents. Partnered with Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio TX; and Northrop Grumman in St. Augustine, FL.
  • Boeing subsidiary McDonnell Douglas Corp. in Saint Louis, MO (FA8202-09-D-0001). Also on contract for the $2.015 billion A-10 re-winging program (q.v. June 29/07 entry).
  • Northrop Grumman Technical Services, Inc. in Herndon, VA (FA8202-09-D-0003). NGC will manage the program from Clearfield, UT. Work will also be performed at Warner Robins, GA; Bethpage, NY; El Segundo, CA; and Rolling Meadows, IL.

See also: Lockheed Martin | Boeing | Northrop Grumman.

TLPS support contract

June 11/09: TLPS. Boeing’s A-10 TLPS release adds information concerning the separate $2.015 billion A-10 Wing Replacement Program:

“The work remains on schedule as Boeing develops the 3-D models that provide the engineering foundation for production of the new wings. The models also allowed Boeing to help the Air Force quickly resolve wing-crack issues that temporarily grounded the A-10 fleet last year.”

June 11/09: A-10PE Update. Lockheed Martin’s A-10 TLPS release adds some details concerning the separate A-10C Precision Engagement program:

“Lockheed Martin will remain under contract to complete efforts that are underway including work to provide Precision Engagement modification kits through 2011… To date, the Air Force has converted more than 200 of the 356 aircraft fleet. The A-10C was declared combat ready in August, 2007… In 2007, Lockheed Martin Systems Integration – Owego and the Air Force were co-recipients of a Top 5 DoD Program Award from the National Defense Industrial Association and the Department of Defense for A-10 systems engineering and program management excellence.”

Feb 4/09: TLPS. Boeing announces that it has submitted a proposal to the to the USAF for the $1.6 billion A-10 Thunderbolt Life-Cycle Program Support (TLPS) contract. This is a separate endeavor from the A-10C PE program, but it will have connections to ongoing modernization work.

Boeing is looking to leverage its work creating 3-D models of the plane under the $2 billion A-10 Wing Replacement Program. The A-10 was designed in the 1970s, and 3-D modeling was not used at the time. Lockheed Martin currently handles a large share of A-10 work, and competition is also expected from BAE Systems and L-3 Communications. Boeing release.

Jan 12/09: Cracking up. DoD Buzz quotes 12th Air Force commander Lt. Gen. Norman Seip, who says the USAF has inspected 200 of 244 aircraft with thin wings. Of those, 40% remain grounded, 41% have been inspected and returned to flight and the remainder are considered “flyable and awaiting inspection.” June 2009 remains the target date for a fix. Among the “thick winged” A-10s, 30% are still grounded, 23% will keep flying and the rest should be ready by June 2009.

The USAF’s challenge has been to keep all of the pilots current in their required flight hours for pilot certification, while providing enough aircraft to meet front-line combat needs.

Nov 14/08: LJDAM. The USAF announces that an upgraded USAF A-10C has dropped the GBU-54 LJDAM in a successful test. The next step is operational testing to develop tactics and techniques for employing the 500 pound dual laser/GPS guidance bombs from A-10s, who can use them to hit moving targets or drop bombs through clouds.

If those tests continue to go well, Eglin AFB’s test team may have their feedback as early as January. The goal is to have the LJDAM/A-10C combination deployed on the front lines by early 2009.

Nov 12/08: Cracking up. USAF release: Approximately 5 members of a depot maintenance team from Ogden Air Logistics Center at Hill Air Force Base, UT arrive at Moody AFB. They will provide hands-on training to perform major crack repairs on A-10 aircraft to Moody maintainers and another 40 active duty, Reserve and Guard maintainers from bases including Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ, Nellis AFB, NV, Whiteman AFB, MO, and Willow Grove Air Reserve Station, PA. Master Sgt. Steve Grimes, Air Combat Command Headquarters A-10 maintenance liaison:

“It would cost too much to fly all the aircraft to Hill. It would also take longer to repair all since three could only be sent at a time. This method is more cost-effective and it would be a faster way to repair the A-10s.”

Oct 3/08: Cracking up. The USAF announces “a time compliance technical order requiring immediate inspection and repair of wing cracks” for approximately 130 A-10 aircraft that were originally built with thin-skin wings.

“Such action has become necessary due to an increase in fatigue-related wing cracks currently occurring in aircraft assigned to Air Combat Command, Pacific Air Forces, the Air National Guard, Air Force Reserve Command and Air Force Materiel Command… The inspections, however, will not impact on-going or future operational combat missions.”

The USAF explicitly notes this as one of the issues associated with its aging aircraft fleet. The US military currently has about 400 active A-10s. See USAF release | Reuters.

Wing cracking grounds 130 A-10s

FY 2008

USAF prepared to compete future support; A-10C #100 delivered; Creating a 3-D model of the A-10.

A-10C, D-M runway
A-10C at Davis-Monthan
2006-11-29
(click to view full)

Aug 29/08: New Rules. Aviation Week reports that the A-10C program is likely to be an early test case for a dramatic rule change inserted in the USA’s 2008 Defense Authorization Act, which requires DoD task & delivery order contracts exceeding $100 million to be awarded to multiple contractors.

The kits that upgrade the A-10A to an A-10C are still sole-sourced to Lockheed Martin, but that’s about to change. A final RFP is expected soon, and the current plan is for 3 associate prime contractors to win a “multiple award” contract that lets them compete for individual task orders. The Air Force will reportedly oversee all modifications above and beyond the A-10 Precision Engagement aircraft under the Thunderbolt Lifecycle Program Support (TLPS) contract, with a $1.6 billion ceiling over 5 years and an additional 5-year option.

Boeing, who has extensive fighter experience and makes new A-10 wings under the $2 billion re-winging program, is likely to add itself to the mix. L-3 Communications also has strong experience with aircraft refurbishment and upgrades, and BAE Systems is heavily involved in the A-10A+ program.

July 1/08: Sub-contractors. CPI Aerostructures, Inc. of Edgwood, NY announces a long-term, $70 million requirements from Boeing in support of the A-10 fleet’s $2 billion re-winging effort.

The first ordering period is to run until Sept 30/11, with an additional option period that runs from Oct 1/11 through Sept 30/16. CPI expects to receive the initial order under this contract within the next 30 days.

June 19/08: Model me. Integrating new weapons and systems onto new aircraft involved aerodynamic and mechanical considerations, in addition to electronic compatibility. Modern engineering practices offer comprehensive 3-D design drawings that account for every part, and can be used to create models that reduce the trial-and-error associated with new work. An aircraft designed in the 1970s wouldn’t have those 3-D CAD/CAM models to work from, however, which is where Eglin AFB’s 46th Test Wing’s SEEK EAGLE office enters the picture.

Visibility Size and Shape Targeting Accuracy Room Scale (V-STARS) uses a photogrammetry system of triangulation to collect thousands of data points involving every external surface of an aircraft. These data points are then used to create a model that’s accurate to within 0.03 inches of the aircraft measured. The B-52H bomber has already been through this process, and now the SEEK EAGLE office is measuring an A-10C on loan from the Maryland National Guard. The 1000,000 data points that result will build an A-10C model that can be used when integrating future weapons. USAF.

Jan 22/08: Wings. Boeing announces a $14.9 million U.S. Air Force contract for systems engineering and modeling services under the A-10 Wing Replacement program (see April 2/07 and June 29/07). William Moorefield, Boeing A-10 Wing Replacement program manager, said that the contract will provide the engineering foundation for the program; the goal is “a true paperless engineering package.”

Boeing will perform the majority of the work in St. Louis, MO, with the remaining work done in Salt Lake City, UT. The contract runs through September 2010.

Jan 18/08: #100. The USAF announces that the 100th A-10C has taken off and flown from Hill AFB, UT to Moody AFB, GA. Aircraft 80-0172 was based at Pope AFB, NC before the modification, but transfers to Moody AFB as part of the base realignment and closure (BRAC 2005) recommendations.

On average, the 571st Aircraft Maintenance Squadron technicians at Hill AFB are upgrading each A-10 aircraft to the new A-10C configuration in less than 90 days. The A-10C Precision Engagement program started in the 309th Aircraft Maintenance Group in July 2006.

100th A-10C delivered

Oct 19/07: OFP. Lockheed Martin Systems Integration of Owego, NY receives a $75 million contract modification to fund the A-10C’s Operational Flight Program (OFP) Hardware Improvement Program for the plane’s mission computers, and Development and Integration of mission software Suites 6, 7, and 8, including Hellfire II Missile Development and Integration. This is just an umbrella contract and ceiling, no funds have been obligated by the 642th AESS/PK at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH (FA8635-07-D-6000).

The USAF eventually decided to abandon Hellfire II missiles on the A-10C.

FY 2007

$2.015 billion contract for new wings; 25 more kits; Work on SADL datalink; A-10C arrives and reaches IOC.

AIR A-10C IOC Ceremony
IOC ceremony
(click to view full)

Aug 22/07: Basing. The USAF announces that an associate group of about 215 reservists will support the active duty 23rd Wing at Moody Air Force Base, GA, while a smaller associate detachment of 14 reservists will augment the A-10 Formal Training Unit at Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ. The arrangement means the reservists and active-duty personnel have opportunities to train and deploy as a unit; development of fighter associate units began in March 1997 with the launching of the Fighter Reserve Associate Test program. The success of that program led to the signing of an agreement in April 2003 by the commanders of ACC (Air Combat Command) and AFRC (Air Force Reserve Command) to establish fighter associate units at ACC F-16 Fighting Falcon and F-15 Eagle locations.

“Reservists in the Moody group will fly and maintain the A-10s with the regular component under the classic associate unit structure. The first A-10C Thunderbolt II arrived at Moody Aug. 7. About 50 of the upgraded aircraft will move to the Georgia base as a part of force realignment.”

Aug 21/07: IOC. The precision engagement modified A-10C Thunderbolt II receives its Initial Operational Capability certification at a Langley AFB, VA ceremony. The USAF report says that around 75 A-10s have already been upgraded as of IOC receipt.

Aug 7/07: A-10C #1. The first A-10C arrives at Moody AFB, GA.

1st arrival & IOC

July 18/07: AFSOC A-10s? Jane’s Defense Weekly mentions that USAF Chief of Staff General Michael Moseley has told Jane’s he is considering the creation of a new counterinsurgency (COIN) squadron of A-10A Thunderbolt II aircraft for the Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC). Gen Moseley said he is mulling the possibility of putting a squadron of A-10A close-support aircraft inside AFSOC to serve US Special Operations Command, which has the lead engagement role in the US-declared global war on terrorism.

The A-10C would certainly be useful in this role as it comes into service; a 2-seater all-weather version like the canceled A/OA-10B would have been even more useful in situations like this.

July 10/07: Sub-contractors. Rockwell Collins Government Systems, Inc. in Cedar Rapids, IA received a $24.85 million modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-priced contract, exercising an option for AN/ARC-210(V) Electronic Protection Radio Systems. The AN/ARC-210 Multimode Integrated Communications System provides 2 way multimode voice and data communications over the 30-512 MHz frequency range in either normal, secure or jam-resistant modes via LOS or satellite communications (SATCOM) links.

The ARC-210 family of equipment is made up of several variants of the receiver-transmitter, each providing a specific combination of functionality. This modification consists of 329 each RT-1851 ARC-210 Receiver-Transmitter Radios; 323 each C-12561 Radio Control Sets, and 294 each MT-4935 Mounting Bases for the USAF’s A-10 aircraft. Work will be performed in Cedar Rapids, IA, and is expected to be complete in July 2008. The Naval Air Systems Command, at Patuxent River, MD issued the contract (N00019-05-C-0050).

June 29/07: New wings. Boeing subsidiary McDonnell Douglas Corp. in St Louis, MO received an indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity, firm-fixed-price with economic price adjustment contract for $2.015 billion for Engineering Services plus 242 enhanced A-10 Wing sets. The new wings will extend the planes’ life to 16,000 flight hours, and the program calls for the replacement wing sets to be delivered in parts and kits for easy installation. See also our April 2/07 item, which mentions the USAF’s original estimate of $1.3 billion for this program.

Solicitations began November 2006, negotiations were completed May 2007, and $74.2 million has been committed as of the award announcement. Work on the contract could run from 2007-2018, with a base ordering period from June 2007 – September 2011, plus an option period that runs from Oct 2011 – September 2016. The Headquarters Ogden Air Logistics Center at Hill Air Force Base, UT issued the contract (FA8202-07-D-0004). Boeing release

Re-winging contract

April 11/07: +25 kits. A $17.6 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to produce and deliver A/OA-10 Aircraft Precision Engagement production kits and associated items. This will include: 25 Precision Engagement Modification Kits, 30 Portable Automated Test Sets, 5 Throttle Quadrant Tester Upgrades, 25 Third SP103 Single Board Computers, 30 Stick Grip Attachment, and 357 Throttle Grip Covers. At this time, $8.8 million have been obligated, and work will be complete January 2009 (FA8202-05-C-0004/P00022).

April 11/07: SADL. Lockheed Martin Corp. in Owego, NY received a $70 million indefinite delivery/ indefinite quantity, firm-fixed-price and cost-plus-fixed-fee and time-and-materials contract. This action covers continuing development, integration, and production of Raytheon’s Situation Awareness Data Link (SADL), and Improved Date Modem (IDM) efforts in support of on-going A-10C Precision Engagement (PE) fleet modernization and upgrade efforts. At this time, $4.1 million have been obligated, and work will be complete December 2009. The Headquarters Aeronautical Systems Center at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH (FA8635-07-D-6015).

April 9/07: SADL. The A-10 Prime Team announces successful delivery of the full-function Situational Awareness Data Link (SADL) capability to the U.S. Air Force for developmental flight testing. The U.S. Air Force is expected to conduct developmental flight test of the SADL capability through May 2007 at Eglin Air Force Base, FL. SADL is expected to be fielded to operational A-10 units by September 2007. Lockheed Martin release.

April 2/07: GAO Report – Costs. The US Government Accountability Office releases #GAO-07-415 – ‘Tactical Aircraft: DOD Needs a Joint and Integrated Investment Strategy’. A key excerpt:

“The Air Force will retain the A-10 “Warthog” fleet in its inventory much longer than planned because of its relevant combat capabilities– demonstrated first during Desert Storm and now in the ongoing Global War on Terror. However, because of post-Cold War plans to retire the fleet in the early 1990s, the Air Force had spent little money on major upgrades and depot maintenance for at least 10 years. As a result, the Air Force faces a large backlog of structural repairs and modifications – much of it unfunded – and will likely identify more unplanned work as older aircraft are inspected and opened up for maintenance. Major efforts to upgrade avionics, modernize cockpit controls, and replace wings are funded and underway. Program officials identified a current unfunded requirement of $2.7 billion, including $2.1 billion for engine upgrades, which some Air Force officials say is not needed. A comprehensive service life extension program (if required) could cost billions more.”

…A major re-winging effort is planned for 2007 through 2016 that will replace the “thin skin” wings on 242 aircraft at an estimated cost of $1.3 billion. This effort will help to extend the A-10’s service life to 16,000 hours… Total cost to complete the [Precision Engagement] modification is estimated to be $420 million.”

GAO on costs

March 27/07: EMD. Lockheed Martin announces a $40.4 million contract modification to complete the A-10C Precision Engagement program’s engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase. Work will continue through May 2008 to conclude development of the Precision Engagement software suite and to support flight testing conducted by U.S. Air Force. Lockheed Martin release.

Oct 17/06: Update. The USAF reports that as of October 2006, 21 A-10C aircraft have been modified at Ogden Air Logistics Center at Hill AFB, Utah; the entire fleet of 356 active aircraft are to receive the upgrades, including active duty, Reserve and Air National Guard Warthogs.

FY 2005 – 2006

179 upgrade kit orders (or is it 239?); DSMS delivered.

A-10 in winter
The Warthog in Winter
(click to view full)

Sept 27/06: +107 Kits. A $49 million firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-incentive fee and time and material contract. Lockheed Martin’s release cites 107 PE kits, representing the 2nd production lot following the initial award for 72 kits in March 2005:

“The contractor shall provide total systems performance responsibility for A-10 aircraft integration by managing all system problems to a final solution. Interfaces are maintained between the performance work systems primary areas of modifications, system test/evaluation, project management, system engineering, and facilities.”

DID’s own records show 2005 orders for 132 kits, but we’ll go with the manufacturer’s numbers. At this time, $1.3 million have been obligated, and work will be complete September 2010. The 309th Aircraft Maintenance Group at Hill AFB, UT began installing the first award production kits in March 2006 (FA8202-06-D-0001)

March 21/06: DSMS. Lockheed Martin announces that the A-10 Prime Team has delivered the Digital Stores Management System (DSMS) to the U.S. Air Force’s A-10C flight-test program as scheduled. The new system is integrated with the Sniper ATP and LITENING surveillance and targeting pods, and automates many of the weapons control functions that A-10 pilots today perform manually.

Integration of the targeting pods and DSMS took place in Lockheed Martin’s A-10 Systems Integration Lab (SIL) in Owego, NY, where A-10 pilots validated and refined the mechanization of the upgrade before official release of the software to ground and flight test. “The pilot reviews saved significant ground and flight test time,” said Roger Il Grande, A-10 program director at Lockheed Martin Systems Integration – Owego. Built by Lockheed Martin in 2003, the SIL duplicates the aircraft’s wiring and cabling infrastructure, and is outfitted with actual weapon hardware, missile seekers, suspension racks and rocket launchers to emulate an A-10 aircraft on the flight line.

July 25/05: Kits. A $9.1 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to provide for 72 A-10 aircraft precision engagement spiral 1 modification kits with 3 option years and associated test equipment. Looks like an adjustment to a previous order.

At this time, the total amount of funds has been obligated. Work will be complete at a rate of 6 per month beginning 13 months after receipt of order. Solicitation began July 2004 (FA8202-05-C-0004, PZ001).

June 28/05: Sub-contractors. Enertec America in Alpharetta, GA received a $15.3 million firm-fixed-price modification to provide for A-10 digital video and data recorders. Total funds have been obligated, negotiations were completed June 2005, and work will be complete by November 2006 (FA8202-04-C-0023, P00005).

Feb 22/05: +60 Kits? A $28.5 million, firm fixed price, time and materials contract modification for 60 A-10 Thunderbolt II fighter precision engagement Spiral 1 modification kits, along with associated parts and test equipment.

Solicitations began July 2004, negotiations were complete in July 2005, and work will begin 13 months after the exercising option and will refit 6 aircraft per month after that (FA8202-05-C-0004/P00002).

Feb 17/05: +72 Kits. A $37.8 million contract to provide the U.S. Air Force with 72 Precision Engagement Spiral 1 production kits to modify A/OA-10 “Warthog” close air support aircraft, plus associated test equipment. At this time, $28.3 million of the funds have been obligated. Solicitation began July 2004 (FA8202-05-C-0004). Lockheed Martin release.

The production kits, a result of work by Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems and Southwest Research Institute, are one component of the Precision Engagement program.

FY 2004 and earlier

Main upgrade contract; Sniper pods for A-10Cs.

Sniper PANTERA Pod
Sniper XR

Feb 12/04: Sniper. Lockheed Martin announces a contract to integrate the Sniper XR targeting pod on the A-10 aircraft in support of the A-10 Precision Engagement (PE) Program. The contract award follows a successful demonstration of the Sniper system during the A/OA-10 Precision Engagement upgrade program’s critical design review.

Some existing A-10s do fly with targeting pods, but they’re earlier models of Northrop Grumman’s LITENING pod. The USAF picked Sniper as its future targeting pod in 2001 (though they’d shift to a dual-pod approach again in 2010), and the current contract will ensure that Sniper pods work seamlessly with the A-10’s upgraded stores management systems, pilot displays, weapon targeting, etc.

As part of the integration effort, Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control will develop the Pilot Vehicle Interface (PVI), pod Operational Flight Program (OFP) software, and pod interface adapter hardware for the A-10. Upon completion of this effort, the Sniper XR pod will self-detect and automatically load the appropriate Operational Flight Program when installed on either the A-10, F-16 or F-15E airframes.

Feb 15/01: Lockheed Martin announces the contract win, stating that:

“The A/OA-10 Prime contract modification has an estimated value of $226 million, $74 million for the Engineering, Manufacturing and Development (EMD) phase through 2004 with follow-on production at $152 million.

This innovative government and industry teamwork approach cost-effectively combines multiple A-10 upgrade requirements into one program that fits within current available funding and saves the U.S. Air Force approximately $150 million over the cost of executing the requirements as standalone projects. The Precision Engagement modification also provides the A-10 fleet with enhanced close-air support and precision strike capability earlier than originally planned.

During the EMD phase, the company’s Aerospace Systems business unit will design, manufacture and test the Precision Engagement system. This effort involves the installation of a digital stores management system for cockpit interface with its weapon systems; new cockpit displays; a Situational Awareness Data Link (SADL) to provide accurate information about friendly forces and potential threats; a Direct-Current (DC) generator upgrade; and the integration of guided weapons such as the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) and Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser (WCMD) along with future targeting pod integration. Follow-on efforts will then outfit the entire A-10 fleet.”

A-10C upgrade contract

Additional Research

Background: A-10 Platform & Enhancements

News & Views

The C-130J: New Hercules & Old Bottlenecks

$
0
0
C130J-30 Australian Flares
RAAF C-130J-30, flares
(click to view full)

The C-130 Hercules remains one of the longest-running aerospace manufacturing programs of all time. Since 1956, over 40 models and variants have served as the tactical airlift backbone for over 50 nations. The C-130J looks similar, but the number of changes almost makes it a new aircraft. Those changes also created issues; the program has been the focus of a great deal of controversy in America – and even of a full program restructuring in 2006. Some early concerns from critics were put to rest when the C-130J demonstrated in-theater performance on the front lines that was a major improvement over its C-130E/H predecessors. A valid follow-on question might be: does it break the bottleneck limitations that have hobbled a number of multi-billion dollar US Army vehicle development programs?

C-130J customers now include Australia, Britain, Canada, Denmark, India, Israel, Iraq, Italy, Kuwait, Norway, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Tunisia, and the United States. American C-130J purchases are taking place under both annual budgets and supplemental wartime funding, in order to replace tactical transport and special forces fleets that are flying old aircraft and in dire need of major repairs. This DID FOCUS Article describes the C-130J, examines the bottleneck issue, covers global developments for the C-130J program, and looks at present and emerging competitors.

The (Private) Labors of Hercules: the C-130J Family

C-130J
C-130J Hercules
(click to view full)

Most American planes rely on their huge home market as their base, then seek exports. The privately-developed C-130J “Super Hercules” was different. Australia, Britain, Denmark, and Italy were all ahead of the curve, and have been operating this heavily redesigned upgrade of the popular C-130 Hercules transport aircraft for several years. By the time the C-130J finally reached “initial operating capability” for the US military late in 2006, these faster-moving foreign customers were already banding together to create a common upgrade set for their serving fleets. A number of variants are currently flying in transport (C-130J), stretched transport (C-130J-30), aerial broadcaster (EC-130J), coast guard patrol (HC-130J), aerial tanker (KC-130J), special forces (MC-130J), and even hurricane hunter weather aircraft (WC-130J).

The C-130J looks a lot like its predecessors, except for the new 6-bladed Dowty propeller. In reality, a number of changes have been made to its construction and components, and its internal systems are almost wholly new. Unlike most defense programs, however, the C-130J was not a government contract. Lockheed Martin spent almost $1 billion of its own funds developing the update, then began selling it in the USA and abroad.

Base Platform: The C-130J

Super Hercules Promo
click to play video

The C-130J’s improvements are mostly clustered around 2 key characteristics: performance, and operational costs. Instead of Rolls Royce 4,600 shp T56 Series III turboprop engines, it uses lighter Rolls-Royce AE2100D3 engines, coupled with a 6-blade Dowty R-391 propeller system made of composite materials. The overall system generates 29% more thrust, while increasing fuel efficiency by 15% and offering improved reliability and maintenance. Compared to the 1960s-era C-130E (note: there was an intermediate C-130H version), maximum speed is up 21%, climb-to-altitude time is down 50%, cruising altitude is 40% higher, and range is about 40% longer.

The enhanced capacity of the “J” variant is especially noteworthy in hot climates and/or high altitude operations, where the new plane can deliver 40% better payload/range performance than earlier versions. US experience in places like Afghanistan and Iraq indicates that as many as 3 C-130H models may be required to do the job of 1 C-130J in these “hot and high” conditions.

C-130J Cockpit
C-130J Cockpit
(click to view full)

The C 130J only requires 2-3 crew members for most missions instead of 4, and avionics have been changed to incorporate more advanced capabilities into the night-vision-system compatible “glass cockpit” (computer screens, not dials) and heads-up display. A pair of mission computers and 2 backup bus interface units provide dual redundancy. Equally important, they host an integrated diagnostics system to assist with maintenance and reduce long-term ownership costs.

The interior of the C-130J has also seen a number of improvements, simplifying and automating key cargo tasks. An automated airdrop system, for instance, delivers parachute loads more precisely. These kinds of additions have dropped the crew required for airdrops from 4 to 2 (pilot, co-pilot). In addition, innovations such as flip-over rollers allow loaders to reconfigure the cargo area in about 5 minutes instead of the traditional 25, getting planes out of airstrips quickly and maximizing overall loading/unloading efficiency during larger operations.

An optional dorsal aerial refueling system can extend the C-130J’s range significantly, while optional aerial taker kits can convert the C-130J into a flying gas station that offloads fuel faster than previous KC-130 versions, and can handle both helicopters and jets due to its range of flight speeds.

Finally, the C-130J Maintenance and Aircrew Training System (MATS) is designed to complement the C-130J, adding a high-tech simulation angle to both flying and maintenance training.

The worldwide fleet of C-130Js exceeded 355,000 flight hours As of August 3/07.

C-130J vs C-130J-30
C-130J vs. C-130J-30
via CASR
(click to view full)

The stretched C-130J-30 adds 15 feet of fuselage length over its C-130J counterpart, most of which is placed forward of the wing as the plane stretches from 97’9″ (29.3 m) to 112’9″ (34.69 m). The extra cargo space allows it to add adds 2 standard pallets (to 8), 23 litters (to 97), 8 CDS bundles (to 24), 36 combat troops (to 128), or 28 paratroopers (to 92) over C-130H/J models, and the aircraft’s maximum weight increases by 9,000 pounds (to 164,000 pounds/ 74,393 kg).

Maximum allowable cargo payload rises by a ton over the C-130J, from 42,000 pounds to 44,000 pounds/ 19,958 kg); the 36,000 pound maximum normal C-130J-30 payload is 2,000 pounds higher than the C-130J, but 500 pounds lower than the C-130H’s 36,500 pounds. Even so, the extra space comes in handy. C-130J-30s can carry 33% more pallets of equipment or supplies, 39% more combat troops, 31% more paratroopers, or 44% more aeromedical evacuation litters than previous unstretched Hercules versions. The stretched C-130J-30 also shares the C-130J’s ability to use much more of its theoretical cargo capacity in hot or high altitude environments than previous C-130 versions.

In exchange, the stretched C-130J-30 suffers a speed drop of 7 mph (410 mph at 22,000 feet) vs. the C-130J, a 2,000 foot lower ceiling (26,000 feet with full payload), and maximum range at full payload that falls by 115 miles to 1,956 miles. It does outshine the smaller C-130J when carrying only 35,000 pounds of cargo, however: its 2,417 miles is a 576 mile increase over the C-130J, and a 921 mile increase over the C-130H.

Note that except for maximum normal payload, all of the C-130J’s figures remain significantly better than the C-130H, with statistics of 366 mph cruise speed at 22,000 feet, a 23,000 foot ceiling, and range at maximum normal payload of 1,208 miles.

C-130J Variants

The C-130J Family

As one might imagine, Special Forces variants are undergoing the most change, but the platform’s versatility is also pushing Lockheed Martin toward an advanced naval variant.

AC-130J “Ghostrider”. This new gunship will be based on the MC-130J, but it won’t carry hose-and-drogue refueling pods. It will have a 400 Amp power supply, added defensive systems, more surveillance sensors, terrain-following radar, and a Precision Strike Package (PSP).

The PSP includes a side-firing 30mm GAU-23A chain gun, wing-mounted GBU-39 GPS-guided SDB-I bombs, and laser-guided AGM-176 Griffin missiles launched from a “Gunslinger” attachment on the rear cargo door. It may eventually add a side-firing 105mm howitzer like existing AFSOC AC-130H/Us, and AGM-114 Hellfire missiles like the USMC’s KC-130J Harvest Hawks, but those aren’t currently funded. These weapons will be controlled from a dual-console Mission Operator Pallet in the cargo bay, which will include multiple video, data, and communication links.

Ghostrider surveillance equipment will include 2 day/night surveillance and targeting pods and a ground-looking synthetic aperture radar pod, tied into the pilot’s helmet-mounted display. Defensive systems will include the AN/ALR-56M radar warning receiver, AN/AAR-47(V)2 missile warning system, and AN/ALE-47 countermeasures dispensing system, along with standard options like fuel tank foam, system redundancy, and some armoring.

One sore point is its comparative lack of armor compared to the AC-130H/U, with no armoring for the Mission Operator Pallet and just 7.62mm level protection elsewhere. Most AC-130s brought down in Vietnam were killed by 37mm guns.

HC/MC-130J Increment 1. Modifications include additional defensive countermeasure dispensers, high-altitude ramp and door hydraulics, a 4th flight deck crew member station, an extra intercom panel and 60-Hertz electrical outlets in the cargo compartment.

HC/MC-130J Increment 2. Includes increased 28-volt direct current internal power capacity, crash-worthy loadmaster scanner-position seats, and provisions for Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures defensive systems. This is as high as the HC-130J Combat King IIs are expected to go, though they’ll also receive a T-1 communications modification with a Specialized Automated Mission Suite/Enhanced Situational Awareness system (SAMS/ESA: SADL data link, High Power Waveform, and Air Force Tactical Radio System-Ruggedized), Blue Force Tracker, and the Joint Precision Airdrop System.

HC/MC-130J Increment 3. Includes a 400 Amp power supply, dual special mission processors, and a secure file server. MC-130J Commando IIs will be improved to Increment 3.

SC-130J Sea Herc

SC-130J MPRA. A proposed maritime patrol and reconnaissance aircraft, created by moving a number of P-3 Orion systems onto and into the C-130J. A Magnetic Anomaly Detector boom is installed in the tail for submarine detection, along with a sonobuoy storage pallet and 2 rotary launchers in the rear interior. A day/night surveillance turret goes under the nose, a 360 maritime radar is mounted under the fuselage, and ESM electronics for pinpointing and geolocating radars, communications, etc. are mounted via on wingtip pods and fore and aft fuselage points. A set of roll-in console modules would contain the necessary electronics and screens to manage it all.

Countries that wanted to go beyond surveillance would push further development to add wing hardpoints for torpedoes and missiles, and/or a weapons bay and torpedo racks in the front fuselage.

C-130J operator Britain is Lockheed Martin’s biggest SC-130J target, and the plane’s flexibility could appeal to others who see the value in fleet commonality and good mid-range performance, with easier upgradeability than standard MPAs. The downside is that the C-130J is designed for short-field performance first, and efficient cruising operation second. That will make it expensive to operate compared to smaller twin-engine competitors, which are typically derived from commercial light cargo and passenger aircraft. The Airbus ATR-72 MPA is an example of a larger competitor that also follows this pattern; ATRs have won significant share in the mid-range regional airline market on the strength of their operating efficiency.

The Value of Variants

Griffin missile
KC-130J’s “gunslinger”
(click to view full)

These variants and kits give the C-130J an edge in the global market, and will help Lockheed Martin retain that edge as the 20-ton tactical transport market starts to get crowded in 2020 or so. The type’s strong Special Forces niche has already helped to close orders with export clients like India, who could easily have chosen additional orders of plane types already in its fleet (AN-32, IL-76). The second big edge for the platform is a related niche: multi-role armed transports that can deliver troops and supplies, then provide close-air support for counterinsurgency fights. The KC-130J’s Harvest HAWK kits, and C-130H-derived MC-130W Dragon Spear, offer prospective customers an important set of clip-on capabilities that none of its major competitors (A400M, KC-390, MRTA) are even designing, let alone fielding. The SC-130J maritime patrol option could become a similar kind of selling point.

Those “ecosystem strengths” are going to become more important in future. The C-130XJ, unveiled in December 2011 at the Credit Suisse aerospace and defense conference in New York, NY, may not offer enough savings by itself to prompt orders from target customers like South Africa. A cheaper base aircraft, plus existing modifications available on the market, is more appealing. Likewise, the C-130NG could sell among existing C-130J customers, but its changes by themselves might still leave it lagging behind the price of low-cost turboprop options like China’s Y-9, behind the performance of new jet-powered rivals like Embraer’s multinational KC-390 and HAL/Irkut’s MRTA, and very much behind the capacity of Airbus’ larger A400M.

The existence of clip-on kits and proven specialty variants may have to sell it, instead. Especially if the C-130NG also fails to resolve the biggest limitation in today’s medium tactical transport field…

Turbulent Flight: The C-130J Program

WC-130Js
WC-130Js
(click to view full)

The privately-developed Hercules variant has been the subject of heavy criticism and a 2005 near-death budget experience, followed by its reinstatement by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld on the stated grounds that canceling the contract would be almost as expensive as completing it – though a later government report established that its cancellation costs were wildly overstated.

In order to comply with the FY 2006 National Defense Authorization Act, however,Air Force Print News reported that the C-130J contract was converted from the existing commercial item procurement to a traditional military procurement in FY 2006. In technical terms, it was converted from a Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 12 to an FAR Part 15 contract, which includes much more extensive Congressional oversight and cost reporting requirements. In bottom line terms, this involved repricing 39 aircraft, resulting in net savings anywhere from $170-245 million (reports vary). Under the restructured contract, the Air Force said Lockheed cut the program cost by 8% for the remaining 26 Air Force C-130Js, and nearly 12% for 13 Marine KC-130Js.

The Wall Street Journal reported this as a decision by Lockheed Martin to cut its profit margins on the plane, after investing $1 billion in private funds to develop it. Lockheed spokesman Tom Jurkowsky was quoted as saying that “national defense outweighs the continued recovery of funds we invested in its development.” It’s widely suspected in reports from Associated Press et. al. that direct criticism of the FAR Part 12 contract by Sen. John McCain [R-AZ] played a role as well.

Since FY 2006, American C-130J orders have continued, and the aircraft has continued to expand its export successes as well. C-130J aircraft are now flown and/or under contract by the USAF and Air National Guard, US Marines, and US Coast Guard; and by Australia, Britain, Canada, Denmark, India, Israel, Italy, Iraq, Kuwait, Norway, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, and Tunisia. DSCA requests that have yet to become publicly-announced contracts include Mexico (2012), Libya (2013), and Brunei (2014).

According to official Pentagon documents, the C-130J’s past and planned American budget breakdowns include:

US C-130J Budgets

Note that each year’s procurement budget almost always includes advance “long-lead time material” orders for the next fiscal year. That way, once the main contract is issued, construction isn’t delayed by long waits for predictable items.

The C-130J and the 20-ton Bottleneck

C-130J GR4s Jaguars Britain
RAF C-130J & friends
(click to view full)

The C-130J offers a genuine improvement over past versions of the Hercules, especially in hot and/or high-altitude environments where all aircraft lose lift and carrying capacity. It has proven these capabilities during deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, where its additional reserves of power have come in very handy on the front lines.

On the other hand, the ability to fit into tactical transports is a very common requirement and benchmark for ground systems, including armored personnel carriers. Billions have been spent on R&D for the wheeled Stryker armored vehicle family, and for the USA’s $160+ billion Future Combat Systems MGV armored vehicle family. Both vehicle families were sold as options that would fit into US tactical transports, in order to meet the military’s timeframe goals for deploying units to crisis situations. Both projects failed to meet their goals after spending billions in R&D, leaving the USA’s expensive C-17 fleet overworked, and achievement of the USA’s strategic deployability goals unlikely.

Unlike the pending Airbus A400M, therefore, which offers a larger interior and a 33-35 ton vehicle capacity, the C-130J doesn’t solve the sub-survivable 20-ton armored vehicle limit that has stymied multiple US armored vehicle programs. As such, it represents an improvement that fails to address US tactical airlift’s key bottleneck limitation. Meanwhile, reports from the USAF indicate that C-130Js are often flying with very little weight and/or small cargo, because the demands of counterinsurgency airlift lead to more and smaller requests from a number of front line sources.

The C-130J thus finds itself in the odd position of offering capabilities that are both too great for many tactical needs, while being too small to meet important American strategic goals. Even Special Forces worry that future air defense threats will make the C-130 non-survivable in future gunship and insertion roles.

A400M Desert Cargo Drop Concept
A400M
(click to view full)

That’s the bad news. On the other hand, its major competitor the Airbus A400M went through major delays and contract re-negotiation in System Design & Development, and has a production backlog of over 180 aircraft as deliveries are beginning. Future competitors like the Indo-Russian MRTA, and Embraer’s multinational KC-390 are currently in even earlier R&D stages. Which means that any nations needing to replenish a 20+ ton tactical airlift fleet any time soon are limited to a choice of buying the C-130J, or purchasing old designs like Russia’s AN-12 or China’s Y-8 aircraft.

As the A400M becomes available, and the 20-ton segment begins to crowd with new offerings, the C-130J will face a very different competitive environment. Without major American C-130J buys, or establishment of the C-130J as a market leader in key segments like Special Operations, recouping its $1 billion investment would have been challenging for Lockheed Martin. Fortunately for the firm, they’ve made considerable progress toward both of these goals.

Contracts and Key Events

C-130 SIGINT
C-130J: SIGINT roll-on
(click to view full)

The USA’s JMATS contracts for C-130J simulators and training are a critical but separate component, and are covered in their own article. International customers aren’t part of JMATS, so their arrangements may be covered here.

DID has covered C-130J buys in Canada, India, Israel, Iraq, and Norway; and the UAE’s potential buy, as dedicated articles. Important milestones from those purchases may also appear here.

DID also has a separate article covering training and simulators, under the MATS, JMATS, and JMATS-II programs.

Unless otherwise noted, all contracts are issued by the Headquarters Air Force Material Command (AFMC) in Wright Patterson AFB, OH; and the contractor is Lockheed Martin Corporation in Marietta, GA. Note that coverage is complete only from Jan 1/06 forward.

FY 2016

Requests: Denmark.

Kuwaiti KC-130J delivery
Kuwaiti KC-130J
(click to view full)

November 12/15: France is looking to buy four C-130J transport aircraft through the US’ Foreign Military Sales program, with the State Department approving the sale. Previous reports indicate that the sale could be intended to plug a gap in Airbus A400M delivery schedules to the French Air Force, with French officials meeting with Lockheed Martin in June. The French defense budget for FY16 includes the provision of $1.7 billion for four C-130s, with the FMS request running to $650 million, including communications and self-protection systems and support services.

Meanwhile, the US Air Force awarded Lockheed Martin a $968.7 million contract action modification for the production of 17 C-130J variants, including six C-130J-30, one HC-130J, nine MC-130J and one KC-130J aircraft. The Air Force and Lockheed Martin reached an agreement in October to fund a five-year deal for C-130Js, covering 83 aircraft for the Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard.

October 19/15: Lockheed Martin and the Air Force have reportedly reached an agreement on the acquisition of C-130J Hercules transport aircraft. The five-year contract will see 83 C-130Js delivered to the Air Force, Coast Guard and Marine Corps and is anticipated to be finalized by the end of this year. Lockheed Martin sunk nearly $1 billion into the development of the aircraft, with the type seeing significant export success; sixteen countries have purchased the C-130J, including Canada, India, Israel and Norway.

October 5/15: An Air Force C-130J transport aircraft came down in Jalalabad, Afghanistan early on Friday morning, killing the aircraft’s six crew members and five civilian contractors on board. The Taliban claim that they shot down the aircraft as it took off, with this assertion denied by the Air Force. The crash is the sixth loss of a C-130J to date and the second time the USAF has lost one of the aircraft; however this is the first time US service personnel have been killed in a C-130J crash.

October 1/15: Denmark is reportedly looking to buy a fifth C-130J transporter, rejecting the A400M in the process. Plans to buy the Airbus design were reportedly dropped on financial grounds, with operating costs deemed too high by the Danish defense ministry.

FY 2015

Requests: Brunei.

September 18/15: Air Force Special Operations Command is reported to be looking to acquire an expendable unmanned system capable of acting as remote sensors deployable from C-130 gunships. A Coyote UAV is currently being used as a concept-demonstrator, with a longer-term solution also reported to be underway. AFSOC also wants to see lasers incorporated into the gunship of the future, retaining some aging C-130s to use as test beds. The Air Force wants industry to come up with a solution for an electric-powered laser weapon to equip the AC-130J by the end of the decade, the first aircraft of which was delivered at the end of July.

July 29/15: The Air Force has reportedly retained some ageing C-130U Hercules aircraft for use as airborne laser testbed aircraft. Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) plans to use the aircraft to test both offensive laser weapons and defensive lasers designed to act as less-than-lethal options. DARPA has been field testing the use of lasers against hostile projectiles, with the Air Force expecting to field airborne lasers on larger cargo aircraft models from 2021. However, the further development of these capabilities could be hamstrung by sequestration and a lack of political will.

March 24/15: The Air Force is adding one HC-130J to its original 2012 contract, at a cost of $72.7 million.

Oct 7/14: The US DSCA announces Brunei’s export request for 1 C-130J aircraft, 6 AE2100D3 turboprop engines (4 installed and 2 spares), Government Furnished Equipment, communication equipment, spare and repair parts, support and test equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, and other forms of US Government and contractor support.

The C-130J would become Brunei’s largest aircraft, far bigger than its 3 ordered CN-235MPA maritime patrol planes. why does such a tiny country need it? Not to haul the Sultan’s famous fleet of over 300 top-end cars, but:

“This proposed sale of a C-130J to Brunei will provide a critical capability to assist in Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief missions. The aircraft will enable Brunei to provide aid and assistance in greater capacities to regional allies and partners in need. The aircraft will also provide the ability to execute maritime patrol missions and contribute to search and rescue missions in the region.”

The principal contractor will be Lockheed Martin-Aerospace in Marietta, GA, and the estimated cost is up to $343 million. That’s over 5x the standard flyaway price for a C-130J, a huge differential given that the notice that no additional contractors will be needed in Brunei. Perhaps they plan to perform long-term support elsewhere; it’s hard to think of another explanation if the notice’s facts are correct. Sources: US DSCA #14-37, “Brunei – C-130J Aircraft”.

DSCA request: Brunei (1 C-130J)

FY 2014

Orders: USA (7 SOCOM etc.), Saudi Arabia (2 KC-130J), India (6 C-130J-30), Israel (2 C-130J-30), Civil (10 LM-100J); Long-term engines supply contract; Indian crash; ROKAF deliveries done; AC-130J flies; DOT&E testing report.

C-130J at work
click for video

Sept 29/14: Engines. GE Aviation Systems (actually Dowty Propellers) in Sterling, VA receives a sole-source $20.6 million firm-fixed-price contract for 42 C-130J propellers (P/N 69703900) and spare parts. All funds are committed immediately using FY 2012-2014 USAF aircraft budgets, and funds from Foreign Military Sales – but the announcement doesn’t identify the foreign customers.

Work will be performed at Gloucester, UK and is expected to be complete by May 31/15. The USAF Life Cycle Management Center at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH manages the contract (SPE4A1-14-G-0009-RJ03).

Sept 29/14: Software. A $6.6 million contract modification to integrate system and Mission Computer (MC) software changes into SOCOM’s HC/MC-130J Increment 2 aircraft. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2013 USAF RDT&E budgets.

Work will be performed at Marietta, GA, and is expected to be complete by March 31/17. Fiscal 2013 research, development, test and evaluation and procurement funds in the amount of $6,568,120 are being obligated at the time of award (FA8625-11-C-6597, PO 0277).

Sept 26/14: +7. A $413.2 million finalization for 1 HC-130J and 6 MV-130J aircraft, subsuming previous advance procurement funding into full production efforts. That works out to $59 million per aircraft, plus the cost of government-furnished equipment for these special forces planes. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2012 & 2013 USAF aircraft budgets.

Work will be performed at Marietta, GA, and is expected to be complete by Nov 30/15 (FA8625-11-C-6597, PO 0239).

USA: HC-130J & 6 MC-130Js

Sept 26/14: Sensors. Raytheon in McKinney, TX receives an $18.3 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for 12 Multi-Spectral Targeting Systems (AN/AAS-54) and spare parts for the Air Force C-130 program. Short version: it’s for Special Forces HC/MC-130s. Long version: the AAS-54 combines long-range day and night cameras for high-altitude target acquisition, and adds tracking, range-finding, and laser designation for all tri-service and NATO laser-guided munitions. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2012 & 2013 USAF aircraft budgets; $7.7 million will expire on Sept 30/14.

Work will be performed in McKinney, TX, and is expected to be complete by September 2016. The US Navy’s Naval Surface Warfare Center in Crane, Indiana manages the contract (N00164-12-G-JQ66).

Aug 6/14: FY15 long-lead. A $116.7 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to buy long lead parts for 14 FY 2015 C-130Js. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2014 USAF advance procurement budgets.

Work will be performed at Marietta, GA, and is expected to be complete by June 30/15. The USAF Nuclear Weapons Center/WLNNC at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH (FA8625-14-C-6450, PO 0001).

July 23/14: Counter-fighter. Defensive tactics against enemy fighters isn’t the first thing you normally associate with a C-130, but a pair of 317th Airlift Group C-130Js had to do just that en route to Naval Air Station Fort Worth Joint Reserve Base, TX. The exercise demonstrated C-130J capabilities that will be used during the multinational fighter meet at Red Flag-Alaska.

Here’s how it worked: The loadmasters sat high in the flight decks of their aircraft, looking through a bubbled window in the ceiling. They communicated to the pilots, who reacted and maneuvered to delay the fighter pilot’s ability to locate and lock on the C-130Js. 39th AS assistant director of operations for tactics Maj. Aaron Webb described the tactics as “pretty effective,” adding that a casual observer “doesn’t expect a 130,000-pound cargo plane to be able to maneuver as nimbly as the J-model does.” Sources: USAF, “Dyess C-130Js successfully evade F-16”.

July 18/14: India. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics in Marietta, GA receives a maximum $564.7 million contract modification to to fund 6 more India foreign military sales C-130J-30s, field service representatives and 3 years of post-delivery support after the first aircraft delivery. $50.9 million of this contract is committed immediately, and this brings the total cumulative face value of the contract to $2.067 billion; but the contract itself applies to orders beyond India’s.

Work will be performed at Marietta, GA and is expected to be complete by April 30/20. Once all 6 planes are delivered, India’s fleet will rise to 11, given the March 2014 crash of KC3803. The USAF Life Cycle Management Center/WLNNC at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH manages the contract as India’s agent (FA8625-11-C-6597, PO 0273).

India: 6 C-130J-30

July 16/14: LM-100J sale. ASL Aviation Group in Dublin, Ireland signs a Letter of Intent with Lockheed Martin to order up to 10 LM-100J commercial freighters. Their Safair subsidiary in Johannesburg, South Africa currently operates 6 L-100-30 (C-130E/H) aircraft, but the LM-100J will be an entirely new type for their Air Contractors subsidiary in Dublin. Lockheed Martin adds:

“Engineering and detailed design of the LM-100J is currently underway. Assembly of the first aircraft will begin in 2015 and first flight of the LM-100J is expected by early 2017. Because much of the flight test done to civil certify the C-130J in the late 1990s will be directly applicable to the LM-100J, testing and certification of the newest Hercules variant is expected to take about twelve months.”

Which means deliveries can be expected in 2018, unless problems arise in testing. The firm sold 115 L-100s from 1964 through 1992, positioned to address the oversize cargo market and unimproved airfields. They’ve also been used for airdrops and humanitarian aid, VIP transport, aerial spraying, aerial firefighting, etc. Unfortunately, Lockheed acknowledges that legacy L-100s have higher direct operating costs relative to Russian An-12s, or even relative to 737 freighters when the 737’s special ground-handling cargo equipment is available. The LM-100J is intended to address that, while adding CNS/ATM compliance that will allow them to fly in civil airspace after 2015.

The firm predicts double-digit growth in the Latin American, African, and Middle Eastern air freight industries over the next decade, as a subset of overall 4% per year growth in the global market. Sources: Lockheed Martin Code One Magazine, “LM-100J: Airlifter For Hire” | Lockheed Martin, “ASL Aviation Group Signs Letter of Intent To Procure Lockheed Martin LM-100J Freighters”.

Civil: 10 LM-100Js

May 30/14: Korea. The ROKAF’s final 2 C-130J-30s fly out from Marietta, GA, to join their fellows in South Korea (q.v. Dec 2/10, March 27/14). Lockheed Martin is still working under an initial 2-year support and training program for the 4 planes, and is also involved with the ROKAF’s C-130H fleet. Sources: Lockheed Martin, “ROKAF Receives Additional C-130J Super Hercules Aircraft”.

Korea deliveries done

April 25/14: Extended Life. Lockheed Martin in Marietta, GA receives an initial $27.4 million firm-fixed-price contract for extended service life center wing boxes [DID: the section of the fuselage that connects to the wings] on 5 C-130J aircraft. Aging C-130E/H planes have received replacements; USAF C-130Js only began entering service in February 1999, but it’s the mileage that matters. Lockheed Martin would say only that replacement decisions are “based upon the service life of the part”, which can be shorter if a plane is subjected to heavy operational use. Meanwhile, the ESL wing boxes are equipping production line aircraft as well.

All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2013 budgets. Work will be performed at Marietta, GA, and is expected to be complete by Dec 30/16. This award is the result of a sole-source acquisition by the USAF Life Cycle Management Center/WLKCA at Robins AFB, GA (FA8504-14-C-0003).

March 28/14: Crash. An Indian Air Force C-130J-30 (tail #KC 3803) hits a hillock during low-level flight training, and crashes in a riverbed 116 km west of Gwailor. Everyone dies, including the 2nd-in-command of the 77 ‘Veiled Vipers’ squadron, Wing Commander Prashant Joshi, 2 pilots, and a trainee.

The C-130J was reportedly part of a 2-plane formation that had taken off from Agra. Sources: The Indian Express, “5 officers killed as IAF’s new showpiece Super Hercules crashes near Gwalior”.

Crash

March 27/14: Korea. The ROKAF takes delivery of 2 of its 4 ordered C-130J-30s (q.v. Dec 2/10), in a Marietta, GA ceremony. This makes them the plane’s 14th customer. Sources: Lockheed Martin, “Republic Of Korea Air Force Accepts First C-130J Super Hercules”.

March 6/14: Sensors. Raytheon in McKinney, TX receives a $10.1 million firm-fixed-price contract for 10 Multi-Spectral Targeting Systems, to be installed on AFSOC HC/MC-130Js.

All funds are committed immediately, using FY12 aircraft procurement budgets. Work will be performed in McKinney, TX and is expected to be complete by April 2015. There’s 1 set source for these, so this contract was not competitively procured per FAR 6.302-1. The US Naval Surface Warfare Center Crane Division in Crane, IN manages the contract (N00164-12-G-JQ66-0045).

March 4/14: FY15 Budget. The USAF and USN unveil their preliminary budget request briefings. They aren’t precise, but they do offer planned purchase numbers for key programs between FY 2014 – 2019. The C-130J program is still waiting for the full FY 2014 contract (q.v. Dec 6/13, Feb 12/14), but that budget introduced a multi-year contract (q.v. April 10/13), which makes cuts in FY 2015-2018 very difficult.

The USAF’s FY 2015 budget request involves 13 C-130Js (7 regular USAF, 2 MC-130J, 4 HC-130J), while the USMC plans to buy 1 KC-130J. The overall effect will drop US annual production from 17 in FY 2014 (6 C-130J, 1 KC-130J, 5 AC-130J gunships, 1 HC-130J, 4 MC-130J) to 14 in FY 2015, but steady exports should cushion that.

The USAF’s initial materials don’t delve beyond FY 2015, but the USMC plans to order another 5 KC-130Js from FY 2016 – 2019. They’ll finish the FY 2014-2018 deal 1 KC-130J short of their maximum, though, with only 6 planes bought, and make up the 7th in FY 2019. Sources: USN, PB15 Press Briefing [PDF] | USAF, Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Overview.

Feb 28/14: Support. Rolls-Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN receives a $54.3 million firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract for depot level repair of 50 KC-130 aircraft engines, propellers and other propulsion system components for the US Marine Corps (47 planes/ $50.2M / 92%) and the government of Kuwait (3 planes/ $4.1M/ 8%).

$24.5 million is committed immediately, using FY 2014 Navy O&M budgets. Work will be performed in Indianapolis, IN (92%), Al Mubarak, Kuwait (2.1%); various locations in Japan (2%); Cherry Point. NC (1.3%); Miramar, CA (1.3%); and Fort Worth, TX (1.3%), and is expected to be complete in February 2015. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to FAR 6.302-1 by US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD (N00019-14-D-0007). See also Rolls Royce, “Rolls-Royce supports US Marine Corps KC-130Js through $50 million contract”.

Feb 25/14: Support. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. in Marietta, GA receives a sole-source $12.2 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to provide spare parts that are unique to US SOCOM’s HC/MC-130Js, and can’t be drawn from general C-130J fleet spares.

All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2012 aircraft budgets. Work will be performed at Marietta, GA, and is expected to be complete by Feb 16/16. USAF Life Cycle Management Center/WISK at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH manages the contract (FA8625-11-C-6597, PO 0209).

Feb 12/14: Engines. Lockheed Martin and Rolls-Royce complete a long-term agreement worth up to $1 billion, to deliver approximately 600 AE2100 turboprop engines for American and international contracts from 2014 through 2018. That works out to about 150 aircraft, but it’s probably closer to 125 with spares added in. Rolls Royce benefits from more predictable demand, while Lockheed Martin presumably benefits from lower prices.

Rolls Royce adds that “the agreement secures the Rolls-Royce AE 2100 as the engine of choice for all variants of the C-130J to 2025.” That was never really in doubt. The most likely break-point for an engine upgrade would be the design of a new C-130NG variant, in order to address competition from jet-powered 20-ton class transports after 2020. Sources: Rolls Royce, “Rolls-Royce and Lockheed Martin agree US$1BN deal to power future C-130J aircraft”.

Multi-year engine contract

Jan 31/14: AC-130J. The USAF flies a fully-converted AC-130J gunship for the 1st time, at Eglin AFB, FL. They also appear to have scales the program back a bit:

“A total of 32 MC-130J aircraft will be modified for AFSOC as part of a $2.4 billion AC-130J program to grow the future fleet, according to Capt. Greg Sullivan, the USSOCOM AC-130J on-site program manager at Det. 1.”

The Pentagon’s recently-released DOT&E report for FY 2013 had placed the AC-130J program at 37 aircraft. Sources: USAF, “New AC-130J completes first test flight”.

Jan 31/14: Support. A $105.3 million indefinite-delivery/indefinite quantity contract modification, exercising the 3rd option under the USAF’s C-130J Long Term Sustainment Program. It’s a 2-year ordering period for sustainment services including logistical support, program management support, engineering services, spares, and technical data. Funds will be committed as needed through task orders.

Work will be performed at Marietta, GA, and is expected to be complete by Jan 31/16. USAF Life Cycle Management Center/WLKCA at Robins AFB, GA manages the contract (FA8504-06-D-0001, PO 0026).

Jan 28/14: DOT&E Testing Report. The Pentagon releases the FY 2013 Annual Report from its Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E). Their focus is on US SOCOM’s variants: HC-130J/MC-130J Combat King II CSAR/ Commando II transports, and AC-130J “Ghostrider” gunships. The USAF intends to field 37 HC-130J Combat King IIs developed to Increment 2 capability, 57 MC-130J Commando IIs developed to Increment 3 capability, and 37 AC-130J Ghostrider gunships that will be converted from MC-103Js (TL: 94 MC-130Js produced).

All: The core problem across this fleet involves the enhanced electrical system and in 400 Amp power supply, which is required for Increment 3 upgrades and AC-130J gunship conversions. At present, the fleet is limited to a 200 Amp system. Minor issues include Mean Time to Diagnose a Fault of 119 minutes (30 required), and just 83% probability of completing a 4-hour mission without a failure (95% required). The good news is that DOT&E deems the HC/MC-130J to be operationally effective and operationally suitable, with a 95% mission availability rate (89% required) and survivable in the low to medium threat environments it was meant for.

AC-130J: The program conducted a Preliminary Design Review in March 2013 and a Critical Design Review in August 2013, and 1st flight was expected in January 2014. The PSP weapon set is planned in 3 increments, and both development and the Live Fire Alternative Test Plan (ATP) will leverage some data from the C-130H-based AC-130W. This was concerning, though:

“Armor requirements and the amount of armor differ significantly between the AC-130U and AC-130J aircraft. The AC-130U armor was designed to provide protection to the aircrew stations, personnel, ammunition, and critical systems against a single 37 mm high-explosive incendiary round at a range of 10,000 feet, while the AC-130J’s primary crewmember positions and oxygen supplies should be protected against single 7.62 mm ball projectile at 100 meters [DID: just 330 feet, where bullet velocity is higher] …. The planned armor layout on the AC-130J does not include the Mission Operator Pallet, which should be considered a “primary crewmember” position and protected in accordance with the associated Force Protection Key Performance Parameter (KPP).”

The 37mm criterion isn’t random: most AC-130 kills over Vietnam involved 37mm guns. It isn’t rare for gunships to face enemies that can deploy 14.5mm – 23mm guns, to say nothing of the common .50 cal/ 12.7mm caliber. Even an unarmored C-130J would be a difficult kill for a 12.7mm machine gun. With that said, it sounds like they’ve left the crew nearly unprotected, in an aircraft that’s designed to go where the enemy is shooting. That does require an explanation.

Jan 27/14: Engines. Rolls Royce in Indianapolis, IN receives an $182.7 million firm-fixed-price, requirements contract modification, exercising the 7th annual option for AE2100-D3 engine logistics support, program management support, engineering services, spares, and technical data.

Funds will be spent as needed. Work will be performed at Indianapolis, IN, and is expected to be complete by Jan 31/15. The USAF Life Cycle Management Center/WLKCA at Robins AFB, GA, manages this contract (FA8504-07-D-0001, PO 0023).

Jan 21/13: LM-100J. No, it’s not gamerspeak for iRobot’s “Looj” gutter cleaner, or for a fast sled. It’s Lockheed Martin’s new civil variant of the C-130J, and the FAA just received Lockheed Martin’s Program Notification Letter for a type design update. FAA documents refer to it as an L-382J, but it will be marketed at the LM-100J. Sources: Lockheed Martin, “Lockheed Martin Files For FAA Type Design Update”.

Dec 26/13: Support. Lockheed Martin in Marietta, GA ereceives an $11,060,628 firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for logistics and engineering services in support of the C/KC-130J Aircraft for the U.S. Marine Corps/Marine Corps Reserve, U.S. Coast Guard and the Kuwait Air Force.

Work will be performed in Marietta, GA (65.3%); Afghanistan (12%); Palmdale, CA (9.2%); Kuwait (3.3%); Okinawa, Japan (3%); Miramar, CA (1.8%); Cherry Point, NC (1.7%); Elizabeth City, NC (1.6%); Fort Worth, (1.5%); and Greenville, SC (.6%); and is expected to be completed in December 2014. No funds are being obligated at time of award. Funds will be obligated against individual delivery orders as they are issued. This contract combines purchases for the U.S. Marine Corps/Marine Corps Reserve ($8,886,223; 80.3%); U.S. Coast Guard ($1,423,148; 12.9%); and the Government of Kuwait ($751,257; 6.8%) under the Foreign Military Sales Program. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to 10 U.SC 2304(c)(1). The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-14-D-0006).

Dec 6/13: long-lead. A sole-source, maximum $169.7 million firm-fixed-price advance procurement contract for funding related to 18 C-130Js. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2013 procurement budgets.

Work will be performed at Marietta, GA, and is expected to be complete by Oct 31/16. The USAF Life Cycle Management Center/WLNNC at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH manages this contract (FA8625-14-C-6450).

Dec 3/13: long-lead. A $48.5 million advance procurement contract modification for funding related to 5 more C-130Js. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2012 procurement budgets.

All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2012 aircraft budgets. Work under this multi-year contract will be performed at Lockheed Martin in Marietta, GA until Dec 31/16. The USAF Life Cycle Management Center/WLNNC at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH manages the contract (FA8625-11-C-6597, PO 0230).

Dec 3/13: #4. Lockheed Martin in Marietta, GA receives a not-to-exceed $81.2 million modification to an existing contract to fund Israeli C-130J-30 aircraft #4, advance long-lead procurement of C-130Js #5 and 6, and external fuel tank modification kits.

Work will be performed at Marietta, GA, and is expected to be completed by June 30/16. This contract is 100% foreign military sales for Israel, with the USAF Life Cycle Management Center/WLNNC at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH acting as Israel’s agent (FA8625-11-C-6597, PO 0231).

Israel: 4th C-130J-30

Oct 10/13: DMS Redesign. Lockheed Martin Corp., Marietta, Ga., was awarded a $21.6 million contract modification to redesign the C-130J’s Color Multipurpose Display Unit and Multi-Function Color Display for C-130J aircraft. Computer equipment goes out of production quickly, and the CDU & MFCDs need new central processor and graphics processor chip sets, in order to cope with “diminishing manufacturing sources.”

Sure beats trying to source spares from grey traders whose supply chain includes Chinese counterfeits.

Work will be performed at Marietta, GA and is expected to be complete by Sept 30/15. This contract actually includes 15% foreign military sales to C-130 customers Norway, Israel and Kuwait, on top of the $21.6 million in FY 2012 in USAF procurement funds that are committed immediately. USAF Force Life Cycle Management Center/WLNNC at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH manages the contract (FA8625-11-C-6597, PO 0228)y. (Awarded Oct. 10, 2013)

Oct 3/13: A maximum $181 million not-to-exceed contract modification lets Saudi Arabia buy 2 KC-130J transport and tanker aircraft under the US umbrella deal, along with associated non-recurring engineering support. It’s just a small part of the 25-plane, $6.7 billion request (q.v. Nov 9/12).

Work will be performed at Marietta, GA, and is expected to be completed by April 2016. This contract is 100 percent foreign military sales for Saudi Arabia. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center/WLNNC, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity (FA8625-11-C-6597, PO 0177).

Saudi Arabia: 2 KC-130J

FY 2013

US order; Saudi request; DOT&E report.

C-130 - Saudi
Saudi C-130
(click to view full)

July 25/13: Israel. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics in Marietta, GA receives a maximum $13 million unfinalized contract for the advanced procurement of a 4th Israeli C-130J-30 and field services representatives, out of an FMS case for up to 9 planes (q.v. July 30/08). The total cumulative face value of the contract it’s bought under is now $1.631 billion, but most of that contract doesn’t involve Israel.

Work will be performed at Marietta, GA, and is expected to be complete by Dec 30/15. The USAF Life Cycle Management Center/WLNNC at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH manages the contract as Israel’s FMS agent (FA8625-11-C-6597, PO 0172).

July 11/13: Engines. Rolls Royce in Indianapolis, IN a $22.4 million indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract modification for more USMC KC-130J Power-by-the-Hour support.

Work will be performed in Indianapolis, IN, and is expected to be complete in February 2014. US Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity (N00019-09-D-0020).

July 2/13: Training. IKBI Inc. in Choctaw, MS receives a maximum $7.7 million firm-fixed-price contract for a Special Forces HC-130J Simulator Facility at Moody AFB, GA. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with 1 bid received by the Army Corps of Engineers in Savannah, GA (W912HN-13-C-0011).

June 10/13: Libya. The US DSCA announces the new government of Libya’s official export request [PDF] for 2 stretched C-130J-30 aircraft, 10 Rolls Royce AE 2100D3 engines (8 installed and 2 spares), aircraft modifications, Government Furnished Equipment (including radios), support and test equipment, personnel training package, and a 3-year package for other forms of US Government and contractor support. Libya would join their neighbor Tunisia as a C-130J-30 customer.

The DSCA request cites “a mix of legacy C-130s” in operation, but pre-revolution reports weren’t clear on their airworthiness, and it’s unclear if the new government has working C-130s to fly alongside its (former Air Libya) BAe-146. The estimated cost for the 2 stretched C-130Js is $588 million, which is a tremendous amount, but they’ll need to build up the associated infrastructure from a very damaged base. The scale of the support is made clear by the request. A USAF logistics specialist will help Libya establish supply systems for flight operations, supply management, inventory control, and documentation procedures. At the same time, 4 contracted Field Service Representatives (FSR) and 1 Logistics Support Representative (LSR) will need to have expertise in airframe, avionics/electrical systems, propulsion systems, ground maintenance systems, and logistics support. As expected, Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor.

Libya has been making a number of announcements about rebuilding its air force, and favoring countries that helped them during the war. It’s hard to give much credit to reports that the country will be buying both Rafale and Eurofighter jets in the near future, though one understands why they might want to repay France and Britain in some way. Meanwhile, transport is a higher priority for a large country with lots of hostile terrain, and a weak central government.

DSCA request: Libya C-130J-30s (2)

May 31/13: LAIRCM. Lockheed Martin in Marietta, GA receives a $16.4 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to finish designing LAIRCM aircraft modification kits (A-Kits) for the USMC’s KC-130Js, to protect them against shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles. This modification includes 10 LAIRCM A-Kits, a test kit installation of a LAIRCM A-Kit, and a validation installation of a LAIRCM A-Kit.

Work will be performed in Marietta, GA (51%); Greenville, SC (31%); and Rolling Meadows, IL (18%), and is expected to be completed in November 2015. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2012 and 2013 contract dollars. US NAVAIR in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-13-C-0017).

April 29/13: Iraq. Lockheed Martin announces that it has ferried Iraqi C-130J-30s #4-6 to the USAF, as an interim step in delivering them to Iraq. Once the planes arrive in Iraq, they will complete the order, though the contract itself will continue with support services. Lockheed Martin.

Iraqi C-130J-30s all delivered

April 10/13: FY 2014 & MYP. The President releases a proposed budget at last, the latest in modern memory. The Senate and House were already working on budgets in his absence, but the Pentagon’s submission is actually important to proceedings going forward. See ongoing DID coverage.

The C-130J program submits a proposed $5.809 billion multi-year buy from FY 2014 – 2018, which would purchase 79 planes: 43 aircraft for SOCOM (25 MC-130J + 13 HC-130J + 5 AC-130J), 29 C-130Js for the USAF, and 7 KC-130Js for the US Marine Corps.

All aircraft would be fully funded with initial spares in their order years, and the multi-year deal would include a priced option for 5 more United States Coast Guard HC-130Js – whose base aircraft and array of radars and equipment are very different from SOCOM’s HC-130Js.

Multi-year buy proposed

April 4/13: Tunisia. Lockheed Martin announces that they’ve delivered the 1st of 2 stretched C-130J-30 Super Hercules to the Republic of Tunisia, marking the first delivery to an African country.

Tunisia currently operates a fleet of C-130Hs and C-130Bs, but they were bought in the mid-1980s. Lockheed Martin’s 2010 contract involved 2 planes between 2013 – 2014, plus training and an initial 3 years of logistics support. The Tunisian government fell in the meantime, but the new government still needs the planes.

Feb 22/13: Engines. Rolls Royce in Indianapolis, ID receives a $16.8 million modification to a previously awarded indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract for more additional power-by-the-hour work in support of the USMC’s KC-130Js.

Work will be performed in Indianapolis, IN, and is expected to be complete in July 2013. Funds will be committed by individual delivery orders, as needed. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-09-D-0020).

Jan 17/13: DOT&E testing. The Pentagon releases the FY 2012 Annual Report from its Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E). The report covers the C-130J platform generally, as well as the HC/MC-130J special forces variants.

The biggest take-away is that the USAF is scrapping plans to field the Block 7.0 upgrade, or incorporate the set into the production line. Block 7.0 has been experiencing delays, and is expected to enter test & evaluation in early 2013, but the results will probably just be used to plan the USAF’s Block Upgrade 8.1.

On the bright side, the C-130J family’s DTADS maintenance support system is a “significant improvement” in multiple areas, but the Windows XP operating system means it can’t connect to government networks. Windows 7 is apparently the minimum.

With respect to the special forces platforms, the HC/MC-130J got a preliminary rating of being as good or better than previous variants, and availability/ maintenance rates were also improvements (vid. Nov 1/12 entry). Key strengths include better takeoffs from short or unimproved runways, expanding the flight envelope for aerial refueling, and improved cargo loading and unloading features. Despite that latter assessment, airdrops create very high workloads and head-down time for the pilot monitoring the drops. The new HC/MC-130Js may also have to do some retrofits to add standard search and rescue equipment: flare launcher tubes, large forward scanner windows, additional oxygen regulators, and intercom panels.

Survivability and situational awareness were another area mentioned, though the specific survivability issue wasn’t detailed. With respect to situational awareness, pilots would like a tactical datalink such as Link 16, so they’re more aware of what’s around them. Inside, the loadmasters want more control over cargo lighting, especially since the night vision lighting is a bit problematic for covert operations. On an audible level, the loadmasters want the intercom system to transmit system tones for diagnostic or defensive system alerts.

Jan 16/13: India support. Rolls Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN receives a $6.7 million contract modification for Power by the Hour support to the IAF’s C-130Js.

Work will be performed at Hindan Air Station in New Delhi, India, and is expected to be complete by Jan 30/13. The AFLCMC/WLKCB at Robins AFB, GA manages the contract on behalf of their FMS client (FA8504-07-D-0001-0501-09).

Aug 6/12: Made in India. The Hindu reports that the offset program has begun to bear fruit, with some components now made in India:

“The latest feather in the Tata cap is that certain critical components for the C-130 are now being ‘Made in India’… on the outskirts of Hyderabad. That is the promise held out by Tata Lockheed Martin Aerostructures Ltd., (TLMAL), a joint venture between Tata Advanced Systems and Lockheed Martin. The Friday gone by was a landmark day with TLMAL delivering the first C-130 Center Wing Box (CWB) to Lockheed.”

Nov 9/12: Saudi Arabia The US DSCA announces [PDF] Saudi Arabia’s DSCA request for up to 25 C-130J family aircraft, in a deal that could be worth up to $6.7 billion once a contract is negotiated.

The RSAF currently operates 30 C-130H medium transport aircraft, and another 7 KC-130H aerial refueling tankers with secondary transport capabilities. External engine fleet and depth maintenance contracts take care of them, but as the hours pile up, replacement looms. The Saudis would replace their fleet with just 20 stretched C-130J-30s, and another 5 KC-130Js. On the other hand, the stretched planes offer more room, and the C-130J’s extra power makes a big difference to real cargo capacity in Saudi Arabia’s lift-stealing heat. The request includes:

  • 20 C-130J-30 stretched transports
  • 5 KC-130J aerial tankers, which could be armed in future
  • 120 Rolls Royce AE2100D3 Engines (100 installed and 20 spares)
  • 25 MIDS-LVT Link-16 systems
  • Plus support equipment, spare and repair parts, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical data, and U.S. Government and contractor support.

The prime contractors will be Lockheed-Martin in Bethesda, MD (C-130Js); General Electric Aviation Systems in Sterling, VA; and Rolls Royce Corporation in Indianapolis, IN (engines). Implementation of this sale will require the assignment of U.S. Government and contractor representatives to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for delivery, system checkout, and logistics support for an undetermined period of time.

DSCA request: Saudi C-130J-30 & KC-130J (25)

Nov 1/12: MC/HC-130J. Lockheed Martin announces that their HC-130J Combat King II and MC-130J Commando II special operations planes have been formally certified as “Effective, Suitable and Mission Capable” by the USAF’s Operational Test and Evaluation Center.

Oct 23/12: 13 more. An $889.5 million contract modification for the USA’s FY 2012 production aircraft buy of 13 planes: 7 MC-130J CSAR planes and 4 HC-130J Commando IIs for SOCOM, 1 KC-130J for the USMC, and 1 USAF C-130J production aircraft.

Work will be performed in Marietta, GA, and run to July 31/15 (FA8625-11-C-6597, PO 0139).

FY 2012 main buy

FY 2012

Israel buys #3/9; USCG buys 3; Senior Scout SIGINT kit; India’s follow-on request for 6 more; Mexican request; C-130XJ, C-130NG, and SC-130J “Sea Hercules” concepts unveiled; AC-130J gunship appears.

C-130 RNoAF
Norwegian C-130J
(click to view full)

Sept 28/12: A $218 million contract modification to buy 3 more US Coast Guard HC-130J Long Range Surveillance aircraft, which will bring the USCG fleet to 9, and add 2 more roll-on mission suites. The 3rd plane will get its mission equipment from a future contract, scheduled for FY 2013. By 2016, the Coast Guard plans to accept these aircraft and base them at Air Station Barbers Point, Hawaii.

The HC-130J’s special mission suite is comprised of a 2-person mission system operator station located behind the pilot and co-pilot, a belly-mounted 360-degree Seaspray 7500 long range search radar, nose-mounted day/night surveillance turret, and an advanced mission communications suite. Work will be performed in Marietta, GS, and Greenville, SC. The contract runs until May 31/16 (FA8625-11-C-6597, PO 0069).

The current Coast Guard C-130 LRS fleet includes 23 HC-130Hs, and 6 HC-130Js based at Air Station Elizabeth City, NC. The USCG’s HC-130Hs are running out of useful service life, and by 2027, the USCG is planning to have a uniform fleet of 22 HC-130Js. See also USCG | Lockheed Martin.

3 USCG HC-130Js

Sept 25/12: Mexico. The US DSCA announces [PDF] Mexico’s official request for 2 stretched C-130J-30 aircraft, 10 AE2100D3 engines (8 installed and 2 spares), aircraft modifications, communication equipment, other Government Furnished Equipment, spare and repair parts, support and test equipment and publications, personnel training and training equipment, and other US Government and contractor support. The estimated cost is up to $412 million, which is very expensive for 2 C-130Js, but there are a number of add-ons to consider, and actual cost will depend on contract negotiations.

The DSCA notice says that Mexico will use the planes as “Presidential support,” but local defense expert Inigo Guevara says that they’re mostly intended for regular defense use. The FAM’s existing tactical transport fleet of 7 old C-130E/K/Ls is reaching its limits, and the recent buy of 4 new C-27J Spartan light tactical transports replaced an original requirement for 5 used C-130H aircraft to upgrade that fleet. The 2 C-130J-30s offer a heavier-lift option with some C-27J engine and avionics compatibility. Guevara says that current requirements will eventually add another 2 Super Hercules transports, leaving a tactical transport fleet of 4 C-27Js and 4 C-130Js. Any VIP modules are likely to be “roll-on, roll-of” options. Guevara adds that:

“The Presidential fleet is getting a new aircraft in the form of a strategic transport (very likely a Boeing 787 Dreamliner), which will replace the current B757 and should arrive by 2016. It is apparently being acquired through a [full turnkey] wet lease.”

DSCA request: Mexico C-130J-30s (2)

Sept 21/12: The Air Force’s 19th Special Operation Squadron is retiring its MC-130E Combat Talon I simulator, and they are waiting for an MC-130J simulator to replace it. They do not quite seem to know what to do with it. Any takers? It would be quite the living room conversation piece.

Sept 10/12: Engines. Rolls Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN receives a $9.7 million indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract modification, to meet increased requirements for the USMC’s “power by the hour” per-engine support contract. Translation: the USMC is flying its KC-130J fleet for more hours than the contract had expected.

Work will be performed in Cherry Point, NC, and is expected to be complete in February 2013. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-09-D-0020).

Sept 5/12: Iraq. The 1st of 6 C-130J-30 Super Hercules for the Iraqi Air Force has completed its first flight, at Lockheed Martin’s Marietta, GA facility. Lockheed Martin.

Aug 30/12: Oman delivery. The 1st C-130J ordered by Oman is formally accepted by the country at a signing ceremony in Marietta. Lockheed Martin initially told DID that the delivery of this plane was likely to happen in early November, but the Sultanate sped up the process and flew its plane home on September 12. Lockheed Martin.

Aug 28/12: Sea Hercules? Defense News reports that Lockheed Martin is working on an SC-130J Sea Hercules modification. It’s designed as a $150 million alternative, to be developed in 3 stages. Stage 1 will involve roll-on/ bolt-on radar and electro-optical sensors, and accompanying processing workstations. Stage 2 would add wing-mounted surface attack weapons, along with upgraded workstations and weapon control systems. Stage 3 would be a full anti-submarine conversion, including sonobuoys, a magnetic anomaly detector boom, extra fuel pods, and 2 added bays for 6 Harpoon missiles.

Lockheed Martin reportedly says they expect to sign at least one contract “in North Africa”. Tunisia, who already has a contract for 2 C-130J-30s that was signed shortly before their revolution, could certainly use that capability. So could Britain, which has its own fleet of C-130s, but no maritime patrol planes since they retired the Nimrod fleets.

Lockheed Martin will have no shortage of competitors around the world. Established competitors include EADS’ CN-235 Persuader, C-295 MPA, ATR-42 MP, and ATR-72 ASW turboprops; and Embraer’s P-99 MP jet. On the development front, Boeing is starting to look at options beyond its P-8A Poseidon, because their customers are saying that they don’t need its full versatility, and find its $200 million price tag prohibitive. Bombardier’s Challenger 600 seems to be the target platform. There’s also some talk in Britain of adding maritime patrol capabilities to its Sentinel R1 ground surveillance jets, based on Bombardier’s Challenger. Saab has options are in development based on the Saab 2000 regional turboprop and Piaggio P-180 executive turboprop, and Russia has a unique offering in development based on its Beriev Be-200 amphibious aircraft.

Aug 8/12: Oman. Flight testing begins for the 1st of Oman’s 3 ordered C-130Js (1 C-130J-30, 2 C-130Js). Oman currently operates a fleet of 3 C-130Hs purchased in the early 1980s, and their first new Hercules is scheduled for delivery later in 2012. Lockheed Martin.

July 23/12: AC-130J. Production begins in Marietta, GA, but the gunship is actually built as an MC-130J Commando II. It will become an “AC-130J” (vid. Feb 19/12 contract) when it’s equipped with a “Precision Strike Package. When queried, Lockheed Martin representatives said that:

“The initial contract is to cross-deck the current MC-130W [DID: link added] equipment to the new AC-130Js. The PSP referenced here is a new package.”

AC-130J Initial Operating Capability is scheduled for 2015, and AFSOC expects to order 16. Lockheed Martin.

AC-130J begins

June 7/12: Norway request. The US DSCA announces [PDF] Norway’s formal request to buy 2 C-130J-30s equipped to the USAF baseline, 9 Rolls Royce AE2100-D3 Engines (8 installed and 1 spare), plus aircraft modifications for Norwegian specifications, Norwegian-compatible communication equipment and support, defensive countermeasure systems, other Government Furnished Equipment, tools and test equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, and other forms of US government & contractor support.

If a contract is signed, Norway’s C-130J-30 fleet will rise to 5 planes. The prime contractor will be Lockheed Martin in Marietta, GA, but the proposed sale won’t require any more representatives in Norway. The estimated cost is set at up to $300 million, however, which is about the cost of Norway’s first 4 planes (vid. Nov 7/07 entry). Actual amounts will depend on negotiations, but it looks like Norway is thinking about a significant support contract as well.

DSCA request: Norway C-130J-30 (1)

June 4/12: Norway. Rolls Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, ID receives a $14.3 million (face value) firm-fixed-price contract to purchase spares, field services support and program management, return and repair support, and engineering services support for the Royal Norwegian Air Force’s C-130J fleet at Gardermoen AFB, Norway. Work is to be complete by Jan 31/14. The WR-ALC/GRBKB at Robins AFB, GA manages the contract, on behalf of its Norwegian client (FA8504-07-D-0001-0602).

May 8/12: Canada. The Royal Canadian Air Force formally accepts the 17th CC-130J Super Hercules at a Marietta, GA ceremony, completing the order placed in December 2007. Lockheed Martin.

Canada: all delivered

April 2/12: Engines. Rolls Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN receives a $25 million indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract modification for contractor logistics support and technical engineering support of USMC KC-130Js’ AE2100-D3 turboprop engines, and R391 propellers.

Work will be performed in Indianapolis, IN, and is expected to be complete in February 2013. All funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages this contract (N00019-09-D-0020). Navy/USMC C-130Js fall under a separate engine maintenance agreement than the USAF – see also April 6/10, Feb 27/09 entries.

March 9/12: MC-130J “Commando II”. USAF officials announce that the MC-130J’s designation will change from “Combat Shadow II” to “Commando II”.

The 1st aircraft with the “Commando” designation was the C-46, which flew missions “over the hump” from Burma to China in World War II, conducted covert missions during the Korean War, and flew many missions for the CIA’s “Air America”. Some still fly to this day, for civilian airlines in remote areas. Hopefully, the MC-130J won’t also be adopting the C-46’s reputation as a maintenance nightmare that was dangerous to fly on military operations. USAF.

MC-130J becomes “Commando II”

March 15/12: Norway crash. Norway’s newest C-130J-30 crashes into Sweden’s Mount Kebnekaise at an altitude of almost 5,000 feet, during the international military exercise “Cold Response.” All 5 crew are killed, and the RNoAF is left with just 3 C-130J-30s. Read “Norway Renews Its Tactical Transport Fleet” for full coverage.

Crash

Feb 29/12: AC-130J, etc. A $70 million firm-fixed-price advance procurement contract, buying long-lead items for US AFSOC: 2 AC-130J gunships, 1 HC-130J “Combat King” Combat Search And Rescue, and 4 MC-130J “Combat Shadow” transport aircraft. This is the FY 2013 budget request, but long-lead materials to ensure on-time construction are always in the previous year’s budget.

The AC-130J is new, and hasn’t been talked about much. The current AC-130H “Spectre” and AC-130U “Spooky” gunships remain vulnerable to even light defenses like anti-aircraft cannons, and are often restricted to night flying. On the flip side, they offer unparalleled fire support volume and accuracy, up to and including 105mm howitzer fire, to help special forces and friendly troops out of jams. SOCOM’s heavy gunship fleet has seen predictably heavy usage in recent years, and needs replacement. The hanging question is what capabilities a full C-130J gunship option might have.

Work will be performed Marietta, GA, and is expected to be complete during calendar year 2016. The USAF/AFMC Aeronautical Systems Center at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH manages the contract (FA8625-11-C-6597, PO 0081).

Feb 22/12: Israel #3. Israel buys its 3rd C-130J-30, out of a formal October 2008 FMS request for up to 9 special forces capable planes. It does so by exercising a maximum $58.3 million firm-fixed-price option, on top of previous planning and advance long lead procurement funding (vid. April 8/11).

Work will be performed in Marietta, GA, and expected to be complete by Nov 30/14. The ASC/WLNN at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH is Israel’s Foreign Military Sales agent for these buys (FA8625-11-C-6597, PO 0085).

Israel: 1 C-130J-30

Feb 22/12: Support. A $7.8 million firm-fixed-price contract for C-130J and HC/MC-130J spares for at Moody Air Force Base, GA. Work will be performed in Marietta, GA, and the contract runs through Dec 31/13. USAF AMC’s Aeronautical Systems Center at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH manages the contract (FA8625-11-C-6597, PO 0085).

Feb 22/12: Engines. Rolls Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN receives a $45.2 million indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract modification, exercising an option for AE-2100D3 turboprop engine and R-391 propeller contractor logistics and technical engineering services, for the USMC’s KC-130Js.

Funds will be committed only as services are needed, and work will be performed in Indianapolis, IN until February 2013. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages this contract (N00019-09-D-0020).

Feb 16/12: #250. The 250th C-130J Super Hercules variant ever built is delivered to Dyess Air Force Base, TX. It’s the 15th of 28 planes that will ultimately be delivered to Dyess AFB by 2013.

To put that in perspective, a Jan 30/11 MC-130J delivery to US Special Operations Command marked the 2,400th C-130 delivered, of all types, since production began. Lockheed Martin.

#250

Jan 31/12: Engines. Rolls-Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN receives a $112.2 million firm-fixed-price, requirements type contract, exercising Option V/ Year 6 of the C-130J’s AE2100D3 engine and R-391 propeller support contract. That includes logistics support, program management support, engineering, spares and technical data are included.

Work will be performed in Indianapolis, IN until Jan 31/13. The Warner Robbins Air Logistics Center at Robins AFB, GA manages this contract (FA8504-07-D-0001, #0600).

Jan 31/12: Support. Lockheed Martin in Marietta, GA receives a $63 million firm-fixed-price, fixed-price-award-fee, time-and-material, and cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to support systems unique to the C-130J. Their work will include logistics support, program management support, engineering services, repairs, spares and technical data.

Work will be performed in Marietta, GA until Jan 31/14. The Warner Robbins Air Logistics Center at Robins AFB, GA manages this contract (FA8504-06-D-0001, PO 0020; Delivery order 0700).

Jan 31/12: Norway. Lockheed Martin in Marietta, GA receives a $7.8 million firm-fixed-price, time-and-material contract for spares, field support representatives, program management, return and repair support, and engineering services from the Royal Norwegian Air Force, to support their new 4-plane C-130J fleet.

Work will be performed in Marietta, GA until Jan 31/14. The Warner Robbins Air Logistics Center at Robins AFB, GA manages this contract (FA8504-06-D-0001, #0606).

Dec 28/11: Support. An $8.5 million indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract for spares and material in support of the USMC’s KC-130Js. Funds will be obligated by individual delivery orders as they are issued. Work will be performed in Marietta, GA, and is expected to be complete in December 2013. US NAVAIR manages this contract (N00019-09-D-0015).

Dec 13/11: Engines. A $10.6 million firm-fixed-price contract for 9 spare C-130J quick change engine assemblies, under the terms of the Fiscal Year Orientation Committee IV contract. The units are a split buy: 5 units for the U.S. Air Force; and 4 as a Foreign Military Sales effort for Kuwait (q.v. May 27/10, July 20/09 entries). Work will be performed in Marietta, GA, and is expected to be complete by Nov 28/14 (FA8625-11-C-6597, PO 0068).

Dec 7/11: SIGINT kit. Lockheed Martin delivers the USAF’s 4th Senior Scout containerized roll-on, roll-off signals intelligence (SIGINT) system. Senior Scout was 1st fielded in Operation Desert Storm (Iraq) in 1991, but the latest model is enhanced to be structurally compatible with the newest C-130J, adds updated system interfaces and technology enhancements, and offers better maintenance access. Lockheed Martin considers Senior Scout to be part of its DRAGON Shield series of modular ro-ro ISR offerings.

Acceptance testing is about to begin, and if all goes well, the USAF’s other 3 Senior Scouts will be converted to the same standard over the next 2 years. Lockheed Martin.

Dec 2/11: New variants. Flight International reports on Lockheed Martin EVP Ralph Heath’s presentation to the Credit Suisse aerospace and defense conference in New York. The presentation mentions 2 new variants: the stripped-down C-130XJ, without the automatic loading system and other niceties; and a more streamlined C-130NG concept aimed at the market beyond 2020.

Oct 27/11: India request. The US DSCA announces India’s official request to buy up to 6 more C-130Js, which would bring its fleet to 12. The previous May 25/07 request also asked for C-130J USAF baseline aircraft, but the order involved stretched C-130J-30s. It remains to be seen whether India will order more stretched C-130J-30s (likely), or 6 of the smaller C-130Js. The estimated cost is up to $1.2 billion.

Read “India Buys C-130J-30 Hercules for Special Forces” for full coverage.

DSCA request: India C-130J (6)

FY 2011

Israel buys #2; MATS II training contract; Block 7.0 software contract; Australian software innovation; Oman’s request; Crashworthy seating; What India left out. Deliveries: 1st SOCOM HC-130J & MC-130J, Qatar’s 4; India’s induction.

MC-130J enhancements
(click for video)

Sept 29/11: 1st MC-130J delivered. Lockheed Martin delivers the 1st of 20 MC-130J Combat Shadow IIs to United States Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC), at Cannon Air Force Base, NM. Delivery had been scheduled for August.

While the HC-130J is the combat rescue model, the MC-130J is the standard special operations insertion and cargo plane. It’s also based on a KC-130J tanker, with the UARRSI boom refueling receptacle, Enhanced Service Life Wing, Enhanced Cargo Handling System, a surveillance and targeting turret, a combat systems operator station on the flight deck, and dual SATCOM. They’re more or less the same planes, actually, just with different roles, and different operators. Initial operational capability is planned for 2012.

Sept 28/11: Qatar. Lockheed holds a delivery ceremony in Marietta, GA for Qatar’s 4 ordered C-130J-30s. Arabian Aerospace.

Qatar – full delivery

Sept 24/11: 1st HC-130J delivered. US Air Combat Command officials receive their 1st HC-130J Combat King II, at Davis-Monthan AFB in Tucson, AZ. Delivery had been scheduled for August.

The new HC-130J will be flown by the testing squadron, then members of the 79th Rescue Squadron will complete the 8 months of training needed to fly and operate the new model. USAF officials expect HC-130Js to begin regular duty at the base in early 2013. USAF.

Sept 16/11: Engines. Rolls Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN receives an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract modification to increase the ceiling on engine support contract line items for the KC-130J fleet. They include power by the hour, which pays a fixed fee per engine flight hours, and spares. The KC-130J fleet are triple-role aircraft: cargo, aerial refueling, and on-call strike aircraft (with the Harvest Hawk roll-on kit).

Work will be performed in Cherry Point, NC, and is expected to be complete in February 2012. No funding is being committed at time of award, but it’s available if needed. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages this contract, as the KC-130Js are USMC birds (N00019-09-D-0020).

July 11/11: A not to exceed $89 million firm-fixed-price contract modification commits FY 2011 Congressionally-mandated advance procurement funding for 9 C-130J family planes: 1 USAF stretched C-130J-30 aircraft, and 8 US SOCOM HC-130J/ MC-130Js.

These 9 planes will receive their main orders in FY 2012, but advance ordering ensures that manufacturing can start when that order does come in (FA8625-11-C-6597 PO 0029).

May 2/11: Qatar. The 1st of 4 Qatar Emiri Air Force C-130J-30s has completed production at the Lockheed Martin facility in Marietta, GA. It would make its first flight on June 8th. See also Oct 7/08 entry.

April 8/11: Israel #2 & 3. Israel exercises $76.2 million in fixed-price not-to-exceed (NTE) options to buy a 2nd C-130J-30 aircraft, and begin planning and advance long lead procurement for the 3rd Israeli aircraft.

This unfinalized contract also includes recurring in-line production modifications for the 2nd aircraft to include but not limited to the following: Block 6X Operational Flight Program (July 30/08 DSCA cited Block 7.0, looks like Israel-specific mods), enhanced service life wing, 2 embedded Global Positioning System Inertial Navigation System Embedded Module IVs with Precise Positioning System and GAS-1 controlled radiation pattern antenna, and a UARRSI receptacle on top of the plane to accept aerial refueling booms. The 657th AESS at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH manages the contract (FA8625-11-C-6597).

Israel: 1 C-130J-30

April 5/11: MC-130J i3. A $21.4 million contract modification for MC-130J increment 3, to develop 1 trial kit installation, and perform developmental tests of this capability on 1 MC-130J increment 2 aircraft. The overall scope of this effort is to add the C-130J Block 7.0 software upgrades, and “a special mission processor capability that include both developmental [work] and integration of known/low risk improvements.” The ASC/WLNNC at Wright Patterson AFB, OH manages the contract (FA8625-11-C-6597 PO0002).

March 31/11: Lockheed Martin Corp. in Marietta, GA receives a $10 million firm-fixed-price contract to obligate FY 2010 advance procurement funding for 1 FY 2011 C-130J aircraft. Work will be performed at Marietta, GA (FA8625-06-C-6456-P00243).

March 29/11: MC-130J rollout. Lockheed Martin officially rolls out the 1st MC-130J Combat Shadow II for the U.S. Air Force’s Special Operations Command (AFSOC). Contracts have been placed to build 15 MC-130Js, and AFSOC is authorized to buy up to 20, against an approved long term requirement for 37 to replace the aging MC-130H fleet. Initial Operational Capability with the new type is expected in 2012.

All C-130J special forces configurations are based on the KC-130J aerial tanker, as they also have aerial refueling roles for SOCOM helicopters. Beyond that, MC-130Js will have the Enhanced Service Life Wing, a boom refueling receptacle (UARRSI) so they can be refueled in mid-air, more powerful electrical generators, a day/night surveillance turret, a combat systems operator station on the flight deck, and provisions for LAIRCM missile defense systems, among others. Technically, it’s basically the same as the HC-130J, it just performs a different role. Lockheed Martin.

MC-130J rollout

March 29/11: India. Rolls Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN receives an $8.5 million firm-fixed-price contract to provide “spares, fuser, and program management support” for the Indian Air Force, to support the arrival of their new C-130J fleet. Work will be performed in Indianapolis, IN, and the Warner Robins Air Logistics Center at Robins AFB, GA manages the contract (FA8504-07-D-0001-0501).

March 22/11: USAF Air Combat Command’s HC-130J personnel recovery aircraft, completes developmental testing by receiving fuel from an aerial tanker boom. This test point also applies to AFSOC’s MC-130J Combat Shadow II aircraft.

Rollout of the first MC-130J is later celebrated at the Lockheed Martin facility in Marietta, GA on March 29/11, and the first HC-130Js and MC-130Js started deliveries in September 2011, instead of August. Initial Operational Capability for both is scheduled for 2012.

March 18/11: Support. An $8.5 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to provide C-130J logistics support through Jan 31/12. Work will be performed at Lockheed Martin Corp. in Marietta, GA (FA8625-11-C6597).

March 1/11: Australia – C-17 or C-130Js? Australian Minister for Defence Stephen Smith confirms that the government is looking into buying a 5th C-17, and has sent a Foreign Military Sale Letter of Request to the United States asking about costs and availability.

The tradeoff under consideration was whether to buy 1 more C-17A, or buy 2 more C-130J-30 Super Hercules tactical transports between 2013-2015 under project AIR 8000 Phase 1. One C-17A can carry up to 4 C-130 Hercules loads in a single lift, and cover twice the distance in three-quarters of the time. On the other hand, it costs over 3 times as much, and can’t be in 4 places at once. In the end, Australia chose to buy the C-17 instead.

Feb 14/11: The 1st MC-130J Combat Shadow II for US AFSOC completes manufacturing, and will begin flight tests after additional special mission equipment like the chin-mounted sensor turret is installed. MC-130Js work insertion missions, almost always at night. Their missions can include low-level aerial refueling missions for special operations helicopters, along with infiltration/ exfiltration, and resupply for special forces teams.

Feb 5/11: India induction. The 1st Indian C-130J-30 with Special Forces enhancements is inducted in a special ceremony at Air Force Station Hindon, India. There’s still work to do, however. IAF chief Air Chief Marshal P.V. Naik says of the American communications and security systems that were left out: “We have our own communication system and yes, we will be integrating them on the aircraft. They are already being made and they will be put on the aircraft.” Andrha News | MSN India.

Jan 31/11: Engines. Rolls-Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN receives a $203 million contract modification to cover support services for the C-130J’s AE-2100D3 engines and R-391 propellers, under the Option Year IV (5th overall year) of their support contract. Sustaining services will include logistics support, program management support, engineering services, spares and technical data.

At this time, $49.6 million has been committed by the Warner-Robins Air Logistics Center GRBKA, at Robins Air Force Base, GA (FA8504-07-D-0001, 0500).

Jan 31/11: Support. Lockheed Martin Corp. in Marietta, GA receives a $69.8 million contract modification to cover support for systems unique to the C-130J fleet, as opposed to systems that are common to C-130Js and earlier model Hercules. The contract exercises the 2nd option, covering years 6 through 8 of logistics support, program management support, engineering services, repairs, spares and technical data.

At this time, $20 million has been committed by the Warner-Robins Air Logistics Center GRBKA, at Robins Air Force Base, GA (FA8504-06-D-0001, PO 0015).

Jan 28/11: Iraq, Norway. A $16.9 million contract modification exercises an option to purchase support equipment and spares for Iraq, as well as logistic support services for Norway. Both are C-130J customers, and Norway has already received its 4 aircraft. At this time the entire amount has been obligated by the ASC/WLNNC at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH (FA8625-06-C-6456).

Jan 11/10: USA, Norway. Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems in Marietta, GA receives a $13.3 million contract modification, exercising an option to purchase support equipment and spares for the United States and Norway.

While the platform is not named, the contract number is the C-130J contract. At this time, the entire amount has been committed by the ASC/WLNNC at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH (FA8625-06-C-6456).

C130-30 India
Indian C-130J-30
(click to view full)

Dec 21/10: Sub-contractors. BAE Systems Technology Solutions & Services in Rockville, MD receives a $12 million contract for C-130J/J-30 Loadmaster crashworthy seats systems. The contract will buy 101 systems: 7 “first article” systems for testing, then up to 88 systems and 6 systems of spares. $8.5 million has been committed by the WR-ALC/GRBK at Robins AFB, GA (FA8504-11-D-0003).

Dec 17/10: India. India’s 1st C-130J is formally delivered in a ceremony at Marietta, GA.

Dec 2/10: South Korea. Lockheed Martin announces a contract with the Republic of Korea for 4 stretched C-130J-30 Super Hercules aircraft, which are a one-for-one replacement of the ROKAF’s 4 C-130H-30s in its 12-plane Hercules fleet. Deliveries will take place in 2014, and the contract also contains a 2-year support program including aircrew and maintenance training.

The absence of a previous DSCA announcement indicates that this is a Direct Commercial Sale. Prices were not disclosed, but the flyaway cost of a C-130J-30 is around $65 million, and the modifications and maintenance agreement will be extra.

South Korea: 4 C-130J-30

Nov 30/10: Training. Lockheed Martin Corp. in Orlando, FL receives a $23.3 million contract for the HC/MC-130J Special Operations variant’s weapon systems trainer. At this time, $2,044,798 has been committed by the ASC/WNSK at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH (FA8621-06-C-6300).

Nov 18/10: Oman request. The US DSCA announces [PDF] The Sultanate of Oman’s request for equipment, support and training associated with 1 stretched C-130J-30 aircraft being bought through a separate Direct Commercial Sale (see June 5/09 entry). The RAFO C-130J-30 would receive 1 AN/AAQ-24(V) Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures System, 7 AN/AAR-54 Missile Approach Warning Systems, 2 AN/ALR- 56M Radar Warning Receivers, 2 AN/ALE-47 Countermeasure Dispenser Sets, plus communication and navigation equipment, software support, repair and return, aircraft ferry and refueling support, spare and repair parts, support and test equipment, and other forms of U.S. Government and contractor support. The estimated cost is $76 million.

Lockheed Martin sells the C-130, but for this request, the prime contractor will be Northrop Grumman Corporation in Rolling Meadows, IL. Implementation of this proposed sale will require annual trips to Oman involving up to 10 U.S. Government and 10 contractor representatives for technical reviews/support, and program management for a period of approximately 6 years.

DSCA request: Oman support & defensive

Nov 10/10: A $160 million contract modification that commits FY 2010 advance procurement funding for 16 C-130J aircraft that will have their contracts completed in FY 2011. At this time, the entire amount has been committed (FA8625-06-C-6456; P00174).

Nov 8/10: Production accelerating. Flight International reports that Lockheed Martin has entered the final 12 months of F-22A production in Marietta, GA, and details the shifts underway. They add that the plant is also working to treble the C-130J’s production rate, to about 36 aircraft per year.

Oct 7/10: Australian innovation. Australian Defence magazine reports that Australian software investments are about to benefit global C-130J fleets, thanks to strong support from RAAF No. 37 squadron and the DSTO. The software is estimated to save about $2 million in maintenance hours and fuel over the plane’s lifetime. How?

Multi-engine propeller planes need to “balance” their propellers, in order to reduce vibration levels. That’s normally a labor-intensive process involving up to 5 maintenance staff, and multiple ground runs, over 1-2 days. Australia’s DSTO decided to look into a software solution that drew on an existing advanced engine monitoring capability, and coupled it with algorithms that take the flight data. Balancing now takes 2 hours, without the need for engine ground runs.

Flight tests before and after were promising, and the UK, Italy, Denmark, Canada and Norway will begin using the software soon. The USA is still reviewing the software license.

Oct 6/10: India omissions. Indian defense journalist Shiv Aroor lists the technologies that he says will not be in India’s C-130J-30 special forces aircraft, as a result of India’s refusal to sign the USA’s CISMOA End-User Monitoring agreement: AN/ARC-222 SINCGARS radios, KV-119 IFF Digital Transponder (Mode 4 Crypto Applique), TACTERM / ANDVT Secure Voice (HF) Terminal, VINSON KY-58 Secure Voice (UHF/VHF) Module, and no SINCGARS/crypto features in the embedded AN/ARC-210v SATCOM Transceiver.

Oct 5/10: India. The 1st of 6 Indian C-130J-30 special forces aircraft takes flight from Lockheed Martin’s plant and airfield in Marietta, GA.

FY 2010

USA plans to increase buy; Israel buys 1st; Kuwait buys 3; Oman requests 2 and buys 2; Tunisia buys 2; Australian modernization plan; Italian 5-year support deal; US multi-year contract proposal; Deliveries: Canada accepts 1st; Norway’s 4th and last; HC-130J rollout.

Danish C-130J
Danish C-130J
(click to view full)

Sept 13/10: A $59.8 million contract modification to buy 1 more FY 2008 OCO C-130J aircraft. At this time, $39.6 million has been committed (FA8625-06-C-6456; PO0193).

DID offers our readers the usual caveats, and reminds them that buying an aircraft doesn’t necessarily include “government furnished equipment” niceties like engines, etc.

Sept 2/10: A $315.6 million contract modification buy 3 FY 2008 “Overseas Contingency Operations” (supplemental wartime funding) C-130Js; 1 FY 2008 OCO KC-130J aerial tanker/ transport for the US Marines; and 1 FY 2010 HC-130J aircraft for US SOCOM. At this time, $250.8 million has been committed (FA8625-06-C-6456; PO0178).

Aug 31/10: Sub-contractors. UK firm GKN Aerospace announces that they have delivered the 1,000th C-130J engine nacelle. The firm has been supplying these since 1993, and plans to increase production from 18 aircraft sets (72 nacelles) per year in 2008 to “near double that” in 2011. GKN has set up a new state of the art production line at their Isle of Wight facility.

To meet this significant production rate increase GKN Aerospace has moved manufacture to an entirely new, state of the art production line at the Company’s site on the Isle of Wight, UK.

Aug 16/10: Oman contract. The Sultanate of Oman buys 2 C-130J aircraft, to complement the stretched C-130J-30 that’s already under contract for delivery in 2012. When this buy is complete, they will have replaced their existing fleet of 3 1980s-vintage C-130Hs with 3 C-130Js.

The 2 new C-130Js will not be the stretched J-30 version discussed in the July 2/10 DSCA announcement, and will be delivered in 2103 and 2014. Price is not disclosed, and the DSCA announcement referred to a “direct commercial sale” of the aircraft themselves, to accompany Oman’s request to buy up to $54 million worth of defensive equipment and support through the Foreign Military Sale procedure.

Oman: 2 C-130J

Aug 5/10: Italian support. Finmeccanica subsidiary Alenia Aeronautica signs a 5-year, EUR 155 million (about $203 million) contract with the Italian Air Force to provide technical and logistical support services to their fleet of 20-21 C-130Js and C-130J-30s.

Alenia will partner with Avio and Lockheed Martin to offer a fully integrated service that will be responsible for the supply of spare parts, management of the supply chain, equipment maintenance including landing gear, the maintenance of the Air Ground Equipment (AGE), and engineering support activities, including responsibility for the C-130J flight simulator based at the 46th Air Brigade of Pisa.

Alenia will have overall responsibility, and will execute most of the work. Avio will be in charge of the complete propulsion system, including overhaul and technical/logistical and engineering assistance to the Aeronautica Militare’s 92 Rolls Royce AE2100D3 engines. C-130J builder Lockheed Martin will be responsible for the supply of repair components produced in the U.S. and for any modifications. These 3 companies have been providing support and technical and logistical assistance to the Italian C-130J fleet since 2007.

Italy support

HC-130J
click to play video

July 29/10: The 1st production HC-130J personnel recovery variant flies at Lockheed Martin’s facility in Marietta, GA. It’s due for delivery to USAF Air Combat Command in September 2010, and is scheduled to reach initial operational capability in 2012. An Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOCOM) MC-130J variant of this aircraft will fly in early 2011.

July 20/10: Canada Engine support. Rolls Royce announces a contract from Lockheed Martin. The base contract to support the Canadian CC-130Js’ AE 2100D3 engines is worth USD $70 million, and the entire contract could be worth up to $260 million over the CC-130J fleet’s lifetime.

Under this contract, Rolls-Royce will be providing all engine management and repair, logistics support and on-site technical support for the engine. It is paired with the long-term fleet support contract mentioned in the Dec 18/09 entry. Read “Replacing Canada’s Failing CC-130s: 17 C-130Js” for full coverage.

Canada engine support

July 1/10: Norway. The last of 4 ordered RNoAF C-130J-30s heads off to Norway. Read “Norway Renews Its Tactical Transport Fleet” for full coverage.

Norway: all delivered

July 2/10: Oman request. The US DSCA announces Oman’s request to buy additional equipment, logistics support, and training for 2 stretched C-130J-30 aircraft, which are being bought via a Direct Commercial Sale outside of the DSCA’s Foreign Military Sales process. Additional military equipment bought under FMS rules includes 2 AN/AAR-47 Missile Approach Warning Systems, 2 AN/ALR-56M Radar Warning Receivers, 2 AN/ALE-47 Countermeasure Dispenser Sets, plus communication equipment, software support, repair and return, installation, aircraft ferry and refueling support, spare and repair parts, support and test equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, and other forms of U.S. government and contractor support. The estimated cost is up to $54 million.

The Royal Air Force of Oman currently operates 3 C-130H aircraft, and has already bought 1 C-130J-30 (q.v. June 5/09). They can absorb the new equipment, but a sale would require annual trips to Oman involving up to 10 U.S. Government and 10 contractor representatives for technical reviews/support, and program management for a period of approximately 6 years.

DSCA request: Oman support & training

June 18/10: Multi-year proposal. The Hill reports that Lockheed Martin continues to work on a multi-year C-130J buy, and that the current negotiations for 65 C-130Js would serve as a starting point. Lockheed Martin’s international VP for air mobility business development, Jack Crisler, says the key target is 10% savings demonstrated, adding that his firm plans to propose the multi-year contract in September-October 2010.

The proposal could also become more inclusive, potentially adding US Special Operations and US Coast Guard aircraft. If other multi-year deals serve as any guide, the deal might also end up including foreign buys, which would benefit from the US government’s volume pricing. USAF acquisition chief David Van Buren says the USAF is receptive to the idea, but past discussions haven’t shown that 10%+ savings over the existing year-by-year contracts. The USAF reportedly pegs the current price of a C-130J, without spares or Government-Furnished Equipment such as engines and some electronics, optional refueling pods, etc. at $57.6 million.

June 4/10: Canada acceptance. Canada formally accepts the first of 17 CC-130J Super Hercules aircraft, to the Canadian Forces 8 Wing in Trenton, ON, 6 months ahead of the original delivery schedule. The remaining 16 aircraft will begin delivery in winter 2010 as planned, with deliveries running into 2012. Canadian DND.

May 27/10: Kuwait contract. Lockheed Martin Corp. in Marietta, GA announces a $245 million contract to provide 3 KC-130J aerial tankers to the government of Kuwait. This order is part of a larger approved request to buy up to 8 KC-130Js and associated equipment (see July 20/09 entry).

KC-130Js will provide aerial refueling for the Kuwait air force’s F/A-18 C/D fighter fleet, and augment its current airlift fleet of 3 L-100s (civilian C-130). Kuwait’s KC-130Js also will perform air mobility, disaster relief and humanitarian missions throughout the world.

Kuwait: 3 KC-130J

April 30/10: Israel +1. Lockheed Martin Corp. in Marietta, GA receives a $98.6 million contract, to provide one C-130J aircraft for the government of Israel. The contract also includes additional non-developmental items for the aircraft, and $18.5 million of foreign military financing has been committed by the 657th AESS at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH (FA8625-06-C-6456).

This order has been some time in negotiation, and follows a July 30/08 DSCA announcement that covered up to $1.9 billion for 9 stretched C-130J-30 aircraft, with Special Operations features.

Israel: 1 C-130J-30

April 19/10: HC-130J rollout. Lockheed Martin rolls out the first HC-130J combat rescue tanker, at an official ceremony in Marietta, GA. The 563rd Rescue Group, based at Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ and at Kirtland AFB, NM will be the first bases to receive the new model for training purposes once it has undergone initial testing, which typically takes about a year. Initial Operational Capability is slated for 2012. Maj. Gen. Thomas K. Andersen, USAF Air Combat Command’s director of requirements, said that:

“The recapitalization of the C-130 fleet is a big deal and the new model represents a quantum leap in technology which allows us to continue completing the mission. Right now, the C-130 has one of the lowest availability rates [emphasis DID’s] in the Air Force and the introduction of the J-model will increase that rate by 46% as well as decrease needed crewmembers from 7 to 5.”

The HC-130J, like all of the Special Forces C-130Js, uses a KC-130J tanker baseline. It adds the Enhanced Service Life Wing, Enhanced Cargo Handling System, a dorsal aerial refueling boom receptacle, an electro-optical/infrared sensor, a combat systems operator station on the flight deck, and provisions for the large aircraft infrared countermeasures system (LAIRCM) missile defense system. The maintenance techs especially appreciate the C-130J-standard improved diagnostic systems, as opposed to the C-130H models’ more manual approach. Lockheed Martin is currently contracted to build 21 HC/MC-130Js, and the USAF is currently authorized to buy up to 31 (11 HC-130J, 20 MC-130J). USAF | Lockheed Martin.

HC-130J rollout

April 6/10: Engines. Rolls-Royce announces $51 million engine production and MissionCare services contract for the AE 2100D3 engines on the USMC’s KC-130J tanker. The award falls under a 4-year contract with US Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), which is administered at NAS Patuxent River, MD.

Rolls-Royce will provide engines, engine management, support, trouble shooting, parts supply and logistics support for aircraft operating at 3 US Marine Air Stations: Miramar, CA; Cherry Point, NC; and Okinawa, Japan.

April 3/10: The first HC-130J combat rescue tanker leaves Lockheed Martin’s main assembly building in Marietta, GA. The plane next steps include a trip to the painting facility, production flight testing, and formal presentation to the USAF on April 19/10. The HC-130J will be delivered later in 2010, then undergo operational flight testing to meet an Initial Operating Capability target of mid-2012. Lockheed Martin release.

April 1/10: Support. Lockheed Martin in Marietta, GA received a $77.1 million modification to a previously awarded indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract (N00019-09-D-0015) to provide additional funding for logistics and engineering services in support of the US Marine Corps KC-130J aircraft.

Work will be performed in Cherry Point, NC (36%), Miramar, CA (36%), and Okinawa, Japan (28%), and is expected to be complete in December 2010. The Naval Air Systems Command manages the contract.

April 1/10: SAR – more C-130Js. The Pentagon releases its April 2010 Selected Acquisitions Report, covering major program changes up to December 2009. The C-130J is featured, because the US military wants more of them:

“C-130J – Program costs increased $3,148.8 million (+26.2%) from $12,029.3 million to $15,178.1 million, due primarily to a quantity increase of 34 aircraft from 134 to 168 aircraft (+$2,749.3 million), and increases in other support costs (+$972.8 million) and initial spares (+$394.7 million) associated with the quantity increase. These increases were partially offset by decreases for actual contract values for aircraft costs (-$541.5 million), to properly account for advanced procurement that was erroneously reflected in the previous report (-$246.0 million), and for funding reductions in fiscal 2010 through fiscal 2015 (-$140.9 million).”

SAR – more C-130Js

March 2/10: Tunisia contract. Lockheed Martin announces an unspecified contract with Tunisia for 2 C-130J-30 stretched transports, and says the contract was signed in February 2010.

Deliveries are scheduled for 2013-2014, and the Tunisian contract also contains an initial 3 years of logistics support. The country currently operates a fleet of C-130Hs and C-130Bs, first purchased in the mid-1980s.

Tunisia: 2 C-130J-30

Feb 25/10: Australia upgrades. Australia’s government announces that they have approved AUD $45 million to upgrade and modernize their C-130J fleet, as part of a multi-national Joint User Group Global Project Arrangement with United States, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Norway, Canada and Italy. The “Block 7.0” upgrades will address system obsolescence, maintain international compatibility, and enable these aircraft to comply with new global air traffic standards. Defence minister Sen. Faulkner is quoted as saying that:

“Importantly, there is likely to be significant opportunity for Australian Industry to be involved in the national installation and support of the upgrade. Funding for these elements will be considered by Government following successful testing of the first modification kit on an Australian C-130J. [as a] risk management strategy.”

Feb 1/10: Engines. Rolls-Royce Corp. of Indianapolis, IN receives a $146 million firm-fixed-price contract, exercising Option III (year 4) of logistics support, program management support, engineering services, spares and technical data in support of the C-130J propulsion systems. This includes the AE2100D3 engine, and the R-391 propeller as well.

At this time, $42.7 million has been committed by the 330th ACSG/GFKA at Robins AFB, GA (FA8504-07-D-0001, Delivery #0400).

Jan 22/10: Support. A $16.7 million contract completely funds an “engineering change proposal” (ECP) to replace the C-130J’s Star VII mission computer. (FA8625-06-C-6456).

Jan 13/10: Canada. The 1st Lockheed Martin C-130J Super Hercules produced for Canada leaves the company’s paint facility in Marietta, Georgia.

CC-130J painted
CC-130J: just painted
(click to view full)

Dec 18/09: Canada support. The Government of Canada signs a C$ 723 million (currently $698 million) contract amendment with Lockheed Martin. This initial CC-130J fleet support funding covers an initial 5 1/2 year period ending June 30/16.

The contract also includes a mechanism to extend the period of in-service support throughout the fleet’s service life, to 20 years or more. Public Works Canada release.

Canada support

Dec 22/09: Support. Lockheed Martin Corp. in Orlando, FL receives a $14.5 million contract to provide FY 2010 operations and maintenance services for the C-130J. At this time, $3.5 million has been committed (FA8621-06-C-6300, P000046).

Dec 19/09: The 86th Airlift Wing at Ramstein AB, Germany, flies its first C-130J Super Hercules mission in support of U.S. Air Forces Africa to bring home 17 American troops from a training mission in Mali. 37th Airlift squadron of the 86th Airlift Wing, 17th Air Force flew the mission.

The USAF release cites the C-130J’s increased range as a helpful factor in Africa, and also cites the aircraft’s improved cargo capacity, especially in hot and/or high-altitude conditions. A pickup of this nature exercises the former but not the latter, expanding operational familiarity with the aircraft, in return for higher operating costs to perform this particular mission.

Nov 23/09: Italian crash. Italian air force C-130J #MM62176 crashes and burns after a touch-and-go landing, during a routine training sortie from Pisa. The crash kills both pilots, and all 3 passengers. It could have been worse – the plane crashed on a nearby railway line, but an oncoming train managed to stop.

C-130J MM62176 was delivered to Italy in 2000 as its 1st of 12 regular C-130Js, but was later adapted for tanker applications. The Italians have not halted flying operations with their remaining 21 C-130Js, which include 1 KC-130J and 10 stretched C-130J-30s.

This is not the 1st C-130J lost. On Feb 12/07, A UK Royal Air Force C-130J was extensively damaged by 2 land mines that were detonated while it was landing on a semi-prepared strip in southern Iraq. The British decided to destroy the plane. Flight International.

Crash

Nov 9/09: Engines. Rolls-Royce announces an $8.5 million contract to provide AE 2100D3 spare engine parts to power the C-130J military transport aircraft for the US Air Force. As part of this order, deployable kits and initial provisioning spares will be delivered to Cannon AFB in NM, Dyess AFB in TX and Ramstein Air Base in Germany.

The contract, which is managed by Robins Air Force Base in GA, involves an initial 956 AE 2100D3 spare engines parts for delivery through 2011.

Oct 20/09: Industrial. Lockheed Martin CFO Bruce Tanner, discussing Q3 2009 earnings, reveals that global C-130J deliveries will grow from 12 aircraft in 2008 to 16 in 2009 and 26 in 2010. Q3 Earnings slides [PDF] | Flight International.

Oct 19/09: Shadow Harvest. Flight International reports that Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works division wants clearance to export its “Shadow Harvest” roll-on/roll-off suite of intelligence sensors for the C-130 Hercules, which was developed for the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) with sponsorship from the Miami, Florida-based Southern Command.

Shadow Harvest is designed to identify targets concealed under camouflage or foliage, and reportedly includes BAE’s SPIRITT hyperspectral camera, and a low frequency/ multi-band synthetic aperture radar (MB-SAR), among other sensors, plus containerized roll on/off controllers and displays. It’s expected to become an official USAF program of record by 2012.

Oct 19/09: C-130 plans. Flight International has a video of 2 USAF Colonels who are answering questions regarding a number of C-130-related programs, including potential future gunships, programs to add weapons to C-130s beyond the USMC’s KC-130Js, SOCOM programs, etc.

Oct 16/09: Lockheed Martin Corp. in Marietta, GA received an $827.4 million contract for advance procurement funding for 3 FY 2010 C-130J aircraft, 4 FY 2010 HC-130J aircraft, and 4 FY 2010 MC-130J aircraft. An option is being exercised for the acquisition of 1 HC-130J aircraft to be fully funded with FY10 funds. Note that MC/HC-130Js are Special Operations aircraft.

At this time, $8.3 million has been obligated. The 657 AESS/SYKA at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH manages the contract (FA8625-06-C-6456, P00087).

Oct 5/09: Lockheed Martin officially launches production of its HC/MC-130J special forces search-and-rescue aircraft. Future upgrades involve an internal investment to design a retractable housing for the aircraft’s MTS-A turret, in order to reduce drag and extend range. Other possibilities reportedly include airframe changes to accommodate more equipment, possibly including an enlarged nose section, and a wider cross-section for the fuselage. Flight International.

FY 2009

Qatar orders 4; Iraq orders 4; USA begins arming C-130Js; UAE says “maybe”; France interested – really?!?; Australian 5-year support deal; Canadian 5-year support deal; Shadow Harvest kit clearance?; Italian crash; Video re: USAF thinking.

AE 2100 engine
AE2100 engine
c. Rolls-Royce plc 2009
(click to view full)

Sept 30/09: Support. Lockheed Martin Corp., of Orlando FL received a $9.9 million contract which will provide for FY 2010 C-130J maintenance and training, as orders are placed by the 677th AESG/SYK at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH (FA8621-06-C-6300).

Sept 10/09: Engines. Rolls Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN receives an $11.1 million modification to a previously awarded indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract (N00019-09-D-0020) from the U.S. Marine Corps, for 3 of the C-130J’s AE2100D3 turboprop engines. Work will be performed in Cherry Point, N.C., and is expected to be complete in May 2012. The Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages this contract.

Aug 24/09: Engines. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. in Marietta, GA receives a $30.2 million modified contract to purchase the quick engine change assemblies for American C/KC/BC/HC/MC-130J aircraft, and Foreign Military Sale aircraft for Norway and India.

“At this time $31,972,726 has been obligated.” The US Aeronautical Systems Center at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH manages this contract (FA8625-06-C-6456).

Aug 11/09: Iraq order. A $140.3 million unfinalized firm-fixed-price contract modification for 2 more Iraqi C-130J-30s, completing their 6-aircraft request. The contract also includes engineering and integration tasks associated with Iraq’s distinctive C-130J-30 configuration.

At this time no funds have been obligated. The 657 AESS at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH manages this contract (FA8625-06-C-6456/P00098). Read “Iraq Orders C-130Js” for all contracts and requests related to that program.

Iraq: 2 C-130J-30

July 20/09: Kuwait request. The US DSCA announces [PDF] Kuwait’s official request to buy up to 8 KC-130J cargo/refueling aircraft and associated equipment, parts and support for an estimated cost $1.8 billion. This would significantly upgrade Kuwait’s air force, which currently lacks aerial refueling aircraft, and depends on just 3 L100 civilian C-130E equivalents for transport duties. Kuwait’s purchase would reinforce a trend in the Gulf Cooperation Council, which has seen similar purchases and requests in the last year from Saudi Arabia (A330s), Qatar (C-130J-30s), and the UAE (C-17s, C-130Js pending).

Kuwait has requested 8 KC-130Js with the accompanying 32 AE-2100D3 Turbo propeller engines, plus 8 spare AE-2100D3 Turbo propeller engines, 4 AN/ALR-56M Radar Warning Receivers, 4 AN/AAR-47 Missile Approach Warning Systems, 4 AN/ALE-47 Countermeasures Dispenser Sets, and 20 AN/ARC-210 (RT-1851A(U)) Very High Frequency/Ultra High Frequency HAVEQUICK/SINCGARS Radio Systems. The contract, to be negotiated, would also include spare and repair parts, support equipment, personnel training and training equipment, and other related elements of program support.

The principal contractor will be Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company in Marietta, Georgia. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

DSCA request: Kuwait KC-130J (8)

June 5-15/09: France? With the A400M program seriously behind schedule, and a fleet of C-160 and Lockheed Martin C-130H tactical transports that continue to see heavy demand, France is apparently looking at the one option its government had said would not be considered.

French Defense Minister Herve Morin is quoted as saying that the government has expanded its stopgap options to include lease or purchase of some C-130Js; and Bloomberg reports that France has officially requested C-130J availability and performance data for review. Other possibilities for France include stepped up per-hour leasing of Russian AN-124s under NATO’s SALIS pool, per-hour C-17 leasing under NATO’s SAC pool, acquisition or lease of EADS’ smaller C-295Ms, or advancing their planned Airbus 330 MRTT aerial tanker & transport buy. France has also approved the modernization of its 10 newest C160 Transalls so they can remain in service until the first A400Ms arrive, which is now expected to happen in 2014-15.

These options group themselves by tradeoffs. Some contenders (C-295M, A330 MRTT) lack the reinforced floors required for dense tactical loads like armored vehicles. Others (AN-124, A330 MRTT, C-17s to lesser extent) require longer runways to operate from, which removes some of their utility as front line delivery aircraft. Range and refueling capability are potential issues for some (C-295M, some C-130Js), while maintaining overall fleet strength and front line airlift availability is a concern in other cases (AN-124, C-17, A330 MRTT to some extent). The C-130J sits in the middle of many of these tradeoffs, which may be why it has climbed back into consideration. Bloomberg.

June 5/09: Oman order. Lockheed Martin announces that the Sultanate of Oman has ordered a single stretched C-130J-30, to complement its 3 existing C-130H aircraft which were bought in the 1980s. Price is not disclosed.

The Lockheed Martin release doesn’t mention the UAE as a customer, despite earlier reports that contracts had been negotiated at IDEX 2009 (see Feb 25/09 entry). Company representatives informed DID that they are in final negotiations with the UAE, but have no contract yet, adding that negotiations are also underway with Israel (see July 30/08 entry).

Oman: 1 C-130J-30

May 27/09: Engines. Rolls-Royce announces an $80 million contract to provide AE 2100D3 spare engines and parts to power the C-130J military transport aircraft for the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Marine Corps, the Royal Norwegian Air Force and the Indian Air Force.

The contract, which is managed by Robins Air Force Base in GA, involves an initial 27 AE 2100D3 spare engines and parts for delivery through 2011.

May 8/09: Armed C-130Js. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. in Marietta, GA received a $22.8 million firm-fixed-price contract to develop a roll-on, roll-off armed targeting capability for the Marine Corps’ KC-130J. The program is known as Harvest Hawk.

Work will be performed in Palmdale, CA and is expected to be complete in December 2009. Contract funds in the amount of $15.5 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured (N00019-09-C-0053).

May 4/09: Armed C-130Js. The USAF is also interested in roll-on armament for its C-130 fleet, and issues a PIXS solicitation for a “Precision Strike Pkg 360 Degree Situational Awareness Camera System.” The solicitation adds that:

“This system would operate at altitudes at or above 10,000 feet and act as a hostile fire indicator system to provide aircrew with the ability to virtually scan the outside of the aircraft for hostile ground threats that would possibly target them. This system is part of a broader Persistence Strike Package (PSP). The purpose of the PSP program is to add a modular PSP to a medium lift cargo aircraft, to include a medium caliber gun and Stand-Off Precision Guided Munitions (SOPGM).”

April 30/09: Iraq order. Lockheed Martin of Marietta, GA receives a maximum $292.8 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to buy 4 C-130J-30 aircraft for the Iraqi government. At this time, $6.9 million has been obligated. The 657 AESS in Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH issued the contract (FA8625-06-C-6456,P00080).

Note the July 25/08 entry. The initial request was for 6 aircraft. Since the DSCA request went unchallenged, Iraq’s government has the freedom to buy up to 2 more aircraft at a later date.

Iraq: 4 C-130J-30

April 30/09: The Air Force is modifying a fixed price contract with Lockheed Martin Corp., of Marietta, GA for $15.8 million. This contract modification will exercise options to purchase Special Forces configuration equipment for 6 MC-130J Global War on Terror aircraft. At this time, the entire amount has been obligated. 657 AESS, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio is the contracting activity (FA8625-06-C-6456).

March 11/09: Australia support deal. Australia’s Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) announces a contract to EADS Eurocopter subsidiary Australian Aerospace to provide Through Life Support services for the RAAF’s fleet of 12 C-130J and stretched C-130J-30 Hercules aircraft. Australian Aerospace already supports the RAAF’s AP-3C maritime patrol aircraft, so this is not a huge departure for the firm. Lockheed Martin will be the sub-contractor for aircraft maintenance, engineering, and supply chain management; and engine support will continue to be provided by Dubai Aerospace Enterprise subsidiary StandardAero under an existing contract arrangement.

The contract is worth up to A$ 292 million, and is structured as a 5-year rolling contract whose continuation will reportedly be linked to demonstrated performance and cost containment, with an eye to: improved delivery of services; performance-based, long-term, support arrangements; relationship with the Commonwealth; price disclosure; and meaningful transfer of risk. Contract extensions can continue under these arrangements, through to expected life-of-type in 2030.

RAAF Air Vice-Marshal Thorne says that the contract will create over 80 additional industry jobs in the Sydney/Richmond area over the next year. Australian DoD.

Australia support

March 5/09: Britain. Britain’s RAF is under strain, trying to sustain an aerial supply bridge for 8,000 deployed troops in Afghanistan. With its 20 C-130Ks (C1/C3) being forced toward retirement, Aviation Week reports [link now broken] that Britain is looking at the possibility of leasing 5 C-130Js as a potential “bridge” until the A400Ms can begin to arrive, and/or finding ways to add to their 6-plane C-17 fleet.

Senior British Defense Ministry officials are believed to have met on March 4/09 to examine proposals for the ministry’s next “Planning Round 09.” Airlift and budget issues would have been prominent within those discussions.

Feb 27/09: Engines. Rolls Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN receives a $106 million indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract for logistics support, technical engineering support services, and spare engines and associated parts for the U.S. Marine Corps KC-130J, which includes the AE2100D3 turboprop engine and Dowty R391 propeller.

The KC-130J MissionCare contract is a single contract line item number is used to pay a fixed price based on aircraft hours flown. Under the terms of the agreement, Rolls-Royce will provide engine management, support, trouble shooting, parts supply and logistics support for the aircraft, operating at 3 U.S. Marine Air Stations: Miramar, CA, Cherry Point, NC and Okinawa, Japan.

The contract covers a base year plus 3 option years, with the base year funded at $39.1 million and running to February 2010. This contract was not competitively procured by the Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD (N00019-09-D-0020).

Feb 26/09: Norway engine support. Rolls-Royce announces a $23 million MissionCare support services and spares contract for AE 2100D3 engines. The engines are installed on the Royal Norwegian Air Force’s (RNoAF) C-130Js.

The contract is modeled after the USAF’s Power By The Hour contract, providing a comprehensive support package to the RNoAF on a per-engine flight-hour basis. The contract covers on-site technical support, maintenance support, training, provision of spare parts, supply replenishment with the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) for the engine, and supply of an R391 Dowty propeller.

Feb 25/09: UAE. The UAE announces an AED 5.9 billion (about $1.6 billion) deal for 12 of Lockheed Martin’s C-130J medium-range tactical transports, which will accompany a deal for 4 of Boeing’s larger C-17s. Abu Dhabi’s privately-owned Waha Capital usually finances airline purchases, and has been tapped to finance the C-17 and C-130J contracts.

Neither deal is finalized, and the C-17 contract takes a while. The C-130J contract remains unsigned as of September 2012.

Feb 2/09: Engines. The USAF is modifying a contract to Rolls-Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN for $120 million, in return for spares, program management support, engineering services, and technical data in support of the C-130J’s AE 2100D3 engine and R-391 propeller. At this time $17.5 million has been committed, and the contract will be managed by 330 ACSG/GFKA at Robins AFB, GA (FA8504-07-D-0001, P00004).

Dec 16/08: Industrial. Reuters reports that Lockheed Chairman and CEO Robert Stevens told the Reuters Aerospace and Defense Summit in Washington that the company expected to sell “hundreds [of C-130Js] domestically and hopefully hundreds internationally” in coming years. “We’re building one airplane a month and our goal is to maybe double that…” he said.

Dec 12/08: Engines. Rolls Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN received a $6 million modification to a previously awarded indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract (N00019-03-D-0002). The Us Marine Corps is buying 2 more AE2100D3 turboprop engines for their KC-130Js.

Work will be performed in Indianapolis, IN and is expected to be complete in July 2010. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages this contract.

Dec 3/08: Canada. The Ottawa Citizen’s defense reporter Davd Pugliese reports that Canada has signed a contract for early delivery of 2 of its 15 ordered C-130Js. One aircraft will arrive in June 2010, and the other will arrive in July 2010.

This still misses the RFP’s original must-deliver date of early 2009, but that was based on a contract being signed in 2006, instead of in 2008. Under the signed 2008 contract, the delivery deadline for the first Canadian C-130J would have been January 2011.

Dec 1/08: MC-130J mods. The USAF is modifying a firm-fixed-price not-to-exceed $74.9 million contract to Lockheed Martin Corp in Marietta, GA. It includes time and material and cost reimbursement, and covers an Engineering Change Proposal for one-time efforts to incorporate Special Operations Forces-unique modifications in the MC-130J. At this time, $19.6 million has been committed (FA8625-06-C-6456).

See also the related June 13/08 entry.

Oct 7/08: Qatar order. Qatar recently moved to upgrade its military transport capabilities by buying 2 C-17 strategic airlifters, and 18 AW139 utility helicopters. Now it will also add 4 stretched C-130J-30 tactical transports, under a recent $393.6 million deal with Lockheed Martin.

Qatar has never flown C-130s, so the package includes 4 aircraft, training of aircrew and maintenance technicians, spares, ground support and test equipment, servicing carts, forklifts, loading vehicles, cargo pallets, and a team of technical specialists who will be based in Qatar during an initial support period. See also July 29/08 entry.

Qatar: 4 C-130J-30

FY 2008

Canada orders 17; India orders 6; HC/MC-130J special forces configurations unveiled, get initial US orders; Qatar orders 4; Italian 3-year support deal; Israel request; Iraq request; 1st US Coast Guard C-130J delivered; As US SAR points to program growth, Lockheed confident C-130J will make it.

KC-130J USMC Right Bank
USMC KC-130J
(click to view full)

Aug 14/08: Sub-contractors. Rockwell Collins Aerospace and Electronics, Inc. in Portland, OR received a $7.2 (in total ceiling amount) firm-fixed-price, Basic Order Agreement (BOA) for spares, repairs, and engineering services and support of HGS-3000 heads-up display system for the C-130J aircraft sustainment program.

Work will be performed 100% in Portland, Ore and is anticipated to be complete at the conclusion of the BOA in August 2013. Funds will be obligated as each job order is identified. This contract was competitively procured via Federal Business Opportunities, Navy Electronic Commerce Online, and the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane website with one offer received by the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division in Crane, IN (N00164-08-G-WT00).

July 30/08: Israel. The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency notifies Congress [PDF] of Israel’s request for up to 9 stretched C-130J-30s, including a number of ‘non-standard’ equipment items associated with Special Forces use. The total value could be as high as $1.9 billion.

Read Israel Orders ‘Special’ C-130J-30s for full coverage.

DSCA request: Israel C-130J-30 (9)

July 29/08: Qatar. DACIS reports [link now broken] that The Qatari Ministry of Defense has awarded Lockheed Martin an undisclosed contract for C-130J Hercules transports. While no DSCA announcement has been issued, there are civilian versions of the C-130 that would not require a Foreign Military Sale request. Later announcements reveal that Qatar ordered 4 planes.

The move comes just a couple of weeks after Qatar signed deals with an estimated $1.5 billion value, acquiring 2 C-17 strategic transport aircraft, and 18 AW139 light/medium utility helicopters. The Persian Gulf sheikhdom doesn’t have a real military transport fleet at the moment, just a VIP flight of business and passenger jets. With these 3 contracts, Qatar has now modernized its aged utility helicopter fleet, and acquired longer-range military transports to back that up. See subsequent announcement on Oct 7/08.

July 25/08: Iraq request. The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency announces [PDF] Iraq’s official request for 6 stretched C-130J-30 aircraft, which will supplement the 3 refurbished C-130E’s that currently form Iraq’s medium transport fleet.

The estimated cost is $1.5 billion, and the prime contractor will be Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company in Fort Worth, TX and Rolls-Royce Corporation in Indianapolis, IN. Going forward, up to 10 U.S. Government and 10 contractor representatives will participate in 2-week long annual technical and program management reviews. Lockheed Martin and Rolls Royce aren’t the only contractors for this request, however, which also includes defensive equipment from Alliant Techsystems and BAE Systems. The detailed request includes:

  • 6 stretched C-130J-30 aircraft identical to the USAF baseline standard
  • 28 Rolls Royce AE 2100D3 engines, (24 installed, 4 spare)
  • 8 of ATK’s AN/AAR-47 Missile Warning Systems (6 installed, 2 spare)
  • 8 of BAE’s AN/ALE-47 Countermeasures Dispensing Systems (6 installed, 2 spare)

Plus a stock of spare and repair parts, configuration updates, integration studies, support equipment, publications and technical documentation, technical services, personnel training and training equipment, foreign liaison office support, U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics personnel services, construction, and other related elements of logistics support.

DSCA request: Iraq C-130J-30 (6)

July 17/08: Industrial. It was touch-and-go for a while, but the C-130J’s future now looks much more assured. Ross Reynolds, vice president of C-130 Programs for Lockheed Martin, announces that the company has notched 221 C-130J orders, with a current backlog of 58 aircraft. Flight International’s article adds that:

“Having dropped plans to upgrade its ‘Legacy Herks’ under Boeing’s troubled avionics modernization programme (AMP) the USAF has instead opted for new aircraft, based on a common airframe derived from the US Marine Corps’ KC-130J. The new requirement initially calls for 115 aircraft; initially comprising 78 HC-130Js for Air Combat Command and 37 MC-130Js for AFSOC. In anticipation of the huge new USAF requirement, Lockheed Martin says that it is ready to ramp up production to 24 aircraft per year from the current 12.”

July 15/08: Sub-contractors. Lockheed Martin holds a briefing at the Farnborough International Airshow 2008 concerning its new HC-130J and MC-130J configurations. In addition, Lockheed Martin discussed 3 new technologies that will become part of all future C-130Js: (1) a Global Digital Map Unit built by Israel’s Elbit Systems; (2) a TacView Portable Mission Display for mission planning and in-flight replanning, built by Canada’s CMC, who recently finished a delivery to US AFSOC for its AC-130H/U gunships; and CMC’s InegriFlight commercial GPS Landing System Sensor Unit to give the planes an Instrument Flight Rules and civil-certified Global Navigational Satellite System. CMC Electronics | Flight International re: TacView.

June 13/08: +6 SOCOM. The Air Force is modifying a firm fixed price contract with Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company of Marietta GA by $470 million, as an unfinalized contract to buy 6 HC/MC-130J special operations aircraft. The aircraft will be bought in FY 2009, and this contract includes associated long lead material and non-recurring aircraft production efforts using FY 2008 advance procurement funding. At this time $75 million has been committed by the USAF/AFMC, Aeronautical Systems Center (ASC) at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH (FA8625-06-C-6456 P00037).

The new variant will add several features to the baseline KC-130J, including Block 6.5 flight-control software, an extended service life wing, an enhanced cargo handling system, a boom refueling receptacle, and electro-optical/infrared camera, a combat systems station and armor.

This move effectively abandons an earlier option of holding a competition to replace existing HC/MC-130s. The USAF is authorized to replace the 68 oldest HC/MC-130N/Ps, including some that entered service in 1964. Whether it chooses to replace its entire inventory with C-130J variants remains an open question at this point; a future competition is not impossible. See also USAF release | Flight International.

May 30/08: Engines. Rolls Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN received a $9.7 million modification to a previously awarded indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract (N00019-03-D-0002) for logistics support, technical engineering support services, and spare engines and associated parts for the U.S. Marine Corps KC-130J, which includes the AE2100D3 turboprop engine and R391 propeller.

Work will be performed at the Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, NC and is expected to be completed in November 2008. The Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD is managing the contract.

May 28/08: HC/MC-130J. Lockheed Martin unveils its privately-developed HC/MC-130J at the ILA exhibition in Berlin. It can be refueled in flight, ad can also mount the KC-130J’s refueling pods to act as a tanker itself. Advanced imaging and radar systems for low-level night flights and battlefield surveillance, modern electronics including the addition of a dual-display combat systems operator station, and a wing with longer service life round out the enhancements.

This tailored common core special operations variant is intended to the HC-130N/P King Bird CSAR/tanker, MC-130E/H Combat Talon special forces transports, and MC-130P Combat Shadow special forces transports/tankers. Lockheed also hopes that this hopes new common core airframe will form the basis of a future gunship to replace existing AC-130s; see the Additional Readings section, however, for questions about the design’s appropriateness to the future Special Operations environment.

SOCOM has issued an official acquisition decision memorandum for 68 aircraft has now been issued to replace the older MC-130E, MC-130P and HC-130P aircraft, with an overall program target of 115 aircraft and an initial operational capability (IOC) date of 2012. In the absence of orders, Lockheed Martin has used private funds in order to ensure timely development, though India’s recent billion-dollar order of 6-12 MC-130J type aircraft has helped ease the risk. Lockheed Martin is also keenly aware that the larger Airbus A400M’s biggest disadvantage is the fact that deliveries are expected to begin in 2011, with a substantial order backlog of about 180 aircraft. By accelerating its own efforts, they place their future competitor at maximum disadvantage for the prestigious US SOCOM contract, which can then be levered into niche-role contracts with other countries looking to boost their special forces and search-and-rescue capabilities. Flight International.

HC/MC-130J design unveiled

May 9/08: Support. GE Aviation Systems LLC of Sterling, VA received a firm fixed price contract for $9.4 million to establish organizational level propeller repair capability for the C-130J aircraft at 8 different bases. At this time all funds have been committed. Robbins AFB, GA issued the contract (FA8504-080C-0002).

April 7/08: SAR. The USA decides to buy more C-130Js, and that means higher overall program costs which must be note in the Pentagon’s Selected Acquisition Reports release:

“Program costs increased $3,958.2 million (+49.0 percent) from $8,071.1 million to $12,029.3 million, due primarily to a quantity increase of 52 aircraft from 82 to 134 aircraft (+$2,937.8 million) and associated estimating and schedule allocations

  • (+$399.6 million). There were additional increases in initial spares (+$85.7 million) and other support costs (+$546.9 million) associated with the higher aircraft quantity. These increases were partially offset by decreases from the acceleration of the procurement buy profile (-$18.1 million) and withholds for higher Air Force priorities and programming changes (-$12.6 million).

…Quantity changes are estimated based on the original SAR baseline cost-quantity relationship. Cost changes since the original baseline are separately categorized as schedule, engineering, or estimating “allocations.” The total impact of a quantity change is the identified “quantity” change plus all associated “allocations.”

SAR – more C-130Js

April 2/08: Lockheed Martin announces delivery of a 6th C-130J Super Hercules to 41st Airlift Squadron, 463rd Airlift Group, at Little Rock Air Force Base, AR. The 41st, also known as the “Black Cats,” is the first active-duty C-130J combat squadron in the Air Force.

March 18/08: +2 KC-130J. A $133.2 million “undefinitized contract action” (UCA) for 2 FY 2009 KC-130J aircraft and the associated long lead materials and parts. At this time $30 million has been obligated. Kirtland AFB in NM issued the contract (FA8625-06-C-6456 P00033).

March 11/08: Engines. Rolls Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN received a $6.5 million modification to a previously awarded indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract (N00019-03-D-0002) for logistics support, technical engineering support services, and spare engines and associated parts for the U.S. Marine Corps KC-130J, which includes the AE2100D3 turboprop engine and R391 propeller.

Work will be performed in Cherry Point, NC, and is expected to be complete in May 2008. The Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD issued the contract.

Feb 29/08: USCG. Lockheed Martin delivers the first “missionized” HC-130J long-range surveillance maritime patrol aircraft to the U.S. Coast Guard for maritime search and rescue, maritime law enforcement and homeland security missions. Mission equipment includes installation of a belly-mounted surface search radar, a nose-mounted electro-optical infrared sensor, a flight deck mission operator station and a mission integrated communication system. The mission system installed on the HC-130J is derived from the same software series developed for the mission system pallet onboard the HC-144A (EADS-CASA CN-235) maritime patrol aircraft concurrently in testing.

Lockheed Martin is working within the Deepwater acquisition framework to deliver 3 fully-equipped HC-130Js under a under a fixed-price contract, and is on schedule to complete the aircraft In March 2008. A contract modification is expected to begin work on a 4th aircraft, which would give the Coast Guard an inventory of 6 HC-130Js.

USCG 1st missionized HC-130J LRSM

Feb 1/08: Support. A firm fixed price contract for $103.1 million for services that include logistics support, program management support, engineering services, repairs, spares and technical data in support of systems that are unique to the C-130J. This modification exercises option 1 of the contract, covering years 3-5. At this time, $12.5 million has been committed.

Parts that are shared with the rest of the C-130 Hercules fleet tend to be bought through pre-existing maintenance programs – partly because this is easiest, and partly because more aggregation improves the military’s bargaining position. The 330th ACSG/GFKA at Robins Air Force Base, GA issued the contract (FA8504-06-D-0001, PO 0006).

Jan 30/07: India order. The USA and India reportedly sign a Letter of Agreement for 6 C-130J-30 transports, plus additional communications equipment, spares, etc. (q.v. May 25/07 request).

There’s an additional option for 6 more planes in this contract, which the Indian government can buy at the same agreed-upon price.

India: 6 C-130J-30

Jan 16/08: Canada order. Canada signs a USD $1.4 billion contract for 17 C-130J aircraft, as replacements for about 23 aging CC-130 Hercules aircraft.

A 20-year maintenance deal with Lockheed Martin is also in the works, and will be finalized at a future date; the entire program is estimated to be worth about C$ 4.9 billion (currently $4.8 billion).

Canada: 17 C-130J-30

Nov 30/07: Engines. Rolls Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN receives an $11.1 million modification to a previously awarded indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract (N00019-03-D-0002). It exercises an option for logistics support, technical engineering support services, and spare engines and associated parts for the US Marine Corps’ KC-130J aerial tankers/ transports, which are powered by Rolls Royce’s AE2100D3 turboprop engine and the R391 propeller.

Work will be performed in Cherry Point, NC, and is expected to be completed in May 2008. The Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD.

Oct 25/07: USA multi-year deal offer. The Hill reports that Lockheed Martin has offered the US military a 5-year, $6+ billion deal for 120 C-130J, KC-130J, and C-130J-S (short) aircraft. What are the deal’s parameters? Why now? Short answer: a rival’s delays make a lock-in possible that would guarantee the aircraft’s future.

Oct 12/07: Britain. The UK Parliament’s Defence Committee examines Britain’s airlift capacity in light of current usage, A400M schedule slippages, and future needs. Key C-130J related excerpts from the document’s Q&A and government responses include:

“We share the Committee’s concerns regarding the medium and longer term consequences of the current high levels of use of the C-17 and C-130 fleets. We wish to reassure the Committee that we already monitor very closely the impact that flying rates have upon the expected life of our aircraft. We constantly monitor the fatigue that our aircraft are subject to in order to reassess our ability to maintain military capability in the future and enable early action to be taken where necessary. In the long term, the MoD is taking account of the reduced life-expectancy of its aircraft as a result of increased flying hours… The Department agrees with the Committee that some aircraft are incurring additional maintenance and repair activity as a result of the conditions in which they are employed. For example, the use of the C-130 Hercules onto natural surfaces rather than paved runways results in some unavoidable damage to the under-belly surface of the aircraft… . While the replacement of [earlier version] C-130K with 25 A400M will, overall, result in a one-for-one replacement, the increased payload and range of A400M roughly doubles the relative airlift capability offered by C-130K.”

See the full report: “14th Special Report. Strategic Lift: Government Response to the Committee’s Eleventh Report of Session 2006-07; HC 1025” [PDF]

Oct 10/07: Italy support deal. Lockheed Martin, Alenia Aeronautica and Avio SPA have signed a EUR 97 million ($137.5 million) agreement to provide Long Term Support (LTS) for the Italian Air Force’s C-130J Super Hercules fleet. This Raggruppamento Temporaneo d’Impresa (RTI) is led by Alenia Aeronautica, and will provide joint support of the Italian C-130J/J-30 fleet of 22 aircraft for a period of 3 years.

Lockheed Martin’s portion of the contract is about $47 million; its responsibilities include integrated logistics support management, avionics/mechanical line replaceable unit repair service, on-site resident support , field service support, supply chain management, engineering support and technical publications updates.

Italy support

Oct 9/07: Delivery. Lockheed Martin announces that it has recently delivered the first KC-130J Tanker to US forces in Japan. Aerial Refueling and Transport Squadron 152 (VMGR-152), Marine Corps Air Station Futenma, took delivery of its first KC-130J on Sept 30/07, representing the 27th KC-130J to be delivered to the USMC.

The USMC Air Expeditionary Force has had 6 KC-130Js in theater since February 2005, which have flown 8,854 sorties totaling 17,398 flight hours. August 2007 set a deployment one month record with 318 sorties, 621.9 flying hours, just over 6 million pounds of fuel offloaded, and 127,014 pounds of cargo carried.

Oct 3/07: Support. Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems of Marietta, GA received a contract modification for $6.9 million, incorporating Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) 06-0700076R1 entitled, “Block 6.0 Installations and Production Non-Recurring.” This ECP will retrofit and install Block 6.0 on all currently fielded US Air Force and US Air Force Reserve C-130J, EC-130J, and WC-130J aircraft. A separate ECP is currently in work at the 657th AESS for production incorporation of Block 6.0, which will enable C-130J aircraft to be produced in the Block 6.0 configuration. At this time all funds have been obligated. For more information please call (937) 255-4599. USAF/AFMC Aeronautical Systems Center, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base OH (FA8625-06-C-6456, P00014).

FY 2007

US contract restructured; US JCA competition loss; Canada win; India request; Norway request. Deliveries: Denmark’s 4th & last.

C-130J Takeoff
C-130J-30
(click to view full)

Aug 3/07: +5. Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems in Marietta, GA received a firm-fixed-price contract modification for $322 million. This contract modification is an unfinalized contract for 5 more C-130J aircraft under the US Congress’ FY 2007 Global War on Terrorism supplemental funding. At this time, $161 million has been obligated. Work will be complete in December 2010 (FA8625-06-C-6456/P00021). Note that this figure has not yet been added to the budgetary totals above.

Aug 3/07: Lockheed Martin announces delivery of a 3rd “C 130J Super Hercules” to the 41st Airlift Squadron “Black Cats” at Little Rock Air Force Base, AK. The Black Cats are the first active-duty C-130J combat squadron in the Air Force, and one of the most highly decorated airlift squadrons in U.S. military history.

This was a minor tidbit, but the release also quoted Lt. Gen. Donald J. Hoffman, Military Deputy, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition at the Pentagon. He accepted the new C-130J on behalf of the “Black Cats” and said that: “As our aging intra-theater airlift and tanker fleets need replacing, we anticipate that the C-130J will be a competitive contender for those missions.”

Interesting. Note the use of the word “contender.”

July 11/07: Denmark. Lockheed Martin announces delivery of the 4th C 130J Super Hercules to the Royal Danish Air Force (RDAF), completing the current order. Denmark’s first C-130J was delivered in March 200,4 and began operational service only one month after arriving at the RDAF’s 721 Squadron in Aalborg, Denmark.

RDAF C-130Js are being deployed and used in missions around the world and have already accumulated nearly 5,000 flight hours. One RDAF C-130J operating in Kuwait over the past six months has flown 250 missions, transported 1,600 passengers and moved 500,000 pounds of cargo. RDAF C 130Js were also deployed in support of the tsunami humanitarian relief effort in Southeast Asia and to support the United Nations in Africa. In addition to operating in the hot, harsh conditions of both Southwest and Southeast Asia, RDAF C-130Js have successfully performed in extremely cold conditions as well. They fly to “Station North” in Greenland, the Danish Navy’s most remote base located only 580 miles from the North Pole.

Denmark – all 4 delivered

June 28/07: Support. Lockheed Martin Simulator, Training and Support in Orlando, FL received a firm-fixed-price contract modification for $7.65 million for C-130J Training, Block 6.0 (USAF) and Block 6.5 (USMC) upgrades. This work will be complete by September 2009. To date, total funds have been obligated. The Headquarters Aeronautical Systems Center at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH issued the contract (FA8621-06-C-6300/P00009).

June 18/07: +1 KC-130J. A firm-fixed price contract modification not to exceed $64.2 million, for 1 additional KC-130J aircraft for the United States Marine Corps. The aircraft is being added to those awarded under contract FA8625-06-C-6456 P00008, on Dec 8/06 – see below. To date $32.1 million has been obligated (FA8625-06-C-6456/P00015).

This additional aircraft is being funded entirely by dollar savings realized by the USMC as a result of the conversion of the C-130J Multi-Year Procurement (MYP) contract from FAR (Federal Acquisition Regulations) Part 12 to FAR Part 15. This total of 5 aircraft will now be specified under one single proposal, and work will be complete by March 2010.

May 25/07: India. The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency notifies Congress [PDF] of India’s request for 6 C-130J Aircraft in Special Forces configuration, as well as associated equipment and services. The planes are destined for India’s special forces, and the total value if all options are exercised could be as high as $1.059 billion.

See full DID coverage of India’s buy.

DSCA request: India C-130J (6)

April 18/07: Norway. The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency notifies Congress [PDF] of Norway’s request for 4 stretched C-130J-30 aircraft, as well as associated equipment and services. Lockheed Martin in Fort Worth, TX will supply the aircraft, and will be responsible for procuring and integrating the defensive systems. Rolls-Royce Corporation in Indianapolis, IN will supply the engines. The total contract values, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $520 million. DSCA adds that:

“Norway intends to use the C-130J aircraft for intra-theater support for its troops involved in worldwide operations. Additionally, the aircraft will be used for humanitarian relief operations in various locations to include the Sudan, the Middle East, and Afghanistan.”

The purchase encountered some political controversy, but American bureaucrats made extra efforts to expedite key approvals and move the sale forward. In the end, a deal was completed.

DSCA request: Norway C-130J-30 (4)

Jan 31/07: Support. A $33.6 million firm-fixed-price with time & material and cost reimbursement contract modification. This contract modification will exercise period 2 options to purchase the following items: program and management data for 1-year, technical and engineering data for 1-year, engineering drawing for 1-year, logistics support data for 1-year, technical manual contract requirements data for 1-year, initial C-130J aircraft peculiar spares for 9 aircraft, reliability and maintainability program for 1-year, field service representative support for 1-year, ground maintenance station admin. support for 1-year. At this time, total funds have been obligated, and work will be complete January 2008. The Headquarters Aeronautical Systems Center at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH issued the contract (FA8625-06-C-6456).

Dec 20/06: Support. A $37.5 million modification to a previously awarded indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract (N00019-04-D-0001) to exercise an option for logistics and technical engineering support and spares for the U.S. Marine Corps’ KC-130J aircraft and other Government C-130J aircraft. Work will be performed in Cherry Point, N.C. (85%); Miramar, CA (10%); and Okinawa, Japan (5%), and is expected to be complete in December 2007. The Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD issued the contract.

Dec 8/06: +3 Js, +2 KC-130J. A $256.2 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to purchase 3 C-130J-30 transports and 1 KC-130J aerial tanker, as authorized and funded by the FY 2006 Global War on Terror (GWOT) supplemental authorization. This modification is an undefinitized contraction action (UCA) that will obligate 50% ($128.1 million) of the $256.2 million not-to exceed amount. These aircraft, slated for delivery in 2010, were authorized and funded by the FY06 Global War on Terror supplemental authorization. This contract brings the total number of C-130Js ordered to date to 186 (FA8625-06-C-6456/P00008).

A June 2007 modification brought the FY 2006 supplemental value to $320.4 million, for 3 C-130Js and 2 KC-130Js. See above. These figures have not yet been added to the budgetary figures above, pending question to the US military.

Nov 22/06: Canada. Ottawa Citizen – Lockheed wins $4.9B contract. The story contends that DND representatives did not seriously examine Airbus’ bid, and gives these details:

“The Conservative government has quietly named Lockheed Martin’s C-130J aircraft as the winner of a $4.9-billion bid to replace the military’s aging Hercules transport planes… The Canadian government will spend $3.2 billion to buy 17 of the aircraft and another $1.7 billion for a 20-year service contract for the planes. Lockheed, as the prime contractor, will be responsible for the maintenance contract as well. The contract for the planes is expected to be signed by the summer of 2007. The first aircraft will be required to be delivered three years after that.”

DID has a detailed, in-depth spotlight article covering Canada’s tactical airlift competition, its requirements, the proposed alternatives, and ongoing developments: “Canada’s CC-130s to Fail In 3 Years — $4B RFP for Replacements (updated)

Nov 21/06: No JCA joy. Lockheed Martin’s JCA protest is not successful. The reason their “shortened C-130J” was disqualified from the finals?

Their bid wouldn’t have provided jam-resistant GPS instrumentation until 2012, and its incorporation required the USAF to sign on to the existing upgrade contract for the C-130J fleet (FA8625-04-D-6425). The RFP, on the other hand, wanted the planes delivered with those systems installed. The other competitors complied, and even a clarification request to Lockheed didn’t wake them up. The GAO seemed none too happy with Lockheed Martin’s protest, either, stopping just sort of calling its arguments dishonest.

Nov 3/06: Support. Lockheed Martin Corp. in Orlando, FL received a $17.5 million firm-fixed-price contract for C-130J training, FY 2007 contractor logistic support, aircrew, training system support Center and FY 2007 change management. At this time, $17.25 million have been obligated, and work will be complete September 2007. The Headquarters Aeronautical Systems Center at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH issued the contract (FA8621-06-C-6300).

Oct 25/06: US C-130J contract converted. The multi-year procurement contract for the C-130J Hercules is converted from a commercial item Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 12 to a FAR Part 15 military contract, with increased contractor overhead for costing data etc.

Read “C-130J Acquisition Program Restructured” for full coverage.

US restructuring

FY 2006 and earlier

24-year British support deal; Multinational upgrade; Cancellation threat in USA; Inspector General report says cancellation fee estimates wildly overstated; USMC’s KC-130Js operational; USAF accepts 1st C-130J; Delivery #100.

UK: C-130J
UK C-130 C5
(click to view full)

Oct 16/06: International block upgrades. Lockheed Martin announces a $110 million upgrade contract to bring the C-130J Super Hercules transports flown by Australia, Britain, Italy and Denmark to an agreed standard. See “C-130J Reaches USAF IOC, Adds $110M for Multinational Upgrades” for full coverage.

International upgrades agreement

Aug 14/06: JCA GAO protest. Lockheed Martin files a protest with the GAO and urges a freeze on the Joint Cargo Aircraft program until its complaint is resolved, following the exclusion of its shortened-fuselage C-130J from the JCA competition.

August 2/06: JCA loss. C-130J, CN-235 eliminated. The US Army informs Lockheed that its shortened C-130J does not qualify for the JCA, and also eliminates the EADS/Raytheon CN-235.

July 18/06: Support. A $10.5 million firm-fixed-price, time and material, and cost-reimbursement contract for production and installation of stepped frequency microwave radiometer modification kits for 10, WC-130J. This work will be complete August 2007. The Headquarters Aeronautical Systems Center at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH issued the contract (FA8625-06-C-6456)

June 23/06: IG Report. The Washington Post reports on a Pentagon inspector general report, which claims that the purported $1.78 billion cancellation costs may have been overstated by up to $1.1 billion. According to the report, the estimate Rumsfeld was given was “incomplete and did not provide reliable information for making an informed decision,” leaving decision-makers incapable of rationally deciding the cost-effectiveness of continuing or terminating the contract.

Defense Secretary Rumsfeld had bowed to strong Congressional pressure when he decided not to terminate the C-130J program as he and the Pentagon had originally proposed. At the time, the cited reason was cancellation costs.

June 21/06: Support. The USAF issues a $112 million firm-fixed-price with time & material and cost reimbursement contract for:

  • C-130J Peculiar Spares (Initial) Existing Bases: (8 kits)
  • C-130J MATS Peculiar Spares: (1 Lot)
  • C-130J Readiness Spares Packages Air Force (Little Rock): (1 Lot)
  • C-130J Readiness Spares package ANG (Rhode Island): (1 Lot)
  • WC-130J High Priority Mission Spares Kits USAFR Keesler AFBG: (1 Lot)
  • EC-130J Quick Engine Retrofit Kit – FY06 (1 each).

At this time, $33.1 million has been obligated. Solicitations and negotiations were complete March 2006, and work will be complete January 2007. The Headquarters Aeronautical Systems Center at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH issued the contract (FA8625-06-C-6456)

June 7/06: JCA bid. Lockheed Martin announces that they have proposed their in-production short-fuselage variant of the combat tested C-130J for the Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA) program. JCA requirements called for an aircraft capable of short-field performance, able to transport a payload of 12,000 pounds, and designed to accommodate new technology such as defensive systems and state-of-the-art avionics.

Lockheed had been partnered with Alenia Aeronautica on the C-27J Spartan/”Baby Herc,” but that went awry. In the end, the shortened C-130J would be disqualified from the competition, which the C-27J won.

US JCA loss

June 2/06: Britain support deal. The UK MoD announces a GBP 1.52 billion contract ($2.86 billion at conversion) to Marshall Aerospace in order to support its fleet of C-130 Hercules transport aircraft over the next 24 years. As prime contractor, Marshall Aerospace will work in partnership with the UK Defence Logistics Organisation (DLO), the Royal Air Force, Lockheed Martin and Rolls-Royce to deliver the Hercules Integrated Operational Support (HIOS) programme. The HIOS programme will provide guaranteed levels of aircraft availability to a fleet that includes both older C3/C1 models (C-130K stretched and normal) and C4/C5 models (C-130J-30 and C-130J). See full DID coverage.

British support

May 24/06: Training. Lockheed Martin Simulator, Training and Support in Kennesaw, GA received a $32.7 million firm-fixed-price contract for C-130J Training Device Fuselage Trainer #2, Loadmaster Part Task Trainer, Aircraft Interface Monitor, Visual Awareness Recognition Screen, Weapon System Trainer Local Networking, Training System Support Career (5-months), Contractor Logistics Support (5-months), aircrew training (5-months) Instructor Operation Stration course, ISO Computer Base Trainer, Premium Training Time, and U. S. Marine Corps proposal prep. At this time, $20.2 million has been obligated. The Headquarters Aeronautical Systems Center at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH issued the contract (FA8621-06-C-6300).

April 17/06: Engines. Lockheed Martin announces that the Rolls-Royce AE2100D3 engine powering the C-130J Super Hercules transport fleet has reached the 1,000,000 flight hour milestone. The engine also powers Alenia’s C-27J, but Lockheed’s figure is derived from 250,000 flight hours for the worldwide C-130J fleet (4 engines per C-130J). The “common core” AE engine line is manufactured in Indianapolis, IN.

As of this date, a total of 182 C-130Js are on order, and 136 have been delivered to the U.S., Air Force Reserve Command and Air National Guard, USMC, Coast Guard, the Royal Australian Air Force, Britain’s Royal Air Force, the Royal Danish Air Force, and the Italian Air Force.

1 million engine flight hours

Feb 1/06: Support. A $164 million firm-fixed-price, fixed-price award-fee, cost-plus fixed-fee, time-and-materials, and cost-reimbursement contract for sustaining services including logistics support, program management support, engineering services, spares and technical data in support of systems peculiar to the C-130J family.

At this time, $13.5 million has been obligated. Solicitations began August 2005, negotiations were complete in January 2006, and work will be completed by 2 years of sustainment service performance. The Headquarters Warner Robins Air Logistics Center at Robins Air Force Base, GA issued the contract (FA8504-06-D-0001).

Feb 1/06: Engines. Rolls-Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN received a $72.6 million firm-fixed-price contract for sustaining services in support of the C-130J propulsion system which includes the AE 2100D3 engine and Dowty’s R-391 propeller system. The contract includes logistics support, program management support, engineering services, spares and technical data. At this time, $18.9 million has been obligated. The Headquarters Warner Robins Air Logistics Center at Robins Air Force Base, GA issued the contract (FA8504-06-C-0004).

FY 2005 and earlier (incomplete)

KC-130J Hercules tanker
KC-130J refueling CH-53E

April 29/04: The U.S. Marine Corps announces that the commander of Operational Testing and Evaluation (OT&E) has “recommended full fleet introduction of the Lockheed Martin KC-130J [aerial tanker] for operational use.”

April 16/04: US Acceptance. The U.S. Air Force formally accepts its first Lockheed Martin C-130J Super Hercules.

USAF acceptance

Aug 6/03: Delivery #100. Lockheed Martin announces the delivery of the 100th C-130J Super Hercules airlifter. The customer is the Italian Force’s 46th Air Brigade based in Pisa, Italy.

#100

Additional Readings & Sources

News & Related Developments

  • Deutsche Welle (Nov 6/07) – Report: Half of Germany’s Military Planes are in Shambles. Germany isn’t alone with this problem, and: “…corrosion and wear and tear have turned over half of Germany’s [C-160] Transall planes into decrepit machinery. The sources apparently said that it was becoming more difficult to locate spare parts for the planes, some of which are more than 40 years old… Germany had originally planned to replace the remaining Transall planes with Airbus’ new A400M model by 2014, but that schedule may have to be revised due to recently announced delays in delivery.”
  • Defense News (Oct 29/07) – Airplanes on Life Support. Moseley, Wynne Plead: Let USAF Pull the Plug [dead link]. They’re talking about aircraft that can’t fly but must be kept per Congressional directives, which includes a number of C-130E Hercules and KC-135E Stratotankers. “One C-130E Hercules from the 86th Airlift Wing at Ramstein Air Base, Germany, is so old and in such bad shape it cannot safely fly. Yet U.S. Air Force maintainers must tow it around the tarmac every so often to make sure its tires don’t go flat, and crank up the engines every month to make sure they still run… More than 20 percent of the service’s C-130Es are grounded or have significant flight restrictions…”
  • Aviation Week’s Defense Technology International (Jun 13/07) – A400M Could Dominate Strategic Lift [link now broken]. Also covers the C-17 program, and C-5 AMP/RERP upgrades. “The trend in airlift demand is going to place a premium on aircraft that carry more than a C-130. The goal of carrying Future Combat Systems vehicles on the C-130 has been abandoned. Even the new Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles are so heavy that a C-130 will carry only one of them. And plans call for the Army to get bigger. If there is an airlift crisis in 2015-20, you read it first here.”
  • DID (April 4/07) – Keeping the C-130s Flying: Center Wing Box Replacements. On February 14, 2005, the US Air Force announced that they were grounding nearly 100 C-130E models because of severe fatigue in their wings, including a dozen that had been flying missions in and out of Iraq and Afghanistan. By November 2006, the USAF had kept 47 aircraft under flying restrictions, plus another 30 completely grounded because of the cracks. Other aircraft are expected to wear out as they fly, however, and the replacement program doesn’t expect to get ahead of the “grounding-restriction curve” until 2012.
  • National Defense Magazine (February 2000) – Industry Titans Vying for Early Lead in Cargo Aircraft Markets.

Competitors

Special Forces

  • Center for Strategic & Budgetary Assessments: Robert Martinage, Senior Fellow – Stealthy Mobility & Support: Aircraft for US Special Operations Forces. [PDF] Feb 22/07 Presentation at CSIS – Future of SOF Aviation Project. Note payload requirements of only 20,000-30,000 pounds, less than the C-130.
  • StrategyPage (Aug 22/09) – Fly Hard, Pay Later. “…adding $4 billion worth of new aircraft… over the next five years. The 1st Special Operations Wing… 37 new C-130J… converting 17 of the aircraft to AC-130 gunships, to replace the 25 currently available… The 1st SOW flew 3,200 combat sorties last year, each of these averaging about four hours over hostile territory. There were also 4,200 training sorties, which mainly served to provide 3,200 new air crew for 1st SOW aircraft.”
  • Military Aerospace Technology (March 16/05) – Next Generation Gunships. Includes significant details re: Lockheed Martin’s MACK concept, which may have a significant influence on future SOCOM aircraft.
  • Jane’s (Feb 7/03) – Concepts vie to win US special ops aircraft race. But the designs, including Lockheed’s MACK concept, are also aimed at the medium transport market.

JMR-FVL: Army Casts Dice for Future Helicopters

$
0
0
Sikorsky X2 Demonstrator
The future is now
(click to view full)

The JMR-TD program is the science and technology precursor to the Department of Defense’s estimated $100 billion Future Vertical Lift program, which is expected to replace between 2,000-4,000 medium class UH-60 utility and AH-64 attack helicopters after 2030.

In reality, FVL will fall far short of that number if it ever goes ahead, but those figures are the current official fantasy. While they’re at it, the Pentagon wants breakthrough performance that includes the same hovering capability as smaller armed scout helicopters, and a 100+ knot improvement in cruising speed to 230+ knots. That’s almost certainly achievable, thanks to new developments that involve very different helicopter designs.

The JMR-TD Precursor Program

2014 CSIS Panel

We’ll begin with the Army’s core justification for FVL, and its Joint Multi-Role Technology Development precursor:

“Recent study findings concluded that the DoD rotary wing aviation fleet is aging and upgrades to current fleet aircraft will not provide the capabilities required for future operations. Additionally, because of the time in service for currently fielded helicopters, many of the decision points for the future fleet will occur within the next 10 years. The Operational Tempo (OPTEMPO) in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) was, and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) is, five times that of peacetime, and much higher than the design usage spectrum, further taxing the already aging fleet. The current fleet of DoD rotorcraft cannot continue to be incrementally improved to meet future operational requirements. Significant improvement in vertical lift, range, speed, payload, survivability, reliability, and reduced logistical footprint are all required to meet future needs and can only be achieved through the application of new technologies and designs. Operational costs must be reduced to a fraction of those for the current fleet.”

This combination of significant improvements and much lower operating costs is almost always asked for. It almost never happens. The request is akin to demanding a major-league baseball player who hits 30+ home runs per season, with under 50 strikeouts. New technologies and designs mean risk and added complexity, both of which tend to increase maintenance and operating costs. They also tend to lower mission availability percentages.

Faster, please
click for video

On the other hand, profoundly new helicopter technologies are now in development for civilian as well as military applications, and new onboard monitoring systems and vibration control promise big improvements in maintenance and operating costs. There’s also a potential promise of significant parts commonality, and the US Marines’ UH-1Y/ AH-1Z program indicates that this is achievable in a utility/ attack helicopter pair.

So why not try? The point of JMR-TD, Phase 1 is to investigate some of the new technologies and configurations that are maturing, test metrics like weight and performance, identify performance and manufacturing risks, and improve analytical tools to deal with the new technologies.

Key Phase 1 criteria include a design that can perform medium utility or attack missions, a 230+ knot cruise speed (which stretches compound helicopters if you want them armed), the ability to hover out of ground effect at 6,000 feet in 95 degree temperatures, and a low noise level. That last item is a much-delayed but welcome recognition, and comes from hard experience in theater where loudness equals enemy warning time. Airframe life for Phase 1 prototypes need only be 200 hours or so, though it’s an advantage to be able to last longer.

Bell V-280 Concept
Bell: V-280 Valor
(click to view full)

Can these new technologies be brought to a high enough Technology Readiness level for use in a defense Program of Record, while meeting performance goals? The Army is betting that they can, and 1st flights are expected in Summer 2017.

JMR-TD Phase 1. The original target was 2 award winners, but the solicitation acknowledged that 3 winners were possible, and there turned out to be 4: AVX, Bell, Karem, and Sikorsky-Boeing. From FBO.gov:

“It is possible that, given multiple meritorious proposals and proposed work that offers the potential for significant improvement to the Government’s best available knowledge in the first nine months, more than two initial selections will be made. In that case, the number of participants may be reduced after the initial design and risk review to match available funding or to minimize program risk.”

The 4 bidders were initially asked to focus on the airframe for the utility role. After July 2014, the 2 surviving bidders will develop an airframe for flight testing by 2017. The Bell V-280 and Sikorsky-Boeing SB>1 airframes wouldn’t have full avionics, or production-representative engines, but they’ll be a start. Meanwhile, other industry teams are working on a digital backbone for plug-in mission systems, and a parallel lab-based testing contract for the joint common architecture standard is also expected in July 2014.

JMR-TD Phase 2 This phase is expected to begin in 2017, and would develop mission systems that can be common to utility and attack helicopters. This phase is much closer to present reality. Bell Helicopter’s UH-1Y and AH-1Z already have a substantially common mission system, and Sikorsky is fielding “armed MH-60S” kits that are being installed by the US Navy in their maritime utility helicopters, as well as Battlehawk kits to arm the UAE’s UH-60Ms. Sensors and equipment are also keeping pace. There have been battlefield instances of AH-64 Apache attack helicopter pilots asking the UH-60 Black Hawks they were escorting to use their onboard sensor turrets, because they were more modern and more capable than the Apache’s.

During JMR-TD Phase 2, the Army is expected to decide whether they want 1 airframe for both FVL roles, or different FVL attack/ utility variants.

Future Vertical Lift (FVL). This would notionally begin as an acquisition program in 2019, with an RFP that’s planned to be open to all contenders. That won’t mean much if the Army cuts AVX and Karem out in 2014, because they can’t self-finance for that long. On the flip side, while any success by those small contenders is a de facto elimination of either Sikorsky or Bell from JMR-TD, the magnitude of the FVL opportunity means they would be very likely to continue private development and bid on the FVL RFP. Sikorsky is already developing its X2 technologies regardless, and Bell has the V-22 Osprey business to fund continued refinement of tilt-rotor designs and technology.

JMR-TD Phase 1: The Finalists

USMC MV-22Bs
USMC MV-22Bs
(click to view full)

The finalists divide into 2 basic design groups: compound helicopters, and tilt-rotor. Co-axial designs tend to fit better on ships, thanks to their folding rotors and short tail booms. Tilt rotors generally have an easier path to hit speed requirements, but they require a lot of extra engineering for shipboard use, and can suffer by comparison in terms of lifting capability and operations and maintenance costs. They’re also considered to be more accident prone, though tilt-rotor advocates tend to argue that point.

AVX JMR

AVX advantages

AVX began as a number of very experienced Bell Helicopter engineers who formed their own company in 2005, in order to pursue a low-cost, high-performance modification to the Army’s OH-58D Kiowa scout helicopters. By replacing the main rotor with rigid coaxial blades, and the tail with a much shorter tail hosting twin ducted fans, they could refurbish the fleet at relatively low cost, turning the helicopters into much faster machines with higher performance, and longer range.

That coaxial, twin-ducted design philosophy has carried over into their pursuit of the JMR-TD studies, and the funding they’ve received has helped keep the company going while it continues to pursue the Army’s Armed Aerial Scout program.

AVX: JMR Attack
AVX: JMR-AT
(click to view full)

Aside from its larger size, their JMR design differs from their Kiowa upgrade by being entirely tailless, with a pair of stub wings mounted high near the front, in order to provide about 40% of total lift at speed. A rear ramp allows roll-on loading that can include 2x 463L cargo pallets, and fast exit by troops and even small vehicles. The compartment is wide, giving the helicopter a flattened oval cross-section. The attack version would just add a 30mm belly turret, plus floor weapon doors and internal extend-retract assemblies.

Flight is designed to be slightly nose-up to lower drag, and landing 5 degrees nose down has the effect of reducing brownout. They’re big on lowering drag, hence the use of ducted fans vs. the Sikorsky X2’s open pusher, and the tests of hub-and-mast fairings to reduce main rotor drag.

AVX: JMR Utility
AVX: JMR-UT
(click to view full)

Overall weight with 12 troops and 4 crew is reportedly 27,000 pounds, compared to 22,000 pounds for the UH-60M, and 17,650 pounds loaded for the AH-64. Sling load capacity would jump from 9,000 to 13,000 pounds, which creates the ability to lift key items like the Army’s M777A2 lightweight 155mm howitzer, even at altitude or in hot climates. Without the ducted pusher fans running, speed is a bit faster than X2 in the 170 knot range. With them, AVX believes they can hit the required 230 knots.

The catch is the same catch all competitors will face: engines. Making 230 knots with the 4,300 pound payload would reportedly require 4,600 shp engines, compared to the Black Hawk’s 1,700 shp T700s. The Army will need to think about this requirement if they’re serious about costs, because dropping the requirement to 200 knots would let AVX downshift to 3,100 shp engines. It’s a trade-off between fuel consumption and costs, vs. greater speed and big load lifting improvements.

Bell Helicopter: V-280 Valor (finalist)

V-280 Valor

Bell Helicopter Textron’s V-280 Valor design differs from their V-22 Osprey, and can be seen in some ways as a 3rd generation tilt-rotor (GEN1 tilt-rotors didn’t become operational). Key differences include engines that don’t rotate – only the propeller assembly does. That avoids blocked lines of fire for door gunners, as is the case with the current V-22, and also removes landing surface damage from high-temperature exhaust out of its engines. Instead of the V-22’s rear ramp, the V-280 uses a pair of 6′ side doors, conforming to existing US Army practice.

The attack mission would take a leaf from the 7.62mm IDWS retractable gatling gun on the V-22, and use retractable weapon launchers.

V-22 manufacturer Bell is claiming a 280 knot/ 519 kmh cruise speed, a combat range of 500 – 800 nautical miles/ 925 – 1,480 km, 6,000 foot hover out of ground effect (HOGE) at 95F temperature, a useful load of 12,000 pounds, and space for a crew of 4 + 11 troops. They also claim “suitable down wash,” and “significantly smaller logistical footprint compared to other aircraft.” Close parsing shows that neither statement actually means anything concrete. What it does show, is that Bell is conscious of the negative impact these issues have had on the Bell/Boeing V-22 program.

Other team members for the demonstrator include GE (T64 engine used in CH-53s), GKN (tail), and Moog (flight controls).

Karem: TR36TD OSTR

Karem TR36TD concept
TR36TD concept
(click to view full)

Karem Aircraft entered the mix in fall 2013. Their planned offering is the TR36TD Optimum Speed Tilt-Rotor Technology Demonstrator, with twin 36-foot, variable-speed swiveling rotors. Its design will be an important financial and engineering stepping stone along the way to their civil 90-seat “Aerocommuter” and 180-seat “Aerotrain” visions.

On the military end, their site touts an eventual TR75 JHL design that grows to become slightly bigger than a C-130, with a 330+ knot/ Mach 0.65+ cruising speed and a maximum payload of up to 36 tons. Karem Aircraft says that TR75 was extensively analyzed during the JHL program’s 2005-2007 cooperative development agreement phase, leading to a strategic teaming with Lockheed Martin as a production partner during the 2007-2010 CDA-X program extension. If TR75’s touted statistics ever came true, it would offer near-A400M level performance, with vertical/ short takeoff capability and better cruise efficiency. That’s quite the stretch goal, but Lockheed Martin took it seriously enough to create a hedge against the potential threat to its C-130x franchise.

Karem TR75 OSTR
JHL: TR75 concept
(click to view full)

Technically, Karem’s proposal is a farther reach than AVX’s, and might be laughed out of the room if it came from another source. But founder Abe Karem is best known for kick-starting the American UAV revolution with a viable and inexpensive garage-built product called Amber, after the ruinously-expensive performance disaster that was Lockheed Martin’s MQM-105 Aquila. Along the way, General Atomics bought Karem, his firm, and his technology from Hughes. Karem’s work and technology morphed into the Gnat UAV, which served over Bosnia and then morphed into the famous MQ-1 Predator. His current firm, Karem Aircraft, developed optimum-speed rotor (OSR) technology, which saves fuel and fine-tunes performance by varying the rotor’s speed in response to weight, conditions, etc. That core technology was sold to Boeing to create the A160 Hummingbird Heli-UAV, but Karem was left free to develop the underlying technology in other ways.

Karem hasn’t been known for his high opinion of large defense contractors and their performance, and JMR-FVL was shaping up as an excellent test of his belief in small staffs of very talented and motivated engineers. Unfortunately, budget cuts forced a finalist decision before the demonstrators could fly, and the Army picked the larger firms for policy reasons (q.v. Aug 25/14 entry).

Sikorsky & Boeing: SB>1 Defiant (finalist)

Sikorsky-Boeing JMR
JMR: UTX-BA
(click to view full)

From the Army’s point of view, this pair are the incumbents. Sikorsky’s UH-60 is their standard utility aircraft, and Boeing’s AH-64 is their standard attack helicopter. Their pedigree in the compound helicopter technologies they’re using goes back farther than Bell’s V-22, to the XH-59A/S-69 compound helicopter that reached over 200 knots in the mid-1970s.

Sikorsky’s X2 is a privately developed effort that combines a number of leading edge but mature technologies, including rigid coaxial rotors, a pusher propeller, fly-by-wire, vibration control, a composite fuselage, and an active elevator and rudders. Their demonstrator first flew in August 2008, and has reached over 260 knots. It’s being followed by the privately developed S-97 Raider project, which aims to produce a sleek scout/attack helicopter for special forces use that can carry 4-6 troops inside. Sikorsky is building the Raider with its own money, and many of its technologies and lessons are expected to find their way into the JMR’s larger “Team Defiant” project with Boeing.

S-97 Raider
click for video

The Defiant’s main rotor provides extra lift at full speed, but if the pusher propeller is turned off, X2 machines behave like standard coaxial helicopters with speed up to 160 knots. If the pusher propeller is reversed, it helps with fast stops, and the entire system can be used to create much tighter turns than a normal helicopter, with maneuvers at or exceeding 3Gs. The demonstrator’s engines will be the same Honeywell T55 that equips CH-47 Chinook helicopters.

Sikorsky envisions their X2 technology in a range of helicopter sizes and roles, and the JHL contracts have already helped them investigate larger designs than JMR. Meanwhile, Sikorsky is touting their smaller, privately developed S-97 armed scout as a significant plus for FVL requirements, given their expectation that they could begin fielding S-97 units about 10 years earlier than FVL is expected. That lets them match Textron’s learning curve and production experience with the V-22, while having the smaller end of the FVL spectrum already covered.

Contracts & Key Events

Maj. Gen. Michael Lundy, the Army’s aviation chief, indicated that in facing two competing technologies from two vendors for the medium-capacity variant of the Future Vertical Lift program, the Army would like both. One can be fitted for the troop carrying role, and the other for the attack/reconnaissance role. The Bell V-280 Valor (tilt rotor) has been theoretically competing against the Sikorsky/Boeing SB>1Defiant. Lundy told BreakingDefense.com that the decision was akin to the split between the Apache versus the Black Hawk.

The plan depends on the assumption – that other services have not been quite as bold in making – that sequestration will be lifted for FY 2016 onward. Lundy’s tone was fatalistic, indicating that the Army was planning for that one rosy scenario because the others – however likely – wouldn’t suit: “If we went to the worst case, it would affect almost every modernization program we’ve got in our branch.”

In addition to vanquishing sequestration, the Army’s modernization plans hinge on Congress approving their ARI plan, which involves shelving Kiowas and replacing that reconnaissance capacity with Apaches taken from reserve units, among other decisions that would be unpopular in many individual congressional districts.

Sikorsky’s S-97 Raider is relevant to this program, but is not a direct result of JMR-FVL. We cover it as part of the USA’s Armed Aerial Scout competition, where it’s a potential direct competitor.

FY 2015-2016

Spirit AeroSystems uvnveils fuselage for V-280.

V-280 mockup build

November 13/15: The Army’s Future Vertical Lift (FVL) program could be ready for fielding by 2025, if reports by Bell and Lockheed Martin are to be believed. The V-280 Valor design – based on the technology of the V-22 Osprey – is slated for flight testing in 2017. The fuselage of the first aircraft was unveiled in September, with the team insisting that the V-280 can achieve Initial Operating Capability by 2025.

October 16/15: Sikorsky is planning to increase tempo in testing of the company’s S-97 Raider, following the aircraft’s first flight in May. 110 to 120 hours of flight testing is expected, with the Raider’s technology forming a key aspect of the Sikorsky-Boeing SB-1 Defiant, a finalist for the Joint Multi-Role Technology Demonstrator and Future Vertical Lift (JVR-FVL) programs.

Competition from the Bell-Lockheed Martin V-280 Valor has led to contractual changes between the two developers to ensure that there isn’t spillover between the two designs when Lockheed Martin finalizes its acquisition of Sikorsky. Reports now indicate that this deal could be finalized by early November, following the green light from the US government in September, along with the Japanese and South Korean governments. The $9 billion takeover still requires some regulatory head nods before finalization, with the European Union and China expected to respond next week.

September 24/15: The fuselage of the Bell Helicopters V-280 tiltrotor demonstrator aircraft was unveiled by manufacturer Spirit AeroSystems on Tuesday. Assembled by the company’s rapid prototyping facility, the fuselage will be combined with the V-280 wing, engines and tails. The V-280 Valor design will compete with Sikorsky/Boeing’s SB-1 Defiant design from September 2017 in a two-year evaluation period for the Army’s Future Vertical Lift (FVL) program. Both are part-funded through the Army’s Joint Multi-Role Technology Demonstrator (JMRTD) program, part of FVL, with contracts awarded last year.

FY 2014

JMR awards 4 TD contracts; Budgets force narrowing to 2 JMR-TD demonstrators, small firms downselected out.

Oct 2/14: S-97 unveiled. Sikorsky formally unveils the first of two S-97 Raider armed scout compound helicopter prototypes, signaling the start of the program’s test flight phase. The S-97’s core X2 technologies will also be the core of the SB-1 Defiant. Sikorsky, YouTube video and “Sikorsky Unveils S-97 RAIDE™ Helicopter”.

Aug 25/14: Aviation Week reports that the SB>1 Defiant and V-280 Valor became JMR finalists because the Army made financial resources and commitment a priority. They wanted to be sure the demonstrators would be fielded for the flight tests, and both Bell and Sikorsky/Boeing are pouring far more than the mandated 50/50 cost sharing into their programs. Meanwhile AVX and Karem are waiting to hear if the Army will fund them to continue some technology development work.

On a technical level, the Defiant is a much easier challenge. Take existing X2 technology, and field a new design that meets designated performance criteria. It isn’t simple, but the smaller X2 has already shown the required speed, and the Defiant will be flying and ironing out handling issues before 2017. What they don’t want, is something that achieves all goals but costs much more than a new UH-60M.

The road is harder for the V-280, because they’re conscious of the V-22’s much higher base cost and huge operating costs. Weight and complexity drives a lot of cost, so they’re looking to reduce weight and simplify components, removing fasteners and using different composite constructions. That’s said to reduce wing production costs by about 30% vs. the V-22, but they’ll need to demonstrate long-term affordability in several other areas by the time the demonstrator flies. Sources: Aviation Week, “Affordability Challenge In Pursuit Of Army JMR/FVL”.

Aug 12/14: Finalists. The US Army has chosen large firms as JMR-TD finalists, asking for flying demonstrators of the Sikorsky-Boeing SB>1 Defiant compound helicopter and Bell’s V-280 Valor tilt-rotor. Flights of their respective prototypes are expected in 2017.

AVX’s compound helicopter, and Karem’s optimum-speed tilt-rotor, are eliminated. As DID had noted:

“…[A future open RFP for FVL] won’t mean much if the Army cuts AVX and Karem out in 2014, because they can’t self-finance for that long. On the flip side… the magnitude of the FVL opportunity means they would be very likely to continue private development and bid on the FVL RFP. Sikorsky is already developing its X2 technologies regardless, and Bell has the V-22 Osprey business to fund continued refinement of tilt-rotor designs and technology.”

Both AVX and Karem are far more dependent on government financing for continued development, though Karem still has a small source of funds via DARPA’s VTOL X-Plane program. Even so, with American land and naval helicopter programs essentially set over the medium term, the losing firms face a dilemma. Absent significant outside investment based on expected commercial sales, they face a difficult path to realizing and selling their designs, and becoming established competitors. Sources: Sikorsky, “Sikorsky, Boeing Selected to Build Technology Demonstrator for Future Vertical Lift, SB>1 Defiant expected to fly in 2017” | Reuters, “Boeing-Sikorsky team, Bell selected for U.S. helicopter program”.

JMR Finalists: Defiant vs. V-280

Aug 1/14: JMR. The US Army was supposed to announce its finalists in July, but that didn’t happen. Instead, they plan to gather the 4 teams some time in late August or early September, tell them which 2 contractors are going forward, and discuss what’s next for the program. Current plans involve $350 million available through fiscal 2019. Sources: Defense News, “US Army’s JMR Helo Selection Slips”.

July 11/14: JCA picked. The US Army reportedly picks Boeing and Sikorsky for the Joint Common Architecture component of the JMR program. This pick only covers the helicopter’s core electronics; selection of this team’s SB>1 Defiant is a separate matter. Sources: FBO.gov #W911W614R0002, “Joint Multi-Role Technology Demonstrator (JMR TD) Joint Common Architecture Demonstration (JCA Demo)” | Sikorsky, “Sikorsky, Boeing Selected to Develop “Digital Backbone” for Future Vertical Lift Program”.

June 4/14: The services have had to fight to protect JMR budgets, and the Pentagon’s deputy director of land warfare, munitions and tactical warfare systems is admitting that the JMR manufacturing phase is likely to be late at best.

“Officials said the military services are having to trade off new weapon systems to fund their payroll…. [Jose M.] Gonzalez said the joint multirole rotorcraft, or JMR, technology demonstration might not lead to the procurement of new aircraft within the desired timeline, but could “feed alternatives other than a new-start program … such as major upgrades or changes in con-ops [Concept of Operations].”

That first sentence is the beginning of a long-term death spiral, whose future end point can be seen today in countries like Belgium. With respect to FVL’s future, the nature of AVX’s technology makes it a good candidate for upgrades, but other than that, the radically different designs sharply limit upgrade potential, unless we’re talking about upgrades at a component or materials level. Common mission systems are another area that could see improvement, but that can be pursued on its own outside of FVL/JMR.

Meanwhile, the program remains on track to pick 2 Technology Development finalists. Analyst Roman Schweizer of Guggenheim Securities continues to favor Bell and Sikorsky, but he adds that: “If AVX or Karem pull off an upset, we would expect them to partner with a larger manufacturer, giving the losing primes a way back into the program.” That could make it more palatable for the Pentagon to include one of the smaller firms as a finalist. Sources: NDIA National Defense, “Bumpy Ride Ahead for Military’s Future Helicopter Program”.

May 7/14: F-35?!? Lockheed Martin showcased an F-35 flight simulator at the Army Aviation Association of America’s Mission Solutions Summit. Why? Not to promote the well-known LiftFan, but to promote the mission system and helmet-mounted display/ distributed sensors combination:

“Lockheed is working on the development of a single “common missions system” that could be integrated into light, medium, heavy and ultra-heavy future vertical lift aircraft.”

That isn’t completely far-fetched. It’s already part of FVL’s goals, and Northrop Grumman already provides a common avionics set and mission system for the USMC’s UH-1Y utility and AH-1Z attack helicopters. It would save a lot of money on maintenance, training and upgrades. Lockheed Martin is currently part of Bell’s V-280 team within FVL/JMR, but this is an interesting way for a large sub-contractor to hedge their bet. Sources: Flightglobal, “Lockheed pitches F-35 technology for US Army’s future vertical lifter”.

May 7/15: Schedule. Defense News reports that the 2 JMR-TD finalists won’t be picked until July 2014. That month will also see a contract award for lab testing of a “joint common architecture” standard for a digital backbone, which will allow mission systems to be plugged into the aircraft. Sources: Defense News, “Step by Step: US Army Slowly Nears Apache, Black Hawk Replacements”.

May 5-7/14: Bell V-280. More V-280 Valor tilt-rotor sub-contractors are announced. Astronics will contribute solid state primary and secondary electrical power distribution systems, after partnering in these areas on Bell’s new 505 light and 525 mid-range civil helicopters. Meggitt will provide the fuel system.

Eaton, meanwhile, is providing the V-280’s entire hydraulic system including engine-driven pumps, reservoirs, fuses, hoses, quick disconnects, tubing and the main engine starting subsystem. Sources: Bell Helicopter, “Bell Helicopter, Astronics Announce Cooperative Agreement” and “Bell Helicopter, Eaton Announce Cooperative Agreement” | Rotor & Wing, “Bell Reaches Deal with Meggitt, Astronics, Eaton for V-280 Tiltrotor”.

Oct 22/13: Early narrowing. The US Army is planning to narrow the JMR field from 4 bidders to 2 in June 2014, per the stipulations in the original solicitation if bid quality made the Army pick more than 2 designs initially. Bell President and CEO John Garrison offers optimistic thoughts:

“We also believe that with the maturity of this technology, as we look forward, it doesn’t need to take to 2035… That’s the current schedule, but from a technology standpoint, we… believe this can be shifted to the left [DID: earlier]. I know that sounds like a challenge in today’s budgetary environment, but you have to plan beyond the current crisis.”

JMR-TD Phase 2 would begin in 2017 focus on mission systems, while the Army decides whether they want 1 airframe for both Future Vertical Lift roles, or different FVL attack/ utility variants. Sources: IHS Jane’s 360, “AUSA 2013: Army to downselect to two JMR-TD bidders in 2014” | Defense News, “Bell President Says JMR Schedule Could be Accelerated.”

HPW3000 promo
click for video

Oct 21/13: Next engines? The US government’s Advanced Affordable Turbine Engine program (AATE) program begins to show public results, with PW/Honeywell’s ATEC joint venture touting its HPW3000’s performance in early tests. Their competitor is GE’s GE3000.

Within the Army, the application of these technologies will fall under AATE’s follow-on Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP). Its goal is a 3,000 shp turboshaft that also delivers AATE’s desired 25% better fuel efficiency, 20% longer engine life, and 35% maintenance cost improvements. All in a package that could act as a drop-in replacement for the AH-64E’s current T700-GE-701D, which delivers 2,000 shp. Assuming they can deliver, AH-64 on-station time could rise by an hour or so, or see range extensions and better altitude limits. As an alternative, the helicopter could carry about 3,300 more pounds of payload under better conditions. If the companies could deliver on the reliability goals as well, the combined value of those maintenance and longevity improvements for the UH-60 and AH-64 fleets could add up to $1 billion over the engines’ life cycle.

ITEP’s winner could also find its way into any future FVL helicopter. Sources: Pratt & Whitney release, Oct 21/13 | Aviation Week, “Teams Test More Powerful Engines For U.S. Army Helicopters” | ATEC JV site | ATEC HPW3000 infographic [PDF] | GE3000 page.

Oct 22/13: S/B Defiant. At AUSA 2013, Sikorsky and Boeing unveil “SB>1 Defiant” as the name for their JMR entry. Asked about the name, Sikorsky representatives explained that it should be read “SB-1”, as if it was a fancy dash. “However, you could infer that the combination of both companies is better or greater than either company individually.”

Definitely too cute by half.

Oct 16-21/13: Bell V-280. Bell Helicopter announces a number of V-280 Valor tilt-rotor sub-contractors. AGC Composites and Aerostructures will design, develop and manufacture the over wing fairing. GE will supply the engine. GKN will manufacture the rear V-tail structure. Finally, Boeing spinout Spirit AeroSystems will handle design and production of the main fuselage.

GKN’s expertise is in metalworking and composite construction, and AGC offers expertise in that field as well. Spirit is an important contributor to a number of civil airliner programs, including part of Boeing’s 787 fuselage. GE’s engine isn’t specified, and remains ambiguous. GE is developing the 7,500 shp GE38 for the CH-53K helicopter program, which would offer 22% more power than the V-22’s Rolls Royce AE 1107C. The release also has GE referring to technologies being studied under the Future Affordable Turbine Engine (FATE) program, however, which suggests a possible new design. That would be very expensive, compared to an adaptation of an existing design. Sources: Bell Helicopter, Oct 16/13 (GE), Oct 17/13 (GKN), Oct 18/13 (AGC), and Oct 21/13 (Spirit) releases.

Oct 9/13: Bell V-280. Bell Helicopter announces that they’ve picked Moog Inc. for the V-280’s integrated flight control system, including flight control computers, flight control actuation, and support software. Sources: Bell Helicopter, Oct 9/13 release.

AVX advantages
click for video

Oct 2/13: JMR-TD. Pentagon contracts aren’t being announced publicly, but AMRDEC has reportedly signed JMR-TD contracts with 4 vendors, not just the 3 initially picked. The contracts were scheduled for September 2013, and may well have been signed in FY 2013, but that’s unclear. Dollars amounts are equally unclear, but the awards are reportedly 9-month CRADAs (cooperative research and development agreements) aimed at refining each design and reducing/ identifying technical risks. Afterward, it’s expected that 2 firms will be picked to actually build prototypes and conduct flight tests by 2017. Winners include:

  • AVX: JMR-AT/UT compound coaxial tailless helicopter.
  • Bell Textron: V-280 Valor twin tilt-rotor.
  • Karem Aircraft: TR36-TD optimum speed rotor twin tilt-rotor.
  • Sikorsky & Boeing: X2 compound coaxial helicopter.

X2 technology has already passed the flying demonstrator stage, but the V-280 remains a paper concept, albeit one backed by experience building V-22 Osprey tilt-rotors. It won’t be easy for AVX or Karem to overcome those advantages with a design, but surprises are always a possibility, and they need any source of customer financing they can find for continued technology development. Sources: Bell Textron, Oct 8/13 release | Aviation Week, “Karem Unveils Variable-Speed Tiltrotor For U.S. Army JMR Demo” | Defense News, “Four Companies Get US Army’s Nod to Begin Critical Helicopter Designs”.

JMR-TD contracts

FY 2013

JMR-TD RFP; Initial winners picked, contracts follow.

Sikorsky X2, 2012
click for video

Sept 9/13: Bell V-280. Bell Helicopter and Lockheed Martin announce a Tier 1 partnership on the V-280 tilt-rotor, with Lockheed Martin in charge of mission systems: avionics, weapons integration, etc. It’s the same kind of role that Boeing is playing for Sikorsky’s X2. Sources: Bell Textron, Sept 9/13 release.

Aug 12-13/13: Industry Day. US Army Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center (AMRDEC) holds a meeting to present the results of the JMR TD Mission Systems Effectiveness Trades and Analysis (MS ETA) Technology Investment Agreements (TIAs). The meeting will be held at the Jacobs Theater in Ft. Eustis, VA. FBO.gov.

June 5-6/13: Who’s picked? Bell Helicopter’s V-280 Valor tilt-rotor, and Sikorsky/Boeing’s compound helicopter using X2 technology derivative, are picked by the US Army for JMR Technology Development contracts. Flight International reports that AVX’s tailless compound helicopter was also picked, along with Bell and Sikorsky/Boeing.

The Army is expected to award JMR-TD contracts by September 2013. If 3 contracts are awarded in September, there’s likely to be a cutoff to 2 competitors at the initial design and risk review, in Spring 2014. First flight of the 2 demonstrator machines is scheduled for 2017.

X-49 Speedhawk (a modified UH-60) developer Piasecki was not picked for JMR-TD. Flight International doesn’t say so, but to our knowledge, the X-49A’s Army tests didn’t exceed 180 knots. That stands in contrast to the X2 demonstrator’s recorded 261 knots, and the V-22 Osprey’s 250+. The Army’s solicitation had already made the decision between retrofit potential and total performance, and so Piasecki will have to wait for another opportunity. In the coming budget crunches, it just might get one. Bell Helicopter | Flight International.

JMR-TD1 picks

May 29/13: EADS out. EADS North America CEO Sean O’Keefe sends a letter to Assistant Secretary of the Army Heidi Shyu, informing her that they’re pulling out of the JMR-TD competition. Their platform hadn’t been officially revealed, but was almost certain to be their X3.

The firm has reportedly decided to focus its energies on its AAS-72+ submission for the Army’s Armed Aerial scout, which is a close derivative of the conventional UH-72A Lakota/ EC145 design currently serving with Army National Guard units. In his letter, O’Keefe reportedly cites both the FVL’s “very long term… open-ended industry resource commitment,” and ongoing budgetary uncertainty. Translation: high investment required, low confidence in the program’s future. Aviation Week.

April 10/13: V-280. Bell Helicopter revealed its tilt-rotor V-280 Valor offering for the Joint Multi Role / Future Vertical Lift (FVL) Technology Demonstrator (JMR/TD) competition, during the Army Aviation Association of America’s 2013 expo in Fort Worth, TX. A YouTube promo is included, along with notional performance statistics. Unlike some observers, we really liked the video game buddies to front line motif. These days, that sort of thing really happens.

Note that our standard for “notional” is whenever no examples of type have been built and tested yet. By this standard, all JMR competitor designs will have notional performance figures. Bell Helicopter.

Feb 28/13: X2. Unsurprisingly, the Sikorsky/Boeing team decides to build on the already-flying X2 for their JMR submission. Boeing does have other technologies it could apply, but none have X2’s maturity level.

The team also makes some smart structural choices. Sikorsky will take the lead role in this JMR TD Phase 1 proposal, since the core X2 technology is theirs. Boeing knows much more about mission systems for attack helicopters, and they’ll take the lead role for the Phase 2 mission systems demonstrator program. Boeing | Sikorsky.

Jan 13/13: X2. Sikorsky teams up with Boeing, as they agree to submit a joint proposal in response to the U.S. Army Aviation Applied Technology Directorate’s Joint Multi-Role (JMR) Technology Demonstrator (TD) Phase 1 program.

Boeing makes the AH-64 attack helicopter and CH-47F heavy-lift helicopter. They’re also Bell Helicopter’s partner for the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor that currently serves with the USMC and Special Forces, but didn’t partner with Bell this time around. Sikorsky.

Aug 17 – Dec 17/12: JMR. The US Army releases its Broad Agency Announcement for the Joint Multi-Role Technology Demonstration Phase 1 – Air Vehicle Development. The final draft is released on Dec 17/12. The original target was 2 award winners, but the solicitation acknowledged that 3 winners were possible:

“It is possible that, given multiple meritorious proposals and proposed work that offers the potential for significant improvement to the Government’s best available knowledge in the first nine months, more than two initial selections will be made. In that case, the number of participants may be reduced after the initial design and risk review to match available funding or to minimize program risk.”

See: FBO.gov.

JMR-RD Phase 1 RFP

FY 2005 – 2012

JHL and JMR studies contracted; JMR firms up, with Special Forces involvement; Sikorsky wraps up successful X2 program; Competitors position themselves.

JMR: notional Army concept
Early Army concept
(click to view full)

July 27/12: EADS. EADS North America lands the X3 demonstrator at the Pentagon. DEW Line.

Jan 19/12: SpecOps, too. Defense Tech quotes SOCOM Col. Charles Yomant, who says SOCOM is working very closely with Maj. Gen. Anthony Crutchfield’s team on inserting their requirements into JMR. Crutchfield himself confirms this, adding that an SOF aviator is working with his team at Fort Rucker, AL.

Dec 9/11: JMR. The US Army begins to talk publicly, specifically naming a JMR program It’s described as:

“…a far-reaching Science and technology effort designed to engineer, build and deliver a next-generation helicopter with vastly improved avionics, electronics, range, speed, propulsion, survivability, operating density altitudes and payload capacity…. able to sustain speeds in excess of 170 knots, achieve an overall combat range greater than 800 kilometers (combat radius of 424 kilometers) and hover with a full combat load under high/hot conditions (altitudes of 6,000 feet and 95 degrees F)…. Planned mission sets for the JMR include cargo, utility, armed scout, attack, humanitarian assistance, MEDEVAC, anti-submarine warfare, anti-surface warfare, land/sea search and rescue, special warfare support, vertical replenishment, airborne mine countermeasures, and others….”

The initial focus involves medium lift options, though the Army does intend to field an attack variant as well. Future Vertical Lift also gets a mention:

The over-arching JFVL efforts span a range of four classes of future aircraft, ranging from light helicopters to medium and heavy-lift variants and an ultra-class category designed to build a new fleet of super-heavy-lift aircraft. The ultra-class aircraft…. described as a C-130 type of transport aircraft, is part of an Air Force led, Army-Air Force collaborative S&T effort called Joint Future Theater Lift, or JFTL.”

Nov 8/11: JMR. At the AUSA 2011 expo, US Army PEO Aviation Maj. Gen. Tim Crosby discusses:

“…a 2030 aim point for a Joint Multi-Role kind of system – I am not going to name it today as JMR but people are kind of referring to it as that – but a system that is scalable in its architecture. And our focus will be, we believe, towards a Utility/ Attack variant… That’s the investment we need to continue to focus on while we continue to sustain and modernize our fleet that is currently in the fight.”

Meanwhile, Flight International offers pictures of Bell-Boeing concepts for “JMR,” which were shown in their booth. The somewhat crude designs are tilt-rotors with V-tails, and the larger example has what is described as “three pairs of scissor blades”. David Axe of WIRED Defense sees wholesale replacement with ‘son of Osprey’ as “doubling down on a risky bet,” though he does acknowledge a few improvements in the new designs. Defense Media Network | Flight International | WIRED Danger Room.

Sept 29/11: CTA studies. The US Army’s Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center (AMRDEC) at Redstone Arsenal, AL has awarded 18-month Technology Investment Agreements to 3 competitors: Boeing, a Bell-Boeing team, and Sikorsky.

AVX Corporation, which is led by the former Head of Engineering at Bell Helicopters, gets a 15-month contract worth $4 million. Other competitors’ awards aren’t disclosed, which implies that they were under the $5 million threshold.

Their job is to conduct analytical studies and trade assessments designed to articulate the scope of what might be technically possible. That means Configuration and Trades Analysis (CTA) studies aimed at giving defensible estimates for cost, schedule, and technical risk elements for next generation rotorcraft; and firm up their approach to meet the Army’s future requirements. AVX [PDF].

JMR studies

July 14/11: X2. Sikorsky formally wraps up its self-funded X2 R&D program, after 23 test flights and a maximum cruise speed of 253 knots in level flight on Sept 15/10. The design, technology, and team aren’t going anywhere, though. They’re just transitioning to the self-funded S-97 Raider armed scout and special forces application demonstrator, which Sikorsky has picked as its first development of X2 technology. Sikorsky.

X2 development done

Sept 20/05: JHL studies. The US Army awards a set of conceptual design and analysis contracts for the Joint Heavy Lift program, which is envisioned a sa long-term replacement for the CH-47F heavy-lift helicopters they’re ordering. About 5 contracts are issued, for about $3.5 million each. The winners were:

  • Sikorsky X2C, X2 Technology Crane – coaxial rotor (165 knots, eliminated)
  • Boeing ATRH, Advanced Tandem Rotor Helicopter (165 knots, eliminated)
  • Sikorsky X2HSL, X2 Technology High Speed Lifter – advancing blade compound (245 knots);
  • Bell Boeing QTR, Quad Tilt Rotor (275 knots); and
  • Frontier Aircraft OSTR, Optimum Speed Tilt Rotor (310 knots).

Frontier Aircraft is eventually bought by Boeing, and 2 of the design are eliminated in late 2007 when the Army decides to add aerial refueler capability and make the minimum speed 220 knots.

Read “Joint Heavy Lift Program: Breakthrough, Borg, or Backwater?” for full coverage of the effort, which eventually stalled out completely before resurfacing, yet again, in the Future Vertical Lift concept. On the other hand, it allowed a number of current competitors a few more R&D dollars to play with, and spurred serious development of technologies like X2.

JHL studies

Additional Readings

Background: JMR-FVL Program & Contenders

News & Views

V-22 Osprey: The Multi-Year Buys, 2008-2017

$
0
0
V-22 Cutaway
(click to view full)

In March 2008, the Bell Boeing Joint Project Office in Amarillo, TX received a $10.4 billion modification that converted the previous N00019-07-C-0001 advance acquisition contract to a fixed-price-incentive-fee, multi-year contract. The new contract rose to $10.92 billion, and was used to buy 143 MV-22 (for USMC) and 31 CV-22 (Air Force Special Operations) Osprey aircraft, plus associated manufacturing tooling to move the aircraft into full production. A follow-on MYP-II contract covered another 99 Ospreys (92 MV-22, 7 CV-22) for $6.524 billion. Totals: $17.444 billion for 235 MV-22s and 38 CV-22s, an average of $63.9 million each.

The V-22 tilt-rotor program has been beset by controversy throughout its 20-year development period. Despite these issues, and the emergence of competitive but more conventional compound helicopter technologies like Piasecki’s X-49 Speedhawk and Sikorsky’s X2, the V-22 program continues to move forward. This DID Spotlight article looks at the V-22’s multi-year purchase contract from 2008-12 and 2013-2017, plus associated contracts for key V-22 systems, program developments, and research sources.

The V-22 Program

Documentary

V-22 Initial Operational Capability didn’t begin until 2007, about 24 years after the initial design contract. A long series of design issues and mass-fatality crashes almost got the program canceled, but Congressional industrial lobbying preserved it.

The current objective is 472 Osprey tilt-rotors: 360 MV-22 Marine Corps aircraft, 14 VH-22 Presidential squadron, 50 CV-22 aircraft for USSOCOM (funded by USSOCOM and the Air Force), and 48 HV-22 Navy aircraft.

USMC. The Marine Corps plans to field:

  • 18 active squadrons x 12 MV-22B
  • 2 reserve squadrons x 12 MV-22B
  • 1 fleet replacement squadron x 20 MV-22B

A requirements-based analysis is underway to increase the program of record to 388, which would involve the introduction of VMM-362 and VMM-212 in FY 2018 – 2019.

As of November 2014, the USMC says that they’re 65% through its transition from CH-46E Sea Knight helicopters, with 13 full operational capability squadrons. Remaining switchovers will involve the West Coast, Hawaii, and the reserves, with some basing shifts, and the last CH-46E retiring from HMM-774 in early FY 2015.

Presidential. Beyond the USMC’s combat and training units, a squadron of 12 USMC VH-22s now serves in the Presidential squadron, effectively replacing past CH-46E and CH-53E helicopters. The President never rides in them, though – they’re solely for supplies, aides, etc. By FY 2016, the squadron will be full at 14 planes.

Navy. There was supposed to be an V-22 for the US Navy, but its expected roles in search and rescue etc. were taken up by the MH-60S Seahawk helicopter. Technically, a buy of 48 HV-22s has always been part of the program. In reality, the US Navy has made no moves to adopt the platform. That may change as of FY 2016, if the V-22 can win a likely competition for the next Carrier Onboard Delivery (COD) platform to replace the fixed-wing C-2A Greyhound.

Indeed, on January 13, the Bell-Boeing consortium signed a memorandum of understanding with the Navy to provide the replacement for Carrier Onboard Delivery services. The big challenge will be whether or not the Osprey can handle the behemoth F-35 engine, the F-135.

The Osprey certainly didn’t compete on price or operating costs against remanufactured C-2s that use technologies from the derivative E-2D Hawkeye production line, while Lockheed Martin’s refurbished and modified C-3 Viking offered jet speeds and the unique ability to carry whole F135 jet engines inside. Boeing and Textron relied on the Navy valuing the V-22’s commonality, and ability to land on more of the carrier group’s ships, enough to pay a lot more for less internal capacity.

To date, there have been no exports of the V-22. Israel is mulling over an offer for an expedited buy of 6 MV-22s, and Japan is contemplating 20-40 MV-22s to equip their new Marines, but neither has signed a contract. As of October 2014, formal briefings have also been given to Australia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Italy, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, and the UAE.

MV-22 vs. CV-22
MV-22 w. M777 howitzer
MV-22 & M777
(click to view full)

The V-22 comes in 2 variants.

MV-22. The US Marines operate the MV-22, whose most current configuration is Block C. A subtype of the MV-22 serves in the Presidential squadrons, as the VH-22.

The current MV-22 Block C’s enhancements (software version C1.01) include forward-mounted AN/ALE-47 defensive systems, move the MV-22’s Ice Detectors, improve dust protection for the engines, and add a redesigned Environmental Control System (ECS) to keep devices and troops from overheating. A “Cabin Situational Awareness Device” displays essential mission information, including access to GPS updates for handheld devices, plus way points, flight plans, location, etc. for troop commanders inside. For the pilots, a Color Weather Radar System provides weather detection, ground mapping to 20 nm, and sea search. Electronic Standby Flight Instruments (ESFI) replace the analog standby instrument cluster, and a Day Heads-up Display (HUD) feeds its data to a helmet-mounted monocle. A Traffic Advisory System (TAS) was intended to warn MV-22 pilots of other aircraft that might hit them, but it doesn’t work properly.

As of October 2014, operational USMC squadrons mostly fly the MV-22B Block B. This mix is expected to shift in the near future: from 8 MV-22B Block B and 4 MV-22B Block C per squadron, to an even 8:8 ratio. The VMMT-204 training squadron is different, and will contain Block A and Block B aircraft until Block As are fully phased out FY 2018.

The USMC currently has a real problem escorting MV-22s, with AH-1Z Viper helicopters not really fast enough, and AV-8B Harrier jets a bit too fast. Future plans include more jamming and warning devices, as well as offensive upgrades. Weapons haven’t been very successful on the V-22 yet, thanks to the huge position arc of the tilting rotors. Fixing that requires significant changes like BAE’s IDWS cut-in belly turret, but many pilots prefer to just use the craft’s speed as a defense. Future USMC concepts of operations may not always give them that luxury, so the USMC plans to add an Advanced Targeting Sensor with full laser targeting. It would be accompanied by some kind of precision strike weapon, type undetermined. Those kinds of weapons wouldn’t suffer from the same arc-of-fire problems, but wide turbulence variations could make release testing fun and exciting.

At present, MV-22B Block D is only in the initial planning stage. Block D will serve as a mid-life upgrade, with a partial but much-needed focus on reliability, maintainability, and operating costs. We won’t see an MV-22C until the mid-2030s.

Afghan mission

CV-22. US Air Force Special Operations Command operates the CV-22, which adds more sophisticated surveillance capabilities, beefed-up defensive systems that include the AN/ALQ-211v2, extra fuel tanks, and useful capabilities like terrain-following flight. Its most current configuration is the CV-22 Block 20.

A 2013 incident in South Sudan led to several operators being injured by small arms fire that punched up through the CV-22’s belly. AFSOCOM is looking at lightweight armoring modifications to try to improve that situation.

V-22 Budgets & Buys
V-22 Osprey Budgets, 2002 - 2019
MV-22 & CV-22 Budgets, 2002 - 2019

Initial Operational Capability in 2007 was followed by a big Multi-Year Procurement contract in FY 2008, which ended up buying 175 V-22s (143 MV-22s, 32 CV-22s) for about $14.416 billion.

The US fiscal situation is almost certain to lead to serious defense budget cuts, so the V-22’s manufacturers responded by trying to lock the government into a 2nd multi-year contract, creating cancellation penalties that would make the Osprey too expensive to kill, and impossible to seriously reduce. Enough contracts like that will end up gutting other USMC investments when cuts do hit, and could lead to even more serious problems if V-22 fleet operations and maintenance costs don’t start dropping very quickly (vid. Nov. 29/11 entry).

That wasn’t the manufacturers’ concern, however, and it wasn’t the Navy’s, either. The FY 2013 budget included a submission to buy 98 more V-22 aircraft (91 MV-22s, 7 CV-22s) under a 2nd fixed-price multi-year contract, between FY 2013 – FY 2017. The MV-22s will be bought by the Navy for the Marines, while the CV-22s aircraft are a joint buy involving the USAF and SOCOM. To get approval for a multi-year buy, they had to demonstrate at least 10% cost savings over the same buys placed year by year. Their proposal hoped to save $852.4 million, or 11.6% of the total, at the price of less flexibility in the number bought through FY 2017:

Proposed V-22 follow-on MYP 2013-17
Year Qty Net Proc.
($M)
Savings
FY13 21 1,693 38
FY14 21 1,741 185
FY15 19 1,541 226
FY16 19 1,468 229
FY17 18 1,430 225
Total 98 7,922 852
Source: US Navy, FY13 PB [large PDF].
Totals may not add up due to rounding up and FY12 Advance Procurement (incl. $50M for cost reduction initiatives).

The actual contract and budget plans ended up being a bit different, per the June 12/13 entry and the data and graphs above. Instead of 98 Ospreys (91 MV-22, 7 CV-22) for $6.5 billion, the actual MYP-II contract adds up to 99 tilt-rotors for $6.524 billion.

Contracts & Key Events

CV-22
AFSOC CV-22
(click to view full)

Unless otherwise noted, US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD issues the contracts, and the Bell-Boeing Joint Program tiltrotor team in Amarillo, TX is the contractor.

Note that “low power repairs” are triggered when an AE1107 engine’s Power Assurance Check (PAC) reads below 96%. It’s normal for aircraft engine performance to drop somewhat over time, and the fix involves engine removal for maintenance and tune-up.

FY 2016

Rocket test

November 13/15: The USMC is hoping that foreign production orders will cover a gap in V-22 Osprey production between 2017 and 2020, with a planned multi-year buy appearing insufficient to keep the Boeing production line healthy until a newer variant is introduced. By bringing in orders from international partners, the per-unit price of future multi-year buys could be reduced by around 10%. Countries such as Japan, South Korea and Israel could be precisely the type of orders the Marines are hoping for. The latter of which could receive the aircraft as part of a US military aid package currently under negotiation.

FY 2015

Export prospects. Firing forward.

September 2/15: The Japanese defense budget will again break the record, but increase only 2.2 percent to ¥5.09 trillion. Programs funded include the V-22 Osprey, with this year’s expenditures covering the purchase of a dozen.

August 17/15: The Marines are exploring possible upgrades to their fleet of V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft. This plan would involve bringing 131 A and B model Ospreys up to the C spec in order to access the higher availability rates offered by the C variant. The C model boasts a variety of improvements on earlier models, including a redesigned Environmental Control System (ECS) to keep devices and troops from overheating. The Marines are now reportedly in talks with manufacturer Boeing to establish the likely costs of these upgrades.

July 15/15: The Bell-Boeing Joint Project Office was handed a $332.5 million contract modification to manufacture and delivery five MV-22B Block C Osprey tiltrotor aircraft to Japan, following a DSCA request in May. The Japanese government requested seventeen of the aircraft, with this contract subsequently revising the number down. This latest modification has been tacked onto a December 2011 contract which covered the manufacture of MV-22 and CV-22 aircraft for the US Air Force and Marine Corps. Japan announced its intention to procure the tiltrotor aircraft last November, with this marking the first international export for the type.

June 19/15: The United Arab Emirates is reportedly showing interest in procuring V-22 tiltrotor aircraft from Boeing, following the Paris Air Show. The possible sale of the aircraft to Israel is still on hold, with Japan recently requesting seventeen Ospreys in a $3 billion sale. The company has also been chasing the United Kingdom and Singapore as possible future customers. However, the future of the aircraft is uncertain despite optimism from the manufacturers.

November 2014: rocket tests. Bell Helicopter announces on Dec. 8 that forward-firing capability was successfully tested during the previous month at the US Army Proving Ground in Yuma, AZ. V-22s refuel and reload from Forward Arming and Refueling Points (FARPs), and Bell hopes that the installation of forward-firing weapons will reduce reliance on them. This may also reduce the need for V-22s to be escorted by slower attack helicopters, and the absence of a forward-facing gun was among the trade-offs that mired the program’s early years in controversy. Back during the program’s prehistory planners had considered turret-mounting a GAU-19 gatling gun in the aircraft’s undernose [GDAS PDF, 2002].

FARP Ops

Nov 3/14: USMC Plan. The USMC’s Aviation Plan to 2030 has a number of sections that are relevant to the V-22. The V-22 Aerial Refueling System (VARS) roll-on capability is being developed to field with the F-35B’s West Pacific deployment in summer 2017, as a near-ship aerial tanker for large-deck amphibious assault ships. Follow-on certifications would aim to refuel other V-22s and helicopters.

The MV-22’s own ability to refuel in the air currently has flight clearance for USMC KC-130s and USAF KC-10s. The next certifications will involve Omega Air Tanker’s private K-707s, and the USAF’s forthcoming 767-based KC-46s. Deployment dates aren’t given for those.

The V-22 fleet is scheduled to get LAIRCM defenses against infrared-guided missiles in 2016, and radar-related defenses are in the Survivability Upgrade Roadmap, but not extra armor (q.v. May 22/14). The Interoperability Upgrade Roadmap makes the MV-22 the lead platform for the the Software Reprogrammable Payload communications package, with integration beginning at the end of FY 15. It’s eventually expected to include full voice/ data/ video compatibility, datalinks like Link-16 and TTNT, and even full airborne communications gateway capabilities. The other future IUR item of especial interest is integrated RFID for cargo and personnel.

Finally, plans exist to beef up MV-22 weapons and “increase all-axis, stand-off, and precision capabilities.” This will include an upgraded Advanced Targeting Sensor with full laser targeting. The huge position arc of the tilting rotors makes guns very difficult to use, absent significant changes like BAE’s IDWS cut-in belly turret. But there’s no issue for small precision gravity weapons like ATK’s Hatchet or MBDA’s Viper-E, small missiles like Raytheon’s Griffin, or well-understood weapons like 7-rocket pods with APKWS laser-guided 70mm rockets, or (less likely) the future JAGM missile.

Weight and complexity are always worth considering before making these kinds of weapon modifications, especially in light of evidence that V-22s already need more belly armor. The V-22’s wide turbulence variations could also make weapon release testing fun and exciting. On the other hand, the USMC currently has a real problem escorting MV-22s, with AH-1Z Viper helicopters not really fast enough, and AV-8B Harrier jets a bit too fast. If the weight trade-off works, a precision weapons option may help solve some operational gaps. Sources: USMC, Marine Aviation Plan 2015 [PDF].

USMC Aviation Plan

MV-22 landing

MV-22 landing

Nov 2-5/14: Israel. Israeli defense minister Moshe Ya’alon is recommending the cancellation of several deals with the USA, including the V-22. A potential purchase of more F-35s has survived, but the V-22, more KC-135 aerial tankers, radar-killing missiles, and radar upgrades for Israel’s F-15s have not. Instead, recent fighting in Gaza, and developments in Lebanon and Syria, are pushing him toward more buys of precision weapons and ground forces equipment. The weak protection of Israeli M113s has come in for particular criticism.

The decision isn’t final, and the IDF and Mossad were both lobbying to keep the V-22s, in advance of a planned Nov 5/14 meeting of high-level ministers. That meeting showed weakened F-35 support, which may open a door for the V-22s. The USA’s Letter of Offer and Acceptance, which will expire on Dec 10/14, reportedly allows Israel to buy 6 V-22s and initial infrastructure for about $900 million, instead of the $1.3 billion mentioned in the DSCA announcement. The arrangement with the USMC would also ensure delivery by 2016, and funding arrangements involve commercial bridge loans that would be repaid with future American military grant aid. Those are fine terms, and there is both commercial and strategic value in securing Israel as the V-22’s 1st export customer. Now that Japan is also stepping up, however (q.v. Oct 16/14), this isn’t an offer that’s likely to be repeated. Then again, with new technology like Sikorsky’s S-97 Raider emerging, Israel may be field lower-cost, fully-armed options with similar flight performance by 2019 or so. Sources: Defense News, “Israeli Brass Urge MoD To Stick With V-22 Deal” | Times of Israel, “Ya’alon said to cancel aircraft purchase from US” | Times of Israel, “Ministers may look to shoot down F-35 jet deal”.

Oct 23/14: ECM. Northrop Grumman in Rolling Meadows, IL receives a $7.9 million task order for 1-time engineering in support of the MV-22’s Integrated Aircraft Survivability Equipment Suite upgrade, including integration of the AN/AAQ-24(V)25 software with an electronic warfare controller and the MV-22 mission computer. All funds are committed, using FY 2014 US Navy aircraft budgets.

Work will be performed in Rolling Meadows, IL, and is expected to be complete in April 2016. Fiscal 2014 aircraft procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $7,926,639 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity (N00019-10-G-0004, #00506).

Oct 16/14: Exports. Marine Corps Commandant General James Amos says that he’s pleased with the V-22 (not he’d say anything else), and specifically mentions the roll-on/roll-off aerial tanker capability as something that’s going well. He adds that a 2nd second foreign country is expected to announce plans to buy the V-22 Osprey within the next 6 months, joining Israel (q.v. Jan 14/14) as an export customer.

That country is almost certainly Japan; they have said as much (q.v. Dec 14/13), and supposedly want 20-40 tilt-rotors overall. The article adds that formal V-22 briefings have been given to Australia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, (Israel), Italy, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, and the UAE. Sources: Reuters, “US sees second foreign buyer for V-22 Osprey in six months”.

FY 2014

Israel confirmed for 6; Japan to buy at least 17; Prep & orders for new ECM systems; Lots of support contracts; Still looking for an engine alternative?

MV-22's dust cloud
MV-22
(click to view full)

Sept 25/14: Training. A $24 million firm-fixed-price delivery order against a previously issued Basic Ordering Agreement to upgrade the MV-22 Consolidated V-22 Electronics Maintenance Trainer, V-22 Sponson Part Task Trainer, V-22 Aircraft Maintenance Trainer, and Power Plants Training Article Trainers to the Block C configuration, to keep them in sync with serving tilt-rotors. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2013 and 2014 Navy aircraft budgets.

Work will be performed in Philadelphia, PA (35%); Fort Worth, TX (34%); St. Louis, MO (14%); Ozark, AL (11%); Jacksonville, NC (5%); and Mesa, AZ (1%), and is expected to be complete in December 2016 (N00019-12-G-0006, DO 0092).

Sept 25/14: Training. A $10 million firm-fixed-price delivery order for upgrades to 13 Marine Corps MV-22 training devices to the MV-22 Block C-2.01 configuration. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2013 Navy aircraft budgets.

Work will be performed in New River, NC (86%), and Miramar, CA (14%), and is expected to be complete in September 2016. The Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division in Orlando, FL manages the contract (N00019-12-G-0006, DO 0026).

Sept 23/14: Support. A $36.6 million contract modification for the repair of various V-22 parts, including the Prop-Rotor Gearbox and HUB Assembly. Funds will be committed as required, using FY 2014 Navy budgets.

Work will be performed in Hurst, TX, and is expected to be complete no later than Sept 30/15. One company was solicited for this non-competitive requirement in accordance with 10 U.S.C.2304 (c)(1), and 1 offer was received by NAVSUP Weapon Systems Support in Philadelphia, PA (N00383-14-D-039N, PO 0001).

Sept 11/14: Support. A $9.6 million firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order for one-time engineering involving the MV-22’s variable frequency generator-generator control unit update. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2013 US Navy budgets.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ (56%); Philadelphia, PA (43%); and Amarillo, TX (1%), and is expected to be complete in March 2017 (N00019-12-G-0006, DO 0109).

Sept 9/14: Support. A $9.5 million cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order buys spare V-22 flight display components, building up a stock of components that are no longer easily available due to production closeouts and material shortages. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2013 Navy budgets.

Work will be performed in Philadelphia, PA, and is expected to be complete in December 2016 (N00019-12-G-0006, DO 0061).

Sept 17/14: Engines. Rolls Royce seems to be taking the threat of an engine switch (q.v. Sept 1/14) seriously. Their latest release touts modifications that improve performance 17% at the US military’s standard challenge limit of 6,000 foot hover out of ground effect in lift-sapping 95F degree temperatures.

They also tout $90 million in ongoing investments under their MissionCare support costs by the hour deal. Reducing maintenance costs per flight hour by 34% since 2009 is very good for the firm’s bottom line under that scenario. Whether it’s at a level the US military would call good, of course, depends on its absolute price. As a hedge, Rolls Royce can also point to 730 AE-1107C engines delivered, ground tests that have demonstrated potential upgrades to over 8,800 shp, and the MT7 engine derivative’s role in the US Navy’s forthcoming SSC hovercraft. Sources: Rolls Royce, “V-22 flight tests validate ‘hot and high’ capability for Rolls-Royce AE 1107C engines”.

Sept 3/14: Engine support. Rolls-Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN receives a $10.1 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for AE1107C MissionCareTM support, including “lower power engine removals and repairs.” All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2014 US Navy O&M budgets.

Work will be performed in Oakland, CA (70%), and Indianapolis, IN (30%), and is expected to be complete in February 2015. US Navy NAVAIR in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-10-C-0020).

Sept 1/14: Engine alternative? The Pentagon is still looking into alternatives to the V-22’s Liberty engine, but that has been true for years (q.v. March 8/10). The Wall Street Journal:

“The V-22 Program is continually investigating ways to reduce the life cycle costs of the aircraft,” the U.S. Navy, which manages the program, said in an email. “Knowing that more than 90% of the operational use of the V-22 is in the future, coupled with budget pressures, it is prudent to investigate alternatives to existing systems and the engine is no exception.”

The catch? The engine has to be fully retrofittable into the V-22, with minimal to no impact on the V-22’s physical characteristics, and equal or better performance, without costing more. One imagines that the Pentagon would have a candidate already, if that combination was easy to find. Lesson: if you need non-standard power output levels, for a totally different airframe concept, it’s going to be tough to replace. Sources: WSJ, “Rolls-Royce Under Threat for Osprey Engine Deal” [subscription].

Aug 28/14: MV-22 ECM. A $21.4 million cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order for non-recurring engineering in support of the “MV-22 Integrated Aircraft Survivability Equipment Universal Urgent Needs Statement Effort.” This order helps fund initial steps toward replacing the missile warning system and radar warning receiver system, and upgrades the capabilities of the countermeasures control system and associated software. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2014 US Navy procurement budgets.

AFSOC is already rolling with something like that for its CV-22s (q.v. Aug 1/14).

Work will be performed in Ridley Park, PA (86%); Fort Walton Beach, FL (4%); Hurst, TX (2%); Salisbury, MD (2%); and various locations throughout the United States (6%), and is expected to be complete in April 2016 (N00019-12-G-0006, #0096).

Aug 1/14: CV-22 ECM. Exelis, Inc. in Clifton, NJ receives a $190 million indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract to provide AN/ALQ-211 Suite of Integrated Radio Frequency Countermeasure components and related services, on behalf of the Technology Applications program office and CV-22 program office. The contract has a 5-year base period and a 3-year incentive award period, with $8.6 million committed immediately for the 1st task order from FY 2014 US SOCOM O&M funds.

The CV-22 uses the ALQ-211v2 variant; US SOCOM also uses this system in its MH-60 (ALQ-211v7) and MH-47 (ALQ-211v6) helicopters, and each platform has a slightly different mix of components and capabilities. The V-22 has slightly weaker jamming, for instance.

Work on the base contract will continue until July 30/19, and individual task orders will be funded with operations and maintenance or procurement appropriations under the appropriate fiscal year. This contract was a not competitively procured by US Special Operations Command in Tampa, FL, in accordance with FAR 6.302-1 (H92241-14-D-0006). See also: Exelis, AN/ALQ-211 brochure [PDF].

July 29/14: Engines. Rolls-Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN receives a $29.1 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, buying Mission Care support by the hour for the V-22’s AE1107C engine, including flight hours, and lower power engine removals and repairs. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2014 Navy, USAF, and SOCOM O&M budgets.

Work will be performed in Oakland, CA (70%) and Indianapolis, IN (30%), and is expected to be complete in February 2015 (N00019-10-C-0020).

July 22/14: Upgrades. A $69.7 million cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order covers Phase II non-recurring engineering of the V-22’s Improved Inlet Solution (IIS). It includes completion of preliminary and critical design reviews; installation of an IIS retrofit kit for installation on a CV-22 aircraft for demonstration and operation; installation of aircraft instrumentation to support flight test analysis; flight and qualification testing of the IIS design; and removal of the instrumentation from the test aircraft following flight testing. $31.3 million un FY 2014 USAF and US Navy RDT&E funds is committed immediately.

Work will be performed Amarillo, TX (73%), and Philadelphia, PA (27%), and is expected to be complete in December 2018. This delivery order combines purchases for the USAF ($41.8 million / 60%) and the U.S. Navy ($27.9 million / 40%). US NAVAIR in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-12-G-0006, 0073).

July 21/14: Japan. Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera confirms that the 17 MV-22s Japan plans to buy over the next 5 years (q.v. Dec 14/13) will be stationed at Saga city’s commercial airport in northwestern Kyushu. This keeps the Ospreys close to Sasebo in Nagasaki Prefecture, which will hold Japan’s planned amphibious force. Saga will also be usable by the US Marines when the MV-22s from MCAS Futenma conduct training, exercises, or operations in mainland Japan. Sources: Asahi Simbun, “SDF to deploy 17 Osprey aircraft at Saga Airport”.

July 8/14: Upgrades. A $14.6 million cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order for research, engineering and technical analysis “of new capabilities of the V-22 aircraft.” It combines USAF ($8.8 million / 60%) and US Navy ($5.9 million / 40%), and $2.1 million in FY 2014 R&D funding is committed immediately.

Work will be performed at Ridley Park, PA (55%) and Fort Worth, TX (45%), and is expected to be complete in June 2019 (N00019-12-G-0006, DO 0089).

June 12/14: Support. Small business qualifiers Form Fit and Function, LLC in Patterson, NJ wins a $9.8 million firm-fixed price, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract to manufacture “peculiar support equipment” for the V-22: hub and blade stands, blade trailer adapters, restraint tools, and actuators. $1.8 million in FY 2012 and FY 2013 USAF/ US Navy aircraft procurement budgets is committed immediately.

Work will be performed in Patterson, NJ, and is expected to be complete in June 2017. This contract was competitively procured via a HUB Zone set-aside electronic RFP, and 4 offers were received by the US Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division in Lakehurst, NJ (N68335-14-D-0024).

June 4/14: Engines. Rolls-Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN receives a $9.5 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to a previously awarded for 13 MV-22 “low power engine repairs” under the Mission Care contract. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2014 O&M budgets.

Work will be performed in Oakland, CA, and is expected to be complete in February 2015 (N00019-10-C-0020).

May 22/14: Mods. Briefings at the annual SOFIC conference indicate that SOCOM is looking at a limited set of new options for its CV-22s. SOCOM’s V-22/C-130 program director Lt. Col. John DiSebastian says that they can’t afford $50 million to refit 50 CV-22s, but “if you’ve got a $100,000 or a $50,000 widget that can improve the sustainment, capability, or ops of the aircraft, then bring that to us.”

Some CV-22s got shot up during a mission over South Sudan (q.v. Dec 21/13), prompting SOCOM to start adding additional armoring. They’re also looking at a forward-firing gun that would be simpler than the retractable 7.62mm IDWS, and pack more punch. Sources: Gannett’s Air Force Times, “SOCOM soon getting more capable, deadlier Ospreys and C-130s”.

May 6/14: ECM. Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. in Rolling Meadows, IL receives $18 million for cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order for one-time engineering in support of the MV-22 Integrated Aircraft Survivability Equipment Suite upgrade. This includes integration of AN/AAQ-24(V)25 LAIRCM software with an electronic warfare controller and with the MV-22 mission computer.

$7.8 million in FY 2014 Navy aircraft procurement funds are committed immediately. Work will be performed in Rolling Meadows, IL and is expected to be completed in April 2016. US NAVAIR in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-10-G-0004, 0506).

May 5/14: Engines. Rolls-Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN receives an $8 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for CV-22 Mission Care engine support, including AE1107C lower power engine removals.

All funds are committed, using FY 2014 O&M budgets, all of which will expire on Sept 30/14. Work will be performed in Oakland, CA (70%) and Indianapolis, IN (30%), and is expected to be complete in February 2015. US NAVAIR in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-10-C-0020).

April 8/14: Israel. Israel is opting for a deferred payment plan (DPP) to purchase a range of new military equipment, including its V-22s (q.v. Jan 14/14).

“The Defense News report quotes US and Israeli officials saying Israel would only pay interest and fees until the current military aid package expires in September 2018, while the principal on the loan would be covered by a new aid package promised by President Barack Obama, which would extend the annual foreign military financing (FMF) aid until 2028.”

Sources: yNet News, “New deal to purchase V-22s relies on future US aid”

April 1/14: Support. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp. in Rockford, IL receives a $7.4 million firm-fixed-price delivery order for repairs of the V-22 Osprey’s aircraft constant frequency generator, which is part of the electrical power system.

All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2014 Navy budgets. Work will be performed in Rockville, IL, and is expected to be complete in September 2016. US Naval Supply Systems Command Weapon Systems Support in Philadelphia, PA manages the contract (N00383-12-D-011N, DO 7006).

March 26/14: Engines support. Rolls-Royce in Indianapolis, IN receives a $39.6 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for 26,495 V-22 flight hours and 26 low power MV-22 repairs under the existing Mission Care contract.

All funds are committed immediately, and expire on Sept 30/14. Work will be performed in Oakland, CA (70%) and Indianapolis, IN (30%), and is expected to be complete in February 2015. US Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, MD, is the contracting activity (N00019-10-C-0020).

March 4-11/14: FY15 Budget. The US military slowly files its budget documents, detailing planned spending from FY 2014 – 2019. Bell and Boeing worked hard to get a multi-year deal signed before sequestration, so that their orders would be locked in. That is holding true, see charts in this article.

AFSOC appears to be set to stop 2 CV-22s short of its planned 52, however, ordering just 51 including 1 loss replacement. The USMC will continue buying another 15 or so from FY 2020 onward, but the V-22 needs to win the US Navy Carrier On-board Delivery plane competition to keep things going much longer after that. Sources: USN, PB15 Press Briefing [PDF] | USAF, Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Overview.

March 7/14: A $76.1 million modification to Lot 17-21’s fixed-price-incentive-fee multiyear contract exercises an option for 1 USAF CV-22 tiltrotor aircraft.

All funds are committed immediately, using FY14 USAF & SOCOM budgets. Work will be performed in Fort Worth, TX (24.6%); Ridley Park, PA (19.2%), Amarillo, TX (10.4%), Dallas, TX (4.3%); East Aurora, NY (2.5%); Park City, Utah (1.7%); El Segundo, CA (1.3%); Endicott, NY (1%); Ontario, Canada (0.9%); Tempe, AZ (0.8%); Rome, NY (0.7%); Torrance, CA (0.7%); Luton, United Kingdom (0.6%); Clifton, N.J. (0.6%); Salisbury, MD (0.6%); Los Angeles, CA (0.6%); Cobham, United Kingdom (0.6%); Irvine, CA (0.6%); San Diego, CA (0.5%); Yakima, WA (0.5%); Brea, CA (0.5%); Rockmart, GA (0.5%); McKinney, TX (0.4%); Albuquerque, NM (0.4%); Whitehall, MI (0.4%); Wolverhampton, United Kingdom (0.4%); Tucson, AZ (0.4%); Erie, PA (0.3%); Vergennes, VT (0.3%); Kilgore, TX (0.3%); Shelby, NC (0.3%); Avon, OH (0.2%); Santa Clarita, CA (0.2%); Garden City, NY (0.2%); El Cajon, CA (0.2%); Corinth, TX (0.2%); Sylmar, CA (0.2%); Westbury, NY (0.1%); and various other locations inside and outside the United States (21.8%), and is expected to be complete in December 2016 (N00019-12-C-2001).

1 CV-22

March 4/14: FY15 Budget. The USAF and USN unveil their preliminary budget request briefings. They aren’t precise, but they do offer planned purchase numbers for key programs between FY 2014 – 2019.

Total V-22 buys will be unaffected, even as key programs like the P-8 sea control aircraft and its MQ-4C Triton UAV companion are cut back and delayed. This is to be expected, given the reality of an existing multi-year contract. The only real savings would have involved cutting the 4 MV-22s per year in FY 2018 and 2019. That doesn’t help in 2015, and applies to the Marines rather than the Navy. Source: USN, PB15 Press Briefing [PDF] | USAF, Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Overview.

Feb 28/14: Support. A $351 million cost-plus-incentive, fixed-price incentive-fee contract modification for V-22 Joint Performance Based Logistics support.

Funds will be committed as individual delivery orders are issued. Work will be performed in Fort Worth, TX (40%); Ridley Park, PA (40%); various locations within the continental United States (15%) and locations outside the continental United States (5%), and is expected to be complete in November 2016 (N00019-09-D-0008).

Feb 28/14: Engines. Rolls-Royce in Indianapolis, IN receives an $8 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for 11 low power CV-22 repairs under the Mission Care? engine contract.

All funds are committed, using USAF FY 2014 O&M budgets. Work will be performed in Oakland, CA (70%) and Indianapolis, IN (30%), and is expected to be complete in February 2015 (N00019-10-C-0020).

Feb 25/14: Support. Raytheon Co. in McKinney, TX receives $14.3 million for firm-fixed-price delivery order under a previously awarded Basic Ordering Agreement for various quantities of repair parts to support the H-53 and V-22 aircraft.

All funds are committed immediately. Work will be performed in Jacksonville, FL, and is expected to be complete by Feb 28/16. The contract was not competitively procured in accordance with FAR 6.302-1, and is managed by US NAVSUP Weapon Systems Support in Philadelphia, PA (N00383-11-G-003D, 7008).

Feb 12/14: HV-22 COD? Vice Adm. David Buss, commander Naval Air Forces, says that the service is about a year away from picking their replacement Carrier Onboard Delivery aircraft to replace the C-2 Greyhounds. “We’re still culling through all the data and very much in the [analysis of alternatives] process.” The problem of what to do with the F-35B/C fleet’s F135 engines is especially vexing, as the V-22 can’t carry a whole engine, and it isn;t likely that a C-2D could, either. Yet the F-35’s status as the Navy’s future fighter makes that a critical piece of cargo. Sources: USNI, “WEST: Decision on New Carrier Supply Plane ‘About a Year Away'”.

Jan 30/14: Engines. Rolls-Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN receives a $90.2 million contract modification from the USMC, exercising an option for 40 AE1107C engines on the production line (20 MV-22s).

All funds are committed immediately, using USN FY 2013-2014 aircraft budgets. Work will be performed in Indianapolis, IN, and is expected to be complete in November 2015 (N00019-12-C-0007).

Jan 30/14: Support. A $10.3 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract modification for more MV-22 and CV-22 Joint Performance Based Logistics support.

All funds are committed immediately, using SOCOM, USAf, and Navy budgets. Work will be performed in Amarillo, TX (50%) and Philadelphia, PA (50%), and is expected to be complete in February 2014. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity (N00019-09-D-0008).

Jan 28/14: DOT&E Testing Report. The Pentagon releases the FY 2013 Annual Report from its Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E). The Special Forces CV-22 is their focus this year. As of Aug 13/13, 34 of 50 CV-22 aircraft have been fielded, but it has a serious issue to address.

2008 had revealed serious shortfalls in the Block 5 Suite of Integrated Radio Frequency Countermeasures (SIFRC) defensive system. They included serious reliability issues, inaccurate and late threat awareness, and limited countermeasure effectiveness against some threats. That won’t do, so the USAF modified SIRFC with new, higher-power transmitters, cabling, radio-frequency switches, antennas, and Block 7 operational flight software.

SIFRC Block 7 improves awareness, and offers some reliability improvements, but the other issues remain. Electronic countermeasures are no better than Block 5. The decoy countermeasures dispenser has to be triggered manually, because the automatic mode doesn’t work. The system also persists in “blue screen of death” computer system crashes, which require reboots. You’d rather not be shot at just then. The DOT&E’s overall verdict was that the CV-22 is survivable with the SIFRC Block 7 system, if correct tactics and procedures are used, but they’d still like to see these things fixed.

AFSOC also switched the GAU-21 (FN M3M) .50 caliber machine gun for the lightweight GAU-18 M2 variant on the rear ramp, which improved reliability. Antennas were also switched about, after 2008 tests showed radio communications limits that were unreliable even within 0.5 nmi of ground troops. FY 2013 testing went better, and radio communication with ground troops extended to 25 nmi, and aircraft extended from 5 nmi to 120 nmi.

DOT&E report

Jan 15/14: Support. A $26.7 million cost-plus-fixed-fee, cost reimbursable delivery order for on-site V-22 flight test management, flight test engineering, design engineering, and related efforts to support the US Navy’s Rotary Wing Aircraft Test Squadron.

All funds are committed immediately, using USN FY 2013 procurement and FY 2014 R&D dollars. Work will be performed at Patuxent River Naval Air Station, Patuxent River, MD (53%); Philadelphia, PA (32%); and Fort Worth, TX (15%), and is expected to be complete in December 2014 (N00019-12-G-0006, DO 0067).

Jan 15/14: Engines. Rolls-Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN receives a $13.6 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to provide 17,226 MV-22 engine flight hours. The maintenance and work required to keep the fleet in shape for that is their problem.

All funds are committed immediately, using FT 2014 Navy O&M funds. Work will be performed in Oakland, CA (70%) and Indianapolis, IN (30%), and the Pentagon days that it “is expected to be complete in November 2013”. Looks like they’re paying for a past period? (N00019-10-C-0020).

Jan 14/14: Israel. The US DSCA announces Israel’s official request for up to 6 “V-22B Block C Aircraft” for search and rescue and special operations roles. MV-22B Block Cs are the USMC’s most modern variant, though the notice carefully avoids specifying either USMC MV-22s or SOCOM CV-22s. The request could be worth up to $1.3 billion, and includes:

  • 16 Rolls Royce AE1107C Engines (12 + 4 spares)
  • 6 AN/APR-39 Radar Warning Receiver Systems
  • 6 AN/ALE-47 Countermeasure Dispenser Systems
  • 6 AN/AAR-47 Missile Warning Systems
  • 6 AN/APX-123 Identification Friend or Foe Systems
  • 6 AN/ARN-153 Tactical Airborne Navigation Systems
  • 6 AN/ARN-147 Very High Frequency (VHF) Omni-directional Range (VOR) Instrument Landing System (ILS) Beacon Navigation Systems
  • 6 AN/APN-194 Radar Altimeters
  • 6 Multi-Band Radios
  • 6 AN/ASN-163 Miniature Airborne Global Positioning System (GPS) Receivers (MAGR)
  • 36 AN/AVS-9 Night Vision Goggles
  • Plus a Joint Mission Planning System, support and test equipment, software, repair and return, aircraft ferry services and tanker support, spare and repair parts, technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, and other forms of US Government and contractor support.

Previous assurances (q.v. Oct 31/13) mean that Israel will receive 6 V-22 Block Cs out of the next order lot, pushing out USMC acquisitions. Israel eventually chooses to finance this and other purchases with a Deferred Payment Plan (q.v. April 8/14).

The principal contractors involved with this proposed sale will be the Bell and Boeing joint venture in California, MD, with final aircraft assembly occurring in Amarillo, TX. Implementation of this proposed sale will require up to 30 US Government or contractor representatives in Israel on a temporary basis for program technical support and management oversight. Sources: US DSCA #13-73 | Defense News, “Pentagon Advances V-22 Sale to Israel” | Motely Fool, “Pentagon Swipes V-22 Ospreys From U.S. Marines, Sells Them to Israel Instead” (refers to Oct 31/13 entry info).

DSCA request: Israel (6)

Dec 23/13: Upgrades. An $9 million cost-plus-fixed-fee, firm-fixed-price contract exercises an option for 2 V-22 Block A to Block B 50-69 series upgrade kits.

All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2014 Navy procurement budgets. Work will be performed in Philadelphia, PA (60%) and Fort Worth, TX (40%), and is expected to be complete in November 2015 (N00019-13-C-0021).

Dec 21/13: Operations. Defense News reports:

“US aircraft flown into South Sudan to help with evacuation efforts on Saturday came under fire, wounding four US servicemen…. US and Ugandan officials said three US military aircraft that were trying to land at Bor, a rebel-held city in Jonglei state [South Sudan], were fired on and forced to return to neighboring Uganda with one of the aircraft hit and leaking fuel.”

The sources that said the planes were CV-22s turn out to be right, and SOCOM later decides that some additional armoring might be a good idea. Sources: Defense News, “US Aircraft Attacked, Fighting Escalates In South Sudan”.

Dec 17/13: Infrastructure. The Watts Contrack joint venture in Honolulu, HI receives a $57.1 million firm-fixed-price contract to build an MV-22 hangar, infrastructure and aircraft staging area for one MV-22 squadron at Marine Corps Base Hawaii. Work includes a multi-story type II modified high bay aircraft maintenance hangar that uses a steel frame and metal roof, along with a 2nd story administrative space. Other primary and supporting facilities include an aircraft taxiway with shoulders, a 12-plane staging area, a Substation No. 3 feeder upgrade, and utility infrastructure. This will require earthwork in advance, and paving and site improvements include site storm drainage systems and taxiway shoulders. An unexercised option could raise the cumulative contract value to $59 million.

All funds are committed immediately, using 2010, 2011 & 2013 construction. This contract was competitively procured via Navy Electronic Commerce Online, with 9 proposals received by NAVFAC Pacific in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii (N62742-14-C-1327).

Dec 14/13: Japan. Japan’s new 5-year FY 2014-2019 defense plan includes 17 MV-22s, as well as 3 Global Hawks. All will be bought outside the USA’s multi-year procurement term, pending Japanese cabinet approval and certain American export clearance.

This is somewhat amusing after the protests over American stationing of MV-22s in Japan, but Chinese aggressiveness around some of Japan’s more remote territories is pushed the Japanese to set up a force of Marines. The MV-22s are meant to offer them rapid mobility. Sources: Asahi Shimbun, “A lot of new equipment purchases in latest 5-year defense plan” | FY11-15 MTDP [PDF].

ANVIS/HUD-24
click for video

Dec 6/13: ECP – HMD. Bell-Boeing Joint Project Office, Amarillo, TX, is being awarded a $15.6 million firm-fixed-price delivery order for additional engineering and technical support. They need to forward fit/retrofit Engineering Change Proposal #1007 into the V-22, and the contract also includes 8 helmet mounted display retrofit kits, spares, support equipment, tooling, and training devices. All finding is committed immediately, using FY 2013 US SOCOM budgets.

The V-22 uses Elbit Systems’ ANVIS/HUD helmet mounted displays, and SOCOM’s CV-22s use a new variant with color symbology (q.v. Sept 6/11). Work will be performed at Ridley Park, PA (99.9%), and Fort Worth, TX (0.1%), and is expected to be complete in March 2015 (N00019-12-G-0006, DO 0075).

Oct 31/13: Israel. US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel confirms (see April 22/13 entry):

“Tonight, I am pleased to announce that we are working with the Israeli government to provide them with six new V-22s. I have directed the Marine Corps to make sure that this order is expedited. That means Israel will get six V-22s out of the next order to go on the assembly line, and they will be compatible with other IDF capabilities.”

From Hagel’s speech it can be inferred that these are MV-22s in the process of being modified for integration with Israeli systems. Israel had shown increasing interest in the rotorcraft during the last 2 years, so this 1st export is not surprising. Japan will be a tougher sell. Sources: US DoD.

FY 2013

RO-RO tanker test.

CV-22, Hosed
CV-22 washing
(click to view full)

Sept 25/13: Training. Bell-Boeing Joint Project Office, Amarillo, TX, is being awarded $20.5 million for cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order to upgrade the existing 15 Marine Corps MV-22 and 8 USAF CV-22 training devices; they’ll be upgraded to MV-22 Block C2.02 and CV-22 Block 20.2.01 configuration.

All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2012 & 2013 budgets. Work will be performed at the Amarillo, TX (63.5%), Chantilly, VA (29%), and Broken Arrow, OK (7.5%), and is expected to be complete in September 2016. The Naval Air Warfare Center’s Training Systems Division in Orlando, FL manages the contract (N00019-12-G-0006, #0026).

Sept 25/13: ECM. Bell-Boeing Joint Project Office, Amarillo, TX, is being awarded a $9.5 million cost-plus-fixed-fee modification, for non-recurring engineering and flight test aircraft modifications to incorporate the Joint Allied Threat Awareness System (JTAS) and the APR-39D(V)2 radar warning receiver into the MV-22 Osprey aircraft. JATAS detects lasers and incoming fire, and is a standard for modern Navy rotorcraft. The APR-39 detects radar emissions, and is used on a wide range of US military planes.

$5.2 million in FY 2012 & 2013 RDT&E funds are committed immediately. Work will be performed in Ridley Park, PA (98.7%); St. Louis, MO (1.1%); and El Paso, TX (0.2%), and is expected to be completed in March 2016. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-07-G-0008). See also ATK JATAS page | DID re: APR-39.

Sept 5/13: RO-RO Aerial Tanker. The Bell Boeing V-22 Program announces a successful initial test of a roll-on aerial tanker system for the V-22 Osprey. Once it’s loaded in, it extends the refueling hose out a partially-open back ramp to refuel helicopter and aircraft. That kind of system has obvious uses for Special Forces CV-22s, and the US Marines will find a ship-based aerial refueling capability extremely useful. So would the US Navy, which has allowed this capability to shrink with the retirement of its A-6 Intruder and S-3 Viking aircraft fleets. Success could create another argument in favor of the HV-22 as the next naval cargo aircraft (COD, q.v. June 20/13), but it would be used in place of Super Hornets for refueling aircraft near the carrier. Serious refueling capability for fighter jets may require more capacity and range than the V-22 can usefully provide.

The August 2013 demonstration over north Texas used F/A-18C and F/A-18D Hornet fighters, and only tested the V-22 system’s ability to perform on command and maintain stable hose positions. Future tests will involve graduated stages, leading to connections with receiver aircraft and then active refueling. Sources: Boeing and Bell Helicopter’s Sept 5/13 releases.

Aug 22/13: Support. Rolls-Royce in Indianapolis, IN receives a $10.8 million to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract modification for 11 low power repairs (see above) to AE1107 turboshaft engines, and 2 months of mission care site support, for the HMX-1 VH-22s in Quantico, VA.

Those are the new Presidential V-22s, which received so many headlines recently for being used to take the President’s dog Bo on vacation. Not to mention 2 bags of basketballs. They aren’t used to carry the President, so if you ever get a ride on one, just remember that they’re carrying you instead of basketballs.

All funds are committed immediately. Work will be performed in Oakland, CA (70%); Indianapolis, IN (20%); and Quantico, VA (10%), and is expected to be complete in February 2014. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-10-C-0020). Sources: Boston Globe, “Obamas arrived on Martha’s Vineyard” | Washington Times, “Dog days of summer: Bo Obama flies on Osprey to Martha’s Vineyard vacation”.

Aug 21/13: Japan. Japan is looking to create a small force of Marines to protect its outlying islands, in an expansion of the Western Army’s Infantry Regiment. A preparatory force is being set up, and Japan reportedly plans to equip the final force with MV-22 Ospreys.

The MV-22B has been very controversial in Okinawa (q.v. September 2012 entry), which isn’t happy to have the Marines in general. A role in the defense of Japan’s outlying Islands will help change the V-22’s perception in Japan as a whole, and Japan plans to buy early. It will take a while for the new unit to learn how to fly and use the Ospreys, and they’ll want to be ready by the time the unit is officially activated. A sharp jump in the YEN 8 million ($80,000) budget to research V-22 integration into the JSDF will be the 1st step. Sources: Asahi Shinbun, “Defense Ministry preparing Japanese version of U.S. Marines”.

Aug 16/13: Support. The Bell-Boeing Joint Project Office in Amarillo, TX receives a maximum $43 million delivery order for prop rotor gearboxes, under a firm-fixed-price, sole-source Navy contract.

There was 1 solicitation with 1 response. Work will be performed until December 2017. The US Defense Logistics Agency Aviation in Philadelphia, PA manages the contract (SPRPA1-09-G-004Y, DO 6125)

June 24/13: Engines. Rolls-Royce in Indianapolis, IN receives a $7.1 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for “additional engineering services for up to 9,253 [engine] flight hours for the MV-22 fleet aircraft in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and the east and west coast Marine Expeditionary Units deployments.”

Work will be performed in Oakland, CA (70%), and Indianapolis, IN (30%), and is expected to be complete in November 2013. All funds are committed immediately from a combination of regular and OCO war supplemental budgets, and it will all expire on Sept 30/13 (N00019-10-C-0020).

June 27/13: +1 MV-22. A $60.2 million modification adds 1 MV-22 to the fixed-price-incentive-fee Lot 17 – 21 multiyear contract, using the FY 2013 funds under the Variation in Quantity clause. All funds are committed immediately.

Work will be performed in Fort Worth, TX (24.6%); Ridley Park, PA (19.2%); Amarillo, TX (10.4%); Dallas, TX (4.3%); East Aurora, NY (2.5%); Park City, UT (1.7%); El Segundo, CA (1.3%); Endicott, NY (1%); Ontario, Canada (0.9%); Tempe, AZ (0.8%); Rome, NY (0.7%); Torrance, CA (0.7%); Luton, United Kingdom (0.6%); Clifton, NJ (0.6%); Salisbury, MD (0.6%); Los Angeles, CA (0.6%); Cobham, United Kingdom (0.6%); Irvine, CA (0.6%); San Diego, CA (0.5%); Yakima, WA (0.5%); Brea, CA (0.5%); Rockmart, GA (0.5%); McKinney, TX (0.4%); Albuquerque, NM (0.4%); Whitehall, MI (0.4%); Wolverhampton, United Kingdom (0.4%); Tucson, AZ (0.4%); Erie, PA (0.3%); Vergennes, Vt. (0.3%); Kilgore, TX (0.3%); Shelby, NC (0.3%); Avon, OH (0.2%); Santa Clarita, CA (0.2%); Garden City, NY (0.2%); El Cajon, CA (0.2%); Corinth, TX (0.2%); Sylmar, CA (0.2%); Westbury, NY (0.1%); and various other locations inside and outside the United States (21.8%). The contract runs until November 2016 (N00019-12-C-2001).

1 extra MV-22

June 20/13: HV-22? The US Navy’s Analysis of Alternatives for the Carrier Onboard Delivery (COD) fleet cargo role will lead to an RFP in late 2014, with a contract award planned for FY 2016. The V-22 reportedly did better than the Navy had expected in the initial AoA analysis, and is now expected to be a strong competitor.

Northrop Grumman will be offering a much cheaper option: remanufacture and upgrade the existing 35-plane C-2 fleet, incorporating technologies from the derivative E-2D Hawkeye AWACS plane that’s just beginning to roll off Florida production lines. The new C-2s would have remanufactured fuselages and wings, with the E-2D’s improved engines and propellers, cockpit, and avionics. The goal would be a service life extension from 2028 to 2048, for much less than the $78 million average flyaway cost of a V-22, and lower operating costs.

The original V-22 program had the Navy ordering 48 “HV-22” Ospreys for duties like search and rescue, but heavy downwash, technical problems, and high costs led them to assign HV-22 roles to the MH-60S Seahawk helicopter instead. The COD competition offers the V-22 a second crack at a Navy contract, and they’ll be touting an HV-22’s ability to deliver to each ship in the fleet, instead of offloading onto a carrier for helicopter delivery to individual ships. NDIA National Defense.

June 12/13: MYP-II. A $4.894 billion modification finalizes the previously Lot 17 contract (q.v. Dec 12/12) into a fixed-price-incentive-fee, multi-year contract. It covers the manufacture and delivery of 92 MV-22s for the US Marine Corps, and 7 CV-22s for AFSOCOM. $326.7 million is committed immediately, using FY 2013 Navy, USAF, and SOCOM budgets.

The proposal in the FY 2013 budget involved 98 Ospreys (91 MV-22, 7 CV-22), and priced the overall outlay at $6.5 billion, in order to create an $852.4 million savings over individual annual buys. When the Dec 21/12 contract is added to this announcement, the actual MYP-II contract adds up to $6.524 billion for 99 tilt-rotors.

Work will be performed in Fort Worth, TX, (23%); Ridley Park, PA (18%); Amarillo, TX (10%); Dallas, TX (4%); East Aurora, NY (3%); Park City, UT (2%); El Segundo, CA (1%); Endicott, NY (1%); Tempe, AZ (1%); and other locations (37%), and is expected to be complete in September 2019. (N00019-12-C-2001).

US NAVAIR also announced the deal, while setting the current fleet at 214 V-22s in operation worldwide, with more deliveries to come in fulfillment of past orders. That serving fleet has amassed nearly 200,000 flight hours, with more than half of those logged in the past 3 years.

MYP-II:
92 MV-22s,
7 CV-22s

June 10/13: Reuters reports that the U.S. Navy plans to sign the V-22’s second multi-year procurement deal this week, and buy 99 more V-22s. The deal was supposed to begin in FY 2013, and that contract has already been issued. On the other hand, as we’ve seen with the Super Hornet program, it’s possible for multi-year deals to reach back a year and incorporate existing commitments.

USMC Col. Gregory Masiello says the decision underscores the government’s confidence in the V-22. Alternative and possibly co-existing explanation: it underscores the USMC’s desire to make the program untouchable, helping to shield the overall force from budget cuts by making the depth of cuts needed elsewhere too unpalatable to think about.

June 7/13: Engines. Rolls-Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN received a $6.9 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for 10 “low power repairs” of the CV-22’s AE1107 turboshafts.

Work will be performed in Oakland, CA (70%) and Indianapolis, IN (30%), and is expected to be complete in February 2014. All funds are committed immediately, using USAF FY 2013 Operations and Maintenance dollars that will expire on Sept 30/13 (N00019-10-C-0020).

May 16/13: Lot 18. Bell-Boeing Joint Project Office, Amarillo, TX, is being awarded a $40 million contract modification for long-lead components associated with the manufacture and delivery of 19 USMC MV-22Bs in Production Lot 18 (FY 2014). Which is 1 more than the budget stated, but there are also OCO supplemental requests for wartime replacement. All funds are committed immediately.

Work will be performed in Fort Worth, TX (24.6%); Ridley Park, PA (19.2%), Amarillo, TX (10.4%), Dallas, TX (4.3%); East Aurora, NY (2.5%); Park City, Utah (1.7%); El Segundo, CA (1.3%); Endicott, NY (1.0%); Ontario, Canada (0.9%); Tempe, AZ (.8%); Rome, NY (0.7%); Torrance, CA (0.7%); Luton, United Kingdom (0.6%); Clifton, NJ (0.6%); Salisbury, MD (0.6%); Los Angeles, CA (0.6%); Cobham, United Kingdom (0.6%); Irvine, CA (0.6%); San Diego, CA (0.5%); Yakima, WA (0.5%); Brea, CA (0.5%); Rockmart, GA (0.5%); McKinney, TX (0.4%); Albuquerque, NM (0.4%); Whitehall, Mich. (0.4%); Wolverhampton, United Kingdom (0.4%); Tucson, AZ (0.4%); Erie, PA (0.3%); Vergennes, VT (0.3%); Kilgore, TX (0.3%); Shelby, NC (0.3%); Avon, Ohio (0.2%); Santa Clarita, CA (0.2%); Garden City, NY (0.2%); El Cajon, CA (0.2%); Corinth, TX (0.2%); Sylmar, CA (0.2%); Westbury, NY (0.1%); and other locations (21.8%). Work is expected to be complete in September 2016 (N00019-12-C-2001).

April 22/13: Israel. Secretary of Defense Hagel announces that Israel will order V-22s, as part of a package that includes KC-135 aerial tankers, AESA radars for their fighter jets, and radar-killing missiles:

“Minister Yaalon and I agreed that the United States will make available to Israel a set of advanced new military capabilities,… including antiradiation missiles and advanced radars for its fleet of fighter jets, KC-135 refueling aircraft, and most significantly, the V-22 Osprey, which the U.S. has not released to any other nation,” Hagel said…. Introducing the V-22 into the Israeli air force, he added, will give that service long-range, high-speed maritime search-and rescue-capabilities to deal with a range of threats and contingencies.”

“Has not released” is a nice way of saying that Israel was the 1st country to take its request to this level. Based on previous reports (q.v. Aug 2/11, June 8/11), it seems likely that Israel will either order CV-22s, or modify MV-22Bs on its own for special forces roles. Pentagon | Israel Defense | yNet.

April 10/13: FY 2014 Budget. The President releases a proposed budget at last, the latest in modern memory. The Senate and House were already working on budgets in his absence, but the Pentagon’s submission is actually important to proceedings going forward. See ongoing DID coverage.

The FY 2014 request is $1.867 billion to buy 21 aircraft: 18 MV-22Bs and 3 CV-22s. It represents the 2nd year of the V-22’s 2nd multi-year contract.

April 10/13: Ro-Ro Kits. Flight International reports that Boeing is working on a roll-on/roll-off kit for the V-22. The concept could apply to functions like surveillance, via kits designed for ground or even aerial surveillance. Their main focus, however, is reportedly an aerial refueller kit that would extend a hose out the back ramp. Customers like the USMC and SOCOM can use C-130 Hercules turboprops for that, but a V-22 kit would trade less fuel capacity for a refueller that could deploy from ships. There are many situations in which that’s a very useful trade. Flight International.

March 11/13: Support. A $73 million cost-plus-fixed-fee, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract to repair 142 V-22 component types. Funding for this contract will be release through individual task orders.

Work will be performed in Fort Worth, TX (80%) and Ridley Park, PA (20%) until Sept 8/15. This contract was not competitively procured in accordance with 10 USC 2304 (c)(1) by US NAVSUP Weapon Systems Support in Philadelphia, PA (N00383-13-D-017N).

Jan 31/13: Engines. Rolls-Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN receives an $83.7 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, exercise an option for 38 AE1107C turboshaft engines (34 USN @ $74.9 million & 4 USAF @ $8.8 million).

This is part of the multi-year engine deal described on March 30/12, and it would equip most of Lot XVII: 17 MV-22s and 2 CV-22s. Work will be performed in Indianapolis, IN and is expected to be complete in December 2014. All contract funds are committed immediately from USN FY 2012 Aircraft Procurement, and USAF FY 2013 Aircraft Procurement budget lines (N00019-12-C-0007).

MV-22 functional check flight
click for video

Jan 17/13: DOT&E testing. The Pentagon releases the FY 2012 Annual Report from its Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E). The V-22 is included, and critics are sure to take note of this paragraph:

“No additional flight testing or engineering analysis have been done indicating a change would be appropriate to DOT&E’s September 2005 assessment that the MV-22 cannot perform autorotation to a survivable landing.”

V-22 pilots seem to prefer glides instead, vid. the April 11/10 crash. DOT&E also confirms that the engine nacelles’ integrated wiring systems fail too often, due to internal chafing and wire insulation breakdown. PMA-275 has funded a program to try and fix it by replacing 13 wiring bundles, but this is another issue that’s closely connected to a tilt-rotor’s fundamental design.

Overall, MV-22 Block C upgrades have been helpful to the platform, improving reliability, availability, and maintainability. Some things aren’t quite 100%, though. The weather radar works, but only the right-hand pilot can use it, by sacrificing 1 of the plane’s 2 multi-colored displays. Electronic Standby Flight Instruments have a 1 – 5 second lag in the Vertical Velocity Indicator, which makes it hard to handle aircraft altitude. The Traffic Advisory System (TAS) was a complete fail, triggering warnings when the V-22 entered formation flight.

Dec 28/12: Lot 17. A $1,405.7 million contract modification, covering 21 FRP Lot 17 (FY 2013) tilt-rotors: 17 MV-22s and 4 CV-22s. With long-lead contracts added, the total comes to $1,629.5 million including engines. Even this may not reflect full costs, given other government furnished equipment.

The contract modification also includes long-lead items for another 21 FRP Lot 18 (FY 2014) aircraft: 18 MV-22s and 3 CV-22s. These are the first big buys under the new multi-year contract, and $1,043.6 million is committed immediately.

Work will be performed in Fort Worth, TX (24.6%); Ridley Park, PA (19.2%); Amarillo, TX (10.4%); Dallas, TX (4.3%); East Aurora, NY (2.5%); Park City, UT (1.7%); El Segundo, CA (1.3%); Endicott, NY (1.0%); Ontario, Canada (0.9%); Tempe, AZ (.8%); Rome, NY (0.7%); Torrance, CA (0.7%); Luton, United Kingdom (0.6%); Clifton, NJ (0.6%); Salisbury, MD (0.6%); Los Angeles, CA (0.6%); Cobham, United Kingdom (0.6%); Irvine, CA (0.6%); San Diego, CA (0.5%); Yakima, Wash. (0.5%); Brea, CA (0.5%); Rockmart, GA (0.5%); McKinney, TX (0.4%); Albuquerque, N.M. (0.4%); Whitehall, Mich. (0.4%); Wolverhampton, United Kingdom (0.4%); Tuczon, AZ (0.4%); Erie, PA (0.3%); Vergennes, Vt. (0.3%); Kilgore, TX (0.3%); Shelby, N.C. (0.3%); Avon, OH (0.2%); Santa Clarita, CA (0.2%); Garden City, NY (0.2%); El Cajon, CA (0.2%); Corinth, TX (0.2%); Sylmar, CA (0.2%); Westbury, NY (0.1%); and other locations, each below 0.25% (21.8% total), and is expected to be complete in September 2016. US Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, MD, is the contracting activity (N00019-12-C-2001).

FY 2013 buy & FY 2014 long-lead items

Jan 3/13: Japan. Despite a steady stream of anti-Osprey protests on Okinawa through 2012, Japan is reportedly becoming interested in buying the V-22 for itself. The idea was actually proposed in October 2012 by ousted Prime Minister Noda’s administration, but the new Abe government’s push for more defense capabilities is expected to boost the Osprey’s odds. Sources: Defense Update, “Japan Looking At Procuring Controversial V-22 Osprey”.

Dec 28/12: Avionics. A $33.6 million cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order for engineering and technical support for V-22 flight control system and on-aircraft avionics software; flight test planning and coordination of changed avionics and flight control configurations; upgrade planning of avionics and flight controls, including performance of qualification testing; and integration testing on software.

Work will be performed in Philadelphia, PA, (90%) and Fort Worth, TX (10%), and is expected to be complete in December 2013. All contract funds are committed immediately, but $10.9 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/13 (N00019-12-G-0006).

Dec 21/12: MV-22 upgrades. A $19.6 million firm-fixed-price contract modification exercises an option for 2 MV-22 Block A to B 50 – 69 series upgrade installs, and 3 MV-22 Block A to B kits.

Work will be performed in Philadelphia, PA (60%); Havelock, NC (20%); and Fort Worth, TX (20%), and is expected to be complete in June 2016. All contract funds are committed immediately (N00019-12-C-0091).

Nov 27/12: Engine support. Rolls-Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN receives a $52.3 million firm-fixed-price contract option for AE1107C engine sustainment services, on behalf of the USMC and the USAF. It covers “low power repairs”, turboshaft engine support and fleet site support until November 2013.

Work will be performed in Indianapolis, IN (80%), and Oakland, CA (20%), and is expected to be complete in November 2013. “Contract funds in the amount of $52,267,510 will be obligated on this award of which $50,378,962 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.” (N00019-10-C-0020).

Nov 5/12: De-icing. A $9.5 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to buy 51 V-22 central de-icing Distributor retrofit kits and 29 engine nacelle ice protection controller unit retrofit kits. Icing up has been a recurring issue for the V-22, due to its structure and the altitudes it flies at. Work will be performed in Fort Worth, TX and is expected to be complete in December 2014 (N00019-07-G-0008).

Oct 4/12: Crash whitewash? Brig. Gen. Don Harvel (ret.), who led the investigation into the April 9/10 CV-22 crash in Afghanistan, discusses the USAF’s efforts to whitewash his investigation, and prevent publication of a report that pointed to engine failure as the cause of the crash. WIRED Danger Room.

Oct 4/12: Support. A $204.9 million cost-plus incentive-fee delivery order for supply chain management of 170 components, over slightly more than 4 additional years, in support of the V-22 aircraft.

Work under the performance based logistics contract will be performed in Fort Worth, TX (80%), and Ridley Park, PA, (20%) and is expected to be complete by Dec 31/16. This contract was not competitively procured by NAVSUP Weapon Systems Support in Philadelphia, PA, in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2304c1a (N00019-09-D-0008, #0006). See also US Navy.

FY 2012

MV-22 Downwash Dust Cloud
MV-22, landing
(click to view full)

Sept 26/12: Paint me. An $8.8 million modification to a previously awarded fixed-price-incentive-fee, firm-target V-22 multi-year production contract, to add the HMX-1 paint scheme to 14 MV-22s: 7 Lot 15 and 7 Lot 16 aircraft.

Work will be performed in Fort Worth, TX (98%), and Philadelphia, PA (2%), and is expected to be complete in November 2014. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year (N00019-07-C-0001).

Sept 25/12: Training. A $74.1 million firm-fixed-price contract for 7 MV-22 Block C Containerized Flight Training Devices (CFTD – simulators) including spares and a support period.

Work will be performed in Amarillo, Texas (39%); Chantilly, VA (30%); Salt Lake City, UH (13%); Clearwater, FL (11%); Orlando, FL (3%); Lutz, Fla. (2%); Huntsville, AL (1%) and Ann Arbor, MI (1%), and is expected to be complete in October 2016. NAWCTSD received one other bid. The Bell-Boeing team delivered a first batch of 6 CFTDs (q.v. Aug 16/10 entry) between 2007 and 2010 (N61340-12-C-0033). See also FBO #N61340-12-C-0033, initiated in December 2011.

Sept 25/12: Sub-contractors. Raytheon in Mckinney, TX receives a maximum $14.7 million firm-fixed-price, sole-source contract for CV-22 support. The firm does a lot of V-22 avionics work, and there was one solicitation with one response.

Work will use FY 2012 Navy Working Capital Funds, and continue to August 2014. The US Defense Logistics Agency Aviation in Philadelphia, PA manages this contract (SPRPA1-09-G-001X-1058).

Sept 21/12: Sub-contractors. US NAVAIR announces a $3 million cost-plus fixed fee award to Mound Laser & Photonics Center, Inc. in Miamisburg, OH for “Operational Readiness Improvement of V-22 Osprey via Wear Mitigation of Key Engine Components.” It’s a backhanded acknowledgement of a problem. FBO.gov.

September 2012: Japan. In press conference after press conference, the Japanese Ministry of Defense is hounded by journalists seeking to see who will get the last word, as local opposition to the Osprey deployment continued unabated (see July 2012 entries below). The mayors of Iwakuni and Ginowan continue to express their disapproval with ongoing, though smaller, protests going on for 3 months now, despite the authorities granting official safety clearance to the aircraft on September 18.

Aug 14/12: MV-22 post-crash. The USMC releases publicly a redacted report [PDF] on the April 2012 crash in Morocco. It concludes that the co-pilot lacked proper understanding of true wind speed during take off then made errors that led to losing and failing to regain control of the aircraft. The report also regrets that the two marines who lost their lives in the accident were not strapped to their seats.

Among recommendations, they want additions to NATOPS manuals to cover the type of tailwind circumstances under which the accident occurred. USMC Deputy Commandant for Aviation Lt. Gen. Schmidle Jr. subsequently said during a press conference that other pilots will be briefed on what happened, and training and simulators will be updated.

July 26/12: Infrastructure. Barnhart-Balfour Beatty, Inc. in San Diego, CA receives a $35.5 million firm-fixed-price task order to demolish an existing aircraft hangar at Marine Corps Air Station Camp Pendleton, CA, and build a new 2-bay MV-22 hangar with adequate space to support maintenance. The contract also funds interior furniture, fixtures, and equipment, and contains options that could raise its value to $35.7 million.

Work will be performed in Oceanside, CA, and is expected to be complete by August 2015. Nine proposals were received for this task order, under a multiple-award contract managed by US Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest in San Diego, CA (N62473-10-D-5407, #0004).

July 25/12: CV-22 SATCOM. A $22.2 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract modification for engineering design, integration and testing of an improved CV-22 Block 20 communications system for “trans-oceanic air traffic control and tactical communications”.

Work will be performed in Philadelphia, PA (99%), and Amarillo, TX (1%), and is expected to be complete in December 2015. $79,188 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12 (N00019-08-C-0025).

July 23/12: Japan. Twelve MV-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft are off-loaded from the civilian cargo ship Green Ridge at Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni, Japan, which features both an airfield and a port facility. This marks the first deployment of the MV-22 to Japan. With their range and in-flight refueling capability, MV-22s would be able to transfer marines to disputed regions included the Pinnacle Islands, Taiwan and the South China Sea.

MCAS Iwakuni Marines will prepare the 12 aircraft for flight, but they won’t conduct functional check flights until the Government of Japan confirms the safety of flight operations. After their check-out flights, the Ospreys will fly to their new home at MCAS Futenma in Okinawa, Japan, as part of Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron 265 (HMM-265).

A 2nd squadron of 12 aircraft is scheduled to arrive at MCAS Futenma during the summer of 2013. However arrival of the aircraft has proven contentions with protests to its deployment making evening TV news in Japan. USMC | US Embassy in Japan | Want China Times | The Economist.

July 21/12: Japan. At a press conference in Tokyo, Deputy US Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter answered questions and described the compromise reached with the Japanese government concerning MV-22 deployment in Japan.

“…we are committed to providing your airworthiness experts with all of the data and all of the information about the entire flight history of the V-22, including the two recent incidents, and allowing them to analyze that data and take every step they need to make to reconfirm the airworthiness of that airplane… This is a process, a technical process of assessing airworthiness. I think you have to let the experts do their work…”

The U.S. and Japanese governments have agreed that flight operations will not begin until that reconfirmation has taken place. Let’s just say that it would be unlikely for the answer to be “no” at the end of this process. US DoD.

July 19/12: Japan. Fourteen governors whose prefectures host U.S. bases issued a statement criticizing the delivery of MV-22 Ospreys at MCAS Iwakuni in Yamaguchi Prefecture. They plan to ask the central government to take responsibility for explaining to prefectural authorities the impact on residents of the Osprey training flights that are to be conducted through many parts of the country, and to respect local opinions. There has also been talk of extending the inquiry to include Class-B (partial disability or $500,000+ damage) and Class-C ($50-500 thousand, recovered injury) V-22 accidents, but:

“The U.S. military regards Class-A mishaps as the major accidents,” a Defense Ministry official said. “There would be no end to the procedure if you began taking up Class-B and Class-C incidents.”

See: Asashi Shimbun | Japan Times.

V-22 onto CVN 77
click for video

July 19/12: CVN landing. A V-22 Osprey from Marine Tiltrotor Operational Test and Evaluation Squadron (VMX) 22 lands for the first time on USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) to contribute to that carrier’s flight deck certification. V-22s had already landed on aircraft carriers CVN 77 and 72 earlier during the year, says NAVAIR.

Concepts of employment for the Navy’s V-22s published as early as 2004 [PDF] included landing on carriers for search & rescue missions and for logistics done so far with C-2As. Whether the Navy will procure its own V-22s as carrier on-board delivery planes (COD) has been discussed for years (see also Aug 11/10 entry).

July 12/12: Infrastructure. Pave-Tech Inc. in Carlsbad, CA receives $8.3 million for firm-fixed-price task order to design and build the MV-22 Aviation Pavement Project at Marine Corps Air Station, Camp Pendleton, CA. All contract funds are obligated immediately, and the firm will install or rehabilitate Pendleton’s aircraft pavement to accommodate MV-22 squadrons.

Work will be performed in Oceanside, CA, and is expected to be complete by January 2014. Four proposals were received for this task order, under a multiple-award contract managed by US Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest in San Diego, CA (N62473-09-D-1605, #0012).

June 22/12: CV-22. A $74.4 million option under the fixed-price-incentive-fee V-22 multi-year production contract, to provide 1 CV-22 combat loss replacement aircraft for the Air Force.

Work will be performed in Philadelphia, PA (56%); Amarillo, TX (43%); and El Paso, TX (1%), and is expected to be complete in November 2014 (N00019-07-C-0001).

CV-22 loss replacement

June 16/12: Japan. USMC MV-22s were supposed to deploy to MCAS Futenma in Okinawa, but recent crashes (vid. April 11/12, June 13/12 entries) led Japan’s government to halt those plans. Chief Cabinet Secretary Osamu Fujimura says that Tokyo has asked the United States to investigate the details of the crash as quickly as possible, adding that the “Japanese government will take no further action [on the Osprey deployment] unless details [of the crash] are shared…”

The Osprey deployment has also turned into a lightning rod among local politicians, who cite safety fears. On the one hand, this is a pretext, as many of these politicians are simply hostile to the base in general. On the other hand, Okinawa is densely populated enough that crashes are a legitimate civilian concern, and a crash that killed civilians there could set off a serious political crisis. Even mainland locals in MCAS Iwakuni, where USMC MV-22s were temporarily deployed in July 2012, are restive. Daily Yomiuri.

June 15/12: Support. A firm-fixed-price, sole-source $6.5 million contract for MV-22 rudder assemblies. Work will be performed in Texas and Pennsylvania, using FY 2012-2015 Navy Working Capital Funds until Sept 30/15. The Defense Logistics Agency Aviation in Philadelphia, PA manages this contract (SPRPA1-09-G-004Y-5948).

June 13/12: Crash. Hurlburt Field announces that 5 aircrew members were injured when their CV-22 crashed north of Navarre, FL on the Eglin Range, during a routine gunnery training mission. The cause of the crash is unknown, as the lead ship didn’t see them go down. The CV-22 came to rest upside down, and there were fires in the area that had to be fought afterward. It may not be salvageable.

At a June 14/12 press conference, Col. Slife says that CV-22 flights will resume while the Safety Board and Accident Board complete their work. He adds that mission requests from SOCOM currently exceed the CV-22 fleet’s capacity to fill them. As of June 15/12, 3 of the 5 crew remain hospitalized, in stable condition.

CV-22 Crash

June 4/12: Engine support. Rolls-Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN received a $10.8 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for 18 CV-22 “low power repairs” to their AE1107C turboshaft engines.

Work will be performed in Oakland, CA (70%), and Indianapolis, IN (30%), and is expected to be complete in February 2013. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12 (N00019-10-C-0020)

April 11/12: Fatal Crash. A USMC MV-22B crashes in a training area southwest of Agadir, Morocco, during a the African Lion 2012 military exercise. The Marine Corps Times reported that it had just unloaded a group of Marines at a training camp and was returning to the amphibious assault ship USS Iwo Jima when it crashed. That probably prevented a lot of fatalities, as the crash killed 2 Marines and injured the other 2 on board. USMC | Fort Worth Star-Telegram | POGO’s program crashes timeline.

MV-22 crashes

March 30/12: Multi-year Engine Contract. Rolls-Royce Corp., Indianapolis, IN receives a $150.9 million 1st year installment on a 5-year firm-fixed-price contract, to buy 70 AE1107C turboshaft engines for the US Navy ($129.4 million) and US AFSOC ($21.6 million).

An April 23/12 Rolls-Royce release clarifies the total award as a $598 Million contract for up to 268 installed and spare engines, to equip USMC MV-22s (232) and AFSOC CV-22s (33). The contract has 4 more option years left, and will run to October 2017. Work will be performed in Indianapolis, IN. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to FAR 6.302-1. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages this contract (N00019-12-C-0007).

Multi-year engine buy

March 30/12: GAO Report. The US GAO tables its “Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs” for 2012. The V-22 program is included only in passing, as GAO notes the fleet’s current expected total purchase cost of $57.211 billion. That’s a hefty jump from even the “first full estimate” baseline, but the last 5 years have seen a change of just 5.2%.

On the other hand, most of a platform’s costs lie in Operations & Maintenance budgets, and here the V-22 remains a question mark – vid. Nov 29/11 reports that the fleet’s cost would break $100 billion.

March 30/12: Guns. A $31.3 million cost-plus-fixed-fee modification to a delivery order will design and develop improvements to BAE’s Interim Defensive Weapon System (IDWS) turret, retrofit the IDWS to incorporate these improvements, provide IDWS logistical support, and perform aero model and software updates.

Work will be performed in Johnson City, NY (95%), and Philadelphia, PA (5%), and is expected to be complete in December 2015 (N00019-07-G-0008).

March 30/12: Testing. A $28,846,120 fixed-price-incentive, cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order to provide a new V-22 instrumented aircraft (NVIA) for testing. The NVIA will support V-22 structural tests, and replace an existing test aircraft which is “increasingly difficult and expensive to support and not representative of current production configuration.” They also expect the new NVIA bird to support the V-22 development roadmap with better flight test data, and better reliability than the existing test aircraft.

Work will be performed in Amarillo, TX (35%); Arlington, TX (35%); Fort Worth, TX (21%); Philadelphia, PA (8%); and Seattle, WA (1%), and is expected to be complete in December 2014 (N00019-12-G-0006).

March 6/12: V-22 flight costs. Loren B. Thompson of the Lexington Institute think tank fires a piece strongly in favor of the MV-22, arguing that detractors are not applying the right metrics to properly assess its value, saying they:

“…complain it costs about $10,000 per flight hour to operate the MV-22 compared with about $3,000 per flight hour for the MH-60, the Marine helicopter most closely resembling what the Air Force uses for combat search-and-rescue. However, this ignores the superior speed, range and carrying capacity of the MV-22. When the metric is changed to cost per mile flown, the MV-22 only looks about 60 percent more expensive, and when the metric is passenger seat miles, the MV-22 looks twice as efficient ($1.53 versus $3.21).”

Of course, passenger seat miles assume full capacity. Airlines know that isn’t always true, and the variety inherent in military missions makes it a poor choice of statistic. Thompson does add one point that’s more reasonable, when he says that:

“It is also worth noting that the MV-22’s computerized reporting system depresses apparent readiness rates compared with the older, manual system used for the legacy CH-46s it will replace.”

Feb 26/12: Media are picking up on previous reports of interest from Canada, Israel, and the United Arab Emirates, and have added India as a potential export prospect. Most of this involves trade show visits, which don’t mean much, though some cases have involved formal requests for technical information (Israel) and even limited demonstrations (Canada).

This comes as the US military operates more than 160 CV/MV-22s, and has flown more than 130,000 hours with the aircraft. Reuters | Flightglobal. See also Aug 2/11 and Dec 1/11 entries.

Feb 17/12: Hostile in HASC. Congresswoman Jackie Speier (D-CA-12, south San Francisco) joins the House Armed Services Committee. Her position statement on defense makes it clear that she’s no fan of the V-22, or of missile defense.

Feb 14/12: MV-22 Block C The first MV-22 Block C is delivered, with enhanced displays in the cockpit and in the cabin. See also Nov 24/09 entry. Boeing.

Feb 13/12: MYP-II? FY13 Budget Request. The Navy proposes a follow-on multiyear procurement (MYP) to buy 98 V-22 aircraft (91 MV-22, 7 CV-22) under a single fixed-price contract, between FY 2013 – FY 2017. The MV-22s will be bought by the Navy for the Marines, while the CV-22s aircraft are a joint buy involving the USAF and SOCOM. Their hope is to save $852.4 million, or 11.6% of the total.

Feb 9/12: T-AKE ship landing. A USMC MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft from VMM-266 makes the 1st landing aboard a T-AKE ship, on USNS Robert E. Peary [T-AKE 5]. The Osprey landed aboard Robert E. Peary while conducting an experimental resupply of Marines during exercise Bold Alligator 2012.

If the USMC can turn this test into a standard operating procedure, it would let the Marines lift ammunition directly from a T-AKE shuttle ship to shore, rather than using further transfer to other ships. US Navy photo release.

T-AKE ship landing

Feb 7/12: Support. Textron subsidiary AAI Test & Training announces a $7.7 million Advanced Boresight Equipment (ABE) award from the US Defense Logistics Agency, to provide 16 Model 310A ABE core test systems for AFSOC’s CV-22 Osprey fleet. Both the USAF and US Special Operations Command were already customers. The company has already delivered more than 40 ABE systems to the USAF, supporting more than 10 different aircraft platforms, while US SOCOM has used AAI Test & Training’s ABEs to align its fixed-wing aircraft fleet for more than 5 years.

ABE is a gyro-stabilized, electro-optical angular measurement system designed to align aircraft subsystems. Poor alignment may be bad for your tires, but it’s a lot worse in a flying aircraft. Because the ABE system supports concurrent maintenance, and does not require aircraft to be jacked and leveled during testing, both depot-level and operational-level users can maintain maintenance schedules, while spending less. These features also support increased manufacturing throughput for original equipment manufacturers.

Feb 2/12: Engine support. Rolls-Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN receives a $55.4 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, exercising a maintenance services option for the V-22 fleets’ AE1107C turboshaft engines.

Work will be performed in Oakland, CA (70%), and Indianapolis, IN (30%), and is expected to be complete in November 2012. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12 (N00019-10-C-0020).

Jan 18/12: Unique ID. A $7.3 million fixed-price-incentive-fee contract modification to the MYP will prepare the V-22 production line to incorporate unique identification marked parts, beginning with Lot 16. The US military has been moving toward automated part identification since it adopted the EAN.CC standard in 2005.

Work will be performed in Philadelphia, PA (73%); Fort Worth, TX (17%); and Amarillo, TX (10%), and is expected to be complete in October 2014 (N00019-07-C-0001).

Jan 17/12: DOT&E testing. The Pentagon releases the FY 2011 Annual Report from its Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E). For the V-22, a follow-on Operational Test and Evaluation (FOT&E) dubbed OT-IIIG that took place between August and November 2011 showed that the latest V4.01 software works as intended, as well as demonstrated Netted Weather and Blue Force Tracker capabilities.

DOTE was more reserved regarding the Interim Defense Weapon System, noting that its 360 firing radius can only work in limited firing arcs during landing approach. Coordinating targeting with the gunner also adds an extra burden on the co-pilot, and mounting this turret reduces the useful cargo and troop payload. On the other hand, the weapon has been effective when used. The competing ramp-mounted .50 caliber machine gun (RMWS) doesn’t have these issues, because it’s limited to facing the rear of the aircraft, though it is in the way on the ramp. Pick your poison.

“[V-22] Reliability, availability, and maintainability data were not available in time for this report.” They do state, however, that reliability and maintainability during OT-IIIG tests had the same issues as the deployed fleet. They mention an average 53% mission capable rate for the period between June 2007 – May 2010, though the V-22 office has been reporting a readiness rate of about 68% over the last year. Both figures are way below the promised target of 82%. DOTE [PDF].

Dec 29/11: Lot 17 lead-in. A $72.9 million advance acquisition contract for Production Lot 17 (FY 2013) long lead time components. Lot 17 includes 21 V-22s: 17 USMC MV-22Bs, and 4 US AFSOC CV-22s.

Work will be performed in Ridley Park, PA (50%), Forth Worth, TX (25%), and Amarillo, TX (25%), and is expected to be complete in December 2012. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to FAR 6.302-1 (N00019-12-C-2001).

Dec 29/11: Support. A $34.4 million cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order modification covers 2012 engineering and technical support for C/MV-22 flight control system and on-aircraft avionics. This includes configuration changes to the V-22 avionics and flight control software; flight test planning and coordination of changed avionics and flight control configurations; upgrade planning of avionics and flight controls, including performance of qualification testing; and integration testing on software products.

Work will be performed in Philadelphia, PA (90%); and Fort Worth, TX (10%); and is expected to be completed in December 2012. $6.6 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12 (N00019-07-G-0008).

Dec 29/11: Defensive. A $33.3 million cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order for engineering and flight test modifications to the MV-22B’s APR-39DvX Joint and Allied Threat Awareness System and Radar Warning Receiver.

Work will be performed in Philadelphia, PA (96%); Fort Walton Beach, FL (3%); and St. Louis, Mo. (1%), and is expected to be completed in February 2016. $6,526,986 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12 (N00019-07-G-0008).

Dec 29/11: Test Sqn. A $28.9 million firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order to support the Navy Rotary Wing Aircraft Test Squadron’s MV-22s. Services will include on-site flight test management, flight test engineering, design engineering, and related efforts.

Work will be performed at NAS Patuxent River, MD (42%); Philadelphia, PA (37%); and Fort Worth, TX (21%), and is expected to be complete in December 2012 (N00019-12-G-0006).

Dec 29/11: Defensive. An $11.5 million firm-fixed-price delivery order for 12 combined CV-22 Integrated Radio Frequency Countermeasures System modification and retrofit kits. Work will be performed in Philadelphia, PA (98%), and Fort Worth, TX (2%), and is expected to be complete in May 2014 (N00019-07-G-0008).

Dec 27/11: Avionics. A $30.2 million fixed-price-incentive, cost-plus-fixed-fee order covering engineering and testing efforts to redesign the C/MV-22’s mid-wing avionic units. The mid-wing avionic units include the vibration structural life and engine diagnostics airborne unit, the fuel management unit, and the drive system interface unit.

Work will be performed in Fort Worth, TX (99%), and Philadelphia, PA (1%), and is expected to be complete in June 2014. $30.2 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12 (N00019-07-G-0008).

Dec 22/11: Support. $12.4 million for the repair of various V-22 components. Work will be performed in Ridley Park, PA, and is expected to be complete by Dec 30/13. The Navy Working Capital Funds being used will not expire before the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12. One company was solicited for this non-competitive requirement, and one offer was received in response to the solicitation by US NAVSUP Weapon Systems Support in Philadelphia, PA (N00383-10-D-003N, DO 0016).

Dec 12/11: Support. A $37.6 million for delivery order for the repair of various V-22 components, under a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract, using Navy Working Capital Funds. Work will be performed in Roanoke, TX, and is expected to be complete by Dec 30/13. This contract was not competitively procured by US NAVSUP Weapon Systems Support in Philadelphia, PA (N00383-10-D-003N, #0015).

V-22 award
Commander’s Award
(click to view full)

Dec 7/11: Recognition. The V-22 Propulsion and Power IPT (Integrated Product Team) receives a Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division Commander’s Award for improving engine time-on-wing and reducing costs – 2 areas where the program has been having real problems. If service experience matches results to date, the team projects that the AE1107 MGT increase will provide an 80% increase in average engine time on wing, and avoid about 200 engine removals over the next 5 years.

The AE1107 Measured Gas Temperature (MGT) Increase Team formed in January 2011 to evaluate raising the MGT limit of the AE1107 engine. They went on to develop, qualify, test and field upgraded engines for an initial field service evaluation in about half the expected time from their initial feasibility study. They didn’t cut the schedule from 14 – 6 months, but they did achieve just 7 months thanks to engineering clarity and parallel tasks. V-22 Joint Program (PMA-275) manager Col. Greg Masiello says officials approved the fully qualified MGT limit modification on Aug 2/11, released the interim flight clearance on Aug 5/11, and incorporated the MGT limit increase on 27 operational V-22s by the end of August 2011. US NAVAIR.

Dec 1/11: UAE. Boeing and Bell Helicopter sent the V-22 to Dubai’s 2011 air show, and a Boeing release is a lot more positive than usual. Of course, with a multi-year buy under consideration, and defense cuts on the table, potential exports add extra weight to economic arguments for a deal. Bell Boeing V-22 Program deputy director, Michael Andersen:

“The amount of interest in the V-22 exceeded our highest expectations leading up to the show, with many regional officials requesting briefings and demonstration flights… We are now working on follow-up visits and providing information as requested by several governments.”

Nov 30/11: Support. Rolls-Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN received a $15.6 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, exercising an option for AE1107C turboshaft engine maintenance services.

Work will be performed in Oakland, CA (70%), and Indianapolis, IN (30%), and is expected to be complete in November 2012. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11 (N00019-10-C-0020).

Nov 30/11: CAMEO. SAIC in San Diego, CA, is being awarded an $11.5 million indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to provide Comprehensive Automated Maintenance Environment, Optimized (CAMEO) system and software engineering support services in support of “a range of Department of Defense programs, including the V-22 Osprey.” This 3-year contract also includes a 2-year option, which could bring the period to 5 years, and the potential value to $19 million.

CAMEO is a related derivative of SAIC’s Pathfinder software series, and is used as part of V-22 fleet maintenance. Work will include software integration and test, product validation/verification analyses, product integration and release, and training. Work will be performed in San Diego, CA (50%), and at government sites nationwide (50%), and is expected to be complete Nov 29/12 – or Nov 29/14 with all options exercised. This contract was competitively procured via FBO.gov and the SPAWAR e-Commerce Central website, with 1 offer received by US SPAWAR Pacific in San Diego, CA (N66001-12-D-0048).

Nov 30/11: Sub-contractors. Sierracin-Sylmar Corp. in Sylmar, CA receives $10 million for a delivery order to manufacture V-22 Osprey windshields. Work will be performed in Sylmar, CA, and is expected to be complete in December 2013. This contract was not competitively procured by US NAVSUP Weapons System Support in Philadelphia, PA (N00383-11-G-011F, #5002).

Nov 29/11: $121.5 billion O&M?!? An Oct 31/11 Pentagon report is said to place the lifetime cost of operating and supporting a fleet of 458 MV/CV-22s at $121.5 billion, adjusted for inflation, up 61% from a 2008 estimate of $75.4 billion – which was already controversial when the GAO used it in a June 2009 report. Bloomberg News reports that the previously-undisclosed estimate stems from increased maintenance and support costs, over a service life extending into the mid-2040s. Bloomberg | WIRED Danger Room.

Future sustainment crisis?

Nov 29/11: Sub-contractors. Moog, Inc. in East Aurora, NY receives a $12 million firm-fixed-price order to repair the V-22’s swashplate actuator, using Navy Working Capital Funds. The swashplate turns pilot input into rotor blade motion via pitch and tilt changes.

Work will be performed in East Aurora, NY, and is expected to be complete by Dec 30/12. One company was solicited for this non-competitive requirement, and 1 offer was received by US NAVSUP Weapon Systems Support in Philadelphia, PA (N00383-09-G-002D, #7038).

Nov 17/11: Engine support. Rolls-Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN receives a $13.7 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, exercising an option for V-22 AE1107C turboshaft engine maintenance services.

Work will be performed in Oakland, CA (70%), and Indianapolis, IN (30%), and is expected to be complete in November 2012, but all contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12 (N00019-10-C-0020).

Nov 14/11: De-icing. A $10.4 million delivery order modification for 40 central de-ice distributors, and 44 nacelle ice protection controller unit retrofit kits. Work will be performed in Fort Worth, TX and is expected to be complete in December 2013 (N00019-07-G-0008).

Nov 9/11: CV-22 upgrades. A $7 million firm-fixed-price delivery order for the CV-22’s Block 20/C upgrade. Work includes co-site communications; multi-mission advanced tactical terminal replacement; standby flight instrument; GPS repeater system; parking brake light; and environmental control system upgrades.

Work will be performed in Ridley Park, PA (86%); Fort Walton Beach, FL (13.6%); and Fort Worth, TX (0.4%); and is expected to be complete in December 2015 (N00019-07-G-0008).

Oct 13/11: V-22 safety data questioned. Over at WIRED’s Danger Room, a long article by reporter David Axe questions the way the USMC has recorded “Class A” accidents for the MV-22. David has earned a reputation as a solid reporter on the defense beat, and the data matters because the USMC is using V-22 safety ratios as part of its case for another multi-year contract, whose termination fees would place the V-22 out of reach for budget cutters. Excerpt from “Osprey Down” :

“A review of press reports, analysts’ studies and military records turns up 10 or more potentially serious mishaps in the last decade of V-22 testing and operations. At least three — and quite possibly more — could be considered Class A flight mishaps, if not for pending investigations, the “intent for flight” loophole and possible under-reporting of repair costs… What follows is the history of the V-22 that the Pentagon and its boosters don’t want you to read — a history of botched design, reckless testing, possible cover-ups and media spin. But mostly, it’s the history of an aircraft capable of some amazing feats, but whose capabilities still come at the cost of burned aircraft and dead men.”

The USMC’s response cites deployment statistics to date, and says:

“…the Marine Corps’ aviation safety records and standards are publicly available at the Naval Safety Center website. The mishap rate… follows Naval Safety Center standards that are applied universally across all type/model/series [of aircraft we fly]… Just because it falls under Flight Related or Ground doesn’t mean it isn’t investigated or counted… the Marine Corps does not include CV-22 mishap rates when talking about the V-22 Osprey because we are the Marine Corps, not the Air Force… since the Osprey was redesigned, the Marine Corps has not had a crash similar to the ones it experienced over a decade ago in which we lost pilots and crew…The MV-22 Osprey has proven to be effective and reliable.”

In a follow-up, Axe did not back down:

“The Marines found reasons not to count a chain of [incidents]… only by omitting officially “non-flight” incidents can the Marines claim a rate of so-called “Class A mishaps” of just 1.28 per 100,000 flight hours, compared to a rate of 2.6 for the overall Marine air fleet… [and] for all non-fatal accidents, the Marines themselves provide the data… it’s not independently derived. And the Marines have a record of manipulating V-22 data.”

See: WIRED Danger Room | USMC response | US Navy safety records | WIRED follow-up | Fort Worth Star-Telegram Sky Talk

Oct 13/11: Sub-contractors. Robertson Fuel Systems, LLC in Tempe, AZ receives a $16.8 million firm-fixed price indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract modification, buying 24 mission auxiliary fuel tank systems and related hardware for the V-22. See also March 31/11 and Dec 27/10 entries; this makes $47.6 million in publicly announced orders so far.

Work will be performed in Tempe, AZ, and is expected to be complete in December 2012. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12 (N00019-08-D-0009).

Oct 11/11: Personnel. Bell Helicopter announces the appointment of Michael “Willy” D. Andersen as VP and Program Director for the V-22 Osprey, and deputy director of the Bell-Boeing Program Office. He’ll represent Bell Helicopter in the program office, reporting directly to Bell EVP of military programs Mitch Snyder, and V-22 Program Executive Director John Rader.

Andersen is a retired Air Force Colonel with 27 years of service, who directed and managed product portfolios for aircraft, weapons, avionics and cyber, and international sales.

Oct 1/11: Canada. Reports surface that Bell Helicopter and Boeing have demonstrated their V-22 to the Canadian Forces, as a possible solution to that country’s long-running on-again, off-again domestic search and rescue aircraft competition.

The competition is currently off-again, so there’s no live RFP, and no commitment yet by Boeing to bid. The notional advantage over current contenders, which include the C-27J Spartan, C-295M, and Viking’s revamped DH-5 Buffalo, is the V-22’s ability to go beyond identification and supply drops. A v-22 could simply land and pick people up. The flip side is its status as the most expensive option in the mix, but the counter-argument would be its ability to pick up rescuees if it can find a landing spot, removing the need to send additional helicopters or ground forces. AIN Online | Ottawa Citizen Defence Watch.

FY 2011

MV-22 Ropedown Zone
MV-22, ropedown
(click to view full)

Sept 20/11: Infrastructure. The Hensel Phelps/ Granite Hangar joint venture in Irvine, CA receives a $97.2 million firm-fixed-price contract for work at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, CA. They’ll design and build an MV-22 aircraft parking apron/taxiway expansion; an addition to Aircraft Maintenance Hangar 4; and Aircraft Maintenance Hangar 7. The contract also contains 2 planned modifications, which could raise the total to $103.6 million.

This work is designed to enable the operation of both the MV-22 and the CH-53 heavy-lift helicopter, with a focus on accommodating and maintaining the MV-22 squadrons so they can conduct readiness, training, and special exercise operations. Work will be performed in San Diego, CA, and is expected to be complete by September 2014. This contract was competitively procured via Navy Electronic Commerce Online, with 10 proposals received by the US Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest in San Diego, CA (N62473-11-C-0401).

Sept 19/11: V-22 upgrades. US NAVAIR is working on a number of software changes to improve the V-22’s flight and maintenance performance. A test team from the V-22 Joint Program Office recently spent about 6 weeks in Logan, UT, about 4,400 feet above sea level, in order to test the effects of one software change. This one tilts the rotors about 4 degrees outward in hover mode, reducing air flow over the wings. The result lets the pilot either carry more weight, or carry the same weight to higher altitude.

The software change has already been implemented into some MV-22s, and the plan is to upgrade all V-22s by the end of 2011. US NAVAIR.

Sept 15/11: CV-22 upgrades. An $8.7 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract modification for one-time efforts associated with the CV-22 Block 20 Increment 3 upgrade program. Efforts will include concept definition, non-recurring engineering, drawings, and installation/integration to design, develop, and test the enhanced helmet mounted display upgrade.

Work will be performed in Philadelphia, PA, and is expected to be complete in December 2015. $21,544 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11 (N00019-08-C-0025).

Sept 6/11: Sub-contractors. Elbit Systems of America in Fort Worth, TX announces a contract to supply Boeing with a Color Helmet Mounted Display (HMD) for AFSOC’s CV-22s. The displays are based on Elbit’s widely-used ANVIS/HUD, with full helmet tracking capability and color display.

Aug 15/11: VIP Kits. USMC squadron HMX-1 in Quantico, VA is soliciting 4 installable “VIP kits” for MV-22s. This means a set of green interior wall and ceiling inserts, black seat covers, black carpeting that includes the squadron logo, and carrying/stowage cases.

Ospreys are tentatively set to begin arriving at HMX-1 in 2013. That squadron supports the USA Presidential Helicopter fleet, carrying cargo and associated people as necessary. Gannett’s Marine Corps Times | US NAVAIR.

Aug 8/11: Training. A $34.2 million delivery order to upgrade SOCOM’s CV-22 training devices to faithfully simulate the Block 20/C Upgrade. That means upgrading the Cabin Operational Flight Trainer (COFT), Cabin Part Task Trainer, and the Wing Part Task Trainer.

Work will be performed in Mesa, AZ (57%); Fort Worth, TX (34%); and Ridley Park, PA (9%), and is expected to be complete in June 2014 (N00019-07-G-0008).

Aug 4/11: MYP-II proposal. Bloomberg reports that the Bell-Boeing partnership has submitted an initial proposal for the 2nd and final multi-year V-22 contract, which would buy another 122 CV-22 and MV-22 tilt-rotors to finish the USMC and AFSOCOM’s planned buys at 410. If export deals are made for the Osprey, they would also be produced under the US multi-year volume buy’s terms and conditions, as is done with helicopters like the H-60 Black Hawk/ Seahawk series.

In order to meet the legal requirements for a multi-year deal, however, the Navy must have reliable data to certify that the proposed 5-year block buy can save at least 10% over 5 separate yearly buys. USMC Deputy Commandant for Aviation Lt. Gen. Terry Robling told Bloomberg that they believe they can meet or even exceed that threshold. The reported goal is to have that certification ready by April-May 2012, so the 2nd block buy contract can be signed by the end of 2012, or early 2013.

The other thing a multi-year buy does, of course, is make termination costs so steep that a program cannot be cancelled. As the USA enters the jaws of existing fiscal crunch, a number of recommendations have already targeted the V-22 program for cancellation, and replacement with less expensive standard helicopters. Bloomberg | POGO.

Aug 2/11: Israel. Flight International reports that Israel’s air force has returned with a very positive evaluation of the USMC’s MV-22B Ospreys, and wants to include a “limited” initial order in the IDF’s multi-year spending plan. If that doesn’t happen, the IAF may have to use its reserve budgets if it wants the Ospreys that badly.

July 20/11: Flight International:

“Saying export discussions have intensified within the past six months, Textron chief executive Scott Donnelly now estimates as many as 12 countries could buy the Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey tiltrotor after 2015.”

July 18/11: Engine support. Rolls-Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN receives a $9.5 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for 17 CV-22 low power repairs. Work will be performed in Oakland, CA (70%), and Indianapolis, IN (30%), and is expected to be complete in February 2012. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11 (N00019-10-C-0020).

July 13/11: V-22 sustainability. In response to questions from DID, US NAVAIR explains “low power repairs,” and also discusses some benchmarks for the V-22 fleet. V-22 Joint Program Manager Col. Greg Masiello says that actual cost per flight hour (CPFH) is currently lower than the projected CPFH and is continuing to trend lower, with an 18% drop over the past year. MV-22s on the front lines are seeing a direct maintenance man-hour : flight-hour ratio of about 19.6:1, and current readiness rates in Afghanistan are around 69% for May 2011. Readiness rates show some monthly fluctuation but, he says, an overall upward trend. With Sikorsky reporting an 85% mission readiness rate for its H-60 Black Hawk helicopter fleet in Iraq and Afghanistan, that will be necessary, in order to avoid invidious comparisons.

With respect to the efforts described in part in the June 7/11 entry, to improve engine time between maintenance, that conversation is still ongoing, and will be published in future.

June 13/11: Engine support. Rolls-Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN receives a $34.2 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, for maintenance services in support of the MV-22 AE1107C turboshaft engine. There do seem to be a lot of these.

Work will be performed in Oakland, CA (70%), and Indianapolis, IN (30%), and is expected to be complete in September 2012. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11 (N00019-10-C-0020).

June 8/11: Israel. Defense Update reports that Israel may be re-evaluating the V-22 for use by its Special Forces, and for long-range CSAR (combat search and rescue) duties.

The V-22 had been removed from the IAF’s quadrennial procurement plan in 2009, but Israel’s needs represent something of a unique case. The IAF has intermittent but consistent needs to conduct long-range missions, over entirely hostile territory. CH-53 helicopters can be refueled in mid-air, and offer greater versatility by allowing the carriage of vehicles, but the sheer volume and hostility of enemy territory gives speed a special premium for the Israelis. Until competing platforms like Sikorsky’s quieter but developmental S-97 Raider are fielded, those combined needs make a platform like the CV-22 attractive to the Israelis.

June 7/11: Engines. A Defense News article notes that the USMC is working with contractor Rolls Royce to increase the durability of the V-22 Liberty engines’ “time on wing” by 45%. That’s an ambitious goal, and the article admits that durability is a larger problem in hostile conditions. Which is normal, but that does include many of its current and expected deployment zones.

The program is working on a range of changes, which would also cross over to SOCOM’s CV-22s. Dust filters have been a persistent problem, with a number of redesigns already, and installing them will reduce engine power without further redesign work. That is underway, and test aircraft have already flown with some of the changes. The hope is that it increases “time on wing” by 30%.

The other approach is a software change, touted as increasing both reliability and performance. Lt. Col. Romin Dasmalchi is quoted as saying that an earlier software upgrade improved power output, and increased maximum speed by 20 knots. That lends credence to the possibility, but in terms of reliability enhancements, one would have to know more about the upgrade to judge. For instance, one notional way to achieve the touted 80% drop in off-wing time would be to remove a number of the software-driven diagnostic warnings that force maintenance checks. If that approach was followed, would it be good or bad?

Major engine improvement program

June 6/11: Reliability. An article in The Hill magazine notes that the USMC continues to praise the MV-22B’s performance, but doesn’t give any specifics. It does note that “the Osprey’s closely monitored reliability rate in Afghanistan is around 73 percent, according to program officials.”

That’s above the 68.1% reported in 2008, but still below the program goal of 80%. Nor does it address how many maintenance hours are required per flight hour, or the cost of spares required, to achieve present totals.

April 12/11: Engine support. Rolls-Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN received a $9.8 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, exercising an option for 3 low power AE 1107C-Liberty engine repairs and 11,247 engine flight hours.

Work will be performed in Oakland, CA (70%), and Indianapolis, IN (30%), and is expected to be complete in November 2011. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11 (N00019-10-C-0020).

April 8/11: Avionics. A $7 million cost-plus-fixed-fee order to install, integrate, and test Block 10.3.01 flight/mission hardware, vehicle management system math model software, computational system software, and instructor/operator station software into 6 AFSOC CV-22 flight training devices.

Work will be performed at Kirtland Air Force Base, NM (66%); Hurlburt Field, FL (17%); and Cannon Air Force Base, NM (17%). Work is expected to be complete in January 2013 (N00019-07-G-0008).

March 31/11: Sub-contractors. Robertson Fuel Systems, LLC in Tempe, AZ receives a $14 million firm-fixed price, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract modification, exercising an option for the procurement of V-22 mission auxiliary fuel tanks, refueling kits, and accessories.

Work will be performed in Tempe, AZ, and is expected to be completed in December 2012 (N00019-08-D-0009).

March 25/11: Training. A $30.3 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract to procure 2 AFSOC CV-22 flight training simulators, with associated provisioned items and spares.

Work will be performed in Broken Arrow, OK (53%); Fort Worth, TX (35%); Philadelphia, PA (7%); Clifton, NJ (3%); and Orlando, FL (2%). Work is expected to be complete in September 2013. This contract was not competitively procured, pursuant to FAR 6.302-1. The Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division in Orlando, FL manages this contract (N61340-11-C0004).

March 22/11: Combat rescue. A USAF F-15E Strike Eagle fighter catches fire and crashes in northeastern Libya due to mechanical failure; crew ejects and landed safely in rebel-held territory, before being picked up by a USMC MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor.

A demonstration of the V-22’s unique size, range, and speed advantages, as the USMC touts? Only to a limited extent. The 90 minute round trip recovery time to an objective 130 nautical miles away does owe something to the Osprey’s speed, but the MV-22s were accompanied by a pair of CH-53Es, carrying a quick reaction force. They are larger but slower helicopters that boast equal or better range. Less felicitously, the Ospreys were also accompanied by a pair of AV-8B Harrier II V/STOL fighters, whose 500 pound laser guided bombs ended up seriously injuring a number of Libyans who had come to help the American pilot. One young man lost his leg. USMC | US AFRICOM | Eastern NC Today | UK’s Daily Mail | UK’s Guardian.

Combat rescue in Libya

Feb 25/11: CV-22 upgrades. A $13.1 million cost-plus-fixed-fee order for one-time engineering services to upgrade the CV-22’s electrical system and dual digital map system. Work will be performed in Philadelphia, PA (92%), and Fort Worth, TX (8%), and is expected to be complete in December 2015 (N00019-07-G-0008).

Feb 25/11: Engine support. Rolls-Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN receives a $12.6 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, exercising an option for 14 low power AE1107C engine repairs within the MV/CV-22 fleet, and 6,565 engine flight hours.

Work will be performed in Oakland, CA (70%), and Indianapolis, IN (30%), and is expected to be completed in November 2011. All funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11 (N00019-10-C-0020).

Feb 16/11: De-icing. A $9.8 million delivery order modification for 38 central de-ice distributor and nacelle ice protection controller unit retrofit kits, for the V-22 ice protection system. Icing has been an issue with the V-22, especially in early models, and the presence of a full de-icing kit is part of the type’s operational configuration.

Work will be performed in Fort Worth, TX, and is expected to be complete in December 2012 (N00019-07-G-0008).

Feb 15/11: Budgets. Rep. Luis Gutierez [D-IL-4] submits an amendment to the 112th Congress’ H.R. 1 spending bill for FY 2011, which would address the fact that the 11th Congress did not pass a FY 2011 budget. H.Amdt. 13 would have removed $415 million funding from the V-22 program, about 14.8% of the system’s $2.8 billion FY 2011 request. The U.S. House of Representatives defeats the amendment, 326 – 105, (17-223 Republicans, 88-103-2 Democrats). GovTrack for H.Amdt. 13 | Reuters.

Feb 14/11: Budgets. The Pentagon releases its official FY 2012 budget request. The V-22 request is for a total of $2.97 billion, to buy 30 MV-22s and 6 CV-22s, which includes 1 supplemental CV-22 to replace the one that crashed in Afghanistan. Under the multi-year buy, the USA has been ordering V-22s at this same steady pace of 35-36 per year.

The proposed FY 2012 US Navy budget for Ospreys is $2.393 billion, split $85 million RDT&E and $2.309 billion procurement for the 30 MV-22s. The USAF budget is $438.1 million, split $20.7 million RDT&E and $487.6 million procurement for the 6 CV-22s, incl. $57.5 million budgeted for the supplemental combat replacement. There’s also $127.5 million budgeted to the program for spares, which is a lot.

Feb 7/11: Engine support. Rolls-Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN receives an $8 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, exercising an option for AE1107C engine maintenance services, including 14 low power repairs. There do seem to be a lot of these contracts.

Work will be performed in Oakland, CA (70%) and Indianapolis, IN (30%), and is expected to be complete in November 2011. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11 (N00019-10-C-0020).

Feb 2/11: CAMEO. A $6.6 million modification to a cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order to provide engineering and technical services for the Comprehensive Automated Maintenance Environment-Optimized (CAMEO) and technical data systems in support of the MV-22 and CV-22 aircraft, and procure a CAMEO equipment suite and a CAMEO technology upgrade suite in support of V-22 aircraft.

Work will be performed in Philadelphia, PA (90%), and Fort Worth, TX (10%), and is expected to be complete in December 2011 (N00019-07-G-0008). See Sept 24/08 entry for more on CAMEO.

Jan 27/11: Engine support. Rolls Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN receives a $22.2 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, exercising an option to buy 17,800 engine flight hours of support services, and 17 low power repairs. Work will be performed in Oakland, CA (70%) and Indianapolis, IN (30%), and is expected to be complete in November 2011. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11 (N00019-10-C-0020).

Jan 3/10: Avionics. A $24.3 million cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order for engineering and technical support of MV-22 and CV-22 flight control systems and on-aircraft avionics software. This work will support configuration changes to the software of V-22 aircraft for avionics and flight controls, flight test planning, coordination of changed avionics and flight control configurations, upgrade planning of avionics and flight controls, and software qualification/ integration testing.

Work will be performed in Philadelphia, PA (90%), and Fort Worth, TX (10%), and is expected to be complete in December 2011. $5.2 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11 (N00019-07-G-0008).

Dec 28/10: Support. A $12.6 million firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee order to provide 15 sets of organizational and intermediate level support equipment sets that are unique to the MV/CV-22 Osprey, including supportability data.

Work will be performed in Amarillo, TX, and is expected to be complete in January 2014. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract combines purchases for the Navy (MV-22/ $9.2M/ 73%) and Air Force (CV-22/ $3.35M; 27%). The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division in Lakehurst, NJ manages this contract (N68335-10-G-0010).

Dec 27/10: Engines. Rolls-Royce Corp. in IN received a $49 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for 24 AE1107C engines for the AFSOC’s CV-22 aircraft (10 Production Lot 15 installs, 14 spares). Work will be performed in Oakland, CA (70%), and Indianapolis, IN (30%), and is expected to be complete in April 2012 (N00019-07-C-0060).

24 more engines

Dec 27/10: Sub-contractors. Robertson Aviation, LLC in Tempe, AZ receives a $16.8 million firm-fixed price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract modification, exercising an option for V-22 mission auxiliary fuel tanks, refueling kits, and accessories. Work will be performed in Tempe, AZ, and is expected to be complete in December 2011 (N00019-08-D-0009).

Dec 27/10: Support. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. in Hurst, TX receives a maximum $10 million firm-fixed-price, sole-source contract for MV-22 prop rotor gearboxes. The date of performance completion is Oct 31/13. There was originally one proposal solicited with one response to the Defense Logistics Agency Aviation in Philadelphia, PA (SPRPA1-09-G-004Y-5638).

Dec 27/10: Support. A $9.1 million fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for 14 “support equipment workarounds” for MV-22 and CV-22 organizational- and intermediate-level maintenance. Work will be performed in Amarillo, TX, and is expected to be complete in December 2014. $599,607 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11. This contract was not competitively procured by the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division in Lakehurst, NJ (N68335-11-D-0002).

Dec 23/10: Engine support. Rolls-Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN receives an $8.8 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, exercising an option for MV-22 engine maintenance services. Work will be performed in Oakland, CA (70%), and Indianapolis, IN (30%), and is expected to be complete in November 2011. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11 (N00019-10-C-0020).

Dec 22/10: Engines. Rolls-Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN receives a $121.4 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, exercising an option to buy another 58 AE1107C Liberty engines for USMC MV-22s. Work will be performed in Oakland, CA (70%), and Indianapolis, IN (30%), and is expected to be complete in April 2012 (N00019-07-C-0060).

58 more engines

Dec 18/10: Cover-up? The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports that senior USAF generals overturned the findings of their own investigation team, when it ruled that an Afghan CV-22 crash that killed 4 people was due to engine trouble. Chief investigator Brig. Gen. Donald Harvel gave an interview to the paper – key excerpts from the story follow:

“Crash site evidence showed that the pilot tried an emergency roll-on landing, as if it were a conventional airplane, rather than a vertical, helicopter-type landing… “I think they knew they were going down and they had some kind of power problem,” chief investigator Brig. Gen. Donald Harvel said in an interview… The pilot… “made what is in my opinion a perfect roll-on landing,” but the aircraft’s nose landing gear collapsed and the aircraft flipped tail-over-nose when it ran into a 2-foot-deep drainage ditch… “It is unlikely that this very experienced and competent [pilot] would have chosen to execute a roll-on landing on rough terrain if he had power available to go around and set up for another approach.”

…Harvel said it was clear to him early on that [AFSOC vice commander Lt. Gen. Kurt Cichowski] would not accept the findings of the Accident Investigation Board if it disagreed with the service’s own internal safety report, which was done in the days immediately after the crash… Release of the public investigation report had been delayed for months due to internal Air Force wrangling.”

See also “April-May 2010” entry.

Crash cover-up?

Dec 17/10: Testing. A $31.6 million firm-fixed-price delivery order, exercising an option for on-site flight test management, flight test engineering, design engineering, and related efforts to support the Naval Rotary Wing Aircraft Test Squadron. That squadron conducts MV-22 flight and ground testing.

Work will be performed in Patuxent River, MD (43%); Philadelphia, PA (36%); and Fort Worth, TX (21%), and will run to December 2011 (N00019-07-G-0008).

Nov 29/10: Engine support. Rolls-Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN receives a $26.8 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, exercising an option to buy another 12 AE1107C spare engines for the CV-22 fleet. Work will be performed in Indianapolis, IN, and is expected to be complete in December 2011 (N00019-07-C-0060).

The Aug 16/10 entry featured a $23.2 million contract for the same thing.

Nov 22/10: Engine support. Rolls-Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN receives a $20.3 million modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-10-C-0020), exercising an option for AE1107C engine maintenance services in support, including low power repairs and program management and site support.

Work will be performed in Oakland, CA (70%) and Indianapolis, IN (30%), and is expected to be complete in November 2013. $20.3 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11. This contract combines purchases for the USAF (CV-22, $9.4M, 46.3%); US Navy (MV-22, $9.1M; 45%); and Special Operations Command (CV-22, $1.8M; 8.7%).

Nov 19/10: CV-22 upgrades. A $10.1 million firm-fixed-price delivery order against a previously issued basic ordering agreement (N00019-07-G-0008) for one-time efforts required to complete an engineering change proposal (ECP) for the Air Force CV-22. The fuel jettison mission management restriction removal will remove the fuel jettison restriction, allowing the aircrew to rapidly reduce the CV-22’s mission gross weight.

Work will be performed in Ridley Park, PA (70%); Dallas, TX (20%); Fort Worth, TX (7%); Fort Walton Beach, FL (2%); and St. Louis, MO (1%). Work is expected to be complete in August 2013. but all contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11.

FY 2010

MV-22 Osprey Tilting Rotor
MV-22 Osprey
(click to view full)

Sept 27/10: Support. A $7.3 million firm-fixed-price delivery order to buy operational test program sets (OTPSs), for the Air Force (CV-22s; $1.5M; 21%) and Marine Corps (MV-22s; $5.8M; 79%), and on-site verification (OSV) for the Marine Corps. See Sept 20/10 entry for an explanation of OSTPs.

Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO, and is expected to be completed in November 2012. The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division in Lakehurst, NJ manages the contract (N68335-08-G-0002).

Sept 24/10: Training. A $5.6 million firm-fixed-price order against a previously issued basic ordering agreement for simulator software and hardware in support of 7 MV-22 simulators. Work will be performed in New River, NC (85%), and Miramar, CA (15%), and is expected to be complete in February 2012.

Sept 24/10: Support. A maximum $6.4 million firm-fixed-price, sole-source, basic ordering agreement contract for hub assembly items in support of the MV-22. There was originally one proposal solicited with one response, and the contract will run to Dec 31/12. The Defense Logistics Agency Aviation in Philadelphia, PA manages this contract (SPRPA1-09-G-004Y-5260).

Sept 20/10: Support. A $22.4 million cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order to develop and deliver Production Lot IV Operational Test Program Sets (OTPSs), including production copies of the OTPSs for MV-22 and CV-22, on-site verification (OSV), and a buy of General Electric Interface Unit Weapons Replaceable Assemblies (WRAs) and standby flight instrument/enhanced standby flight instrument WRAs. This order combines USAF CV-22 OTPS ($1 million; 4%; 16 production units and OSV of 2 units) and the Marine Corps MV-22 ($22.3 million; 96%; one-time design engineering, 12 pilot production units, 72 production units, and OSV of 12 units).

Asked about the Operational Test Program Set (OTPS) sets, NAVAIR responded that they’re a tool used to test aircraft avionics systems and subsystems, and to diagnose the source of any problems found. The OTPS involves both connective hardware and software programming, and connects a specific aircraft type to the Consolidated Automated Test Station (CASS Station). The software is referred to as the Operational Test Program Medium (OTPM). It includes the Operational Test Program (OTP), the Operational Test Program Instruction (OTPI) that provides additional instructions, Test Diagrams that show the connections for each test, and troubleshooting software.

Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO (89.6%), and Ridley Park, PA (10.4%). Work is expected to be complete in August 2015. Contract funds in the amount of $13.5 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/10. The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division in Lakehurst, NJ manages this contract (N68335-08-G-0002).

Sept 17/10: Near-hit. A V-22 Osprey nearly collides with a civilian de Havilland DHC-6 Twin Otter parachute jump aircraft at 12,000ft altitude in controlled airspace. Flight International adds that:

“Along with inherent limitations in on board see-and-avoid tactics, the NTSB (National Transport Safety Board) also faulted an air traffic controller who had been on a non-pertinent phone call during a time period where the aircraft’s pilot was expecting to receive air traffic reports.”

Oops.

Aug 16/10: Training. The Bell Boeing V-22 program delivers the 6th and final MV-22 Osprey Containerized Flight Training Device (CFTD) to the US Marines. Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) New River, NC received the trainer 6 weeks early, and now has 6 of them, plus 3 full-flight, motion-based simulators and 1 non-motion-based flight training device. MCAS Miramar, CA now has 4 CFTDs. An upgrade delivered to Miramar in August 2010 brought all CFTDs to full concurrency with the Osprey aircraft. The first CFTD was delivered to MCAS New River in 2007.

The CFTD trains aircrew on basic aircraft familiarization and handling qualities. Additional training capabilities include systems/subsystems operation, communication, malfunctions, day and night flying, use of night-vision goggles, formation flying, aerial refueling and landing on ships. The device is intended to train crews for any task that might be performed in the aircraft, while limiting the monetary and environmental costs and safety risks of in-flight training. All CFTDs can be locally networked, and the CFTDs at MCAS New River also are able to network with AV-8 Harriers at MCAS Cherry Point, NC. Shepard Group.

Aug 16/10: Engine support. Rolls-Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN receives a $23.2 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to supply another 12 AE1107C spare engines for the CV-22 fleet. Work will be performed in Indianapolis, IN, and is expected to be complete in December 2011 (N00019-07-C-0060).

Aug 16/10: Navy plans. DoD Buzz looks at the shifting plans to replace the USMC’s 30 CH-53D Sea Stallions. The original plan was to replace them with MV-22s. At some point in 2007/08, the Marine Corps formally decided replace their aging CH-53Ds with CH-53Ks. But now USMC Lt. General Trautman is saying that he wants an east coast and a west coast MV-22 squadron to replace the CH-53Ds in Afghanistan, and “When I can do that, that’ll be the start of getting CH-53 Delta out of the way.”

Exactly what “out of the way” means is ambiguous. If it means out of service, DoD Buzz correctly notes that this raises questions about the USMC’s support for the CH-53K, and would seem to be better news for the MV-22. If it means “shifted back to Hawaii while MV-22s serve in Afghanistan,” that would be something else. The exact meaning isn’t 100% clear in the article.

Aug 11/10: Navy plans. Flight International reports that the US Navy has commissioned a 6-month study from Northrop Grumman to look at remanufacturing C-2A Greyhound bodies using tooling and components already developed for the new E-2D Hawkeye, in order to give its 36 carrier-capable cargo planes longer service life.

The C-2As were originally designed to last for 36,000 carrier landings and 15,000 flight hours, and some have already had their center wing boxes replaced. The E-2 Hawkeye is a close derivative, and with Northrop Grumman ramping up E-2D production, refurbishing or building C-2s could become a cheaper option than buying up to 48 V-22s for Navy roles that would be anchored by the same Carrier On-board Delivery function.

July 26/10: Support. A $13.8 million firm-fixed-price modification, exercising an option to a previously-awarded delivery order for 107 swashplate actuators and 137 flaperon actuators for MV-22 and CV-22 aircraft. Work will be performed in New York, NY, and is expected to be complete in January 2012 (N00019-07-G-0008).

July 20/10: Presentation. At Farnborough 2010, USMC V-22 Program Manager Col. Greg Masiello on July 20 briefs media about the current status of the program. It reiterates the basic rationale that has justified the V-22 since inception, and adds that a joint industry-government team will be trying to address the platform’s readiness issues by having more spares on hand, analyzing root causes, and making more modifications to the platform. Presentation [PDF, 9.8 MB]

July 14/10: Support. A $12.1 million firm-fixed-price contract modification will buy various obsolete parts for MV-22 and CV-22 aircraft, including both life-of-type and bridge buys. As Defense Acquisition University explains:

“A lifetime [aka. Life Of Type] buy involves the purchase and storage of a part in a sufficient quantity to meet current and (expected) future demands. Lifetime buys are usually offered by manufacturers prior to part discontinuance and may delay discontinuances if purchases are large… The trick with lifetime buys is to determine the optimum number of parts to purchase.”

Parts that end their manufacturing while their military system continues to serve are common problem among military electronics, and the list of parts reflects that: Display Electronics Unit II; Dual Digital Map System; Air Data Unit; Slim Multi Functional Display; and Thermoelectric Cooler Modular Unit.

Work will be performed in Fort Worth, TX (95%); Vergennes, VT (3%); and Albuquerque, NM (2%). Work is expected to be complete in October 2014. $10.1 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year (N00019-07-C-0007).

June 28/10: Sub-contractors. Raytheon Technical Services Co. in Indianapolis, IN received a $250.5 million indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract to develop and support FY 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015, and 2017 V-22 Block Fleet release avionics systems software, including V-22 aircraft avionics acquisition support. The contract also provides for V-22 situational awareness/Blue Force tracking software and prototype hardware.

Work will be performed in Indianapolis, IN, and is expected to be complete in September 2014. This contract was not competitively procured by the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division in Patuxent River, MD (N00421-10-D-0012).

June 21/10: Engine support. A $12.4 million firm-fixed-price delivery order against a previously issued basic ordering agreement (N00019-07-G-0008). It will buy 698 upgraded engine air particle separator blowers (558 MV-22; 68 CV-22; and 72 spares). “Air particle separators” help engines avoid being clogged and/or internally sandblasted by flying dust. The V-22 generates a lot of that, and as contracts covered here attest, it has been a recurring problem for the aircraft on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Work will be performed in Ft. Worth, TX (63%), and Jackson, MS (37%), and is expected to be complete in March 2014. $6.8 million of this contract will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/10 (N00019-07-G-0008).

April-May 2010: Crash follow-up. Early reports indicate that the CV-22 crash in Afghanistan was caused in part by brownout” conditions, created when a helicopter’s rotors create so much dust that visibility drops to near-zero, and the engine may ingest sand and dust. In May, however Military.com’s Jamie McIntyre offers a different account:

“An investigation of the crash of an Air Force special operations CV-22 Osprey in Afghanistan last month has concluded the pilot of the tilt-rotor aircraft flew too close to the ground, striking an earthen berm, a source who has been briefed on the finding tells Line Of Departure. The conclusions of the accident investigators – which haven’t been released because they are not yet final – rule out mechanical malfunction and hostile fire… evidence suggests the V-22 was flying at high speed, at very low altitude, in airplane mode, with its massive rotors perpendicular to the ground when it struck the berm. A source says the force of the impact sheared off both engines (nacelles) and both wings before the plane flipped over… The accident report neither validates the V-22’s proponents, nor vindicates its detractors. It may just postpone that debate until the next incident… longtime aviation reporter Richard Whittle, author of the authoritative new book, “The Dream Machine: the Untold History of the Notorious V-22 Osprey”… cautions against blaming the pilot for the crash, before the full investigation is released…”

See: Flight International | Popular Mechanics | Military.com Line of Departure.

April 15/10: Avionics. A $42.1 million fixed-price-incentive-fee delivery order against a previously issued basic ordering agreement (N00019-07-G-0008) to swap out the MV/CV-22’s flight computer hardware for newer and better gear. Official releases refer to an effort to develop, qualify, and test and new “integrated avionics processor into the avionics system architecture,” in order to “resolve obsolescence issues, add new network capabilities, increase data throughput for legacy 1553 network, and re-host mission computer capabilities that will significantly increase avionics system and operations readiness.” Sounds like the old IAP was a problem, which may not be surprising if one contrasts the length of time V-22s have taken to develop, with the expected lifespan of computer processors.

Work will be performed in Ridley Park, PA (70%) and Ft. Worth, TX (30%), and is expected to be complete in October 2014.

April 11/10: An 8th Special Operations Sqn. CV-22 crashes 7 miles west of Qalat City, in Zabul province, Afghanistan. The crash kills 4: a civilian, Army Ranger Cpl. Michael D. Jankiewicz, AFSOC Maj. Randell D. Voas, and AFSOC Senior Master Sgt. James B. Lackey. Other troops in the aircraft were injured, and were evacuated.

As of April 15/10, the USAF has yet to offer a cause for the 5th crash of a CV-22 in the program’s history – but Taliban claims of a shoot-down were strongly denied. USAF release | AF News Service | Aviation Week | Defense Tech | LA Times | Politico | NJ.com | Washington Post | WCF Courier | Agence France Presse.

CV-22 crash

April 1/10: CV-22 upgrades. A $55.2 million modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-fixed-fee contract (N00019-08-C-0025) for non-recurring efforts associated with the CV-22 aircraft Block 20 upgrade program, Increment III. Efforts to be provided include concept definition, non-recurring engineering, drawings, and installation/integration of brake performance enhancements and the helmet mounted display upgrade.

Work will be performed in Philadelphia, PA (91%); Fort Worth, TX (5%); and Fort Walton Beach, FL (4%), and is expected to be completed in December 2015. Contract funds in the amount of $6.5 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.

April 1/10: The Pentagon releases its April 2010 Selected Acquisitions Report, covering major program changes up to December 2009. With respect to the V-22, bookkeeping errors account for more than 100% of the program’s cost decrease, while manufacturing, spares and maintenance costs are listed as rising:

“Program costs decreased $1,327.9 million (-2.5%) from $54,226.9 million to $52,899.0 million, due primarily to duplication of obsolescence costs erroneously included in both procurement and operations and support (-$1,281.6 million), associated erroneous inclusion of modifications under procurement (-$367.3 million), the application of revised escalation indices (-$758.6 million), and realignment of Integrated Defensive Electronic Counter Measures funding from Special Operations Command to the Air Force (-$96.2 million). These decreases were partially offset by increases from updated learning curves and material cost adjustments (+$608.4 million), a revised estimate for completion of the development program (+$182.3 million), an updated support equipment estimate (+$380.8 million), the addition of obsolescence ancillary equipment and cost reduction initiative investments (+$218.8 million), and an increase in initial spares (+$193.1 million).”

Cost decrease? Sort of.

March 30/10: GAO Report. The US GAO audit office delivers its 8th annual “Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs report. With respect to the V-22, the GAO said:

“Although the program office considers V-22 critical technologies to be mature and its design stable, the program continues to correct deficiencies and make improvements to the aircraft. For example, the engine air particle separator (EAPS), which keeps debris out of the engines, and has been tied to a number of engine fires caused by leaking hydraulic fluids contacting hot engine parts. Previous design changes did not fully correct this problem or other EAPS problems… Due to the aircraft’s design, many components of the aircraft are inaccessible until the aircraft is towed from its parking spot. Shipboard operations were adjusted to provide 24 hour aircraft movement capability. Temporary work-arounds were also identified to mitigate competition for hangar deck space, as well as to address deck heating issues on smaller ships caused by the V-22’s exhaust… According to the program office, during the first sea deployment in 2009, the MV-22 achieved a mission capable rate of 66.7 percent [emphasis DID’s]. This still falls short of the minimum acceptable (threshold) rate of 82 percent. The mission capable rate achieved during three Iraq deployments was 62 percent average.”

With respect to self protection:

“According to program officials the program has purchased eight belly mounted all quadrant (360 degrees) interim defensive weapon system mission kits [DID: see RGS article]. Five kits are currently on deployed V-22 aircraft… the speed, altitude, and range advantages of the MV-22 will require the Marine Corps to reevaluate escort and close air support tactics and procedures.”

The GAO adds that the V-22 program is planning for and budgeting for a second multiyear procurement contract, to begin in FY 2013.

March 26/10: CV-22 support. The US government announces, via FedBizOpps solicitation #FA8509-10-R-21916, a sole source contract to Boeing to have 2 experts co-located within 580th Aircraft Sustainment Group (ACSG) at Robins AFB, to provide on-site technical and engineering support for AFSOC’s CV-22s. The contract will run for 1 year, with an additional 4 annual options that could carry it to 5 years.

March 9/10: Support. The US government modifies a pre-solicitation notice; NAVAIR will award Bell-Boeing a delivery order for integration and test of the V-22 Dual-Digital Map, Electrical System Improvements, Troop Commander Panel, and Holdup Power Circuit (N00019-07-G-0008/ 0092).

March 8/10: Engine support. Rolls-Royce announces a 5-year MissionCare contract from the U.S. Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), to support AE 1107C-Liberty engines powering MV-22 & CV-22 Ospreys. Services will include engine management and repair, logistics support, and field service representatives at 6 operating locations in the U.S. The initial 11-month contract is worth $75 million, but 4 option years could push the total value up to $600 million.

In March 2008, however, Aviation Week reported that problems with engine durability and costs had led the USMC to examine alternatives, and Rolls Royce to reconsider its “power by the hour” type pricing framework. A June 2009 GAO report added gravity to V-22 support cost issues.

This contract appears to offer a near-term path forward for all parties. The AE 1107C MissionCare contract is a military variant of Rolls Royce’s “power by the hour” contracts, with payment calculated on a fixed price based on aircraft hours flown. Rolls Royce representatives characterized the contract as a continuation of earlier MissionCare support contracts for the Liberty engine, and said that there had been no major shifts in terms. Rolls Royce release.

5-year Engine Support deal

March 5/10: MV-22s. A $117.4 million modification to the fixed-price incentive fee V-22 multi-year production contract (N00019-07-C-0001) will add 2 more MV-22s, under the “variation in quantity” clause that allows the Navy to order additional aircraft at a set price. This is more than a simple delivery order, therefore, as it raises the total number of aircraft bought under this MYP contract from 141 to 143.

Work will be performed in Ridley Park, PA (50%); Fort Worth, TX (35%); and Amarillo, TX (15%), and is expected to be complete in May 2014. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/10.

2 more MV-22s

Feb 5/10: Support. A $70 million cost-plus-fixed-fee repair contract for repairs in support of the V-22 aircraft. Work will be performed in Ridley Park, PA (50%), and Fort Worth, TX (50%), and is expected to be complete by June 2012. This contract was not competitively awarded by the Naval Inventory Control Point in Philadelphia, PA (N00383-10-D-003N).

Feb 4/10: Engine support. Rolls-Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN receives a $52.5 million modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-10-C-0020). The change provides additional funding for maintenance services in support of the MV-22 and CV-22 AE1107C engines.

Work will be performed in Indianapolis, IN, and is expected to be complete in February 2011. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract combines purchases for the Navy (MV-22, $48.2 million; 92%) and the Air Force (CV-22, $4.25 million; 8%).

Jan 15/10: Support. US Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) announces that it will issue an order under Basic Ordering Agreement N00019-07-G-0008, and modify contracts N00019-07-C-0001, N00019-08-C-0025 and N00019-07-C-0040 with the Bell Boeing Joint Program Offices.

“The order/modifications will cover Engineering Change Proposals for the Retrofit and Forward Fit of the CV-22 Osprey aircraft that incorporates Block 20/C Upgrades consisting of: Co-Site Communications, Parking Brake, GPS Repeater, Environmental Cooling System, Standby Flight Instrument and Multi-Mission Advanced Tactical Terminal. Additionally the order will cover the debit/credit of Technical Manuals.”

Dec 30/09: Support. The Bell-Boeing Joint Project Office in Amarillo, TX received a $13.8 million cost-plus-fixed-fee modification to design and build 12 types of CV-/MV-22 specific support equipment for the intermediate and operational maintenance levels.

Work will be performed in Amarillo, TX, and is expected to be complete in March 2013. Contract funds in the amount of $10.6 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/09 (N68335-06-G-0007).

Dec 29/09: Defensive. The Bell-Boeing Joint Project Office in Amarillo, TX received $11.9 million to provide recurring engineering for the Suite of Integrated Radio Frequency Counter Measure (SIRFC) system on the V-22 aircraft. This firm-fixed-price delivery order against a previously issued basic ordering agreement will include replacement of LRU-2 (Line Replaceable Unit, aka. “black box”) with the upgraded LRU-2B, SIRFC cable changes, and antenna radome redesign. Work will be performed in Philadelphia, PA (98%), and Fort Worth, TX (2%), and is expected to be complete in August 2013 (N00019-07-G-0008).

ITT’s AN/ALQ-211 SIFRC system [PDF] provides detection, analysis and protection against radar-guided threats, including triangulation and GPS geolocation of threats, advance warning that may enable a pilot to route around the threat, and cueing of countermeasures like chaff dispensers via integration with the CV-22’s entire self-protection suite. It’s a modular system with multiple sensors and electronic components installed all around a rotary-winged or fixed winged aircraft. Variants of the ALQ-211 SIFRC equip US AFSOCOM’s CV-22s (ALQ-211v2), as well helicopters like SOCOM MH-47s and MH-60s (ALQ-211v6/v7), some NH90s (ALQ-211v5), and AH-64D attack helicopters (ALQ-211v1). Foreign F-16 jet fighters also deploy the ALQ-211, most recently as the ALQ-211v4 AIDEWS integrated defensive system.

Dec 28/09: Testing. The Bell-Boeing Joint Program Office in Amarillo, TX received a $29.4 million firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order to support the Naval Rotary Wing Aircraft Test Squadron by providing on-site flight test management, flight test engineering, design engineering and related efforts to support the conduct of flight and ground testing for the MV-22 tilt rotor aircraft.

Work will be performed in Patuxent River, MD (70%); Philadelphia, PA (19%); and Fort Worth, TX (11%), and is expected to be complete in December 2010 (N00019-07-G-0008).

Dec 28/09: Avionics. A $25.9 million cost-plus-fixed-fee modification, exercising an option to a previously awarded delivery order provides engineering and technical services for the Navy and Air Force in support of the V-22 flight control system and on-aircraft avionics software. It includes supporting configuration changes to the software of the V-22 aircraft for avionics and flight controls; flight test planning; coordination of changed avionics and flight control configurations; upgrade planning for avionics and flight controls; and software qualification and integration testing.

Work will be performed in Philadelphia, PA (90%), and Fort Worth, TX (10%). Work is expected to be complete in December 2010. Contract funds in the amount of $6.1 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/09 (N00019-07-G-0008).

Dec 23/09: Avionics. Raytheon Technical Services Co. LLC in Indianapolis, IN receives an $18.7 million delivery order modification. It provides additional funding to extend the firm’s work on V-22 aircraft software until June 30/10.

Work will be performed in Indianapolis, IN and is expected to be complete in June 2010. Contract funds in the amount of $711,200 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/09 (N00019-05-G-0008).

Dec 18/09: Engine support. Rolls-Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN receives a $160.6 million modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract, exercising an option to buy 78 AE1107C engines to equip Navy/USMC MV-22s (62 engines, $128.1 million, 80%) and US AFSOCOM CV-22s (16 engines, $32.5 million, 20%).

Work will be performed in Indianapolis, IN, and is expected to be complete in December 2011. Contract funds in the amount of $16 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/09 (N00019-07-C-0060).

Dec 5/09: Support. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. in Hurst, TX receives a $5.9 million ceiling-priced order contract for the repair of left hand and right hand blades for the V-22 aircraft. Work will be performed in Ft. Worth, TX, and is expected to be complete by December 2010. This contract was not competitively awarded by the Naval Inventory Control Point (N00383-05-G-048N, #0031).

Nov 30/09: Engine support. Rolls-Royce Corp., in Indianapolis, IN received a $22.6 million firm-fixed-price contract to provide maintenance services for the AE1107C engines installed on Marines’ MV-22s ($12.4 million, 54.7%) and AFSOCOM’s CV-22s ($10.2 million, 45.3%). Work will be performed in Indianapolis, IN. T contract extends to December 2010, but $21.3 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/10. This contract was not competitively procured, pursuant to FAR 6.302-1 (N00019-10-C-0020).

Nov 24/09: Block C. A $105.4 million modification to a previously awarded fixed-price-incentive-fee multi-year contract (N00019-07-C-0001) for work associated with the Block C upgrade of 91 MV-22 and 21 CV-22 aircraft. Work will be performed in Ridley Park, PA (90%); Fort Worth, TX (5%); and Amarillo, TX (5%) and is expected to be complete by October 2014; $5.5 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.

Block C configuration adds forward-mounted AN/ALE-47 defensive systems, Enhanced Standby Flight Instrument, a GPS repeater in the cabin area, and a Weather Radar. It also upgrades systems like the VHF/UHF LOS/SATCOM radio interface for the Troop commander, improves the plane’s Environmental Control System (air conditioning/ heating, cited as an issue), and moves the MV-22’s Ice Detectors. In addition, this contract modification upgrades the engine air particle separator and installs a shaft-driven compressor inlet barrier filter.

Block C coming

Nov 19/09: Training. The Marines take delivery of the 2nd MV-22 Osprey flight trainer at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, CA. The containerized flight training devices (CFTD) are used for over 50% of crew training, and require only a concrete pad and dedicated power hookup. NAVAIR quotes Lt. Col. David Owen of PMA-205, who says that reliability is about 98% (12-15 hours maintenance downtime per year), and costs have gone down from $12 million for the initial units to the current $8.6 million.

The third and fourth trainers are scheduled to be delivered to MCAS Miramar in early to mid-2010. A fifth V-22 flight trainer is scheduled for delivery to MCAS New River, N.C. in the fall of 2010. NAVAIR Dec 16/09 release.

Nov 5/09: Support. A $7.5 million cost-plus fixed-fee order against a previously issued basic ordering agreement (N68335-06-G-0014) to manufacture 28 peculiar support equipment items for V-22 organizational and intermediate level maintenance.

Work will be performed in Amarillo, TX is expected to be completed in April 2012; $5.3 million in contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division in Lakehurst, NJ.

Oct 30/09: Training. Boeing announces a contract for the Bell-Boeing team to upgrade the CV-22 Cabin Part Task Trainer (CPTT), including an Aircrew Flight Simulation (AFS) that deploys a fused reality system that fuses video images with virtual reality. The AFS enables the student to view both the interior cabin environment and the simulated outside world in a composite picture sent to the student’s helmet-mounted display, allowing training for things like wing fires, hydraulic leaks and engine smoke. This modification also opens the door to future upgrades that could enable simulated mission operations with separate cockpit flight simulators, where the CPTT could ‘fly’ with the cockpit simulator on a common mission.

The upgrade will be delivered to Air Force Special Operations Command, 58th Training Squadron at Kirtland Air Force Base, Albuquerque, NM.

Oct 28/09: FY 2010 budget. President Obama signs the FY 2010 defense budget into law. That budget provides almost $2.3 billion in funding for 30 V-22s, and Congress did not modify the Pentagon’s request in any way. White House.

FY 2009

V-22
(click to view full)

Sept 22/09: Guns. A $10.6 million cost-plus fixed-fee delivery order against a previously issued basic ordering agreement to design and develop improvements to the interim defensive weapon system on the V-22 tiltrotor aircraft. This delivery order includes the design, qualification testing, airworthiness substantiation; aircraft fit check and ground testing and procurement of all necessary materials and parts.

Work will be performed in Ridley Park, PA (50%) and Johnson City, NY (50%), and is expected to be complete in March 2012. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year (N00019-07-G-0008).

Sept 21/09: Sub-contractors. L3 Vertex Aerospace of Madison, MS received an $8.2 million contract for UH-1N and HH-60G helicopter maintenance services, and functional check flight services for the CV-22 aircraft located at Kirtland Air Force Base, NM. At this time, all funds have been committed by the AETC CONS/LGCK at Randolph AFB, TX (FA3002-10-C-0001).

Sept 15/09: Sub-contractors. The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division in Crane, IN awards a set of firm-fixed price, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity multiple award contracts with a maximum value of $14 million, to 6 firms. The firms will compete for delivery orders for various types of MH-60S/R and V-22 gun mount components, along with bore sight kits. Work is expected to be completed by September 2014. This contract was competitively procured via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online and Federal Business Opportunities websites, with 14 proposals being received. Contractors include:

  • Guardian Technology Group in Crawfordsville, IN (N00164-09-D-JN14)
  • Northside Machine Company in Dugger, IN (N00164-09-D-JN60)
  • MCD Machine Inc. in Bloomington, IN (N00164-09-D-JN61)
  • C&S Machine in Plainville, IN (N00164-09-D-JN62)
  • Precision Laser Services, Inc. in Fort Wayne, IN (N00164-09-D-JN63)
  • Colbert Mfg, Co., Inc in Lavergn, TN (N00164-09-D-JN64)

Aug 25/09: CAMEO. A $7.3 million cost plus incentive fee delivery order against a previously issued basic ordering agreement for the continued development of technical data products necessary for the integration of the Comprehensive Automated Maintenance Environment Optimized (CAMEO) System into the V-22 Osprey (q.v. Sept 24/08 entry).

Work will be performed in Ridley Park, PA (50%); and Fort Worth, TX (40%); and New River, NC (10%), and is expected to be complete in May 2010 (N00019-07-G-0008).

July 15/09: Support. A $24.5 million ceiling-priced indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity time and material contract for the development and delivery of safety corrective actions, reliability and maintainability improvements, and quick reaction capability improvements in support of V-22 Osprey missions for the Air Force, Special Operations Command, and the U.S. Marine Corps.

Work will be performed in Philadelphia, PA (50%); Amarillo, TX (25%); and Fort Worth, TX (25%), and is expected to be complete in December 2010 (N00019-09-D-0004).

July 15/09: Sub-contractors. Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems’ Defensive Systems Division in Rolling Meadows, IL receives a $6 million cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order against a previously issued basic ordering agreement (N00019-08-G-0012) to perform configuration upgrades to the V-22 large aircraft infrared countermeasures, including qualification testing and acceptance test reports.

NGC produces the LAIRCM system, which uses sensors and pulsed lasers to identify and decoy incoming shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles. t is typically fitted to large aircraft like the C-17 and C-130. Work will be performed in Rolling Meadows, IL and is expected to be complete in June 2012.

June 29/09: CV-22 support. A maximum $44.9 million firm-fixed-price, sole source contract for depot level reparables in support of the USAF’s CV-22 aircraft. Contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year on Sept 30/09, but the contract runs until Oct 31/12. The contracting activity is the DLR Procurement Operations (DSCR-ZC) at Defense Logistics Agency Philadelphia, in Philadelphia, PA (N00383-03-G-001B-THM4).

June 23/09: GAO Report. The US GAO releases report GAO-09-692T: “V-22 OSPREY AIRCRAFT: Assessments Needed to Address Operational and Cost Concerns to Define Future Investments”.

Among other things, the report questions the fleet’s effectiveness in high-threat combat zones, estimates potential operations and support costs of $75 billion (!) over the fleet’s 30-year lifetime, and states that the fleet needs so many spares that there may not be enough room for them all aboard the ships expected to carry V-22s (!!). The GAO goes so far as to recommend a formal exploration of alternatives to the USMC’s MV-22.

The report is bracketed by Congressional testimony from the GAO, outside experts, and the US Marine Corps, a session that ends with House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Ed Towns (D-NY) clearly opposed to continuing the MV-22 program. GAO Report | House Oversight Committee statement and full video | Information Dissemination.

Future sustainment crisis?

June 11/09: Support. A $10.9 million cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order to a previously awarded indefinite-delivery requirements contract to provide joint performance based logistics Phase 1.5 support, which aims to improve component reliability of the US Marine Corps (MV-22: $9.9 million; 91%) and Air Force Special Operations Command’s (CV-22: $1 million; 9%) Osprey tilt rotors.

Work will be performed in Ft. Worth, TX (72%) and Philadelphia, PA (28%) and is expected to be complete in May 2011 (N00019-09-D-0008).

May 20/09: Sub-contractors. Small business qualifier Organizational Strategies, Inc. in Arlington, VA wins a $10 million Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Phase III firm-fixed-price contract for an “Advanced Training Technology Delivery System.” Phase III is the final stage of the SBIR process, and is expected to lead to a commercial product at the end.

Organizational Strategies will provide services and materials required to deliver the Training Continuum Integration (TCI) portion of the H-53 and V-22 Integrated Training Systems, including collaborative product acquisition, deployment, and concurrency data. Successful completion hopes to reduce program and operational risk, while improving safety, crew performance and operational efficiency for both the H-53 and V-22 programs.

Work will be performed in New River, NC (60%); Patuxent River, MD (20%); and Atlanta, GA (20%), and is expected to be complete in May 2011. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured using SBIR Program Solicitation Topic N98-057, with 15 offers received by the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division in Lakehurst, NJ (N68335-09-C-0120).

May 20/09: CV-22 upgrades. A $7.3 million firm-fixed-price delivery order for one-time engineering services to retrofit 7 CV-22 aircraft per single configuration retrofit ECP V-22-0802. The order will bring the 7 aircraft to a Block B/10 configuration. The firm will also provide the associated retrofit kits for 3 more CV-22 aircraft.

Bell-Boeing plans to perform the work in Ridley Park, PA (60%), and Fort Worth, TX (40%) and expects to complete the work in November 2012 (N00019-07-G-0008).

March 31/09: De-icing. A $61.6 million not-to-exceed order against a previously issued basic ordering agreement will provide Ice Protection System upgrades for 49 Marine Corps MV-22s and 8 Air Force CV-22s under the production and deployment phases of the V-22 Program. See the March 30/09 entry for more on the V-22’s de-icing system.

Work will be performed in FT Worth, TX (99%) and New River, NC (1%), and is expected to be completed in December 2010. Contract funds in the amount of $19 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year (N00019-07-G-0008).

March 30/09: GAO Report. The US government’s GAO audit office issues GAO-09-326SP: “Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs.” It compares the V-22 program’s costs from 1986 to the present, in constant FY 2009 dollars. Over its history, the program’s R&D costs have risen 209%, from $4.1 billion to $12.7 billion, and procurement costs rose 24% from $34.4 billion to $42.6 billion, despite a 50% cut in planed purchases from 913 to 458. With respect to current issues:

“…the full-rate production configuration deployed to Iraq, have experienced reliability problems… with parts such as gearboxes and generators… well short of its full- mission capability goal… complex and unreliable de-icing system… less than 400 hour engine service life fell short of the 500-600 hours estimated by program management… Also, pending modifications to the program’s engine support contract with Rolls Royce could result in increased support costs in the future. Planned upgrades to the aircraft could affect the aircraft’s ability to meet its requirements… [adding a 360 degree belly turret will drop troop carrying capacity below 24… an all-weather radar into the V-22. This radar and an effective de-icing system are essential for selfdeploying the V-22 without a radar-capable escort and deploying the V-22 to areas such as Afghanistan, where icing conditions are more likely to be encountered. However, expected weight increases from these and other upgrades, as well as general weight increases for heavier individual body armor and equipment may affect the V-22’s ability to maintain key performance parameters, such as speed, range, and troop carrying capacity. While the program office reports a stable design, changes can be expected in order to to integrate planned upgrades… The program is adding forward firing countermeasures to enhance the aircraft’s survivability; modifying the engine air particle separator to prevent engine fires and enhance system reliability; and improving the environmental control system.”

March 13/09: Avionics. A $30 million order against a previously issued basic ordering agreement to support configuration changes to the V-22’s avionics and flight control software, flight test planning, coordination of changed avionics and flight control configurations, upgrade planning, performance of qualification testing, and integration testing on software products.

Work will be performed in Philadelphia, PA (90%) and Ft. Worth, TX (10%), and is expected to be complete in December 2009. Contract funds in the amount of $5.4 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year (N00019-07-G-0008).

March 12/09: To Afghanistan. Military.com quotes Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway, who says that “By the end of the year, you’re going to see Ospreys in Afghanistan.”

“One Osprey squadron is still in Iraq, but will be returning in a couple of months. The next Osprey squadron to deploy will be going aboard ships with a Marine Expeditionary Unit, Conway said, to test the aircraft’s ability to handle salt and sea and give crews shipboard operating experience… The squadron that follows in the deployment line up will then go to Afghanistan.”

The MV-22s in Iraq were criticized as glorified taxis, with the aircraft reportedly kept out of dangerous situations. It may be much more difficult to exercise that luxury in Afghanistan.

March 12/09: CV-22 upgrades. An $11.1 million modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-fixed-fee contract (N00019-08-C-0025), for Increment II of the CV-22 aircraft Block 20 upgrade program. Efforts will include concept definition, non-recurring engineering, drawings, prototype manufacturing, installation, and associated logistic support to integrate and test the V-22 Multi-Mission Advanced Tactical Terminal Replacement Receiver, and improved crew interface of broadcast data. Additionally, this procurement provides for the supposedly one-time support to augment the contractor engineering technical support team.

Work will be performed in Philadelphia, PA (81%); Fort Worth, TX (10%); and Fort Walton Beach, FL (9%), and is expected to be completed in September 2012.

March 2/09: Downwash hazard. Gannett’s Marine Corps Times reveals that the Osprey’s downwash is creating new hazards on board America’s amphibious assault ships:

“For example, Kouskouris said flight deck operators [on the USS Bataan] are reluctant to land an Osprey next to smaller helicopters such as the AH-1 Super Cobra or the UH-1 Huey because the tilt rotors’ massive downdraft could blow the smaller aircraft off a deck spot. He has formally asked for this restriction to be included in the Osprey’s future training programs.”

March 2/09: Sub-contractors. GE Aviation Systems, LLC in Grand Rapids, MI received a $12.1 million ceiling-priced indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract for aircraft recorders. The order includes 27 Crash Survivable Memory Units (CSMU) for the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotors; 120 Crash Survivable Flight Information Recorder (CSFIR) Voice and Data Recorders (VADRs) for the E-2D Hawkeye AWACS plane; and 2 CSFIR Integrated Data Acquisition and Recorder Systems for T-6A trainer aircraft. In addition, this contract provides for CSFIR supply system spares; engineering and product support; CSFIR and CSMU hardware; software upgrades, repairs, and modifications for CSFIR/Structural Flight Recording Set (SFRS) common ground station software.

Work will be performed in Grand Rapids, MI, and is expected to be complete in March 2010. This contract was not competitively procured by the Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD (N00019-09-D-0017).

Feb 27/09: Testing. A $24.5 million cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order against a previously issued basic ordering agreement (N00019-07-G-0008) to support the Naval Rotary Wing Aircraft Test Squadron’s MV-22 efforts. The contract includes on-site and off-site flight test management, flight test engineering, design engineering, and related efforts to support flight and ground testing.

Work will be performed at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, MD (70%); Philadelphia, PA (19%); and Fort Worth, Texas (11%) and is expected to be complete in December 2009.

Feb 17/09: CV-22 plans. Defense News reports that US Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) is looking to accelerate its purchase of CV-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft to an average of 8 planes per year starting in FY 2010.

According to the report, AFSOC deputy director of plans, programs, requirements, and assessments Col. J.D. Clem says that that right now, AFSOC has 7 operational CV-22s at Hurlburt Field, FL and 4 training aircraft at Kirtland AFB, NM. They are reportedly looking to declare Initial Operational Capability before the end of March 2009. If AFSOC’s desired funding in its next 6-year spending plan comes through, it would have a fleet of 50 CV-22s by 2015, but many would not arrive until the end of FY 2011.

Jan 22/09: Support. A $581.4 million cost-plus-incentive fee, indefinite-delivery 5-year requirements contract to provide Joint Performance Based Logistics (JPBL) support for the Marine Corps (MV-22), Air Force, and Special Forces Operations Command (CV-22) aircraft during the production and deployment phase of the V-22 Program.

Work will be performed in Ft. Worth, TX (46.6%); Philadelphia, PA (41.4%); Ft. Walton Beach, FL (6.1%); Oklahoma City, OK (4.3%); and St. Louis, MO (1.6%), and is expected to be complete in November 2013. Contract funds in the amount of $84.8 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured (N00019-09-D-0008).

Dec 29/08: Engines. Rolls-Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN is being awarded a $221.7 million modification to a previously awarded firm fixed price contract. The modification exercises options to buy 96 AE1107C engines for MV-22 and CV-22 aircraft, along with 1 year of support services.

Work will be performed in Indianapolis, IN and is expected to be complete in December 2011 (N00019-07-C-0060).

96 engines

Dec 8/08: MV-22 upgrades. A $55.6 million modification to a previously awarded fixed price incentive fee contract (N00019-07-C-0066) to incorporate Engineering Change Proposal #708R2, which will convert Lot 5 MV-22 aircraft from the initial MV-22A configuration to the operational MV-22 Block B configuration. Block B aircraft are more reliable and introduce a ramp gun, hoist, refueling probe, and an improved EAPS (engine air particle separator).

Work will be performed in Cherry Point, NC (65%); Amarillo, TX (20%); Philadelphia, PA (10%); Oklahoma City, OK (3%); and Mesa, AZ (2%) and is expected to be complete in May 2009. Contract funds in the amount of $47.9 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.

Dec 3/08: The USA’s 8th Special Operations Squadron returns 4 CV-22s to Hurlburt Field, FL after November’s Exercise Flintlock 2009 in Bamako, Mali. The Trans-Saharan exercise included personnel from 15 countries, and the CV-22 was used as a ferry to transport American, Malian and Senegalese special operations forces and their leadership teams to and from locations over 500 miles away. The aircraft did not require refueling, and the round trips took about 4 flight hours.

The USAF release adds that this is the CV-22’s first operational deployment. Because the exercise was held at a remote location rather than an established base, one of the maintenance challenges was self-deploying with all the parts and equipment they needed to keep the CV-22s operational for the entire exercise. The squadron had a 100% mission-capable rate, but Master Sgt. Craig Kornely adds that:

“We have a laundry list about three pages long of things we’d like to take next time… As we grow into the machine, we realize our needs for equipment and resources.”

CV-22 deploys

Oct 8/08: Support. An $18.1 million modification to a previously awarded cost plus incentive fee contract, exercising an option in support of the MV-22 Total Life Cycle logistics support effort. Services to be provided include planning and management; supportability analysis; training; support equipment; facilities management; computer resources; supportability test and evaluation; packaging, handling, storage and transportation of supplies; post-DD250 engineering and technical support; site/unit activation; on-site representative support; logistics life cycle cost; age exploration; configuration management; technical publications; and Naval Air Training and Operational Procedures Standardization support.

Work will be performed in Ridley Park, PA (45%); Fort Worth, TX (40%); New River, NC (10%); and OCONUS Deployment (5%), and is expected to be complete in January 2009 (N00019-03-C-3017).

FY 2008

V-22
CV-22 SEAL extraction
(click to view full)

Sept 24/08: Support. A $6.5 million ceiling priced order contract for MV-22 spare parts. Work will be performed at Hurst, TX and is expected to be complete by July 2011. This contract not was competitively procured by the Naval Inventory Control Point.

Sept 24/08: CAMEO. A $6.4 million cost plus incentive fee delivery order against a previously issued basic ordering agreement for the continued development for a Comprehensive Automated Maintenance Environment for Osprey (CAMEO) electronic maintenance support package for the V-22 family.

CAMEO is a related derivative of SAIC’s Pathfinder software series, and is used as part of V-22 fleet maintenance. CAMEO integrates with the V-22 Tiltrotor Vibration, Structural Life, and Engine Diagnostics (VSLED) unit, and the Aircraft Maintenance Event Ground Station (AMEGS). It allows continuous integration of new technical data, and helps to automate diagnosis and maintenance. It is hoped that the system will lead to better in service rates and availability.

Work will be performed in Ridley Park, PA (50%); Fort Worth, TX (45%); and San Diego, CA (5%), and is expected to be complete in June 2009 (N00019-07-G-0008).

Sept 18/08: CV-22 support. A $9.8 million not-to-exceed modification to a previously awarded cost plus incentive fee contract (N00019-03-C-0067), exercising an option for interim contractor support for the CV-22 operational flight at Hurlburt Field, Ft. Walton Beach, FL and potential deployed locations. This modification also provides for operational training support at Kirtland Air Force Base, NM.

Work will be performed at Hurlburt Air Force Base, Fort Walton Beach, FL (60%) and Kirtland Air Force Base, Albuquerque, NM (40%), and is expected to be complete in January 2009.

Sept 17/08: MV-22 upgrades. A $23 million fixed-price-incentive-fee delivery order against a previously issued basic ordering agreement (N00019-07-G-0008) for “non-recurring engineering effort for ECP-762 Pre-Block A to Block B Retrofit in support of the MV-22 Osprey aircraft.” What this means is that the funds will help upgrade some of the first MV-22As produced to the MV-22B configuration required for serving, operational aircraft. Block B incorporates systems that were left out of initial test aircraft, as well as systems added later to fix testing or operational problems.

Work will be performed in Amarillo, TX (60%) and Philadelphia, PA (40%), and is expected to be complete in September 2009. Contract funds in the amount of $15 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.

Sept 8/08: CV-22s. A $358.7 million modification to a previously awarded fixed-price-incentive-fee multi-year contract (N00019-07-C-0001) for 5 additional CV-22 Tiltrotor aircraft. Pursuant to the Variation in Quantity clause, this procurement will be added to the current multi-year V-22 production contract, bring the number of CV-22 aircraft on this contract from 26 to 31.

Work will be performed in Ridley Park, PA (50%); Fort Worth, TX (35%); and Amarillo, TX (15%), and is expected to be complete in October 2014.

5 more CV-22s

Aug 1/08: CV-22 upgrades. A $91.8 million modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-fixed-fee contract (N00019-08-C-0025) for Phase II of the CV-22 aircraft Block 20 Upgrade. Additions will include integration and testing of Terrain Following (below 50 knots), Terrain Following Logic Improvements, Communication Co-Site Interference, Advanced Mission Computer (AMC) Thru-put, flight test engineering support, and logistics and supply support.

Work will be performed in Hurlburt Field, FL (70%); Ridley Park, PA (15%); and Amarillo, TX (15%), and is expected to be complete in Sept. 2012.

July 14/08: Sub-contractors. GE-Aviation announces a $190 million, 10-year contract with Bell Boeing to supply integrated systems and equipment for 167 MV-22 and CV-22 aircraft – which is to say, all of the V-22s scheduled under the new multi-year deal. Deliveries will begin in 2009.

The systems provided have an estimated value of approximately $410 million over the entire life of the program, which extends beyond this 10-year contract. They will be designed and developed at a range of GE facilities in Maryland, Michigan, Florida, California, Ohio, Illinois and New York, as well as at Cheltenham and Wolverhampton in the United Kingdom. Items will include:

  • Aircraft structures – supplied by GE’s Middle River Aircraft Systems, who was named supplier of the year for Bell on the V-22.
  • Rudder servoactuators
  • Main landing gear actuation
  • Forward cabin control station
  • Ramp door control panel
  • Optical blade trackers
  • Hydraulic fluid monitor
  • Standby attitude indicator
  • Digital data set
  • Fight information recorder
  • Coaxial cables
  • Environmental control system valves
  • Primary & secondary lighting control
  • Nacelle Blowers

July 3/08: CV-22 support. A $14.3 million ceiling priced delivery order under a previously awarded contract for repairable spare components of the CV-22 aircraft such as blade assemblies and pendulum assemblies.

Work will be performed in Hurst, TX, and is expected to be complete in December 2011. One company was solicited for this non-competitive requirement, and one offer was received by the Naval Inventory Control Point in Philadelphia, PA (N00383-03-G-001B, #0275).

June 25/08: CV-22 support. a $28.5 million ceiling priced delivery order under a previously awarded contract for spare components of the CV-22 aircraft. Work will be performed in Hurst, TX and is expected to be complete by December 2011. This contract was not awarded competitively by the Naval Inventory Control Point (N00383-03-G-001B, #0274).

June 19/08: Support. An $18.2 million modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-incentive-fee contract, exercising an option for engineering and logistics services under the MV-22 Total Life Cycle Logistics Support program. Work will be performed in Ridley Park, PA (45%); Fort Worth, TX (40%); New River, NC (10%); and Deployment outside the continental USA (5%), and is expected to be complete in October 2008.

Services to be provided include planning and management; supportability analysis; training; support equipment; facilities management; computer resources; supportability test and evaluation; packaging, handling, storage and transportation of supplies; post-DD250 engineering and technical support; site/unit activation; on-site representative support; logistics life cycle cost; age exploration; configuration management; technical publications; and Naval Air Training and Operational Procedures Standardization (NATOPS) support (N00019-03-C-3017).

June 9/08: Avionics. A $17.7 million ceiling-priced cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for hardware and software development and risk reduction efforts associated with a common MV/CV-22 mission and avionics systems upgrade (MSU). The MSU will consist of hardware and software components of the advanced mission computer and displays, tactical aircraft moving map capability, automatic terrain avoidance for very low level and/or night flights, and weapons system control. Work will be performed in Philadelphia, PA (50.8%); Bloomington, MN (36.9%); and St. Louis, MO (12.3%), and is expected to be complete in June 2009. This contract was not competitively procured (N00091-08-C-0024).

May 30/08: Training. A $78.5 million ceiling-priced indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract for the analysis, design, development, manufacture, test, installation, upgrade and logistics support of the MV-22 Aircraft Maintenance Trainer (AMT) and CV Flight Training Device/Full Flight Simulator (CV FTD/FFS) Products. Work will be performed in Amarillo, Texas (70%); and Philadelphia, PA (30%), and is expected to be complete in May 2012. This contract was not competitively procured by the Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division in Orlando, FL (N61339-08-D-0007).

May 14/08: Engines. Rolls-Royce Corp. in Indianapolis, IN received a $9.9 million modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract for 6 of its AE1107C MV-22 engines. Work will be performed in Indianapolis, IN, and is expected to be complete in December 2010 (N00019-07-C-0060).

May 1/08: A turret at last. Production begins. BAE Systems Inc. in Johnson City, NY receives a FFP pre-priced contract modification for $8 million for a CV-22 interim defense weapon system productions option in support of U.S. Special Operations Command and NAVAIR. Work will be performed in Johnson City, NY from April 30/08 through Jan 31/09, using FY 2006 SOCOM procurement funds and FY 2008 Navy aircraft procurement funds. This is a within scope modification to a competitive contract where 2 offers were received (H92222-08-C-0006-P00003). See also “BAE’s Turret to Trial in CV-22s.”

April 28/08: CV-22 support. A $19 million ceiling-priced delivery order for CV-22 spare components. Work will be performed in Hurst, TX, and is expected to be complete by May 2011. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured by the Naval Inventory Control Point (N00383-03-G-001B, #0270).

April 23/08: Support. A $14.4 million for ceiling priced delivery order under a previously awarded contract (N00383-03-G-001B, #0264) for V-22 spare parts. Work will be performed in Ridley Park, PA and is expected to be complete by July 2011. This contract was not competitively procured by the Naval Inventory Control Point.

April 16/08: Related modifications to USS Wasp. BAE Systems Norfolk Ship Repair in Norfolk, VA received a $33.8 million modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-05-C-4403) to exercise an option for the USS Wasp (LHD-1) FY 2008 drydocking phased maintenance availability. There are 80 plus work items that are repair/replace/preserve/install/clean in nature, plus the following ship alternations: LHD1-6 SCD 3263 – fuel oil compensation stability improvement modifications (requires drydock), LHD1-0248K – install additional A/C plant, LHD1-0270K – install nitrogen generator, LHD1-0274K – accomplish MV-22 service and shop modifications, LHD1-0283K – accomplish MV-22 topside modifications, and S/A 71265K – low light flight deck surveillance system.

Work will be performed in Portsmouth, VA, and is expected to be complete by November 2008. All funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Mid-Atlantic Regional Maintenance Center in Norfolk, VA issued the contract.

April 10/08: Infrastructure. The Whiting-Turner Contracting Company in Raleigh, NC received a $35.6 million firm-fixed-price contract for design and construction of an aircraft maintenance hangar, phases I and II, at Marine Corps Air Station New River, Camp Lejeune. The work to be performed provides for construction of a multi-story aircraft maintenance hangar to provide hangar bay, shop space, flight line operations, and maintenance functions in support of the V-22 aircraft squadrons. Work also includes mechanical, electrical support systems and telephone system. Built-in equipment includes a freight elevator and five ton bridge crane. Site improvements include parking and landscaping and incidental related work.

Work will be performed in Jacksonville, NC, and is expected to be complete by May 2010. This contract was competitively procured via the Naval Facilities Engineering Command e-solicitation website with 4 proposals received. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Mid-Atlantic in Norfolk, VA issued the contract (N40085-08-C-1419).

April 4/08: CV-22 support. $15.5 million for ceiling priced order #0260 against previously awarded contract for repairable and consumable spare components for the CV-22 aircraft. Examples of parts to be purchased are valve module-brake, air data unit, hand wing unit (manual), ramp door actuator, and torque link subassembly.

Work will be performed in Hurst, Texas, and is expected to be completed July 2011. This contract was not awarded competitively by the Naval Inventory Control Point (N00383-03-G-001B).

April 4/08: CV-22 support. $12.2 million for a ceiling priced order against previously awarded contract for repairable and consumable spare components for the CV-22 aircraft. Examples of types of parts to be bought include rod end assembly, slip ring assembly, fairing assembly, blade assembly, and link assembly.

Work will be performed in Hurst, TX and is to be completed July 2011. This contract was not awarded competitively by the Naval Inventory Control Point (N00383-03-G-001B, #0259).

March 28/08: DefenseLINK announces a $10.4 billion modification that converts the previous V-22 advance acquisition contract to a fixed-price-incentive-fee, multi-year contract. The new contract will be used to buy 141 MV-22 (for USMC) and 26 CV-22 (Air Force Special Operations) tiltrotor aircraft, including associated rate tooling in support of production rates.

Work will be performed in Ridley Park, PA (50%); Fort Worth, TX (35%); and Amarillo, TX (15%), and work is expected to be completed in October 2014. Contract funds in the amount of $24.2 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year (N00019-07-C-0001). See also Bell Helicopter release.

MYP-I contract

March 18/08: New engine? Aviation Week reports that issues that have arisen with V-22 engine maintenance in Iraq may drive the U.S. Marine Corps to look for entirely new engines. Despite a recent redesign to try and solve issues with dust, Marine Corps V-22 program manager Col. Matt Mulhern is quoted as saying that “…as we actually operate the aircraft, the engines aren’t lasting as long as we [or the government] would like.”

This is forcing a move from the proposed “Power By the Hour” framework of payment per available flight-hour, an arrangement that is also used for civil airliner fleets. Rolls Royce reportedly can’t support this model any longer for the V-22, and wishes to change its contract to a standard time and materials maintenance arrangement.

Key problems encountered include erosion in the compressor blades, and lack of power margin to handle expected weight growth. Mulhern has said that “We need to move on, with or without Rolls-Royce,” but General Electric’s GE38-1B is the only alternative engine in the same power class. It will be used in the Marines’ new CH-53K heavy lift helicopter.

Additional Readings

Readers with corrections, comments, or information to contribute are encouraged to contact DID’s Founding Editor, Joe Katzman. We understand the industry – you will only be publicly recognized if you tell us that it’s OK to do so.

Background: V-22 and Key Systems

YouTube – V-22?????IDWS. Drop-down minigun and sensor turret.

Reports

News & Views

  • YouTube – V-22 Documentary.
  • Alpha Foxtrot (May 31/14) – 7 Things The Marines Have To Do To Make The F-35B Worth The Huge Cost. Several of them involve new V-22 roles and variants: KC-22 tankers, EV-22 AEW&C, and CV-22 CSAR.
  • WIRED Danger Room, via WayBack (Oct 4/12) – General: ‘My Career Was Done’ When I Criticized Flawed Warplane. That would be Brig. Gen. Don Harvel (ret.), who led the investigation into the April 9/10 CV-22 crash in Afghanistan.
  • Boeing (July 9/12) – CV-22: At Home With AFSOC.
  • WIRED Danger Room, via WayBack (Oct 13/11) – Osprey Down: Marines Shift Story on Controversial Warplane’s Safety Record. The US Marines made an official response, citing the platform’s publicly-available safety records, and success in Afghanistan. David Axe responds that he isn’t satisfied.
  • Seapower (March 2011) – Osprey Readiness.
  • Fort Worth Star-Telegram, via WayBack (Dec 18/10) – Findings on Osprey crash in Afghanistan overturned. “But the general who led the [CV-22] crash investigation said Thursday that there was strong evidence to indicate that the $87 million-plus aircraft, which has a history of technical problems, experienced engine trouble in the final seconds leading to the crash…”
  • Aviation Week, via WayBack (March 18/08) – Marines May Seek New V-22 Engines. As a result of issues that have arisen with V-22 engine maintenance in Iraq. Seems to confirm observations re: the Jan 23/08 USMC article. Despite a recent redesign, Marine Corps V-22 program manager Col. Matt Mulhern is quoted as saying that “…as we actually operate the aircraft, the engines aren’t lasting as long as we [or the government] would like.” This is forcing a move from the proposed “Power By the Hour” framework of payment per flight-hour, which Rolls Royce can no longer support.
  • US Marine Corps, via LMP (Jan 23/08) – MV-22 ‘Osprey’ brings new capabilities to the sandbox. The April 14/07 NY Times reported that the V-22s would be kept out of combat situations. These days, that isn’t very hard to do in Anbar province; they key to evaluating this report is clarifying what the Marines are defining as a “combat sortie.” The sentence at the end of the excerpt also hints that answers to questions re: rates of spare parts use would be informative: “The squadron has completed more than 2,000 ASRs in the first 3 months of the deployment, keeping approximately 8,000 personnel off dangerous roadways and accruing approximately 2,000 flight hours… VMM-263 has flown 5 Aeroscout missions, 1 raid, more than 1400 combat sorties and maintained an average mission capable readiness rate of 68.1%… The range and depth of aviation supply parts is the latent limitation for high availability rates.”
  • CBS Evening News, via WayBack (Oct 4/07) – Troubled Osprey Set To Take Flight In Iraq. Claims that one of the 10 Ospreys deploying to Iraq had to abort the mission due to mechanical issues, and had to return to USS Wasp [LHD 1] for repairs before resuming the flight.
  • NAVAIR V-22 Program Office, via WayBack (Sept 19/07) – 1st squadron of V-22s quietly deployed to Iraq.
  • NY Times, via WayBack (April 14/07) – Combat, With Limits, Looms for Hybrid Aircraft. “They will plan their missions in Iraq to avoid it getting into areas where there are serious threats,” said Thomas Christie, the Pentagon’s director of operations, test and evaluation from 2001 to 2005, who is now retired.” Also contains testimonials (both good and worrisome) from people who have flown in them.
  • DID (March 12/07) – Lots Riding on V-22 Osprey. The USMC is designing several ancillary programs around the MV-22, setting key requirements for vehicles, howitzers, and more based on the Osprey’s dimensions and capabilities. Is this why they’re buying a $120,000 jeep?
  • DID (July 14/05) – Osprey Tilt-Rotor Declared “Suitable and Effective”.
  • U.S. Naval Institute, via WayBack (1999) – How Will We Escort the MV-22? (registration required). If attack helicopters aren’t fast enough, and fighter jets are too fast, and Ospreys aren’t really armed…

India & Israel’s Barak-8 SAM Development Project(s)

$
0
0
Barak-8 Eilat Class launch concept
Barak-8 concept
(click to view full)

Over a development timeline measured in decades, India’s indigenous “Akash” and “Trishul” programs for surface to air missiles have failed to inspire full confidence. Trishul was eventually canceled entirely. Akash had a a long, difficult development period, but seems to have found customer acceptance and a solid niche in the rugged terrain of the northeast. India still needed longer-range advanced SAMs to equip its navy and army, however, and decided to try to duplicate the success of the partnership model that had fielded the excellent Indo-Russian PJ-10 BrahMos supersonic cruise missile.

In February 2006, therefore, Israel and India signed a joint development agreement to create a new Barak-NG medium shipborne air defense missile, as an evolution of the Barak-1 system in service with both navies. In July 2007 the counterpart MR-SAM project began moving forward, aiming to develop a medium range SAM for use with India’s land forces. Both missiles would now be called Barak-8. In between, “India to Buy Israeli “SPYDER” Mobile Air Defense System” covered India’s move to begin buying mobile, short-range surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems for its army, based on the Python and Derby air-to-air missiles in service with its air force and naval aircraft. These projects offer India a way forward to address its critical air defense weaknesses, and upgrade “protection of vital and strategic ground assets and area air defence.” This DID FOCUS article will cover the Barak-8 and closely related programs in India, Israel, and beyond.

The Barak, and Barak-8

Genesis: Barak-1

Barak Components
Barak Components
(click to view full)

Barak is a supersonic, vertically-launched short range air defense system, with an operational range of about 10 km/ 6 miles. That pushes it past the standard ranges of shoulder-launched options with naval counterparts, like the MBDA Mistral/SIMBAD or Saab Boofors’ RBS-70, but short of other small vertical launch options like the RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow. Its closest western competitors on the international market are probably Raytheon’s horizontally-fired Amero-German RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile, and MBDA’s flexible Crotale VT-1/NG. Key attributes include a compact 8-cell vertical launching system that weighs just 1,700 kg, coupled with an equally compact 1,300 kg fire control system. This makes it easier to install in small ships, and to retrofit into older vessels.

Barak-1 reportedly in service with at Israel, Chile, India, Singapore, and Venezuela.

Barak Launch
Barak launch
(click to view full)

India bought over $300 million worth of these missiles as a substitute for the indigenous but long-delayed Trishul (“Trident”) missile project, and Barak systems now equip India’s lone aircraft carrier INS Viraat, all 6 Project 16/16A Godavari/ Brahmaputra Class 3,850t frigates, 2 of 6 Rajput Class 4,974t destroyers, and the 3 new 6,200t Shivalik Class frigates. Current missile stocks aren’t adequate to cover that, and readiness requires regular training launches against live targets. Barak-1 missiles are also supposed to be part of upgrades to India’s 3 Delhi Class 6,200t destroyers, in order to remove the hole created by the Russian SA-N-7C ‘Gollum’ air defense missile system’s limited firing arc.

Barak-1 missiles are also supposed to be part of upgrades to India’s 3 Delhi Class 6,200t destroyers, in order to fix the SA-N-7C ‘Gollum’ air defense missile’s limited firing arc. The missile’s fast response time, effectiveness against missile threats, and compact size are considerable assets, but they are currently offset somewhat by its short range.

Next-Gen: Barak-8

Barak 8
Barak 8 display
(click to view full)

The Navy’s Barak-NG/ LR-SAM project aimed to give India’s naval defenses a much longer reach, with the intention of eventually making it India’s primary naval SAM. The project was later renamed Barak 8, and aims to deliver 60-70 km/ up to 42 mile range, thanks to a dual-pulse solid rocket motor whose second “pulse” fires as the missile approaches its target. This ensures that the missile isn’t just coasting in the final stages, giving it more than one chance at a fast, maneuvering target.

The missile’s most important feature may be its active seeker. Instead of forcing its ship or land-based radar to “paint”/illuminate its target at all times, the Barak 8 can be left alone once it is close to its target. This is an excellent approach for dealing with saturation attacks using older ship radars, which can track many targets but illuminate just a few. It’s also very useful for land-based systems, which will survive longer against enemy anti-radar missiles (ARMs) if they can turn themselves on and off to confuse enemy seekers, without worrying that they will lose all of their effectiveness.

That kind of performance vaults the Barak 8 past widespread options like the RIM-162 ESSM, or entries like VL-MICA on land. Though the Barak-8 may compete globally with those systems, a better comparison would be naval missiles like Raytheon’s SM-2 Block IIIA and MBDA’s Aster-15, or land-based options like the Patriot. The Barak 8’s active seeker would even give it a performance advantage over the SM-2, and corresponds more closely to the SM-6 currently in development.

The naval Barak-8 reportedly maintains its principle of using compact launchers and systems. Its ancillary capabilities will always depend on the radar and combat system aboard its ship.

One wild card is the Barak’s potential use in a point defense role against ballistic missiles, a role that can be played by some of its more advanced competitors on land or sea. This capability is implied in the land-based system’s name, but hasn’t been discussed publicly, or validated in publicly announced tests.

The land-based Barak 8 Air and Missile Defense (AMD) system includes several components:

  • RAFAEL supplies the Barak-8 interceptor missile, which remains vertically launched.
  • The battle management, command, control, communication and intelligence center (BMC4I) is produced by the MBT Division of IAI’s Missiles, Systems, and Space Group; it offers both stand alone operation for a single fire unit, and joint task force coordination (JTC).
  • IAI ELTA Systems Ltd. supplies the Land-Based Multi-Function Surveillance, Track & Guidance Radar (LB-MF-STAR), a rotating S-band digital Active Electronic Steering Array (AESA) Radar System that can deliver an accurate, high quality arena situation picture, and extract low radar cross section targets like stealthy cruise missiles, even in the toughest environmental conditions. The naval MF-STAR is expected to be part of Israel’s next-generation missile frigates.

In Israel, the Barak-8 is slated to equip its next-generation frigates, and may find its way to other roles. India expects to field the missiles on land and sea.

Beyond those 2 countries, export prospects beckon for a missile that may offer a value-priced naval alternative to Raytheon’s Standard-2 and MBDA’s Aster-15. According to Defense News, the Barak-8 project features funding from American military aid dollars, as well as Indian cooperation and private/governmental funding in Israel. An Israeli source, on the other hand, has told DID that the USA has no claim on the Barak-8’s intellectual property. DID has been unable to verify he exact situation; but if the USA has no IP or significant American-made components in the Barak AMD system, it would have implications for both procurement funding sources and export policy.

India’s Barak Programs

The Navy: LR-SAM

Barak Engagement Profile
Engagement profile
(click to view the rest)

India has 2 different programs that could use the new longer-range Barak missile. The naval Barak-NG, or LR-SAM deal, was the first. Signed in 2006, it’s worth INR 26.06 billion (about $591 million at then-conversion) as of December 2009.

India’s Navy has decided as a matter of policy that it will only mount medium-long range surface-to-air missile systems on future warships, as opposed to depending on short range systems that might protect a ship, but don’t offer layered defense for the rest of the fleet. This was an early sign of its transition to a more of a “blue water” navy that can reach into high-threat areas, and a logical complement to India’s establishment of a serious carrier force beginning with INS Vikramaditya (ex Admiral Gorshkov).

Hence the 2006 Barak-NG naval agreement, which gives India an upgraded version of a familiar system, extends India’s technological capabilities, fosters economic ties and integration at sub-component levels, and helps the Israelis build a new system that meets some of their own emerging requirements. The new system would reportedly have a range of 50-60 km.

Making that happen required some loosening of bureaucratic constraints on India’s defense industry. Based on projections of need and the high cost of air defense systems, India’s Ministry of Defence began initiatives under which Indian state-owned agencies can forge joint co-development and co-production ventures with foreign companies. The rationale is that under these partnerships, much of the underlying technology will remain in India. Israel has risen to become one of India’s largest defense industry partners, and may be on its way to surpassing Russia as India’s largest partner.

That rise, India’s previous positive experiences with Barak, and the opportunity to help develop new technologies instead of buying them, all led India toward Israel for its next-generation naval SAM partnership.

Israel Aerospace Industries will be the key partner, and will contribute most of the applicable technology, just as Russia did for the BrahMos by offering its SS-N-26 Oniks missile as the base platform. 2011 Barak-8 materials show Indian firms contributing the dual-pulse rocket motor, associated motor arming/safing mechanisms, and the pneumatic actuation system. On the other hand, India Defence reports that IAI and its Israeli partners have agreed to transfer all relevant technologies and manufacturing capabilities to India.

The LR-SAM project is now slated for completion by December 2015, which would be about a decade from its 2005 project approval to fielding. Israel will be ahead of that schedule, as they began steps to field Barak-8 in their navy in mid-2013.

Land-Based: MR-SAM

SAM_SA-3 Goa
SA-3
(click to view full)

The Barak-8’s follow-on project involves a land-based system, intended to replace old Russian systems. Most reports place MR-SAM’s desired capabilities at 70 km/ 42 mile range effective range, with 360 degree coverage, plus the ability to engage multiple targets simultaneously. As The Times of India put it, in 2007:

“The project is crucial because, as highlighted by TOI earlier, there are still “many gaping holes” in India’s radar network and the armed forces only have near-obsolete air defence units like Russian Pechora [DID: upgraded SA-3], OSA-AK [DID: SA-8B, scheduled for interim upgrades], and Igla [DID: SA-16 shoulder-fired] missile systems.

Sources peg the MR-SAM project as an extension of the ongoing DRDO-Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) project, launched in January 2006 at a cost of $480 million, to develop a supersonic 60-km Barak-NG (new-generation) missile defence system for Navy.”

India Defence and the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz also reported that MR-SAM would be an extension of work done on the Barak-NG deal, and this seems to be the general consensus.

SAM SA-8
SA-8
(click to view full)

The DRDO Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) will be the ‘prime developer’ for the MR-SAM project, which will reportedly have a Rs 2,300 crore (INR 23 billion, about $445 million at signing in 2009) indigenous component within an estimated Rs 10,075 crore (INR 100.75 billion, about $1.95 billion at signing) total. The 4-5 year project aims to provide India’s military with 9 advanced air defense squadrons, each with 2 MR-SAM firing units. Each MR-SAM unit, in turn, would consist of a command and control center, an acquisition radar, a guidance radar, and 3 launchers with 8 missiles each.

MR-SAM’s total would therefore be 10 C2 centers, 18 acquisition radars, 18 guidance radars, and 54 launchers, armed with 432 ready-to-fire missiles. Some reports have placed total missile orders as high as 2,000, which would add a significant reserve stockpile to replenish missiles in any conflict.

Indian sources estimated a 4-year, $300 million System Design & Development phase to develop unique system elements, and produce an initial tranche of the land-based missiles. As of its approval by the Cabinet Committee on Security in July 2007, MR-SAM surpassed the BrahMos project in size, and may be the largest joint defense development project ever undertaken between India and any other country.

The MR-SAM project reportedly has a “probable date of completion” by August 2016, which would be around 7 years from its 2009 approval.

Contracts & Key Events

2014 – 2015

In service in Israel; DRDO challenges; Successful intercept test.

INS Vikramaditya trials
Empty
(click to view full)

November 16/15: India’s Barak-8 will be test-fired between now and the end of the year after it was announced that preparations are being made on board the INS Kolkata for the test which the Navy hope to have installed on all future warships and retrofitted on its current Kolkata class destroyers.

Mar 2/15: Indian interest renewed for MRSAM. Defense News reports that an Indian Defence Ministry official confirmed that the medium-range (MRSAM) variant is a go for joint development with Israel, with an initial expected order of $1.5 billion. Rafale and IAI would work with Indian firms Bharat Dynamics Tata Power SED and Larsen & Toubro.

Nov 10/14: Testing. A successful test of the Barak-8 “Air & Missile Defense System” acquires an incoming target drone using the system’s radar, fired the missile to an interception zone, and had the missile successfully acquire and kill the target using its own seeker. Indian officials were there, including DRDO chief Dr. Avinash Chander, and Israeli and Indian releases both pronounced their satisfaction with all aspects of test performance.

The Israelis already have the missile deployed, so they’re happy. What the releases didn’t say, is whether DRDO’s rocket booster was used in the test (Aug 14/14). It’s likely that they did, and the next step is warship trials for India. DRDO hopes to begin deliveries by the end of 2015. Sources: IAI, “IAI Successfully Tested the Barak-8 Air & Missile Defense System” | India MoD, “Successful Flight Testing of LR SAM Missile”.

Aug 14/14: INS Kolkata. Media reports indicate that India’s new 7,500t air defense destroyer INS Kolkata, which is set to be commissioned on Aug 16/14, will be armed with Barak-1 missiles until the Barak-8s arrive. The article doesn’t explain whether the vertical launchers are compatible, or whether the Barak-1 has been integrated yet with the IAI Elta MF-STAR active array radar that equips the new destroyer class. With respect to the Barak-8s:

“The missile is ready, but [DRDO’s] boosters to propel the missile [upon launch]… have failed.”

Hence the importance of the forthcoming tests, if DRDO can get its rocket boosters to Israel (q.v. Aug 11/14). Meanwhile, India is likely to have 3 Kolkata Class destroyers ready to go by the time they’re done testing the Indian LR-SAM. They’ll need to do something in the interim. Sources: oneindia News, “INS Kolkata, the Biggest Naval Destroyer, is the weakest link in Defence”.

Aug 11/14: Force majeure. India’s Business Standard explains how the recent battles in the Gaza Strip are affecting the LR-SAM program, which was already 2 years late:

“The DRDO confirms that the rockets, filled with highly combustible propellant, were despatched [sic] on a commercial airline, Korean Air, for trials in Israel. After the rocket motors reached Seoul – Korean Air’s global hub, from where they were to be routed onwards to Tel Aviv – the launch of Israeli airstrikes on Gaza on July 8 caused Korean Air to cancel all flights to Tel Aviv…. Consequently, a crucial and secret sub-system of the world’s most advanced anti-missile defence system has been languishing in a Korean Air warehouse in Seoul.”

Actually, the cancellation came on July 20/14, after Hamas rockets struck near the airport. Note that Iron Dome is programmed to ignore rockets that don’t threaten its priority areas, and many airlines have already reassessed the situation and resumed flights. Korean Air, on the other hand, won’t begin flights to Tel Aviv again until Aug 28/14. India’s DRDO is “monitoring the situation,” and could choose to request help from India’s Air Force, whose IL-76 heavy jet transports could pick up and deliver the missiles.

Once the Premier Explosives Ltd. rocket motors are delivered, they will be integrated with the IAI-built front section, and then undergo full homing trials at an Israeli range. After that, warship trials will begin, and DRDO hopes to begin deliveries by the end of 2015. By then, 3 new Project 15A Kolkata Class destroyers, and the aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya, will all be waiting to receive their primary air defense weapons. Sources: India’s Business Standard, “Indian missiles languish in South Korea due to Gaza conflict” | Israel’s Globes, “Korean Air cancels all Israel flights until August 28”.

May 13/14: Israel. A Sa’ar 5 Eilat Class corvette has already been outfitted with IAI Elta’s MF-STAR S-Band AESA radar, and Barak-8 air defense missiles. The other 2 are set to follow.

The MF-STAR, or “Adir,” has been bought by India for its new Project 15A Kolkata Class destroyers. They are also expected to employ the Barak-8. Sources: The Jerusalem Post, “The Israel Navy is quietly enhancing its capabilities for precision, long-range missiles”.

2010 – 2013

Barak-8 development & testing continues; Azerbaijan sale?; Akash missile expands Indian footprint; Indian RFI for immediate MR-SAM option.

Barak-8 concept
Barak-8 concept
(click to view full)

Dec 23/13: DAC OK. AK Antony and the Defence Acquisitions Council (DAC) clear the Indian Navy’s intent to buy 262 more Barak-1 missiles, in order to replenish their fast-dwindling stocks. The paper adds:

“The naval LR-SAM, approved in December 2005, is now slated for completion by December 2015. The MR-SAM project, sanctioned in February 2009, in turn, has a “probable date of completion” by August 2016.”

Read “Indian Naval Air Defenses: Another Avoidable Crisis” for full coverage.

Dec 17/13: Update. India’s Ministry of Defense provides updates regarding a number of DRDO projects, including LR-SAM. The development program’s original delivery target was May 2011, but the Probable Date of Completion is now December 2015: 4 1/2 years late, and well after it becomes fully operational in Israel. Sources: India MoD, “DRDO Projects”.

Nov 14/13: Stall. India’s LR-SAM and MR-SAM projects are stalled, even as Israel moves to deploy the Barak-8 at sea. The Barak-8 was supposed to be delivered for LR-SAM by 2012, and is supposed to go to the IAF as MR-SAM by 2017. Unfortunately, drawings for components aren’t enough to let Indian firms produce them properly, and:

“Frankly speaking, right now, not much is going on in the joint venture due to various issues between the two sides. Expecting Israel to share its technology with India is unfair. But such things should have been clarified before the joint venture was entered into,” said an official…. DRDO officials are also attributing the delay to a complicated and long procedure involving shuttling between India and Israel for various stages of development of a system etc… [DRDO] also reportedly found itself helpless on problems in propulsion system and other related issues while a significant number of parts or systems are yet to be tested following a delay in manufacturing.”

So, to sum up: contract terms that didn’t provide clear mechanisms to enable Indian production from the baseline they’re actually at, Indian DRDO bureaucracy sitting in the way of development and not delivering on key items, and manufacturing issues that have created Indian testing delays. While Israel fields the missile. DRDO Director General Avinash Chander wouldn’t comment on LR-SAM, which is already late, but he said MR-SAM remained on schedule for 2017. Sources: Times of India, “India-Israel joint venture to manufacture missiles fails to take off”.

July 31/13: Israeli installation. India may give the Barak-8 LR-SAM’s date of probable completion as 2015, but Israel intends to have the missile installed on its 3 Sa’ar 5 Eilat Class corvettes before the end of 2013.

The move is reportedly being made in response to Syria’s deployment of SS-N-26/ P-800 Yakhont supersonic anti-ship missiles, with a range of up to 180 miles. Some of the missiles reportedly survived a major Israeli strike, and Hezbollah’s leading role in the Syrian Civil War sharpens concerns about a transfer to Iran’s 21st-century Condor Legion. Incoming supersonic missiles will compress the Barak-8’s range, but its 60-70 km base range remains a large improvement over the Barak-1’s base 10-12 km. Arming the Eilat Class with the navy’s first wide-area air defense technology is a good backup move while Israel looks to determine the true state of Syria’s P-800 missiles, and if necessary, to target them for a final strike. Israel HaYom | UPI | China’s Xinhua.

Israel deploying Barak-8

March 18/13: An India MoD release offers a list of late DRDO projects, along with a voluminous list of excuses. Credit of some kind is due for not using “the dog ate our blueprints,” but every other issue one normally expects in projects of this nature can be found. LR-SAM is one of the listed projects, and its Probable Date of Completion has slipped from May 2011 to December 2015.

Dec 18/12: LR-SAM. India’s MoD offers quick year-end reviews for a number of key programs. With respect to LR-SAM, it says that:

“Control and Navigation Tests (CNT) for LRSAM, a joint development Programme between DRDO and Israel Aerospace Industry (IAI), to develop an Advanced Naval Air Defence System for Indian Navy) were conducted on 16th and 18th July 2012. All Planned mission objectives were fully met in both the tests. The missiles showed good navigation and control performance. DRDO is the Prime Development Agency and IAI the design authority for supply, installation and final acceptance.”

Development was pegged at 5 years under the original 2006 LR-SAM deal, so they’re late. MR-SAM isn’t mentioned, but LR-SAM missile tests are also effectively MR-SAM missile tests.

Dec 5/12: LR-SAM MoU. Israel Aerospace Industries and India’s state-owned Bharat Electronics Ltd. sign a memorandum of understanding (MoU), concerning their cooperation on future LR-SAM ship-defence system projects.

IAI already has a number of arrangements in place with Indian firms. Under this MoU, BEL will function as the Lead Integrator, ultimately taking over DRDO’s role once the missile is developed, and will produce major sub-systems. IAI will continue to act as the system’s Design Authority, and to produce sub-systems as a main sub-contractor of BEL. IAI.

Feb 26/12: Azerbaijan. Israel and Azerbaijan sign a government to government deal for a range of military equipment, including UAVs and “missile defense systems.”

The Caspian Sea’s gas and oil resources are increasing tensions in the region, and Russia’s recent hostility with Georgia has also roiled the waters. From 2008 to the present, SIRPI’s database confirms that Israel has become a significant supplier of military equipment to Azerbaijan, including artillery, UAVs, and anti-tank and anti-ship missiles. Russia and Ukraine are even more significant suppliers, transferring attack helicopters, artillery, missiles, armored vehicles – and long-range S-300 air defense missile systems.

Subsequent reports from SIRPI indicate that this $1.6 billion deal may contain up to 75 Barak-8 missiles, and an EL/M-2080 Green Pine long-range radar. That diversity of long-range systems would complicate planning for an attacker, and offers some insurance. Israel may even get more than just money from this. Depending on that Green Pine radar’s positioning, it should be able to see a long way into Iran’s airspace. Ha’aretz | News.Az.

Azeri deal?

NASAMS
SLAMRAAM test
(click to view full)

June 3/11: Industrial. Livefist shows an India DRDO presentation that helps break down technology responsibilities within the Barak-8. Indian firms will contribute the pneumatic actuator, dual-pulse rocket motor, and motor arming/safing technologies.

April 13/11: MR-SAM gap-filler RFI. IANS reports that India’s MoD has issued a request for information (RFI) from global and domestic missile manufacturers, asking them if they could supply the medium range air defense missile within a short time-frame to the Indian Air Force (IAF), for defense of vital installations. Submitted systems must be capable of all-weather, all-terrain, day/night operation with a 3.5 km altitude ceiling, and able to engage multiple targets that include a range of aerial enemies.

The RFI is ahead of a tender for the purchase of medium-range surface-to-air (MRSAM) missiles, and the emergency buy would reportedly be over and above the 18 MR-SAM units that India is buying from Israel in the 2009 deal. The near-term timeline would appear to disqualify the Barak-8, preventing tri-service acceptance. Obvious Air Force contenders would include India’s own Akash, and offerings from MBDA (VL-MICA), Kongsberg/Raytheon (SLAMRAAM/NASAMS, possibly Patriot PAC-3 as well), Russia (TOR-M2E, SA-20/S-300 PMU2 possible), and IAI/RAFAEL (Spyder MR-SAM variant, complementing the SR-SAM variant India has already ordered).

SAM Akash Exhibit
Akash SAM exhibit
(click to view full)

Aug 9/10: Defence Minister Shri AK Antony updates the status of various missile programs, in a Parliamentary reply to Shri SB Wankhede and Shri AP Shivaji. Trishul and Akash aren’t mentioned at all; the former presumably owing to its cancellation, the latter because it may no longer be a development program. LR-SAM’s ballistic flight trials was undertaken in May 2010. MR-SAM’s preliminary design has been carried out, along with “pre-tender briefing to all prospective vendors.”

Feb 2/10: Akash up, opportunity down. India increases its Akash SAM buy to 1,000, and will deploy them in the rugged terrain of the northeast as SA-3 replacements. The INR 42.79 billion (about $925 million) contract will buy 6 squadrons of Akash medium-range surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) from state-run Bharat Electronics Ltd (BEL). This 750 missile order follows an INR 12.21 billion (about $250 million) order for 2 initial squadrons with 250 missiles total, back in January 2009.

Delivery under this order is expected between 2012-2015, stabilizing Akash as a shorter-range complement to the MR-SAM and affirming the IAF’s confidence. That confidence doesn’t endanger the MR-SAM project, but it removes the expansion possibilities that would have been created by full cancellation, or a limited 2-squadron Akash program. The Hindu | Indian Express | Times of India | Times Now | Bloomberg | India’s Business Times.

2006 – 2009

LR-SAM and MR-SAM deals signed; Budgets; Competition by the back door?

VL-MICA
VL-MICA test
(click to view full)

Dec 14/09: Confirmed. Defence Minister Shri AK Antony offers a program update, in a written Parliamentary reply to Shri Asaduddin Owaisi:

“Defence Research Development Organization (DRDO) has undertaken joint development of missiles, Long Range Surface-to-Air Missile (LRSAM) for Indian navy and Medium Range Surface to Air Missile (MRSAM) for Indian Air Force with M/s Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI), Israel. The cost of project for LRSAM is Rs. 2606.02 crore and cost of project for MRSAM is Rs. 10075 crore. Both the missiles being developed are comparable in performance and cost to missiles available in their class in the world market.”

Given conversion rates at contract time, that means $1.95 billion for MR-SAM, and $560.8 million for LR-SAM.

Indian deals & budgets

Nov 9/09: MR-SAM. Reports surface again that Israel and India have signed a deal for the Barak-8 missile system, which appears to be the Army’s MR-SAM project. Indian reports quote an Israel official, who says that India signed a $1.1 billion contract in April 2009, with delivery expected by 2017.

Islamabad’s The Daily Mail claim that the deal is $1.4 billion, and involves 2,000 Barak-8 missiles for land and naval forces. India has significant industrial offset laws, and The Daily Mail reports that IAI will make offsetting purchases from Tata equal to 33% of the contract. These would almost certainly include Tata trucks for the land-based Barak-8 AMD, as well as purchases and partnerships involving Tata Advanced Systems Ltd. (TASL), whose collaboration may also include the development, licensed manufacture, or operation of UAVs, radars, electronic warfare systems and homeland security systems.

See also March 26/09 entry. Reuters | domain-b | PressTV | The Daily Mail, Pakistan.

Nov 8/09: Outlook India, from Jerusalem:

“As India and Israel move to deepen their military ties, Army Chief General Deepak Kapoor arrived here on a key visit where he is scheduled to hold talks with top military officials.

General Kapoor will hold discussions with senior defence officials as ‘part of regular ongoing exchanges’ to tighten bilateral defence ties. The three-day visit will also allay fears that the CBI enquiry into controversial [original naval Barak-1] missile deal may disrupt the robust defence ties between the two countries.”

See also: UPI report.

June 10/09: MR-SAM contract? Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) announces that it has recently signed a contract to “develop and supply the land-based Barak 8 Air and Missile Defense (AMD) System to a foreign customer.” The customer is not named. See also March 26/09 entry.

May 12/09: Barak-8. Israel Aerospace Industries unveils a full-scale mockup of the Barak 8 surface to air missile (SAM) for the first time at Singapore’s IMDEX 2009 maritime defense show. Barak 8 is co-developed for use by India, and also destined to equip Israel’s next missile frigates. It appears to be an active-homing missile, too, an ability that current American SM-2 missiles lack, but which the SM-6 under development will have. Aviation Week Ares:

“Key features of the 70 km-range Barak 8 missile are an active radar seeker and a dual-pulse solid rocket motor. The first motor pulse propels the weapon through most of its trajectory while the second fires as the missile approaches its target, giving it the energy necessary to defeat evasive action or random weaving. The active seeker means that the missile is autonomous in the endgame, leaving the ship’s radar free to track [DID: illuminate, actually – many passive radars can track hundreds of targets, but illuminate just a couple at a time for targeting] other targets. The missile launcher comprises an eight-round module, three or more of which could make up a typical system.”

Barak-8: early details

March 30/09: MR-SAM corruption? An Indian media story carried by DNA alleges that a senior Indian Air Force officer was instrumental in reducing India’s buy of the DRDO’s long Akash missile project from 8 squadrons to 2, and is now doing work related to MR-SAM for Israeli firms following his retirement from service:

“Without naming the officer, Defence Research & Development Organisation chief M Natarajan told a press conference in Bangalore during the Aero India show last month that the officer had slashed his predecessor’s commitment to induct eight squadrons of Akash missiles. The officer had brought the figure down to just two squadrons. Akash has a range of 27km, while MRSAM has a range of about 70km.

A source in the defence ministry confirmed that even for the induction of these two Akash squadrons, the IAF put a condition that the DRDO must first agree to the MRSAM project… “[He] killed Akash, blackmailed us to agree to MRSAM, and is now working for them openly.”

These arrangements could reflect corruption, as they did in the USAF’s Darleen Druyun/ Boeing scandal. Or, they could reflect a bureaucratic strong-arm tactic, executed by a customer that saw a large difference in key performance statistics, and accepted the inevitability of some Akash buys but sought to minimize them.

March 26/09: MR-SAM. Adnkronos International relays an Asian Age report that India has reached a $1.9 billion equivalent deal to develop MR-SAM. India’s Ministry of Defence has not confirmed the deal, but

“…sources in the department of defence research and development (DRDO) said it was likely to go ahead. The joint development of the 70-kilometre MR-SAM missile project would be carried out by India’s DRDO and the Israeli Aircraft Industries [sic].”

Subsequent reports lend considerable credence to the belief that MR-SAM was signed at this time, though the exact amounts vary. A December 2009 Parliamentary answer adds some clarity, and places the overall effort at INR 100.75 billion (about $1.95 billion), but contracts to Israeli companies within that effort probably aren’t the full budgeted amount. Reports also cite up to 2,000 missiles ordered, and offsetting purchases from Tata equal to 33% of the contract. These offsets would almost certainly include Tata trucks for the land-based Barak-8 AMD system, as well as purchases and partnerships involving Tata Advanced Systems Ltd. (TASL), whose collaboration may also include the development, licensed manufacture, or operation of UAVs, radars, electronic warfare systems and homeland security systems.

See also Nov 9/09, June 10/09 entries.

MR-SAM Deal (probable)

Feb 24/09: MR-SAM. A domain-b article quotes senior DRDO scientist Dr Prahlad, re: the MR-SAM project:

“We may take around 12 years but the requirement of the services is that they want it (MR-SAM) fast. The only way to make it four to five years is to partner with a country which has already developed some of the hardware. If they have got some hardware and we have got some knowledge, we can do it in 4-5 years…” Dr Prahalad added that [DRDO’s Akash] did not fit the bill for the MR-SAM project as its range was only 30 km, while the services had posited teh [sic] requirement for a missile system with a range of 70 km.”

Feb 10/09: Politics. Top Left Front leaders, Prakash Karat (General Secretary, Communist Party of India – Marxist) and A B Bardhan (General Secretary, Communist Party of India) send a letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh Opposing the MR-SAM contract to Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI), asking the government not to “subvert” india’s indigenous missile effort, which it characterizes as “superior.” The letter also cites the bribery allegations against IAI (see Oct 13/08 entry). Press Trust of India.

Jan 20/09: SR-SAM – Revenge of DRDO? India Defence reports that neither MBDA nor India’s state-run DRDO have given up on their “SR-SAM” short range air defense proposal. Rumors peg it as a combination of DRDO’s Trishul and MBDA’s VL-MICA system, though Trishul’s failure and VL-MICA’s technologies mean that claims regarding Trishul technology are likely to be about saving face as much as anything else.

The “Maitri” LLQRM proposal’s positioning would be directly competitive with RAFAEL’s SPYDER, and VL-MICA is deployable as a mobile system. That could affect SPYDER’s future expansion within the Indian military, and might even affect its prospects if program problems crop up. MICA’s capabilities mean that SR-SAM/Maitri would also be directly competitive with India’s indigenous Akash, and might even impinge on the proposed medium range MR-SAM deal.

Nov 9/08: MR-SAM Cleared. An India Times article clarifies, noting that the current UPA government has cleared the MR-SAM development project to go ahead, despite the political/legal storm around the navy’s original Barak missile deal.

Oct 13/08: Investigation. Reports from India indicate that the government has effectively downgraded IAI and RAFAEL’s status as vendors, suspending additional Barak missile purchases, and adding additional high-level approval steps for any new or existing deal involving either company. The moves are a response to ongoing CBI investigations, involving allegations that bribery was used to secure the original Barak ship defense missile deal in 1999-2000. Read “India Downgrades Vendor Status of IAI and RAFAEL” for more.

Aug 22/07: In a written Parliamentary response, Defence Minister Shri AK Antony offers a program update:

“The government has not decided on a joint venture with Israel for the production of missiles. The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has earlier entered into a contract with M/s. Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), Israel to jointly develop a Long Range Surface to Air Missile (LRSAM) system for the Indian and Israeli Navy in January 2006.”

July 13/07: MR-SAM. The MR-SAM project may be about to take the naval Barak-NG deal to a new level. If reports are correct, this Rs 10,000 crore (almost $2.5 billion) deal would see a longer range version of the Barak enter service as India’s medium-range land-based surface-air-missile system. Ha’aretz | Indian Express | The Times of India.

Jan 3/07: LR-SAM value. A report from the Israeli government places the Barak naval deal at $450 million.

Feb 2/06: LR-SAM. Reports surface that India and Israel have finalized their biggest defense development agreement: The state-owned Defence Research and Development Laboratory (DRDL) in Hyderabad, and Israeli Aircraft Industries (IAI) reportedly signed a pact on Jan 27/06 for the joint development and production of a long-range version of the Barak (Heb. “Lightning”) air defense system.

A senior scientist of India’s Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) reportedly said that the 50/50 shared program had an estimated cost of about $350 million over the next 5 years, but a December 2009 Parliamentary answer costed India’s contribution effort at INR 20.06 billion (about $591 million). The agreement does say that additional funding will be infused by both parties as needed.

Under this agreement, the DRDO and IAI will develop 6 long-range Barak systems for India’s new Russian warships There are also reports that Barak and the Barak-8 missiles will be used as phased replacements for the aging Russian OSA-M and Volna RZ-31 missiles still in operation with the Navy. Indian Navy personnel reportedly pointed to the inherent advantage of the Barak family’s digital systems over the analog computers that guide the Russian missiles.

Procurement by Israel’s navy could follow, and India’s Army and Air Force also have projected requirements for medium-long range air defense systems. Express India | The Tribune of India | Defense News.

LR-SAM Development

Additional Readings & Sources

Background: Barak Missile Family

Background: Related Equipment

  • DID – Indian Naval Air Defenses: Another Avoidable Crisis. Involves political issues and stalls that have driven India’s Barak-1 missile inventory to dangerously low levels, in the wake of unproven allegations of kickbacks in 2001. LR-SAM and MR-SAM were actively protected from any fallout, and the case was eventually dropped.
  • IAI Elta – ELM-2248 MF-STAR: MULTI-FUNCTION Surveillance and Threat Alert Radar. Accompanies the Barak-1 on some Indian ships, and likely upgrade/ new fit for Israeli ships. Up to 4 fixed active array S-band tiles, with each tile containing 16 GaN T/R modules, and multiple digital beamforming capability. A typical 3×3 m array weighs approximately 1,500 kg, and total weight below decks is about 900 kg for onboard equipment in 2 processing and 4 power supply cabinets. Liquid cooling is used.
  • Defense Update – EL/M-2248 MF-STAR Naval Multi-Mission Radar
  • Wikipedia – SA-3. The S-125 Pechora used by India is a variant. See also this DID Spotlight article, which explains how a Serbian SA-3 battery survived NATO’s aerial attacks and shot down an F-117 stealth fighter in 1999.
  • GlobalSecurity.org – SA-8 GECKO / 9K33 Osa. Short-range system, used by India. Will be replaced by Israel’s SPYDER system.
  • Bharat-Rakshak – Trishul SAM. Short-range naval and land SAM. Was eventually canceled, by which time the Barak-1 was in place as a substitute, and performing above Trishul’s potential.
  • GlobalSecurity – Trishul (Trident) air-defense missile. Clips a lot from Indian press releases, take with a grain of salt. Does describe some of the program’s difficulties, but only goes to about 2003.

News & Views

UH-72 Lakota Light Helicopter Lands Airbus in US Defense Market

$
0
0
UH-72As MEDEVAC
UH-72As: MEDEVAC
(click to view full)

DID’s FOCUS articles offer in-depth, updated looks at significant military programs of record. This is DID’s FOCUS Article regarding the US Army’s Light Utility Helicopter program, covering the program and its objectives, the winning bid team and industrial arrangements, and contracts.

The US Army’s LUH program will finish as a 325 helicopter acquisition program that will be worth about $2.3 billion when all is said and done. It aimed to replace existing UH-1 Hueys and OH-58 Kiowa utility variants in non-combat roles, freeing up larger and more expensive UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters for front-line duty. In June 2006, a variant of Eurocopter’s EC145 beat AgustaWestland’s AB139, Bell-Textron’s 412EP Twin Huey, and MD Helicopters’ 902 Explorer NOTAR (No Tail Rotor) design. The win marked EADS’ 1st serious military win in the American market, and their “UH-145” became the “UH-72A Lakota” at an official December 2006 naming ceremony.

Eurocopter has continued to field new mission kits and deliver helicopters from its Mississippi production line, while trying to build on their LUH breakthrough. A training helicopter win will keep the line going for a couple more years…

The LUH Program: Objectives & Background

AH-66 Comanche
RAH-66 Comanche
(click to view full)

The LUH program spun out of the canceled $9 billion AH-66 Comanche stealth scout/attack helicopter, as one of the US Army’s cheaper reinvestment and recapitalization options. LUH helicopters are intended to replace Vietnam era UH-1H Hueys and OH-58A/C Kiowa aircraft in the U.S. Army and National Guard. Note that the US Marine Corps will continue to fly the modernized UH-1Y Venom, and the civilian para-military DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) is likely to retain many of its OH-58s and may pick some up from Army surplus.

The US Army’s OH-58D Kiowa Warrior scout helicopters, meanwhile, will be replaced by 368 militarized Bell 407s between FY 2006-2013 under the $2.2 billion Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter (ARH) program, the first of the AH-66 spinoffs. These efforts are part of the Army Aviation Modernization Program, along with programs like the Warrior UAV and hopefully the Joint Cargo Aircraft to replace the Army’s C-123 Sherpa light transport planes.

UH-60 Blackhawk
UH-60 Blackhawk

The intent was to acquire a Commercial-Off-the-Shelf (COTS)/ Non-Developmental Item (NDI) aircraft that is Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) Type Standard Certified, and produce approximately 322 new LUH helicopters between 2006-2015. They will fill the niche missions in which the Army’s standard UH-60 Black Hawk’s size, capability, and operating expenses may be unnecessary, performing a wide range of general support missions in the United States and overseas. Transport of personnel and supplies, disaster relief operations, medical evacuation, reconnaissance, drug interdiction, and homeland security will all be likely tasks.

In 2006, therefore, while the rest of EADS was targeted for divestment and beginning to face bottom line issues, Eurocopter continued to fly. Fresh off of major wins with Korea’s KHP development program ($1.3 billion) and Australia’s NH90 order ($1.5 bilion), Eurocopter racked up the biggest win of all in June: its EC145 would serve as the USA’s future Light Utility Helicopter, replacing existing UH-1s and OH-58s in a 322 helicopter, $3+ billion program between 2006-2015. Losing entries included Team MD Helicopters’ 902 Explorer NOTAR (No Tail Rotor) design, Bell-Textron’s 412EP Twin Huey, and Team AgustaWestland’s AB139. See DID coverage of the 4 competing teams.

The US military subsequently raised the planned number of UH-72 LUH helicopters to 345, but shifts near the end of the program cut the final number to 325, and aimed to place the last orders in FY 2014. In 2015, however, Airbus was picked for a 100-helicopter contract as the US Army Aviation Center of Excellence’s prime training helicopter. Budgets over the life of the program included:

UH-72A LUH Budgets: 2006-2013

The LUH Winner: Eurocopter’s EC145/ UH-72A

EC145 Rescue Hoisting
EC145 w. hoist
(click to view full)

The UH-72A Lakota is a militarized version of the Eurocopter EC145, which in turn is a new and thoroughly modified version of the famous BK 117-C1. It was given its Lakota designation in keeping with the Army’s tradition of naming rotary-wing aircraft after native American Indian tribes. Requests for the naming originate with the tribes themselves, and their history and traditions must be aligned with the helicopter’s characteristics and uses in US Army service.

The Lakota is outfitted with an advanced avionics suite that includes a “glass” (digital screen) cockpit for flight and navigation instrument display. Its civilian version is already FAA Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) certified, and safety features include redundant hydraulic and electrical systems. An array of radios allows communication with civilian first responders, as well as military channels.

The aft cabin, including baggage area, is 50.77 ft2, at 4.59 x 11.23 feet. That cabin can be switched between a 6-seat (3-3) arrangement, or 2-3 seats plus 2 MEDEVAC stretcher rails. If a medic needs to work on a patient in the air, operational capacity drops to 1 stretcher. A high-set main and tail rotor design allow safe loading and unloading through the main side doors and rear-fuselage clamshell doors, even while the rotors are turning.

Those turning rotors are relatively quiet, for a helicopter. That was true of the old BK-117, is true of the EC145, and remains true for its military counterpart. Quietness makes helicopters easier to operate in civilian airspace, and provides front-line advantages if UH-72 variants are ever deployed that way.

Airbus: UH-72A S&S
UH-72A S&S
(click to view full)

So far, the US military’s UH-72As have stuck to their original intent, and are used for service away from the front lines. They’ve been used most often for medical evacuation (MEDEVAC) missions, search and rescue, border patrols along the U.S./Mexican border, and VIP transport. They’ve also found niche roles in missile testing, and in general aviation support and combat flight training at the Joint Multinational Readiness Center (JMRC) in Hohenfels, Germany; the Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC) at Ft. Polk, LA; and the National Training Center at Ft. Irwin, CA. Special missions have included disaster response following the January 2010 earthquake in Haiti, and oil spill monitoring and response flights along the U.S. Gulf Coast after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

They’ve also remained true to their initial affordability promises. Deliveries have been on time and on-budget, and in 2012, US Army project manager for utility helicopters, Col. Thomas Todd, said that the UH-72A is cheaper to operate than its predecessors were. He cited a readiness rate of over 90%, which is excellent even for such a young fleet, and a parts cost that’s 30-40% less than UH-1 and OH-58 legacy helicopters. That parts cost is especially good news. The history of modern military programs has usually involved lower availability rates, and higher maintenance costs, than the equipment it replaces. Since operating and maintenance costs are a majority of any platform’s real costs over time, lowering those costs makes a big cumulative difference to the Army’s future budgets.

UH-72A Lakota Variants

UH-72A S&S
UH-72A S&S
(click to view full)

Overall, 7 UH-72A variants exist, but several of them are really kits that can be rolled on and off of the base helicopter.

MEDEVAC/Search and Rescue. This mission “B-kit” includes the external rescue hoist, 2 stretchers, plus associated medical equipment and systems. Two medics are positioned in rear-facing seats behind the pilot and co-pilot.

Missile Test LUH. This variant operates in the Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site at Kwajalein Atoll, Pacific Ocean. The Kwajalein helicopters are painted in high visibility orange, and come with skid-mounted floats, integrated life rafts, and jettisonable cockpit doors.

UH-72A Security & Support (S&S) Battalion. This 3rd kit is more extensive. It includes an external hoist, a forward centerline-mounted camera system which can track targets at up to 9 miles away using electro-optical and infrared sensors, a laser pointer, a 30 million candlepower searchlight, an operator console, cockpit and cabin touch-screen displays with moving maps that can navigate to streets as well as military coordinates, a video management system, a digital video recorder and data downlink system, and additional avionics and communications equipment that can be synced with first responders on the ground. The US Army National Guard plans to buy at least 100 UH-72A S&S helicopters: 17 retrofitted and 83 new build.

Training. Current proposals would replace existing US Army TH-67 (Bell 206) and OH-58 training helicopter fleets with the UH-72A, allowing those existing types to completely retire from US Army service.

Airbus is also trying to interest the Navy in using the UH-72 as a replacement for its aging TH-57 Sea Ranger (Bell 206) helicopter trainer fleet. The helicopters would add Garmin G1000H avionics, and be fitted with student, instructor, and observer seats.

VIP transport. This adds more and nicer seats, for a total of 3 rear-facing seats located behind the cockpit, 2 forward-facing seats just aft of the helicopter’s side doors, and 3 seats behind them.

2 more kits are left deliberately undefined, except to say that they are “associated with training missions that teach soldiers how to fight aircraft and recognize friend or foe on the battle space.”

US Navy. The 7th variant was produced for a different customer, the U.S. Naval Test Pilot School at Patuxent River Naval Air Station, MD. Their variant is exactly what you would expect: it trains test pilots from the U.S. military and allied countries. Navy H-72A modifications include jettisonable cockpit doors, a cockpit voice and flight data recorder, a main rotor blade folding kit, and an air traffic advisory system.

AAS-72X+ scout helicopter
AAS-72X+ concept
(click to view full)

The platform’s next frontier was supposed to involve a step beyond kits, into a fully armed version.

In 2009, EADS North America moved to build on their success. With Bell’s ARH-70 Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter canceled due to cost overruns, EADS announced a partnership with Lockheed Martin to offer an EC645/AAS-72X variant for the US Army’ Armed Aerial Scout competition. After initial tests, they decided to favor performance over full commonality, and used the EC145-T2 as the base for their armed scout. The AAS-72X+ adds uprated Arriel 2E engines and the Helionix avionics suite, and switches to an enclosed Fenestron tail rotor instead of the UH-72A’s twin-tail high configuration.

Lockheed Martin is in charge of mission systems and weapons, and the team’s bid will push the advantages of having a similar base type for armed scout, training, and support roles. The problem is that the USA decided to do away with their scout helicopter fleet altogether, so any sales will have to be exports.

LUH Industrial Arrangements

UH-72A LUH industrial team suppliers

UH-72A program management is located in Huntsville, Alabama and led by the EADS North America Defense business unit of EADS North America. Production takes place at American Eurocopter’s Columbus, Mississippi facility, which received a major expansion to accommodate the Light Utility Helicopter program.

The production line is a version of Eurocopter’s EC145 multi-mission helicopter line in Donauworth, Germany. The initial UH-145s were actually built on Eurocopter’s existing EC145 production line in Germany, and shipped to Columbus, MS for final assembly and completion. Even before the contract was formally awarded, the first UH-145 helicopters were already under assembly, and components had been allocated for the manufacture of 7 more UH-145s. It was a gutsy move, but once the contract was won, it helped American Eurocopter deliver its first 8 machines to the US government on budget and ahead of schedule.

The line was duplicated in Columbus through a series of steps that began with partial assembly, followed by full assembly and the subsequent U.S. manufacture of major subsystems. Growth continued at Columbus, up until full build-up of the aircraft on a new assembly line in 2007.

Eurocopter Columbus-MS Facility
Columbus, MS facility
(click to view larger)

American Eurocopter’s expansion of the 92,200 square foot Columbus facility grew it to to approximately 276,000 square feet to accommodate the UH-145 program. As of July 2006, this plant built A-Star AS350 helicopters at a rate of about 30 per year, and its advanced metallic production center manufactures components that include aft fuselage sections for all new production A-Star/Ecureuil helicopters sold worldwide. It also handles assembly and customization of other American Eurocopter helicopter models for U.S. customers. On a federal level, the Columbus plant was already re-engining and upgrading U.S. Coast Guard Eurocopter HH-65 Dolphin search and rescue helicopters to the improved performance HH-65C version; and assembling, customizing and delivering EC120B helicopters ordered by the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

Employment at Columbus grew from the current staffing of 129 to approximately 330, plus 20-40 additional jobs at the company’s headquarters in Grand Prairie, Texas for program support.

Other suppliers also geared up. Turbomeca USA, which builds the UH-145’s Arriel 1E2 engines, grew its Grand Prairie, Texas facility by 35-45 new jobs. Thales USA transferred production of its Meghas avionics suite from Europe to a new facility in Irvine, California. Meghas also equips the Eurocopter EC145, EC135, EC155, EC120, EC130 and AS350 helicopters, and manufacturing of avionics for all these aircraft types, as well as the UH-145, was relocated to Irvine.

UH-145 Side-Rear
UH-72 LUH
(click to view full)

UH-72A deliveries have gone well. UH-72A deliveries to the US Army commenced in December 2006; the first 7 helicopters were delivered by June 2006, whereupon the first active unit was equipped. Deliveries continued at the rate of 1 per month until September 2007, then rose to 2 helicopters per month.

By 2010, there were 7 different H-72 configurations produced on the line, and 10 new fielding sites stood up, making 31 basing locations in the continental U.S., Puerto Rico, Germany, and the Pacific Ocean’s Kwajalein Atoll.

From December 2006 – November 2012, EADS North America delivered 243 Lakota helicopters, on budget and either on time or ahead of schedule. Delivery rates can now reach over 4 helicopters per month, or up to 53 helicopters per year. As the LUH program winds down, however, that production rate is set to slow and then stop. It’s currently 3 helicopters per month, but under the proposed FY 2014 budget that will taper to 1 per month by September 2014. By June 2015, LUH production will end.

American UH-72As: Contracts and Key Events

Unless otherwise noted, all contracts are issued by the US Army Aviation and Missile Command at Redstone Arsenal, AL; and the recipient is EADS North American Defense in Arlington, VA.

FY 2016

UH-72A MEDEVAC Exercise
MEDEVAC exercise
(click to view full)

November 16/15: Airbus has received a further order for 12 of their UH-72A light helicopters by the US government which will bring the total ordered to 400. The latest batch is said to be used for pilot training.

FY 2013 – 2014

Orders; AAS-72X tests but ARH is cancelled; From early termination to another 90-100 training helicopters.

Sept 29/14: Thailand. The US DSCA announces Thailand’s official export request for up to 9 UH-72A Lakota Helicopters, an Aviation Mission Planning Station, plus warranty, spare and repair parts, support equipment, communication equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, and other Government and contractor support. The estimated cost is up to $89 million, and the principal contractor will be EADS North America in Herndon, VA.

Thailand’s last UH-72A request became an order in under a year. The 9 helicopters will surely be welcome in the Mississippi plant, but they aren’t about to make a significant industrial difference. Read “Huey’s Departure: Thailand’s New Helicopters” for full coverage of their importance to Thailand.

DSCA: Thailand (9)

Sept 22/14: Lawsuit. AgustaWestland sues the US Army, seeking an injunction to stop its planned UH-72A training helicopter purchase. The claim states that the Sept 4/14 sole-sourcing decision wasn’t justified properly, while claiming a massive price difference of $7 million per UH-72 vs. $3.25 million for their helicopter. That price matches expected costs for the AW119Kx Koala, which is built near Philadelphia.

AgustaWestland representatives point out that the UH-72 has a restricted flight maneuver envelope, while Bell Helicopter representatives cite “a cost difference of $1,000 to $1,500 per flying hour more for the UH-72” in exchange for training on a glass cockpit and a twin-engine platform.

The stakes are higher than usual. AgustaWestland is also touting the Koala as a replacement for the US Navy’s TH-57 Creek, which is based on the same Bell 206 airframe as the Army’s TH-67 fleet that the Airbus UH-72 would replace. The Navy doesn’t have a formal program to replace the TH-57 Sea Ranger fleet, but it is aging, and an Army trainer buy would be a natural cross-service lead in. Meanwhile, the threat of sequestration (q.v. Aug 24/14) is driving pressure to buy more UH-72As immediately. If the lawsuit delays the training buy for long enough, the Army has to choose between accepting the risk of a smaller replacement fleet, or picking a cheaper option. Sources: AIN, “AgustaWestland Sues over Airbus Army Trainer Plan” | Bloomberg, “AgustaWestland Sues U.S. to Block Airbus Helicopter Buy” | Reuters, “Finmeccanica unit sues to block U.S. helicopter deal for Airbus” | Defense News, “AgustaWestland Pitches AW119 for US Navy Helicopter Trainer”.

Aug 24/14: TUH-72. Despite Kendall’s cautions, all 4 Congressional defense committees are moving to approve a $110.8 million reprogramming request that would buy another 21 UH-72As in FY 2014. These helicopters would be slotted for the training fleet, and sequestration is the reason for their haste. The FY 2016 budget is the one under threat if sequestration continues, and Fort Rucker, AL needs a bare minimum of 60 helicopters for instructor and student training needs. The added 21 + 55 in FY 2015 would provide 76, leaving the fleet ready to go despite sequestration.

If things work out in FY 2016, the remaining 24 helicopters can be ordered to raise the training fleet to 100. If sequestration hits, FY 2015 funds could be reprogrammed, or some helicopters could be moved out of the National Guard. Sources: Forecast International, “Congress Signs Off on Plan to Buy 21 Additional UH-72A Lakotas in FY14”.

Aug 6/14: TUH-72. Pentagon Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Frank Kendall says that he wants to see the Army’s business case for buying 90 UH-72s to replace existing TH-67 Creek (Bell Model 206B Jet Ranger III, initial training) and OH-58 Kiowa (tactical training) machines, under the proposed Army Aviation Restructure Plan.

We can summarize the cases. The Army says that removing these helicopter types from the fleet, and consolidating on the UH-72A, will save on support costs. Bell Helicopters says that the single-engine TH-67 fleet is 16 years old on average, and can still be used and supported for some time. On the other hand, the UH-72A production line won’t be around forever. Sources: Defense News, “Kendall Wants Business Case for US Army Helicopter Swap”.

June 26/14: Support. EADS-NA in Herndon, VA receives a $14.4 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, for UH-72A contractor logistics support. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2014 Army O&M budgets.

Work will be performed at Columbus, MS with an estimated completion date of May 15/15. US Army Contracting Command Redstone Arsenal – Aviation at Redstone Arsenal, ALmanages the contract (W58RGZ-06-C-1094, P00811).

May 27/14: Support. EADS North America, Inc. in Herndon, VA receives a $33.8 million modification, exercising an option to increase contractor logistics support for the UH-72A. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2014 Army O&M budgets.

Work will be performed in Columbus, MS, with an estimated completion date of June 30/16 (W58RGZ-06-C-0194, PO 0795).

May 23/14: Politics. The Senate Armed Services Committee has completed the mark-up of the annual defense bill, which passed by a 25-1 vote. The section relevant to the UH-72 is explained this way:

“Authorizes $612.6 million in procurement for UH-72A Light Utility Helicopter (LUH). At the request of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, the Secretary of Defense directed the Army to procure 100 additional LUH as a replacement training aircraft rather than transfer any from National Guard for that purpose. Additional funds would authorize procurement of a total 90 new aircraft to replacement of the Army’s legacy aviation training aircraft.”

$612.6 million is $196 million above the Defense Department’s budget request, and supposedly adds 35 more helicopters in Fiscal Year 2015. That creates a total of 90 ordered if the House agrees, which explains phrases like “decreases the risk and cost to the Army in their divestiture of TH-67 training aircraft”. Implicitly, it also removes the 45 helicopters and $387.6 million planned for 2016, and cuts the future training fleet from 100 to 90. Sources: US Senate Armed Services Committee, “Senate Committee on Armed Services Completes Markup of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015” | WTVY.com, “Senate Bill would Fund Alabama Defense Programs”.

May 14/14: #300. Airbus Group delivers 300th UH-72A to the US military, on time and on budget. The UH-72A S&S will enter service with the Missouri National Guard. The firm touts an American workforce that is “more than 50 percent U.S. military veterans”. No doubt they’re all happy about the 2-year extension to Army orders. Sources: Airbus, “Airbus Group delivers 300th on-time, on-budget UH-72A Lakota helicopter to U.S. Army”.

#300

May 6/14: Support. EADS North America in Herndon, VA receives a $25.5 million option for UH-72A contractor logistics support.

All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2014 Army O&M budgets. Work will be performed in Columbia, MS, with an estimated completion date of Nov 30/15. US Army Contracting Command in Redstone Arsenal, AL manages the contract (W58RGZ-06-C-0194 P00787).

March 28/14: EADS-NA in Herndon, VA receives a $34 milllion contract modification to sole-source, foreign military sales contract for 6 UH-72A Lakota helicopters with AN/ARC-231 radios, the Mission equipment package, and environmental control units to deal with Thailand’s heat.

It’s a dubious purchase, as Thailand already operates similar helicopter fleets from other manufacturers, and won’t make much of an industrial difference with the Us Army committed to its training order. Read “Huey’s Departure: Thailand’s New Helicopters” for full coverage.

Thailand buys 6

March 4-11/14: FY15 Budget. The US military slowly files its budget documents, detailing planned spending from FY 2014 – 2019. The UH-72 gets a big win. As part of the Aviation Restructure Initiative (ARI) the UH-72A will become the primary training aircraft at the US Army Aviation Center of Excellence in Ft. Rucker, AL.

That means 100 more UH-72A orders are scheduled for FY 2015 – 2016, to equip the Army’s Initial Entry Rotary Wing training fleet.

Feb 18/14: +4. A $22.9 million modification for 4 UH-72A Lakota helicopters, with the standard add-ons of ARC-231 radios and engine inlet barrier filters to keep incoming air clean.

All funds are committed immediately, using Army FY 2014 other procurement budgets. Work will be performed in Columbia, MS, and the estimated completion date is March 31/15. US Army Contracting Command in Redstone Arsenal, AL manages the contract (W58RGZ-06-C-0194, PO 0766).

4 UH-72As

Jan 17/14: Budgets. Congress doubles the planned buy of UH-72As in 2014, so the final order will be for 20 rather than 10. It ends up being a mid-point compromise between 10 and the original 31. It’s part of the omnibus spending package. Sources: Airbus Group, “Congress continues support of UH-72A Lakota helicopter”.

OH-58D, Afghanistan

Jan 14/14: No AAS. The US Army’s OH-58D scout helicopter fleet will be retired without a successor. This means the end of Airbus’ hopes to sell the AAS-72X to the US military, though they could still offer it as an export package if a country was willing to pay the remaining development costs.

Instead, the Army will rely on a mix of their AH-64E attack helicopters and UAVs. The Army realized that they didn’t have enough money to buy enough AH-64s, and that they were going to shrink the number of people in the Army. The current leadership has decided that 698 AH-64Es, who will be able to control the planned fleets of unarmed RQ-7B Shadow and armed MQ-1C Gray Eagle UAVs from the air, will provide an “80% solution.” In parallel, a rebalancing will move more UH-60 utility helicopters to the National Guard alongside the UH-72s, where they can offer useful capabilities during natural disasters etc., while shifting AH-64 attack helicopters to the active-duty force. Sources: US Army, “Army aviation flying smarter into fiscal squeeze” | Alabama.com, “Army planning to scrap OH-58 Kiowa Warriors helicopter fleet: Reports” | Jackson Sun, “National Guard: Tennessee could lose 30 OH-58D helicopters, including at Jackson flight facility, under proposed Army plan” | The Motley Fool, “The U.S. Army Is About to Make a Huge Mistake”.

End of US Scout helicopters

July 1/13: Support. EADS North America in Herndon, VA receives a $12.9 million firm-fixed-price option for contractor logistics support for the Army’s aviation assets. Work will be performed in Columbus, MS.

The only platform that fits is the UH-72A, and the Pentagon says that this award brings the cumulative total face value of the LUH contract to $2.265 billion (W58RGZ-06-C-0194, PO 0703).

June 20/13: Thailand. The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency announces [PDF] Thailand’s formal request for 6 ready-to-fly UH-72A Lakota Helicopters, communication equipment, an Aviation Mission Planning Station, plus spare and repair parts, support equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, and other forms of contractor and government support. The estimated cost is up to $77 million.

It’s part of an effort by Thailand to add a new light utility helicopter to its fleet, and would represent the UH-72A’s 1s export order, but the base EC145 has been exported to a number of other countries already. If the UH-72A is chosen, the principal contractor will be EADS North America, in Herndon, VA. Implementation will require U.S. Government or contractor representatives in Thailand for a period of 5 weeks for equipment de-processing/fielding, system checkout and new equipment training; plus a Contractor Furnished Service Representative (CFSR) for a period of 1 year. Read “Huey’s Departure: Thailand’s New Helicopters” for full coverage of Thailand’s multi-platform recapitalization drive.

DSCA Thailand: 6

May 30 – June 7/13: Lobbying. EADS North America is lobbying to reverse planned cuts to the UH-72A program, and essentially restore a year’s worth of orders. The have Congressional representatives attending, but the rallies are at their own plants in Mississippi and Texas. EADS NA re: MS | AL.com | WCBI, incl. video | EADS NA re: TX.

April 25/13: #250. American Eurocopter delivers the 250th UH-72A, which will be operated out of Oklahoma City by the Oklahoma National Guard. It’s actually the 255th, if you count the US Naval Test Pilot School’s 5 machines, and it’s the 54th UH-72A S&S configuration delivered to the US military.

EADS NA says that the combined Lakota fleet’s operations have now exceeded 150,000 flight hours, while maintaining over 90% availability. EADS North America.

#250

April 10/13: FY 2014 Budget. The President releases a proposed budget at last, the latest in modern memory. The Senate and House were already working on budgets in his absence, but the Pentagon’s submission is actually important to proceedings going forward. See ongoing DID coverage.

The UH-72A’s record of on-time and on-budget delivery didn’t entirely protect the LUH program. Instead of buying 31 in 2014 and the last 10 in 2015, the proposed budget would cut 31 machines, and close the program with a 10-helicopter buy in 2014. EADS North America chairman Sean O’Keefe vowed to fight the cuts, which would remove about $345 million from the firm’s order books. It will be interesting to see if he has any luck. See also EADS North America.

Feb 27/12: Support. EADS North America in Herndon, VA receives a $15.3 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for Contractor Logistics Support. At this point EADS North America’s site is advertising 279 LUH helicopters delivered.

Work will be performed in Columbus, MS with an estimated completion date of Dec 31/13. US Army Contracting Command in Redstone Arsenal, AL (W58RGZ-06-C-0194).

Jan 3/13: MEP support. EADS North America in Herndon, VA receives a $26.3 million firm-fixed-price contract. The award will provide for the modification of an existing contract to procure contractor logistics support for LUH Mission Equipment Packages.

Work will be performed in Columbus, MS, with an estimated completion date of June 30/16. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received (W58RGZ-06-C-0194).

Nov 16/12: +34. EADS North America, Herndon, VA receives a $181.8 million firm-fixed-price contract, to deliver 34 more UH-72A helicopters (10 standard, and 24 S&S), plus engine inlet filter barrier kits that help the helicopters cope with dust and sand.

This order brings the total number of UH-72As ordered to 312/347; so far, about 243 have been delivered. EADS North America says that the Lakota fleet has averaged an operational availability rate greater than 90% in the 21 military units that enjoy full contractor logistics (CLS) support. The spare parts fill rate under the hybrid CLS concept supporting all 33 units has averaged 97%, but there’s no word of the total availability rate.

34 UH-72As

Work will be performed in Columbus, MS, with an estimated completion date of Aug 31/14 (W58RGZ-06-C-0194). See also EADS-NA.

Oct 12/12: AAS-72X. The US Army holds preliminary flying tests of the EC145-T2 at Fort Hood. It’s related to the AAS program, but they’re flying the civilian version instead of the AAS-72X+ prototype. DVIDS.

FY 2012

Orders; #200 delivered; Security & Support variant operational; UH-72A delivering lower operating costs; Armed Aerial Scout unveiled.

UH-72A & Bulgarian Soldier
UH-72A at JMRC
(click to view full)

Sept 25/12: Support. A $10.9 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for services in support of the UH-72A Lakota. Work will be performed in Columbus, MS, with an estimated completion date of Sept 28/13. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with 1 bid received (W58RGZ-06-C-0194).

Aug 28/12: Ancillaries. A $33.5 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to buy UH-72A Security and Support Mission Equipment Packages. Work will be performed in Columbus, MS, with an estimated completion date of Aug 31/14. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with 1 bid received (W58RGZ-06-C-0194).

Aug 17/12: Support. A $19.8 million modification to the existing firm-fixed-price contract (W58RGZ-06-C-0194) for logistic support. Work will be performed in Columbus, MS, with an estimated completion date of Dec. 31, 2012.

August 2012: MEDEVAC. The US Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory (USAARL) announces that after an inaugural test cycle that included Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) testing, 12 medical devices are now Airworthiness Certified on the UH-72A.

July 18/12: AFTD gets 3. The US Army fields 3 UH-72A Lakota at Redstone Arsenal, AL for the Aviation Flight Test Directorate, a part of the Redstone Test Center. They’ll be used for general support, and as a rotary wing chase platform to support the developmental testing of aircraft and aviation systems. Huntsville Times.

July 17/12: Support. A $9.7 million firm-fixed-price contract for UH-72A engineering support services. Work will be performed in Columbus, MS, with an estimated completion date of June 30/16. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received (W58RGZ-06-C-0194).

July 9/12: A $15.2 million firm-fixed-price contract modification of an existing contract buys contractor logistics support to June 30/16. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received (W58RGZ-06-C-0194).

May 29/12: Support. A $26 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, for contractor logistics support. Work will be performed in Columbus, MS, with an estimated completion date of Dec 31/12. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received (W58RGZ-06-C-0194).

May 22/12: 100,000 flight hours. EADS North America announces that the US Army & National Guard’s fleet of 219 delivered UH-72As achieved 100,000 total flight hours on May 10/12.

100,000 hours

April 9/12: Support. A $12.8 million firm-fixed-price contract for contractor logistics support services. Work will be performed in Columbus, MS, with an estimated completion date of Dec 31/12. Five bids were solicited, with 3 bids received by US Army Contracting Command in Redstone Arsenal, AL (W58RGZ-06-C-0194).

April 3/12: Update. US Army project manager for utility helicopters, Col. Thomas Todd, discusses the UH-72A Lakota fleet. So far, the Army has taken delivery of 209, and the fleet is in use in 42 states and approaching 100,000 flight hours. Fully 2/3 of the fleet will be located in National Guard units. Along the Mexican border, for instance, 11 Lakota aircraft have racked up 700 flying hours working the Southwest Border Mission, from operating locations in Larado and Harlingen, TX. Col. Todd:

“The real success story for us: it’s been on schedule [and] it’s met its cost targets perhaps better than any other aviation program we have got that’s active right now… It maintains consistently 90 percent operational availability rates… When we compare [to OH-58s and UH-1s] our parts fill rate is higher, and our parts cost or our contracts cost is easily 30-40 percent less. That’s a huge measuring stick for us, in these resources constrained times.”

April 2/12: AAS-72X+. American Eurocopter unveils its AAS-72X+ contender for the Army’s Armed Aerial Scout, which may or may not become a program. Unlike the LUH, it will be based on Eurocopter’s EC-145 T2, which adds more powerful 1,038 shp Turbomeca Arriel 2E engines, replaces the dual-tail rear rotor with an enclosed Fenestron, and uses the Helionix glass cockpit and avionics suite instead of Thales Meghas. American Eurocopter.

March 1/12: #200. A ceremony at American Eurocopter in Colombus, MS marks the 200th UH-72A delivered the U.S. Army, a Security and Support (S&S) variant. American Eurocopter says that the program remains on-time and on-budget. American Eurocopter.

#200

Dec 23/11: +39. A $212.7 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to buy 39 UH-72As. Work will be performed in Columbus, MS with an estimated completion date of Nov 30/13. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received (W58RGZ-06-C-0194).

American Eurocopter adds that 32 of these UH-72As will be produced in the Army’s Security and Support (S&S) Battalion configuration, and says that US Army deliveries stand at 198 UH-72As as of January 2012.

39 UH-72As

Nov 5/11: S&S stood up. The first battalion of UH-72A helicopters with the Security & Support Mission Equipment Package enters service with the US military, in the Mississippi National Guard’s Company C, 1st of the 114th Security and Support Battalion.

EADS says that 69 of the 100 anticipated S&S MEP installations have been ordered. Of those, 52 will be built-in, 16 will be retrofits, and the last will be the S&S MEP prototype, which was delivered and fielded in this 1st UH-72A S&S battalion. EADS NA.

UH-72 S&S

FY 2011

Orders; Haiti mission; Dedication at Crazy Horse Memorial; New Eurocopter manager; Rescue; AAS-72 testing.

UH-72As Over Washington, DC
DC Guard UH-72As
(click to view full)

Sept 7/11: A $9.9 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, to increase the funding for contractor logistics support flight hours. Work will be performed in Columbus, MS, and Trumbull, CT, with an estimated completion date of Aug 31/13. One bid was solicited, with one bid received (W58RGZ-06-C-0194).

Aug 29/11: +32 S&S kit cut-ins. A $43.8 million firm-fixed-price contract modification buys production line cut-in for 32 Security & Support mission equipment packages on 32 base UH-72As.

Work will be performed in Columbus, MS, with an estimated completion date of Aug 31/13. One bid was solicited, with one bid received (W58RGZ-06-C-0194).

Aug 24/11: Half-time. EADS North America announces that it has now delivered more than half of the planned 345 Lakotas to the U.S. Army, with sustained output reaching 53 helicopters per year and 180 machines delivered to the US military.

UH-72A Lakota helicopters are now operating from 31 basing locations, and the U.S. Army has ordered 219/345 possible UH-72As under the current contract. EADS NA.

July 25/11: A $10.2 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to provide UH-72A spares support. Work will be performed in Columbus, MS, with an estimated completion date of Dec 31/11. One bid was solicited, with one bid received (W58RGZ-06-C-0194).

June 16/11: +14. A $74.4 million firm-fixed-price contract for 14 UH-72As and 14 airborne radio communication systems (previous contracts suggest the AN/ARC-231). Work will be performed in Columbus, MS, with an estimated completion date of Aug 31/12. One bid was solicited with one bid received (W58RGZ-06-C-0194).

14 UH-72As

June 7/11: Personnel. American Eurocopter announces Peter Cutler’s hiring as VP Military and Federal Government Programs. In this position, he will be responsible for the U.S. Army UH-72A LUH program, the associated Armed Aerial Scout capture effort, and expanding sales to the U.S. Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection and FBI.

Before his hiring, Cutler spent 24 years at Sikorsky, finishing as the leader of their product support organization. He holds a B.Sc. Industrial Engineering from Rutgers University, and an MBA in Industrial Management from Fairleigh Dickinson University.

May 27/11: Haiti. Soldiers from Florida’s Army National Guard’s B Company, 2nd Battalion, 151st Aviation (Security and Support) return to Cecil Field in Jacksonville after a 30-day rotation in Haiti. The overwater deployment involved 2 helicopters and 12 personnel, and missions included over 140 sorties over 30 days for passengers and cargo, command and control operations, reconnaissance operations, personnel recovery training exercises, and hoist training exercises. EADS NA.

May 16/11: Crazy Horse. A ceremony at South Dakota’s Crazy Horse Memorial mountain marks the inauguration of UH-72A Lakota helicopters into the state’s National Guard. The ceremony included a Native American blessing, singing and dancing, and a commemorative blast on the mountain carving of the Lakota warrior. EADS NA UH-72 site.

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe chairman Charles Murphy says “Lakota” is a word that will represent all the people in the 7 tribes in the Dakotas and Nebraska, and he says they appreciate what the Guard has done.

April 2011: Update. The Army UH-72A fleet surpasses the 60,000 flight hour milestone.

Production in 2010 saw 53 helicopters delivered, and another 41 retrofitted with new missions equipment. That includes the now FAA-certified Combat Training Center mission package. The Security and Support MEP began retrofits this month, and early 2012 will see first delivery of new-production UH-72A S&S helicopters. So far, the Army’s UH-72As have freed up at least 23 Black Hawk helicopters for military service oversees. Source 1 | Source 2.

March 30/11: +4. A $21.5 million firm-fixed-price contract for 4 more UH-72A light utility helicopters; 4 AN/ARC-231 radio system production cut-ins; and 1 engine inlet barrier filter production cut-in.

Work will be performed in Columbus, MS, with an estimated completion date of April 30/12. One bid was solicited with one bid received (W58RGZ-06-C-0194).

4 UH-72As

March 1/01: This is not a drill. A UH-72A operating from the U.S. Army’s National Training Center Air Ambulance Detachment at Ft. Irwin, performs a real rescue, when a man is trapped in his truck in the surging Mojave River. EADS’ UH-72 site

Feb 14/11: FY 2012 request. The Pentagon releases its FY 2012 request, though the failure of the last Congress to pass a budget means that it’s FY 2011 requests are also pending.

All UH-72 funds from FY 2010-2012 are procurement funds; there is no RDT&E outlay. Orders are tailing off slightly from $325.2 million for 54 helicopters in FY 2010, to $305.3 million for 50 helicopters in FY 2011, to $250.4 million for 39 helicopters in FY 2012. The overall program, as noted earlier, calls for 345 UH-72s, plus the 5 the Navy ordered for its test pilots school.

Feb 9/11: Update. EADS North America provides an update on orders to date:

“The U.S. Army has ordered a total of 32 UH-72A Lakotas from EADS North America in Fiscal Year 2011… The latest contract brings Lakota orders to 219, composed of 214 rotary-wing aircraft for the U.S. Army and five for the U.S. Navy. Another Army order for 18 more UH-72As is projected in the current Fiscal Year budget, with the Army targeting a total acquisition of 345 helicopters through 2015, for a total of 350 from both services.”

Jan 4/11: +12. A $52.5 million firm-fixed-price contract for 12 UH-72A helicopters, 12 Airborne Radio Communication systems, and 2 Engine Inlet Barrier Filters that keep sand and fine particles out of the intakes.

Work will be performed in Columbus, MS, with an estimated completion date of April 30/12. One bid was solicited with one bid received (W58RGZ-06-C-0194).

12 UH-72As

Dec 7/10: AAS-72. EADS North America flies the 2nd of 3 company-funded Armed Aerial Scout 72X Technical Demonstration Aircraft (TDA), at the company’s American Eurocopter facility in Grand Prairie, TX. The 40 minute flight was used to demonstrate integrated targeting sensor, manned/unmanned teaming (MUM-T) and communications and navigation capabilities. EADS NA.

Nov 18/10: Update. The US Army showcases the new security and support model at the Pentagon. The Army says that 140 of 345 planned UH-72As have been delivered. Col. Neil Thurgood, project manager for Utility Helicopters at Redstone Arsenal, AL says that Lakotas are almost exclusively being used by the National Guard in support of homeland security, adding that there are no current plans to send the helicopter into combat. US Army.

Oct 26/10: Update. EADS North America touts the 5 UH-72A variants to date, and states that 138 Lakotas have been delivered to Army and Army National Guard units (133), and the U.S. Navy (5). Overall, the UH-72A fleet has flown more than 40,000 hours in operational service.

The 5 variants are MEDEVAC, Security & Support, VIP transport, and 2 more “associated with training missions that teach soldiers how to fight aircraft and recognize friend or foe on the battle space.” EADS UH-72 site.

Oct 25/10: AAS-72. The Armed Aerial Scout 72X (AAS-72X) team of Lockheed Martin, Eurocopter, and American Eurocopter is preparing for the initial flight of their 1st company-funded Technical Demonstration Aircraft (TDA). The 3 AAS-72X TDAs will have fully-integrated Mission Equipment Packages (MEP), and the initial flight is scheduled to occur in December 2010.

The MEP has been simulated in flight tests with a weight of 2,300 pounds, and development has continued at the MEP Systems Integration Laboratory in Lockheed Martin’s Orlando, FL facility. EADS NA.

Oct 18/10: Sub-contractors. Curtiss-Wright Controls, Inc. announces a contract from American Eurocopter to provide Skyquest Video Management Systems for the U.S. Army’s UH-72A Security and Support (S&S) Battalion Mission Equipment Package (MEP). The estimated value of the contract is $20 million, based on projected helicopter production and deliveries over the next 5 years. EADS North America has 187 Lakota helicopters on order from the Army, with the potential for up to 345 helicopters through 2015.

The Skyquest airborne surveillance system is designed, developed and manufactured at the firm’s Embedded Computing facility in Laindon, East London, UK. The hardware will be shipped to American Eurocopter’s Columbus, MS facility, where it will integrate the Skyquest VMS system onto the S&S Battalion-configured Lakotas. The contract will continue through 2015.

FY 2010

Orders; Production hits full rate; Navy deliveries; New security & Support kit; New missile test copters; #100 delivered; C-17 loading test; AAS-72 tests.

Kwaj UH-72A
Kwajalein UH-72A
(click to view full)

Sept 29/10: +36 S&S. A $67.1 million firm-fixed-price contract for 16 security and support (S&S) mission equipment package (MEP) retrofits, and 20 S&S MEP production cut-ins, for Army National Guard LUHs. Work is to be performed in Columbus, MS, with an estimated completion day of Aug 31/12. One bid was solicited with one bid received (W58RGZ-06-C-0194).

U.S. Army National Guard security and support battalions are on call to their own and neighboring states to help civil authorities as requested, and they can also be tasked for military missions. Most currently fly UH-1 Hueys. Asked about this MEP set, Eurocopter USA replied:

“The UH-72A S&S Battalion configuration includes a forward centerline-mounted camera system with electro-optical and infrared sensors and laser pointer, a 30 million candlepower searchlight, operator console, cockpit and cabin touch-screen displays with moving map, a video management system, a digital video recorder and data downlink system, plus an external hoist and additional avionics and communications equipment.”

36 UH-72A S&S

July 28/10: Update. Eurocopter says that it has delivered 125 UH-72As so far, all of which have been on time and on budget.

June 6/10: Kwaj. The US Army deploys 4 specialized UH-72A helicopters to the Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site at Kwajalein Atoll, Pacific Ocean. The Kwajalein helicopters arrived in a C-17, and are painted in high visibility orange. They’re also equipped with skid-mounted floats, integrated life rafts, and jettisonable cockpit doors. Source.

April 2010: Germany. The US military delivers 5 UH-72As to the U.S. Army’s Joint Multinational Readiness Center (JMRC) in Germany. The JMRC helicopters will support pilot training for combat engagements, carry observers of war game scenarios performed against aggressor unit aircraft squadrons, and perform MEDEVAC duties as needed. The JMRC’s UH-72A fleet is scheduled to rise to 10 by January 2011. Eurocopter | UH-72 site.

EC645 concept
EC645/AAS-72X concept
(click to view full)

April 15/10: AAS-72. EADS North America and its industry team of American Eurocopter and Lockheed Martin announce that they will independently fund and develop 3 armed scout AAS-72X helicopter variants, in order to demonstrate the design’s performance and (they hope) its low risk.

The first AAS-72X Technical Demonstration Aircraft (TDA) is scheduled to be operational in late 2010, and will be used for mission equipment and weapon system integration, performance testing and survivability validations. In addition to the 3 demonstration helicopters, Lockheed Martin has established a high-fidelity systems integration lab for the AAS-72X at its Orlando, FL facility. EADS NA.

March 11/10: #100. The 100th UH-72A delivery is celebrated at a rollout ceremony. Col. L. Neil Thurgood, the Army’s project manager of the utility helicopter office, said:

“The UH-72A Lakota program has progressed on schedule and within budget constraints… The aircraft has been well received by Army aircrews and we have maintained a remarkably high operational availability rate combined with an admirable safety record. We especially look forward to fielding even more of these capable aircraft to Army National Guard units throughout the United States.”

The 100th Lakota helicopter will be deployed to Germany with the Army’s Joint Multinational Readiness Center. US Army.

#100

Jan 9/10: Update. The Alabama Army National Guard receives the initial 2 UH-72A Lakotas, of an expected 4 to base at Army Aviation Support Facility #2 in Birmingham, assigned to Detachment 1, Company C, 2nd Battalion, 151st Aviation Regiment. They will replace existing OH-58 Kiowa helicopters, and are the first new National Guard machines in many years. The unit is tasked with state level support for Alabama’s governor and state organizations, as well as federal level missions include aerial command, control and reconnaissance in homeland security operations.

EADS North America produces the UH-72 in Alabama. As of Jan 9/10, the firm says it has delivered 93 Lakotas to U.S. Army and Army National Guard locations throughout the United States and Puerto Rico, and 5 to the U.S. Navy. Future deployments of UH-72As are anticipated in the Pacific, Europe and Japan as well. EADS-NA release.

Dec 31/09: Ancillaries. An $11.7 million firm-fixed-price contract. It funds program year 5 for 624 hours of contractor field team in support of the main post helipad at the National Training Center, and adds 6 clip on B-kits that add MEDEVAC/SAR hoists to the UH-72A. Work will be performed in Arlington, Va, with an estimated completion date of June 30/16 (W58RGZ-06-C-0194).

Dec 3/09: +45. A $247.2 million firm-fixed-price contract for 45 UH-72A helicopters, 30 MEDEVAC equipment packages, 30 MEDEVAC B-kits, 30 Hoist B-Kits, 4 VIP mission equipment packages, 11 engine inlet barrier filters, 34 environmental control units, and 45 airborne radio communication 231s. This contract funds FY 2010 production (5th contract year), and brings the total number of Army UH-72A orders so far to 178.

Work will be performed in Columbus, MS with an estimated completion date of June 30/11. One bid was solicited with 1 bid received (W58RGZ-06-C-0194). See also EADS North America release.

45 UH-72As

Nov 16/09: Update. Aviation Week reports that UH-72A production has hit a rate that translates to 55 helicopters per year, and chronicles the Army National Guard’s transition from UH-1 medical (MEDEVAC) helicopters to UH-72As.

The District of Columbia National Guard’s 121st Medical Company (Air Ambulance) at Fort Belvoir, VA is the 1st Guard unit to receive aircraft in medevac configuration: 6 UH-72As replacing 9 UH-1H/Vs, with 2 more delivered in 2012 to the 1-224th Aviation Battalion (Security and Support), replacing 2 OH-58s. They will be joined at Fort Belvoir by 8 UH-72As in the active Army’s 12th Aviation Battalion.

The D.C. National Guard is reportedly in discussion with Martin-Baker to develop a sliding, rotating seat that would let a medic treat a stretcher patient while remaining buckled in.

Nov 12/09: Navy. EADS North America delivers the 1st of 5 H-72A training helicopters for the U.S. Naval Test Pilot School at Patuxent River Naval Air Station, MD, where it will be used to train test pilots from the U.S. military and allied countries. Navy H-72A modifications include jettisonable cockpit doors, a cockpit voice and flight data recorder, a main rotor blade folding kit and an air traffic advisory system. EADS release.

Deliveries to the school were completed in January 2010. US NAVAIR.

Oct 5/09: Update. EADS North America announces a successful demonstration, during which it loaded 4 U.S. Army UH-72s and a company-owned EC145 into a U.S. Air Force C-17. The loading test confirmed that 5 UH-72As can be accommodated in the C-17’s cargo bay with minimal disassembly (including no removal of the folding rotor blades), and that the aircraft can rapidly be made mission-ready upon arrival with no maintenance test flights required. The demonstration was performed at Gulfport, MS in preparation for a future delivery of 4 U.S. Army UH-72A Lakotas to the Pacific theater for basing on the Kwajalein Atoll.

EADS says that to date, more than 85 Lakotas have been delivered on or ahead of schedule and on budget. Current plans call for up to 345 Army UH-72As to be acquired through 2016, plus 5 H-72A helicopters for the U.S. Naval Test Pilot School at Patuxent River, MD. EADS North America also is offering its Armed Scout 645 variant in response to the Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter competition, if it re-opens.

FY 2009

Orders; Partnership with Lockheed Martin; EC645 armed scout unveiled; New UH-72 VP at Eurocopter; 1st Full Assembly Line UH-72A delivered.

UH-145
UH-72A Lakota
(click to view full)

Aug 11/09: Personnel. EADS North America announces that Gary M. Bishop has joined them as VP of the Armed Scout 645 program. Bishop previously led the Boeing industry team responsible for the U.S. Army’s Apache Longbow programs at Mesa, AZ, managing managed Apache Longbow remanufacture and new production programs for Block I, Block II, Extended Block II, and Wartime Replacement Aircraft. Bishop was also responsible for the Apache Block III developmental program. Before that, Bishop served as the United Kingdom Apache program manager, and the acting director for all International Apache Programs.

Bishop holds a bachelor’s degree from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, NY; a master’s degree in aeronautical engineering from the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, CA; and a master’s degree in national security and strategic studies from the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, RI He also is a graduate of the Program Manager’s course at the Defense Systems Management College at Ft. Belvoir, VA.

July 29/09: Testing. EADS North America today announces the results of its private UH-72A “high/hot” flight demonstrations near Alamosa, CO. Operating at a takeoff elevation of more than 7,500 feet and carrying a simulated 2,300-pound Mission Equipment Package (MEP), the helicopter successfully hovered-out-of-ground-effect at a density altitude of 6,000 feet and 95 degrees Fahrenheit. This meets the requirement included in the Army’s October 2008 Sources Sought document, which reflects the mission environment in theaters like Afghanistan.

The demonstration flights were also used to validate controllability and tail rotor authority at full altitude and load, while a subsequent flight with the simulated MEP payload completed a 2:30 flight with a 35-minute fuel reserve.

May 5/09: AAS-72. EADS North America unveils their Armed Scout 645 offering (later changed to AAS-72X) for the Army’s armed aerial scout requirement, and announced that Lockheed Martin has been picked to provide the Mission Equipment Package (weapons integration, targeting, etc.). The Armed Scout 645 will be built at the same Columbus, MS facility where the Army’s UH-72A Lakota is currently produced. EADS NA.

May 4/09: LUH to ARH. At the Army Aviation Association of America 2009 convention in Nashville, TN, EADS North America announces that it has teamed with Lockheed Martin to offer an armed scout variant of its UH-72A Lakota for the US Army’ Armed Aerial Scout competition. The EC645 Armed Scout will be based on the same Eurocopter EC145 commercial airframe as the Uh-72A, and would be produced at the same Columbus, MS facility. Team Site | EADS North America release | Flight International.

Jan 21/09: +5. A $25.6 million firm-fixed-price contract for 5 more UH-72A helicopters, plus 2 MEDEVAC (MEDical EVACuation) equipment packages, 2 MEDEVAC B-Kits, 2 Hoist B-Kits, and 2 “Environmental Control Units” (air conditioning, see Nov 10/07).

Work will be performed at Columbus, MS with an estimated completion date of March 1/10. One bid was solicited and one bid received (W58RGZ-06-C-0194).

Dec 2/08: +39. A $208.4 million firm-fixed-price contract for 39 UH-72 helicopters, covering Program Year 4 of the Army’s LUH contract. Work will be performed in Columbus, MS and Grand Prairie, TX with an estimated completion date of Aug 31/10 (W58RGZ-06-C-0194).

44 UH-72As etc.

Oct 7/08: Industrial. EADS North America delivers its first full assembly line (FAL) UH-72 on schedule from the production facility at Columbus, MS. The production transition process from Eurocopter to the US facility involves 3 major overlapping production phases: Light Assembly Line (LAL), Full Assembly Line (FAL) and Production Line (PL).

EADS North America’s initial UH-72A from the FAL phase was the 41st Lakota delivered to the Army. The machine completed 7 of the 14 assembly production work stations in Columbus, including the installation of flight instruments, engines, tail boom and doors to systems test, flight testing and airworthiness approval. This aircraft also incorporates the first UH-72A tail boom that was entirely manufactured at the Columbus facility. EADS NA release.

FY 2008

Orders, incl. Navy contract; Program total rises to 345; UH-72A named “Lakota”; Cramped medical space; Overheated?

UH-145
Hoist close up
(click to view full)

Sept 22/08: Lakota, meet the Lakota. The Lakota tribe reportedly feels that their reputation as a peaceful people is well-matched with the UH-72’s civil rescue capabilities and domestic mission focus. A pair of UH-72As from the 5th Aviation Battalion at Fort Polk, Louisiana, are present for the Lakota Sioux’s annual sun dance in Rosebud, South Dakota, with the pilots invited to participate in the traditional ceremony that honors the tribe’s warriors and elders.

The deployment also includes a fly-past of Mount Rushmore. EADS NA release.

Tribal ceremony

Sept 15/08: +5 Navy. A $24.8 million firm/fixed/price contract for the purchase of 5 UH-72A Light Utility Helicopters for the US Navy Test Pilot School. Work will be performed in Columbus, MS with an estimated completion date of June 30/16. Bids were solicited online, and 5 bids were received (W58RGZ-06-C-0194). NAVAIR release.

5 Navy UH-72As

EADS North America’s release adds that:

“Today, more than 40 aircraft are operating with Army and Army National Guard units across the country… Lakota deliveries to the Army and National Guard currently average three to four helicopters per month, with the capacity to reach five UH-72s monthly.”

April 7/08: SAR – more UH-72As. The LUH program is mentioned in the Pentagon’s Selected Acquisitions Report to December 2007:

“Program costs increased $208.4 million (+11.1 percent) from $1,881.8 million to $2,090.2 million, due primarily to a quantity increase of 23 aircraft from 322 to 345 aircraft ($139.3 million). There was an additional cost increase for modifications to address issues identified during the Initial Operational Test (+$171.1 million). These modifications included ARC-231 secure radios and cabin ventilation kits for all 345 aircraft, engine inlet (air) filters for 66 aircraft, and medical evacuation kits for 84 aircraft.”

DID note: If modifications cost $171.1 million, and additional helicopters $139.3 million, the extra helicopters cannot be “primarily” responsible for the overall increase in costs.

SAR – more UH-72s

March 27/08: Support. A firm-fixed-price contract for $7.2 million, increasing the PY03 Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) hours to ensure continued CLS coverage for the UH-72A. The action also exercises the option for PY03 Procedural Trainer Support Labor to ensure that coverage is available for maintenance of the Procedural Trainer following acceptance.

Performance locations include Fort Irwin, CA (33.3%), Fort Eustis, VA (33.3%), and Fort Polk, LA (33.3%). The estimated completion date is Dec 31/08. One bid was solicited with one bid received (W58RGZ-06-C-0194).

Dec 14/07: +43. A $213.8 million firm-fixed-price contract for Light Utility Helicopters. Work will be performed in Columbus, MS, and is expected to be complete by Sept 30/08. There was 1 bid solicited on Dec. 12/07, and 1 bid was received (W58RGZ-06-C-0194).

EADS North America informs DID that the order covers 43 helicopters, plus associated items like rescue hoists, MEDEVAC kits, and training.

43 UH-72As

Dec 11/07: Update. EADS North America issues a release summarizing the UH-72A program’s achievements in 2007: meeting milestones, making deliveries, good in-service rate over 90%. Their helicopter’s recent difficulties are not mentioned.

Nov 10/07: The LUH program encounters its first spot of trouble. The Associated Press reports that during flight tests in Southern California in 80-degree weather, cockpit temperatures in the UH-72A Lakota soared above 104 degrees, the designated critical point for communication, navigation and flight control systems. In response, the Army will be installing air conditioning in many UH-72s, something that’s common on the EC145 civilian helicopters it’s derived from, but rare on military machines.

The helicopter also had difficulty with the requirement that it be able to evacuate 2 critically injured patients. It can carry them, but the cabin is too cramped for medics to actually work on more than one at a time.

Testing problems

Oct 8/07: Industrial. EADS North America announces that UH-72A production reached 2 machines per month in September 2007. Both UH-72As were accepted at the newly-expanded Lakota production center in Columbus, MS. These are the 11th and 12th UH-72As received by the Army, and the 2nd and 3rd helicopters assembled in America.

FY 2007 and Earlier

“UH-145” wins; Initial deliveries: 6 MEDEVAC, 2 VIP.

UH-145
Dark horse no more

July 23/07: Update. EADS North America announces delivery of its 8th UH-72A Lakota to the U.S. Army ahead of schedule, completing the initial phase of orders. Unlike the 6 MEDEVAC helicopters at Ft. Irwin, these 2 UH-72As are the first configured for VIP transportation duties, and are equipped with removable seats that also enable their use in general support and airlift/logistic missions. They will be based at Ft. Eustis, VA. EADS North America will now begin delivering 34 UH-72As ordered by the contract option exercised in October 2006.

The UH-72A’s ability to hit cost projections and delivery targets may have wider implications as well. A number of representatives on Capitol Hill are seriously considering a recommendation to the military that Bell’s ARH-70A Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter program be canceled, with funds redirected into integrating sensors and weapons on the UH-72 instead, and buying more of those helicopters for the ARH role.

June 19/07: 1st unit. The U.S. Army has equipped its first operational UH-72A unit – the National Training Center Air Ambulance Detachment at Ft. Irwin, California, which received its 6th Lakota helicopter less than 11 months after contract award.

The milestone followed Full Material Release (FMR) authorization from the Army’s Aviation and Missile Command (AMCOM), confirming that the UH-72A and its production system are ready to support the LUH mission. According to Army program officials, FMR was granted at the initial request – a first in AMCOM history for an Army aviation system. Rotor News.

1st unit

Dec 11/06: 1st delivery. EADS North America officially handed over the first UH-72A Light Utility Helicopter during a delivery and naming ceremony in Columbus, MS. The helicopter will be named “Lakota,” after the Sioux Indian tribe, and 4 of the initial aircraft will be based in Mississippi.

EADS North America plans to deliver a second UH-72A before year-end, which will be used on missions within the United States. Another 40 UH-72As are currently in the production cycle for delivery during 2007 and 2008.

1st delivery

Nov 1/06: Ancillaries. A $170.6 million modification to a firm-fixed-price and cost-reimbursable contract for MEDEVAC B and Hoist B kits, along with student pilot and maintainer training, and a procedural training device for the Light Utility Helicopter Aircraft. Work will be performed in Columbus, MS (97%), Grand Prairie, TX (1%), and Tampa, FL (2 percent), and is expected to be complete by June 30, 2016. Bids were solicited online on July 26, 2005, and 5 bids were received (W58RGZ-06-C-0194).

June 30/06: UH-145 Wins! EADS breaks into the US military market, as Eurocopter’s “UH-145” (later UH-72A) beats Bell Helicopter’s 412EP, MD Helicopters’ UH-902 NOTAR, and AgustaWestland’s AW139. That victory comes with an initial order:

EADS North American Defense of Arlington, VA received a $43.1 million firm-fixed-price, fixed-price-level-of-effort, cost-reimbursable contract for the Light Utility Helicopter with MEDVAC B and hoist B kits, along with pilot transition and maintainer training. Work will be performed at American Eurocopter in Columbus, MS, and is expected to be complete by June 30/16. Bids were solicited July 26, 2005, and 5 bids were received by The Army Aviation and Missile Command at Redstone Arsenal, AL (W58RGZ-06-C-0194). For more information, call the program executive office, aviation, public affairs at (256) 842-0561.

UH-145 is LUH

Appendix A: Eurocopter – Anatomy of a Win

UH-145 MEDEVAC Loading
MEDEVAC through the back

While the order is a breakthrough for Eurocopter in the military market, the firm did have US government experience to draw upon. American Eurocopter helicopters (though not necessarily the EC145) were already operated by the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency in the Department of Homeland Security, and the FBI. The EC145 itself has been deployed in a variety of roles in Europe and the USA, including medical, offshore, law enforcement and paramilitary/security uses.

While it didn’t possess the Bell 412 twin-Huey’s backward compatibility, or MDHI’s patented NOTAR system, the EC145 offered a pair of benefits that matter in combat-related situations.

One is a high-set main and tail rotor design that allows safe loading and unloading through the main side doors and rear-fuselage clamshell doors, even while the rotors are turning. That “back door” capability has a number of uses in a military context, including MEDEVAC, fast exits, and more. Only the MD-902 Explorer NOTAR matched this capability, and it did not use the EC145’s convenient clamshell arrangement.

EC-145 Inside Cabin
EC145 Interior View

The second benefit is lowered noise signature. A helicopter’s external noise levels matter, as this Christian Science Monitor article about the American experiences in Afghanistan notes. Quieter helicopters are better equipped to avoid detection and targeting, and preserve the element of surprise, especially under circumstances like night missions. The EC145’s noise emissions have been a focus due to tightening civilian regulations, resulting in a profile 6.7 dB below the ICAO standards. Again, the only competitor who could match this was the MD-902, whose NOTAR design reportedly made it slightly superior.

On which topic, MD Helicopters’ acting CEO and founder and principal of the $5 billion investment firm Patriarch Partners, LLC (which owns MDHI) blasted the decision in no uncertain terms:

“Ms. Tilton said MDHI is a classic American turnaround story and did not receive the same level of consideration as its competitors. “The process was seriously flawed and perfunctory, at best. Had the military taken the time and expended the energy to conduct serious diligence and come out and kick the tires, the conclusion would have been inescapable. The simple reality is that there was no attention to substantive matters. No rational investor would commit capital absent a recent on-site review. There is absolutely no question in my mind that the MDHI bid offered by best overall product and value.”

NOTAR Explanation
MDHI’s NOTAR explained
(click to view full)

This may be so, but evaluations are not made public, so it’s hard to gauge such statements. It is likely that MDHI’s reorganization gave it a lower supplier stability rating than Eurocopter’s, which owns a leading share in the global civilian helicopter market. The US military has also traditionally been lukewarm at best regarding MDHI’s NOTAR (No TAil Rotor) technology, which hasn’t seen a more aggressive country adopt the design and prove it in combat.

In contrast, American Eurocopter had a strong political lobby behind it, including Sen. Trent Lott [R-MS, now retired], and may have benefited directly or indirectly from the post-Katrina focus on the state of Mississippi and the funneling of aid to that region. The winning release is even more full of politicians’ quotes than usual, a testament to the lobbying effort’s depth. Eurocopter added to that depth by fielding a very strong bid team including American military helicopter leader Sikorsky as its contractor logistics support partner, plus Westwind Technologies for special purpose helicopter systems integration and modification, and CAE USA to provide simulators. In contrast, Bell Textron largely relied on its own clout and services, AgustaWestland recruited L-3 as its key US partner, and MD Helicopters assembled an innovative team that included Dyncorp. None had the combination of political and industrial backing that Eurocopter displayed.

Additional Readings & Sources

Readers with corrections, comments, or information to contribute are encouraged to contact DID’s Founding Editor, Joe Katzman. We understand the industry – you will only be publicly recognized if you tell us that it’s OK to do so.

News & Views

Australia’s M113 APC Family Upgrades

$
0
0
M113A1s & M1A1s
M113A1 & M1A1s, 1AR
(click to expand)

The M113A1 family of vehicles was introduced into service in Australia in the mid 1960s, and arrived in time to see service in Vietnam. Additional vehicle variants were added until 1979, and there are 766 M113A1 vehicles currently in the Australian Army fleet. By February 2005, however, only 520 remained in service.

A number of upgrades have been suggested for Australia’s APCs(Armoured Personnel Carrier) over the years, with a number of different reviews and upgrade proposals submitted. Many of Australia’s M113s remained in the old M113A1 configuration, though some had at least been repaired and overhauled at 25,000 km. Bushmaster wheeled mine-resistant vehicles have replaced some M113s in the ADF, but the M113’s lightweight, tracked, off-road mobility remains important to Australian mechanized formations, and to troops deployed in combat zones. A plan approved in the 1990s involved a “minimum upgrade” of 537 vehicles from 1996-1998, at a cost of about A$ 40 million in 1993 dollars, with a major upgrade to follow. That major upgrade did follow – along with schedule slips, and cost increases from around A$ 594 million to nearly A$ 1 billion.

New-Old Vehicles: The M113-AS4s

F125 frigate
M113AS4 APC
(click to expand)

There are 7 variants of the upgraded M113AS family being produced under LAND 106. Enhancements are being made to a variety of areas.

Protection: Add-on external armor kits to protect against weapons up to 14.5mm; internal spall liners; hull reinforcement to improve mine protection; fuel tanks moved from inside to outside. The change in configuration also allowed the introduction of stealth characteristics into the design by decreasing the overall turret profile, and reducing the vehicle’s radar cross-section and infra-red signature.

Firepower: A new Australian designed and built electrical turret, with improvements designed to lessen the battering its occupant takes. It will host a new .50 caliber weapon that sports a quick change barrel and day/night sights.

M113As driver
M113AS: new controls
(click to expand)

Mobility: Replacement of the engine, transmission, drive train and driver’s controls. To maximize the benefits of this new driveline, the suspension, track and road wheels are also being replaced.

Internal: Compartment improvements like heat mitigation measures and better stowage of equipment externally where it isn’t so much in the way. New electrical and fuel systems; a land navigation system that combines GPS and INS.

The exact designations refer to the upgraded vehicles’ general characteristics. M113-AS3 variants have 5 road wheel stations per side, and a Recommended Gross Vehicle Mass of 15,000 kg/ 33,069 pounds. AS4 variants are stretched by 666 mm/ 26.2″, with 6 road wheel stations per side, and an RGVM of 18,000 kg/ 39,683 pounds. Variants include:

  • Armoured Personnel Carrier (M113-AS4 APC). Most common variant.
  • Armoured Fitters (M113-AS4 AF). Includes a new Hiab crane with a significantly enhanced 2.4-tonne lift at 4 meters. 38 planned of 350.
  • Armoured Recovery Vehicle Light (M806-AS4 ARVL). Includes a Sepson winch capable of a 13-tonne single line pull. 12 planned of 350.
  • Armoured Ambulance (M113-AS4 AA)
  • Armoured Command Vehicle (M113-AS4 ACV)
  • Armoured Logistic Vehicle (M113-AS4 ALV)
  • Armoured Mortar (M125-AS3 AM)

The final vehicles will be transportable in the RAAF’s C-17A heavy-lift aircraft (4 per plane, vs. 3 for larger armored vehicles), though that hasn’t been certified as of March 2012. One M113AS4 may be transportable in an Australian C-130J tactical transport aircraft if enough equipment is removed, but it hasn’t been certified, even though the initial test took place 6 years ago in March 2006. ANAO is correct to cite that gap as possible evidence of a problem.

On land, the upgraded M113s will have to wait for the arrival of its LAND 121 (“Overlander”) Phase 3 heavy trucks to transport them, and the ADF will need to lease commercial vehicles until then.

Australia’s LAND 106

The Program

M113AS4 LAND 106 Timeline

A plan approved in the late 1990s involved a “minimum upgrade” of 537 vehicles from 1996-1998, at a cost of about A$ 40 million in 1993 dollars, with a major upgrade to follow. That initial plan was derailed mid-stream by an unsolicited contractor proposal to combine the 2 phases. The end result was Australia’s LAND 106 project, which aimed to perform major upgrades to a smaller set of 350 M113 APCs. That program suffered from problems in its early stages, delaying any fielded modernization until 2007.

The operational effect of that switch has been to delay fleet upgrades by about a decade. Final delivery is now expected to take place at the end of 2012.

M113ASR FV
M113AS4 FV
(click to expand)

The LAND 106 M113 Upgrade was scheduled to be completed in 3 stages, and delivery of the first company group of upgraded M113s was scheduled for 2006.

Stage 1: Development and preliminary testing of 2 Demonstration vehicles. Completed in 2004.

Stage 2: Design, construction and testing of the first 14 of the Initial Production Vehicles (IPV). This stage encountered a number of technical difficulties, resulting in an extensive Test and Evaluation Phase. Delivery of the initial 16 Phase 1 & 2 vehicles (14 APCs, 1 AF and 1 ARVL) to the 1st Brigade in Darwin was completed in December 2007.

Design development of the remaining 4 vehicle variants will continue through to the end of 2009.

Stage 3: Design, construction and testing of the remaining IPVs, and the delivery of 336 production standard vehicles. Began with successful completion of the Production Readiness Review for the base M113 APC variant in November 2007.

When Tenix’s land systems business was acquired by BAE Systems, it was easy for the vehicle’s original manufacturer (United Defense, now the largest part of BAE Land Systems) to assume leadership of the project via its new subsidiary. Tenix had chosen Germany’s FFG as the major technology partner for the program. Other key subcontractors and suppliers include Thales Optronics, Moog GmbH, SKF Australia, Bisalloy and a number of Australian SMEs including Imag Australia Pty. Limited.

The ANAO’s 2012 Report

LAND 106 costs

Australia’s independent audit department, the ANAO, has issued a number of reports covering the LAND 106 program, with the program nearing its end, the 2012 audit offers a solid retrospective of the program, its progress, and the lessons learned from its problems. The core of its conclusions:

“Deficiencies in the [2002] Major Upgrade Contract meant that technical problems with the vehicles’ design and production could not be effectively managed under its provisions. Contrary to the advice tendered to government when the major upgrade was initially approved, critical milestones were not effectively incorporated into the contract, which also failed to properly specify vehicle payloads, prioritise vehicle technical specifications in order of necessity and desirability, or establish clear terms for liquidated damages.”

The project subsequently failed to perform, but the government found that it was in a poor position to collect damages, and so ended up renegotiating the contract in 2 global settlements, in an attempt to fix the contract’s original problems. What the November 2007 and August 2011 settlements could not fix, was the time, effort, and money wasted as a result of those omissions.

LAND 106: M113 Delivery Progress

Defence considers that the Prime Contractor is currently on course to deliver all 431 vehicles by October 2012, after the delivery date has been revised several times.

According to the ANAO, a range of factors hurt project schedule performance, including:

  • Delays in the preparation and stretching of M113 hulls under the CSP Contract, which are needed to feed into the major upgrade production line.
  • Missing/broken lifting eyes on existing M113, which caused delays in moving hulls through the CSP process).
  • Poor quality, with more vehicles than expected needing rework after quality inspections. That was an especial problem, because the production facilities at Bandiana had limited room for rework.
  • The ANAO refers to “facility failures at the Defence-owned facilities in Bandiana.”
  • Hull de-lamination, resulting in additional preparation work, and laminar cracking, which resulted in hulls being set aside until a suitable repair technique could be developed.
  • Delays in the technical development of the ALV [cargo variant] and AM [mortar variant]; and
  • Shortages of VIC 3 vehicle communication harnesses, supplied by Defence as government furnished equipment, and required to finish the vehicle.
M113-AS4s
M113AS4s, Exercise
Chong Ju 2009
(click to view full)

According the ANAO, the full cost of the M113 upgrades is close to A$ 1 billion for 431 vehicles. A$ 2.32 million per vehicle isn’t small change, though in fairness, it is half or less of the cost of a new, modern tracked IFV like BAE’s M2 Bradley, or its CV90. Australia’s Chief of Army responded to the ANAO by saying that:

“…as the Capability Manager … I am satisfied that the [upgraded M113] provides a significantly enhanced capability to Army and that it is a potent and capable platform. I am also satisfied that the delivery of [the upgrade project] satisfies the original requirement specified by the Capability Manager.”

The question ANAO asks is whether the project’s long delays, and 20-year run, have left those requirements behind. The M113AS4 is much less capable than modern IFVs. It has weaker armor protection, less formidable weaponry, and remains stuck with old communication gear. That last issue will be a problem going forward. ANAO:

“The M113 relies on the VIC 3 model communications harness as its main electronic communication system. There are currently a limited number of these harnesses available, and priority… is given to the ASLAV vehicles, currently deployed to Afghanistan… Army aims to rectify this shortage by December 2012 through fitting the Bushmaster fleet… with updated SOTAS communications systems, which will make an increased number of VIC 3 harnesses available… [Even so,] the electronic systems fitted to the upgraded vehicles do not permit optimal communication and data transfer with heavy tanks and the other force elements, such as artillery and aircraft, with which they are intended to operate… Army originally expected to address the current communications limitations of the M113 by fitting to these vehicles the systems to be developed under projects LAND 75 and LAND 125.64 However, in the context of the 2012-13 Federal Budget, the relevant phases… will not now proceed.”

An even more alarming problem involves the M113s’ reliability. ANAO:

“Maintenance records classify the vehicles as ‘Fully Functional’; ‘Restricted Use’; or ‘Unserviceable’. Over the three years to December 2010, the proportion of vehicles at the School of Armour classified as ‘Fully Functional’ decreased from an average of 62 per cent in 2008 to 38 per cent in 2010. Since 2010, this has not improved: Defence advised that as at 19 March 2012 the proportion of vehicles classed as ‘Fully Functional’ was 39 per cent across Army. The main factors affecting vehicle availability have been a lack of supplies (spare parts) and mechanical failures.”

That reliability level would become a serious problem if the upgraded M113s had to be deployed. It also affects the math of a comparison with more expensive IFVs. Assume that buying a new IFV would be 225% of the final upgrade cost, that the budget to buy them remains the same, and that we use reliability benchmarks met by those modern IFVs:

  • 431 M113-AS4s x 39% fully functional = 168 available IFVs.
  • 192 modern IFVs x 70% fully functional = 134 available IFVs

At similar availability rates, Australia’s DoD would have a strong argument for its choice. Given the actual number of available machines, however, a good counter-argument can be made that it would have been better to own 134 IFVs that are much more capable. What is certain, is that neglecting this key performance parameter seems to have cost Australia hard.

Contracts and Key Events

M113 FV/ARVL
M113AS4 FV and ARVL
(click to expand)

November 17/15: The Australian Department of Defense have issued a request for information for 450 tracked Infantry Fighting Vehicles (IFV) as part of the Australian Defence Force’s largest ever land systems acquisition program. Project LAND 400, which is now in its third phase, has been a major overhaul of existing aging equipment of the ADF and in total will cost approximately USD $7.1 billion. Phase Three will aim to replace the existing M113AS4 and it is hoped that these will be replaced by 2025 and the M113AS4 LOT by 2030, but the Australian DoD find the machinery decaying given current and emerging threats.

May 24/12: The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) issues “Upgrade of the M113 Fleet of Armoured Vehicles.”

Specific conclusions are covered in the previous section, but its overall tone is that many of the program’s problems and cost increases were avoidable. They also point out that the final product is an APC that’s under the capability standard of modern alternatives, despite its costs. This is true, and was known in advance. Australia accepted that trade, in exchange for what it saw as a lower-cost option, with better transportability. Limited communications compatibility with its companion M1 tanks, and the withdrawal of the M113s from plans for Australia’s new battlefield management C4I systems, is a more serious issue. Most serious of all is the fact that availability rates for the upgraded M113s remain abysmal – under 40%! That will impact training, and unless it’s corrected, it will become a serious problem if the armored vehicles ever get deployed.

Meanwhile, BAE has qualified for the first 3 incentive payments under the August 2011 re-negotiation, and looks to be on target to deliver all M113s by the end of October 2012.

May 10/12: Australia’s budget features a series of reductions. From the Chief of Army’s Budget Message:

“M113AS4 Armoured Personnel Carriers. One hundred M113AS4 Armoured Personnel Carriers will be placed into temporary storage [along with 15 M1A1 Abrams tanks]. The APCs will be placed into temporary storage in a condition where they can be rapidly returned to service when Army’s fiscal situation improves. Army will need to develop an equipment and training methodology to ensure an adequate number of crews are maintained to meet contingency requirements.”

Lt. Gen. D.L. Morrison later pens a letter to the editor of The West Australian, reiterating his confidence in the M113AS4, and citing the current measures as “informed solely by a need to reduce operating costs in order to focus key resources to operational priorities and linked training support.”

August 2011: 2nd global settlement. Dissatisfaction with BAE’s performance led Australia’s DoD to begun reviewing its legal contractual options in June 2010, but it eventually decided that it was on softer ground than it thought, and decided to negotiate a solution instead. The new agreement involves a number of concessions from Defence, and according to the ANAO, key provisions included:

  • BAE withdraws A$ 5 million in postponement claims.
  • Australia’s DoD won’t exercise contractual rights to liquidated damages of approximately A$ 1 million for late delivery.
  • Final delivery date for all vehicles moves from April 2012 to Dec 9/12.
  • Incentive payments totaling A$ 2.8 million are available to BAE if certain production targets are met between August 2011 – October 2012, including delivery of the last vehicle by the end of October. Defence says this was done to avoid having BAE close some of its facilities early, and set LAND 106’s schedule back even further.

Oct 7/10: BAE Systems Land and Armaments LP’s US Combat Systems business announces a $14 million contract to provide T150F double-pin track link assemblies and sprockets, for Australia’s M113 upgrades.

Work on the track shoes will take place at the BAE Systems’ Anniston, AL facility by the existing workforce, and is expected to be complete in July 2011. The contract was awarded by Australia’s Defence Materiel Organisation office based in Washington, DC.

night firing
M113AS4 night test
(click to expand)

March 27/09: The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) issues “Management of the M113 Armoured Personnel Carrier Upgrade Project.” The 2009 ANAO report praises progress in a number of problem areas that were highlighted in the 2005 report. The 2007 renegotiation and restructuring has helped the program make significant progress in key areas, from management, to technical development. Having said that:

“The M113 Major Upgrade Project commenced in July 2002 and has suffered a series of delays. Army has so far received 42 of the 350 vehicles to be upgraded [which is behind schedule]… In July 2008, the Prime Contractor informed Defence that the existing production facilities at Bandiana, Victoria, were not adequate to the task and, at December 2008, there was a potential shortfall of around 100 upgraded vehicles by December 2010.

The backlog is caused chiefly by delays in extending the hulls. This is proving to be more complex than anticipated, and is taking longer than expected… would not be able to deliver 350 upgraded vehicles by December 2010. Defence is currently negotiating arrangements with the Prime Contractor…”

Oct 28/08: Australia’s Labor Party government announces an A$ 220 million (currently about $143 million) addition to LAND 106. BAE will upgrade another 81 M113s to equip Darwin’s 5 RAR mechanized infantry and the recently established 7 RAR, raising the total to 431 vehicles.

BAE Systems’ production line at Bandiana in northern Victoria will now remain open until July 2011, and additional facilities will be opened in Williamstown, Victoria and Wingfield, South Australia to ensure that delivery commitments are met.

May 22/08: The LAND 106 project is reported to be back on track. Frontier India:

“The M113 project experienced some well-known technical problems in the development phase, and it was feared these problems would impact on the cost and schedule of the project,” the announcement said. The serious technical risks faced by the project have now been resolved, the schedule pressures have been reduced, and the project does not face cost pressures said the release.”

Nov 15/07: The first 4 M113AS4s built by Tenix Aerospace and Defence are accepted into service with the Australian Army’s 7th Battalion, The Royal Australian Regiment (Mechanised Infantry), during a ceremony in Darwin. Australian DoD | Space Daily.

M113A1
M113A1, last exercise
(click to expand)

June 11/06: Australia’s DMO contracts with Honeywell Germany to supply the new TALIN 500 Inertial Navigation Unit for the M113 vehicles at a cost of A$ 11 million.

Acquired under Project JP5408, the TALIN 500 is the central component of the new navigation system for the M113s, integrating a global positioning system (GPS) with the inertial navigation functions as a backup if GPS isn’t available. The new system will provide full navigation capability to both the commander and driver of the M113. DMO believes the system has export potential. DoD release | DMO On Target article.

July 28/05: The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) report criticizes Australia’s management of its M113 upgrade program, beginning with the 3-year delay between project approval in June 1999 and the July 2002 contract and continuing to the present day. The report add that the November 2006 goal for introduction into service is unlikely to be achievable. ANAO report | Jane’s

July 15/02: Australia’s Liberal Party government announces an A$ 400 million (then about $223.5 million) contract with Tenix Defence Land Division to upgrade 350 M113 tracked armored fighting vehicles to M113-AS4 configuration. Imag Australia Ltd. Pty release.

June 2002: The M113 Major Upgrade Project is approved at a cost of A$ 552 million (ANAO figure).

Additional Readings and Sources


The Saudis’ American Shopping Spree: F-15s, Helicopters & More

$
0
0
F-15S
F-15S & weapons
(click to view full)

In October 2010, talks that Saudi Arabia was negotiating a $30-60 billion arms package with the USA were made official with a full multi-billion request that included 84 F-15 Strike Eagles to replace the Kingdom’s Tornado strike aircraft and/or F-15A-D fighters, upgrades for another 70 planes, about 132 UH-60 Black Hawk utility and AH-64 attack helicopters, and armaments to equip them.

This article looks at those requests, their tie-ins, the issues that are part of these potential deals, and related follow-on requests. As is often the case with DSCA announcements, years can pass between the requests and the signed contracts, but these contracts have started to roll in, alongside other significant buys.

Quick Sales Summary

Saudi Flag

US Foreign Military Sale requests are required to be fairly public, beginning with US Department of State DSCA announcements. Even so, some contract disclosures and clarification can require the permission of the customer, and Saudi Arabia’s preference is not to give that. As such, items whose orders have not been publicly announced may be farther along in the process than the above chart indicates.

The Saudis are upgrading their air and missile defenses using American equipment, but that effort is covered in-depth in a separate article that looks at the entire Gulf Co-operation Council’s air and ballistic missile defense improvements.

US-Saudi Arms Sales Dashboard, 2010-2012

Note that this dashboard does not cover American contracts that began before 2010, such as Saudi Arabia’s drive to upgrade its M1 tanks, or various Saudi Arabia National Guard sales initiated before the big October 2010 request. It also omits sales to Saudi Arabia from outside the USA, such as S-2000 AWACS aircraft from Sweden, advanced Eurofighter Typhoon fighters from Britain, etc.

Contracts & Key Events

2015

Boeing on AH-6i

November 17/15: The US State Department has cleared the sale of $1.29 billion worth of smart bombs to Saudi Arabia. The purchase will replenish supplies used in recent air strikes against both Iranian backed Houthi insurgents in Yeman and Islamic State forces in Syria. Details of the sale were posted by the Defence Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) last Friday and follow last months shopping spree by the Saudis which totalled $11.25 billion. Last months sale included four multi-mission Littoral combat ships as well as various equipment and munitions which came in the wake of the US-Iranian nuclear agreement. Several Gulf nations made requests to the US to help modernize their military before they acquiesced to the deal.

October 21/15: The US State Department has approved the sale of up to four Littoral Combat Ship-based Multi Mission Surface Combatant Ships to Saudi Arabia, with these based on the Lockheed Martin Freedom-class LCS, as opposed to the Austal Independence-class. If lawmakers agree to the sale, a Foreign Military Sales contract can be drafted, with this likely to be signed early next year. The deal – potentially worth $11.25 billion – forms part of the Kingdom’s Eastern Fleet Modernization program.

The Gulf state also requested a significant quantity of US-manufactured weaponry to complement the new MMSC ships. This includes over five hundred RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles, 128 RIM-116C Block II Rolling Airframe Missiles to equip five new MK-15 Mod 3 SeaRAM air defense systems and 48 Block II GM-85 Harpoon missiles, along with eight launchers and five control systems. The request also covers eight MK-41 Vertical Launch Systems (capable of launching Raytheon’s family of Standard Missile munitions), .50 cal machine guns and five Oto Melara MK-75 Gun Systems, as well as sonar and communications systems.

October 16/15: Saudi Arabia has signed a deal with the US for 320 PAC-3 interceptor missiles, with this following a DSCA request in July for 600. The new missiles will modernize the Saudis’ Patriot air and missile defense systems, with the request valued at $5.4 billion. The Saudi government is also reported to be pushing ahead with plans to acquire the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, along with the remaining 280 PAC-3 missiles. This news comes on the heels of reports earlier this week that the Kingdom is mulling a possible acquisition of Israeli short-range air and missile defense systems; these would complement the medium and long-range capabilities of the Patriot and THAAD systems.

The country has also requested nine UH-60M Blackhawk helicopters, along with auxiliary equipment, spares, and logistical support in a potential deal valued at $495 million. The Kingdom has already ordered a number of UH-60Ms, previously requesting 72 helicopters along with other US equipment. Other regional states have also ordered the Sikorsky helicopter, including Bahrain, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates.

October 13/15: The Saudi Arabian National Guard will receive the first of twenty-four Boeing AH-6i armed reconnaissance helicopters in late June 2016, according to a report by Janes. The helicopters are being manufactured under a $234.7 million long-lead production contract awarded to Boeing in late 2013 and announced in August 2014, with Saudi Arabia the first customer for the type. Construction of the helicopters will begin in December. Saudi Arabia has been a loyal market for US helicopter manufacturers, with acquisitions including the UH-60L Black Hawk and AH-64D Apache.

2014

Sept 15/14: Hellfires. Hellfire Systems LLC, Orlando, FL, was awarded a $68.7 million to firm-fixed-price, foreign military sales contract modification to acquire 1,361 Hellfire II tactical missiles in containers and air-to ground missiles: model AGM-114R, AGM-114R-3, AGM-114P-4A, TGM M36E7, and ATM-114Q-6.

The countries involved in this foreign military sales contract are Iraq, Jordan, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. All of these countries are AH-64 Apache attack helicopter customers or prospective customers, except Iraq (AC-208B aircraft), and Jordan (AC-235 aircraft). DID looked into these designations.

  • The AGM-114P is generally used on UAVs like the Predator, where its 360 degree firing capability and tolerance of high altitude temperatures are welcome. These traits also make it suitable for fixed-wing aircraft.
  • There is no AGM-114R-3 – but there is an AGM-114R2 with a Height Of Burst sensor, which helps improve the base AGM-114R’s tri-mode anti-armor/ timed anti-structure/ fragmentation warhead.
  • The AGM-114Q model is a training round, with an inert mass that’s the same weight as the warhead. It’s used for live-fire training, where it creates less mess.
  • The TGM M36E7 corresponds to what the USAF would call a “CATM” – a training missile with the seeker head, but no rocket or warhead.

Estimated completion date is Nov 30/16. Work will be performed in Orlando, FL. US Army Contracting Command in Redstone Arsenal, AL manages the contract on behalf of its FMS clients (W31P4Q-11-C-0242, PO 0104).

Oct 1/14: Saudi Arabia. The US DSCA announces a Saudi Arabian export request for more PATRIOT PAC-3 missiles, with Lockheed Martin in Dallas, TX and Raytheon in Tewksbury, MA as the designated contractors to negotiate with. the contract could be worth up to $1.75 billion, on top of previous request and sales involving a $1.7 billion upgrade of PATRIOT systems to Config-3 status for PAC-3 missile use (q.v. Nov 30/11), high-end maintenance and re-certification contracts (q.v. Dec 23/11, Nov 28/12), and a national C4I system (q.v. Nov 26/12).

This time, they want to buy up to 202 PATRIOT PAC-3 Missiles with containers, and 1 Patriot as a Target (PAC-2 Guidance Enhanced Missile GEM Flight Test Target). They also want up to 36 Launcher Station Modification Kits, 6 Fire Solution Computers, 6 Patriot Automated Logistics Systems Kits, 2 PAC-3 Telemetry Kits, 2 Missile Round Trainers, 2 PAC-3 Slings, 6 Shorting Plugs, spare and repair parts, lot validation and range support, ground support equipment, repair and return, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, a Quality Assurance Team, and other US Government and contractor support.

“The proposed sale will help replenish Saudi’s current [PAC-2] Patriot missiles which are becoming obsolete and difficult to sustain due to age and the limited availability of repair parts. The purchase of PAC-3 missiles will support current and future defense missions…. Although [industrial] offsets are requested, they are unknown at this time and will be determined during negotiations between the KSA and contractor.”

Implementation of this proposed program will require 1 additional US contractor to travel to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for a period of 3 years for equipment fielding and system checkout. Sources: US DSCA #14-43, “Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) – Patriot Air Defense System with PAC-3 Enhancement”.

DSCA: Saudis request PAC-3 missiles (202)

Sept 10/14: F-15S EW. BAE Systems, Nashua, New Hampshire, has been awarded a $7.7 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for a DEWS ECM engineering change proposal, on behalf of Saudi Arabia’s F-15SAs. DEWS links various sensors that track threats to its fighter, and coordinates defensive flares, chaff, etc. The main DEWS contract was announced on April 2/12, at $366.5 million for 70 systems, as part of the RSAF’s F-15S conversions.

Work will be performed at Nashua, NH, and is expected to be complete by Nov 30/18. This award is the result of a sole-source acquisition, managed by the USAF Life Cycle Management Center at Robins AFB, GA on behalf of their Saudi client (FA8540-12-C-0013 PO 0008).

Sept 8/14: Support. Booz Allen Hamilton in McLean, VA receives a $43.3 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for services to support the Royal Saudi Land Forces: consulting, intensive management, logistics support, and contracting support within the United States. In addition, an office will be established in Saudi Arabia for local purchasing and local hires to sustain the fleet of M1A2S Abrams tanks purchased and sustained through the foreign military sales program.

Work will be performed in Saudi Arabia with an estimated completion date of Sept 8/17. Bids were solicited via the Internet, with 1 received by US Army Contracting Command at Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD (W91CRB-14-C-0048).

April 29/14: SANG AH-6i. Boeing in Mesa, AZ receives a $234.7 million unfinalized contract covering 24 AH-6i armed scout helicopters, the initial spares package, and ground support equipment for Saudi Arabia. $115 million is committed immediately.

IHS Jane’s confirms that this is the AH-6i’s 1st sale, as Jordan has yet to make good on its Letter of Intent. The AH-6i Letter of Agreement for 36 machines was reportedly signed on Feb 13/12, but phases, numbers, and prices remained to be negotiated. This purchase appears to clarify comments from Lynn Tilton of MD Helicopters that the type’s initial order would be for 24, with more to follow. Beyond Saudi Arabia, Boeing is reportedly targeting AH-1 Cobra operators. Many of whom received daylight-capable surplus American aircraft at a discount, and they may not be able to afford a full replacement like the AH-1Z or AH-64E.

Work will be performed in Mesa, AZ with an estimated completion date of Dec 31/16. US Army Contracting Command in Redstone Arsenal, AL manages the contract on behalf of their Saudi FMS client (W58RGZ-14-C-0082). See also IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly, “Boeing awarded AH-6i contract for Saudi Arabia” | Aviation Week Farnborough, “Boeing Readies Saudi AH-6i, Eyes More Customers”.

24 AH-6i armed scout helicopters

Aug 19/14: SANG UH-60Ms. Sikorsky in Stratford, CT receives a $30.3 million contract modification for 12 UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters, on behalf of the Saudi Arabian National Guard. All funds are committed immediately. This appears to be an initial award, with a follow-on to come that will modify the helicopters for Saudi use (q.v. March 25/13, Dec 20/13), and bring total SANG UH-60M sales to 24 of 72 requested machines.

The estimated completion date is Aug 31/17. Work will be performed in Jupiter, FL and Stratford, CT. US Army Contracting Command in Redstone Arsenal, AL manages the order on behalf of its Saudi client (W58RGZ-12-C-0008, PO 0072).

April 23/14: TOW me. Raytheon announces:

“An international customer signed an agreement with the U.S. Government for a foreign military sale (FMS) of tube-launched, optically tracked, wireless-guided (TOW) missiles to be supplied by Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN) in a deal valued at approximately $750 million.

Raytheon plans to deliver nearly 14,000 TOW missiles to the customer over a three-year period beginning in 2015. A resulting order is expected to be executed by the U.S. government with Raytheon in the coming weeks.”

Do they mention the customer? No, they don’t. Are there any other customers with pending orders for “nearly 14,000 TOW missiles” (q.v. Dec 5/13)? No, there aren’t. The only question is whether this includes only the SANG, whose DSCA request involved 13,935 TOW missiles, or stands as a joint buy that also includes the Royal Saudi Land Forces. Sources: Raytheon, “International customer signs agreement with USG valued at $750 million for Raytheon’s TOW missiles”.

~14,000 TOW missiles

April 11/14: F-15SA. Boeing in St. Louis. MO receives a $9.9 million unfinalized contract modification for Royal Saudi Air Force F-15SA Training. The contract had an initial face value of $75.6 million, which brings the total to 84.5 million. The increase covers new activities within the contract’s original scope, including training in the USA, and maintenance and aircrew and academic training outside the USA.

Work will be performed until Aug 5/19 in St. Louis, MO; and at King Khalid Air Base near Khamis Mushayt, Saudi Arabia. The USAF 338th Security Assistance Training Squadron at Joint Base San Antonio in Randolph AFB, TX manages the contract on behalf of their Saudi client (FA3002-13-D-0012, PO 0005).

March 13/14: AH-64. Longbow LLC in Orlando, FL receives a $25.5 million FMS contract modification via the Royal Saudi Land Forces Aviation Command for initial spares, peculiar ground support equipment, integrated logistics support, management, and production line spares. Longbow, LLC makes the fire control radar used with the AH-64 Apache attack helicopter.

All funds were committed immediately. Work will be performed in Orlando, FL until June 30/16. The US Army Contracting Command in Redstone Arsenal, AL manages the contract (W58RGZ-06-C-0134, PO 0045).

Feb 10/14: Hellfires. Hellfire Systems, LLC in Orlando, FL receives a $157.4 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, exercising an option for FY 2014 Hellfire II missile production requirements that include foreign military sales to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Indonesia. The Saudis are buying Hellfire missiles for their AH-64 and AH-6i helicopters.

All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2012 – 2014 budgets. Work will be performed in Orlando, FL, with an estimated completion date of Nov 30/16. US Army Contracting Command – Redstone Arsenal (Missile) at Redstone, AL manages the contract, and acts an an FMS agent for other countries (W31P4Q-11-C-2042, PO 0068).

Hellfire missiles

USMC LAV-ATs
USMC LAV-ATs
(click to view full)

Feb 14/14: LAVs. The Canadian government announces a huge contract, and lets slip that it’s from Saudi Arabia in the footnotes. Mr. Fast led trade missions to the Saudi kingdom in 2012 and 2013, so he has cause to be pleased, but he may have missed the nuance that Saudi Arabia is generally reticent about its military buys. Even if it is a tremendously timely order for GDLS Canada, which will keep the plant and its supply chain open as US Stryker (LAV-III) purchases wind to a close:

“The Honourable Ed Fast, Minister of International Trade, and Danny Deep, Vice President, General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada, announced today a historic multi-billion dollar contract win for vehicles and associated equipment, training and support services. The announcement was made in London, Ontario, where the light armoured vehicles will be designed and manufactured and which will become the epicentre of a cross-Canada supply chain directly benefiting more than 500 local Canadian firms. This 14-year contract will create and sustain more than 3,000 jobs each year in Canada, with southern Ontario accounting for approximately 40 percent of the supply base.”

To clear up any confusion about jurisdictions: The contractor is General Dynamics Land Systems, which is an American firm subject to US government export laws and approval requirements. At the same time, the state-run Canadian Commercial Corp. handles all exports from Canadian firms, even if they’re subsidiaries like GDLS-Canada.

There’s no official corporate release yet, but General Dynamics has described the deal to reporters as $10 billion, which could rise to $13 billion if all options are exercised. That’s far bigger than Oct 4/07 and June 13/11 DSCA requests for new vehicles (total: about $1 billion) can account for. Nor do purchases for the Saudi Arabian National Guard make up much of the difference. GDLS-Canada announced a $2.2 billion deal on Nov 24/09 for 724 LAV-II 8×8 wheeled armored personnel carriers, in 10 different variants, which exactly matched a July 20/06 Saudi DSCA request.

The Saudis already had a substantial fleet of LAV vehicles in their military branches. It seems very likely that a support contract covering all Saudi LAV fleets going forward is a big part of this deal, along with all LAVs requested to date and perhaps more. It is possible for the Saudis to order vehicles as a Direct Commercial Sale, which still requires approvals but doesn’t require the same announcements, and would make the Saudis fully responsible for managing the buy. Sources: Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada, “Largest Advanced Manufacturing Export Win in Canada’s History” | Reuters, “General Dynamics Canada wins Saudi deal worth up to $13 billion”.

Huge LAV order, plus over a decade of support

Feb 5/14: LAV-AT SWORD. Raytheon in McKinney, TX receives a $16.3 million firm-fixed-price, foreign military sales contract for 22 modified improved target acquisition systems for the Royal Saudi Land Forces SWORD program, and 3 for the Saudi Arabian National Guard. A seemingly-related FBO.gov solicitation describes SWORD as:

” WITHIN THE FMS CASE, ON LINE ITEM 012 NOTE 36, SWORD DIRECTED THE PURCHASE OF LIGHT ARMORED VEHICLE-ANTI TANK (MOD) (LAV-AT(M)) WITH THE MITAS.”

LAV-ATs use under-armor TOW missiles, and improving them with ITAS modified for those vehicles delivers a lot of bang for the buck. Bids were solicited via the Web, with 1 received. Work will be performed in McKinney, TX, and the estimated completion date is June 30/15. Work will be managed by US Army Contracting Command in Warren, MI as the Saudis’ agent (W56HZV-14-C-0066).

2013

1st F-15SA flight and official rollout; Significant contracts for WCMD cluster bombs & JTE trainers; Slew of AH-64E helicopter contracts; Export requests for a new array of precision strike weapons, Full naval C4I systems, Mk.V Patrol Boats, thousands of TOW missiles; Boeing & Sikorsky team of up for long-term Saudi support.

ATGM TOW Launch
TOW Launch
(click to view full)

Dec 20/13: SANG UH-60Ms. Sikorsky in Stratford, CT receives a $105.3 million contract modification to contract “to modify 8 UH-60M Black Hawk Helicopters to a General Service Configuration in Support of the Saudi Arabian National Guard.” The contract number indicates that these machines are purchases under the MYP-8 multi-year deal, which explicitly allows other countries to take advantage of American volume pricing. Essentially, they’re buying 8 UH-60Ms as an initial order under the Oct 20/10 DSCA request to export up to 72 machines.

One bid was solicited with one received. Work will be performed in West Palm Beach, FL and in Saudi Arabia. US Army Contracting Command in Redstone Arsenal, AL acts as the Saudis’ agent (W58RGZ-12-C-0008, PO 0089).

8 UH-60Ms: initial order

Dec 19/13: F-15SA. Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control in Orlando, FL receives a maximum $8.8 million firm-fixed-price modification on an existing RSAF contract for AN/AAQ-33 Sniper surveillance & targeting pods (q.v. April 2/12). They’ll provide configuration support for compact multiband data link software and firmware on the RSAF’s F-15SAs, and handle various other support tasks involving the Sniper ATP.

Work will be performed at Orlando, FL, and is expected to be complete by November 2016. The USAF Life Cycle Management Center/WNKCB at Robins AFB, GA acts as the Saudis’ agent (FA8540-12-C-0012, PO 0004).

Dec 17/13: F-15 Sensors. Goodrich Corp. (now United Technologies’ Aerospace Systems) in Westford, MA has been awarded an $183 million firm-fixed-price unfinalized action within the Royal Saudi Air Force DB110 Reconnaissance System program. This modification changes the requirements to include in-country setup and installation, ground stations, and a pod survey study being produced under the basic contract, issued on April 13/12 for $183 million (see also May 31/12).

Work will be performed at Westford, MA, and is expected to be complete by July 23/21, which is a year ahead of the April 2012 announcement. It appears as if they’ve kept the price stable, but adjusted some terms. DID is investigating. A July 10/12 Goodrich release cited the Saudi order as 10 dual-band reconnaissance pods per the Oct 20/10 DSCA request, 5 ground stations, and “extensive training and logistics support.” The USAF Life Cycle Management Center/WINK at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH acts as the Saudis’ agent (FA8620-12-C-4020, PO 0013).

Dec 5/13: TOW missiles. The US DSCA announces Saudi Arabia’s official request for export clearance to buy 1,750 portable TOW anti-armor missiles for the Royal Saudi Land Forces. The request includes up to 1,000 BGM-71E TOW-2A missiles with a nose spike to help defeat advanced armor and fortifications, 7 TOW-2A test missiles, 750 BGM-71F TOW-2B Aero missiles with longer range (>4 km) and a top attack mode, and 7 TOW-2B test missiles. they’re also requesting containers, spare and repair parts, support equipment, tools and test equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment,and other US government and contractor support.

The estimated cost is up to $170 million, but the Saudis will need to negotiate a contract with prime contractor Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, AZ. Saudi Arabia already operates TOW missiles, and they won’t need any additional personnel in country. The Saudi National Guard also submitted a request for TOW missiles today, but it was far larger at over 13,000 missiles and up to $900 million. Sources: US DSCA, 13-52.

DSCA request: TOW missiles

Nov 27/13: F-15SA. Boeing in St. Louis, MO receives a $15.5 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for “disorientation recovery function capability on the F-15SA aircraft”. In English, if the plane is behaving in a way that suggests the pilot has lost control via G-force blackout or other causes, and isn’t receiving ongoing input from the pilot, an autopilot is engaged to right the aircraft. As they say, the ground always has a PK of 1.0.

$2.4 million is committed immediately. Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO and will be complete by Feb 2/15. The USAF Life Cycle Management Center at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH acts as Saudi Arabia’s managing agent (FA8634-12-C-2651, PO 0021).

Nov 20/13: Navy. The Royal Saudi Navy’s core currently consists of French Al-Riyadh (Lafayette) and Al-Madinah Class frigates at the high end, and older US-built Badr Class corvettes and Al-Sadiq Class patrol boats at the low end. The Saudi Naval Expansion Program II will shape the Kingdom’s next set of buys, and discussions have ranged from American LCS frigates, to full-size DDG-51 Aegis destroyers capable of ballistic missile defense. They could turn to options like Spain’s Navantia (F100 family), if they wish to buy Aegis ships from a source other than the USA. The Saudis are also evaluating France’s new FREMM frigates, which could offer missile defense capabilities of their own, and share some commonalities with their existing Al-Riyadh Class.

October statements by Saudi intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan may have said that the kingdom was hoping to make a major shift away from the United States, but at this point, they can’t really do that for their C4I systems. The Saudis’ installed and committed C4I base is one reason. In addition, the US Navy is still the pre-eminent force they need to cooperate with in the Gulf, so they need C4I interoperability. Ships are another matter. Sources: Reuters, “Lockheed sees more clarity on Saudi naval buy in next months” | UAE’s The National, “Challenges in the Middle East for US defence companies“.

GCCS-J
click for video

Nov 19/13: Navy C4I. The US DSCA announces an official Foreign Military Sale export request from Saudi Arabia for C4I system upgrades and maintenance, aimed specifically at Saudi Arabia’s naval forces, at a cost of up to $1.1 billion. “The RSNF will use the upgraded C4I system to provide situational awareness of naval activity in the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea…. and keep pace with the rapid advances in C4I technology to remain a viable U.S. coalition partner in the region.” The request includes:

  • Global Command and Control Systems – Joint (GCCS-J). A November 2012 announcement from Raytheon referred to a $600 million Direct Commercial Sale contract for a “national, strategic C4I system, providing capabilities for joint service coordination.” GCCS-J is what the US military uses for that purpose, and the US military has service-specific variants of it. Saudi Arabia has effectively financed other countries’ upgrades before, and a big contract could help DISA implement some of the GCCS-J changes it wants. Starting with moving GCCS-J off of SPARC-chip computers and onto Intel chip computers. DISA also wants to migrate the software from Windows into plug-ins for the Agile Client framework (Java NetBeans, NASA’s WorldWind, plus VMWare’s Gemfire), while migrating web client capabilities into the Joint Command and Control Common User Interface (JC2CUI, uses the Ozone Widget Framework). If the Saudis help to develop a system with 1 or more of these migrations, the impact will be felt by the US military.
  • Air Defense System Interrogator (Ultra Electronics’ ADSI), which provides tactical data link forwarding, and interfaces between a very large set of tactical data links, radar interfaces, and electronic intelligence interfaces.
  • Combined Enterprise Regional Information Exchange System (CENTRIXS) and follow-on systems. Looks like there will be a CENTRIXS-SA soon, enabling text and web communication with the US Navy and other CENTRIXS-equipped nations like Britain.
  • 109 Link–16 Multifunction Information Distribution System Low Volume Terminals (MIDS-LVT)
  • Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) hardware.
  • Commercial Satellite Communications (SATCOM).
  • Commercial High Frequency (HF) and Ultra High Frequency/ Very High Frequency (UHF/VHF) Radios, including HF Voice and Data, HF Sub-Net Relay (SNR), Commercial HF Internet Protocol (IP)/SNR.
  • Global Positioning System (GPS) gear.
  • Plus communications support equipment, information technology upgrades, spare and repair parts, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, and US Government and contractor support.

There will be no principal contractors involved with this proposed sale. Acquisition and integration of all systems will be managed by the U.S. Navy’s Space and Naval Warfare Weapons Command (SPAWAR), and implementation will require the assignment of 14 U.S. Government and contractor representatives to Saudi Arabia for 10 years to support network design, acquisition, implementation, installation, and integration efforts. Sources: DSCA 13-44.

DSCA: Full naval C4I backbone

Oct 15/13: Weapons. The US DSCA announces Saudi Arabia’s formal export request for a variety of weapons that will equip its F-15SA fighters. Note that this list is in addition to the weapons mentioned in the main October 2010 request, and could be worth up to $6.8 billion in total:

  • 400 AGM-84L Harpoon Block II missiles, which add GPS to the missile’s radar targeting. They can be used against land targets as well as ships.
  • 40 Harpoon CATM.
  • 20 ATM-84L Harpoon Exercise Missiles.
  • 650 AGM-84H SLAM-ER cruise missiles. This Harpoon variant adds IIR terminal guidance to GPS navigation, and extended-range wings that let it hit land and sea targets 250 km away. South Korea’s F-15Ks already deploy it. The US Navy uses its AGM-88K successor, which they consider to be their most accurate strike weapon. The Saudis already deploy MBDA’s stealthy, long-range Storm Shadow cruise missile from their Tornados, so they may be less impressed, but SLAM-ER will definitely add punch to the F-15 fleet.
  • 40 CATM-84H Captive Air Training Missiles (CATM), with seekers but no motor.
  • 20 ATM-84H SLAM-ER Telemetry Missiles for test shots.
  • 4 Dummy Air Training Missiles. Sometimes you just need similar weight & form factor.
  • 60 AWW-13 Data Link pods. Pilots can receive text, data, and photos from various sources, and can also use it to communicate with the SLAM-ER in mid-flight.
  • 973 AGM-154C Joint Stand Off Weapons (JSOW). This stealthy 2,000 pound glide bomb uses GPS for navigation and IIR guidance for terminal guidance.
  • 10 JSOW CATM.
  • 1,000 GBU-39/B Small Diameter Bombs (SDB). These 250 pound JDAM variants can be carried 4 to a rack. GPS guidance and pop-out wings give them decent range and accuracy, and their design makes them more effective against hard targets than their weight would suggest.
  • 36 SDB Captive Flight and Load Build trainers.
  • Containers, mission planning, integration support and testing, munitions storage security and training, weapon operational flight program software development, transportation, tools and test equipment, spare and repair parts, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, and other forms of U.S. Government and contractor support.

The principal contractors will be Boeing in St. Louis, MO (Harpoon, SLAM-ER, SDB); Raytheon in Indianapolis, IN; and Raytheon in Tucson, AZ (JSOW). If contracts are negotiated, they’ll need to negotiate the addition of approximately 2-4 additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Saudi Arabia. Sources: US DSCA 13-49, Oct 15/13.

DSCA: Precision strike weapons request

Oct 15/13: Support. The US DSCA announces Saudi Arabia’s export request for 3 years of support services to its Ministry of Defense from the US Military Training Mission (USMTM) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. They’re responsible for identifying, planning, and executing US security cooperation training and advisory support. The estimated cost is up to $90 million, no contractors are involved, and no additional personnel will be needed. Sources: US DSCA 13-53, Oct 15/13.

Oct 3/13: A maximum $181 million not-to-exceed contract modification lets Saudi Arabia buy 2 KC-130J transport and tanker aircraft under the US umbrella deal, along with associated non-recurring engineering support. It’s just a small part of the 25-plane, $6.7 billion request (q.v. Nov 9/12).

Work will be performed at Marietta, GA, and is expected to be completed by April 2016. This contract is 100 percent foreign military sales for Saudi Arabia. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center/WLNNC, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity (FA8625-11-C-6597, PO 0177).

2 KC-130Js

Sept 26/13: Industrial. Boeing’s Al Salam Aircraft Corp. joint venture in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia receives a $33.1 million firm-fixed-price contract related to the F-15S to F-15SA upgrade program. The contract is all about getting the company ready to carry out the demanding Phase II program, and includes setting up the facility, developing manufacturing plans and schedules, and readying automated performance reporting tools.

During Phase I of this upgrade, 2 F-15S fighters will be converted to F-15SA status at the Boeing facility in St. Louis, MO. Following successful completion of the initial phase, production will resume under Phase II at Alsalam, to complete the remaining 68 aircraft.

The firm has experience with F-15s, and has been providing Programmed Depot Maintenance to the Saudi F-15C/D/S fleet since 2002. The initial phase is expected to be complete by Dec. 31/15, with overall contract completion on Dec 31/19. The USAF Life Cycle Management Center/WWKA at Robins AFB, GA, acts as the Saudi FMS agent (FA8505-13-C-0014). See also: Alsalam Aircraft Corp History | Video.

Joint Threat Emitter
JTE
(click to view full)

Sept 9/13: JTE. Northrop Grumman Amherst Systems in Buffalo, NY received a $219.1 million firm-fixed and cost-type contract from Saudi Arabia for its Joint Threat Emitter (JTE). They’ll supply 1st article and production units, associated drawings, retrofit kits, provisioning, and software. $44 million is committed immediately.

This contract was a competitive acquisition, with 2 offers received by the Saudis’ agent: the USAF Life Cycle Management Center/PZZK at Hill Air Force Base, UT.

The JTE is a mobile multi-radar system that radiates at realistic power levels, reacting to attempted jamming, employing IFF technologies, and tracking pilots’ reactions to its own efforts. It can simulate Anti-Aircraft Artillery radar systems, and Surface-to-Air missiles up to modern high-end threats. The goal is to train combat aircrews to defeat or avoid integrated air defense systems (FA8210-13-C-0001). Sources: Pentagon | NGC, Joint Threat Emitter (JTE) | USAF, “Joint Threat Emitter transmits signals for attack training”.

Aug 23/13: Support. The US DSCA announces an official Saudi request to continue support and services for Royal Saudi Air Force (RSAF) aircraft, engines and weapons, to include contractor technical services, logistics support, maintenance support, spares, equipment repair, expendables, support and test equipment, communication support, precision measuring equipment, personnel training and training equipment, technical support, exercises, deployments and other forms of Government and contractor support.

The estimated cost is $1.2 billion, but the time period isn’t clear. There is no prime contractor, and no new deployment of support personnel required.

DSCA request: Aircraft support

Aug 20/13: WCMD. Textron Defense Systems in Wilmington, MA receives a $640.8 million modification to a firm-fixed-price contract for 1,300 “cluster bomb units.” The Oct 20/10 DSCA request was much more specific – these are GPS-guided “CBU-105 Sensor Fuzed Weapons.” They spew out BLU-108 rods, whose attached tuna-can shaped smart sub-munitions can target tanks and vehicles before blowing a formed projectile through their roofs. The Saudis haven’t agreed to the Convention on Cluster Munitions; indeed, its only Mideast parties are Lebanon and Iraq, and it has very few adherents in Asia.

The 2010 request was buried within the larger $30 billion F-15SA purchase, but the Saudis also placed a June 13/11 request for another 404 of them. If that contract is signed, it could add another $355 million to Textron’s balance sheet.

Work will be performed at Wilmington, MA, and is expected to be completed by Dec. 31, 2015. This contract involves foreign military sales (FMS) for Saudi Arabia. FMS funds in the amount of $410,218,248 are being obligated at time of award. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center/OO-ALC/EBHKA, Hill Air Force Base, Utah, is the contracting activity (FA8213-12-C-0064, PZ 00001).

July 18/13: Rockets. General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products Inc. in Williston, VT receives a $67.5 million firm-fixed-price, option-filled, foreign-military-sales contract order from Saudi Arabia for 70mm Hydra rockets, warheads and related parts. The rockets are most frequently used on helicopters, and can also be used on qualified fixed-wing aircraft, if the right launcher is added. The addition of guidance sections like APKWS, DAGR, etc. can even turn them into laser-guided precision weapons.

Work will be performed in Camden, AR, and the US Army Contracting Command in Redstone Arsenal, AL acts as the Saudis’ agent (W31P4Q-10-C-0190, PO 0136). The cumulative total face value of this contract is $1.025 billion, but previous orders have been on behalf of the US military.

July 17/13: F-15SA. Boeing subsidiary McDonnell Douglas Corp. in St. Louis, MO receives a maximum $75.6 million firm-fixed-price and cost-reimbursable contract, in order to update Saudi training and reflect the F-15SA’s new features. Elements like fly-by-wire are significant changes, to give just one of several examples. That means updated courseware, revised initial training for new pilots, and differences training for RSAF pilots moving over from other F-15 models.

Work will be performed until July 19/19 in St. Louis, MO, and King Khalid Air Base in Khamis Mushayt, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. This is a sole-source acquisition, using FY 2011 international funding. Under Foreign Military Sale rules, the customer is the USAF’s Security Assistance Training Squadron. More specifically, Saudi Arabia’s agent is the Air Education and Training Command Contracting Squadron/LGCI (International Contracting Flight) at Randolph AFB, TX (FA3002-13-D-0012).

USN MkV & RHIB
Mk.V & RHIB
(click to view full)

July 10/13: Patrol Boats. The US DSCA announces [PDF] Saudi Arabia’s formal export request for 30 Mark V patrol boats, 32 foredeck-mounted 27mm guns, spare and repair parts, support equipment, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical documentation, and US government and contractor support. The estimated cost is up to $1.2 billion, but exact prices for the boats and support will depend on contract negotiations with the principal contractor, who hasn’t been picked yet, though USMI is a potential builder. Implementation of this proposed sale will require an additional 3-4 U.S. Government and contractor representatives to Saudi Arabia over a period of 7 years, to provide support and warranty work during delivery of the boats.

The Mark Vs are best known for their use by SEAL teams in the USA (Mk.V SOC), and have been used to launch and recover small UAVs. They are also used independently of the SEAL teams by the US Navy. Buying them creates a fast-moving armed force that can protect critical infrastructure in the Arabian/ Persian Gulf, and has the on-board guns to destroy Iranian “Boghammer” fast boats in a clash. They can also be used in efforts like Saudi operations around Yemen, which made significant but under-reported use of naval interdiction.

The DSCA says that this purchase represents an upgrade and modernization over the RSNF’s existing small patrol boat fleet. Note that the RSN’s 9 Al Sadiq Class boats, built in the early 1980s by Peterson, offer about 10x the Mk.V’s displacement, and include weapons like anti-ship missiles. They don’t sound like the boats the Mk.Vs will replace.

DSCA request: Mk.V Patrol Boats

July 2/13: AH-64E. Boeing in Mesa, AZ receives a $15.4 million firm-fixed-price contract modification as part of its AH-64E purchases. The customer is confirmed as Saudi Arabia, with a cumulative total face value of $50.6 million for this one contract. US Army Contracting Command at Redstone Arsenal, AL acts as the Saudi agent (W58RGZ-12-C-0113, PO 0004).

July 2/13: AH-64 support. Boeing in Mesa, AZ received a $109.5 million firm-fixed-price contract modification “for services in support of the Royal Saudi Land Force Aviation Command.” The exact uses for these funds are unclear, as the RSLF operates 12 older AH-64D Apache helicopters, while also buying new AH-64Es. The contract itself, however, seems to be associated with new AH-64Es.

The Pentagon gives a cumulative total face value of $394.9 million for this one contract. US Army Contracting Command at Redstone Arsenal, AL acts as the Saudi agent (W58RGZ-12-C-0089, PO 0006).

June 20/13: Boeing-Sikorsky. With the Saudi government tipping sharply toward a very American helicopter fleet, Boeing (AH-6i, AH-64D/E) and Sikorsky (UH-60) have formed the Boeing Sikorsky International Services (BSIS) 50/50 joint venture to compete for Saudi support, maintenance & repair services. For Saudi helicopters bought under the huge Oct 20/10 announcements, those contracts will be passed through the US government as part of its Foreign Military Sales process.

Both firms have strong roots in the kingdom, and both are already performing maintenance service for the Saudis’ small AH-64 and UH-60 fleets. Boeing also supports research and community projects, and is involved in partnerships that address Saudi educational goals as well as industrial development. Sikorsky began later, in the early 1990s, and has been involved in a pair of Saudi upgrade programs as well as standard support work.

The Saudis have been willing to outsource their extensive maintenance and support contracts to 3rd parties, but firms like BAE have also demonstrated that original manufacturer’s with compelling offerings can capture a very profitable aftermarket business. BSIS makes it that much harder for outsiders to win, and strengthens the firms’ negotiating positions. Boeing | Sikorsky.

June 7/13: AH-64E. Longbow LLC in Orlando, FL receives a $39 million firm-fixed-price, foreign-military-sales (FMS) contract modification from Saudi Arabia, buying AH-64 mast mounted assemblies; the fire control radars that go inside them; and related support equipment.

The Pentagon says that the cumulative total face value of this contract is $333.3 million, but it’s a FY 2006 contract that far predates Saudi AH-64E buys, and involves just part of the helicopter.

Based on DID’s tracking of announced contracts, the Saudis have committed $339 million to their AH-64E buy so far, using several contracts. US Army Contracting Command in Redstone Arsenal, AL manages the contract on behalf of its Saudi client (W58RGZ-06-C-0134, PO 0042).

May 22/13: AH-64E. Boeing in Mesa, AZ receives a $69.2 million firm-fixed-price, foreign-military-sales contract modification for Saudi Arabia’s Apache Block III aircraft and associated parts and services. The US Army reports the total cumulative value of this contract so far as $259.4 million; when other known Saudi contracts are added, contract value to date is somewhere between $296-300 million. Given Saudi AH-64E export requests for up to 60 helicopters, and known helicopter prices, this is just a drop in the bucket.

US Army Contracting Command in Redstone Arsenal, AL manages the contract on behalf of its Saudi client (W58RGZ-12-C-0089, PO 0008).

May 22/13: AH-64E. Boeing in Mesa, AZ receives a $14.3 million firm-fixed-price, foreign-military-sales contract modification for Saudi Arabia’s Apache Block III aircraft and associated parts and services. The US Army reports the total cumulative value of this contract so far as $35.2 million. US Army Contracting Command in Redstone Arsenal, AL manages the contract on behalf of its Saudi client (W58RGZ-12-C-0113, PO 0003).

May 8/13: AH-64E. Boeing in Mesa, AZ receives a $26.1 million firm-fixed-price, foreign military sales (FMS) contract modification covering AH-64E training and support in Saudi Arabia.

The Pentagon says that the cumulative total face value of this contract is now $216.2 million, which almost exactly matches the announced $216.5 million total of all contracts with this designation – many of which were unattributed. The Army seems to be using specific contracts for specific export customers (W58RGZ-12-C-0089, PO 0007).

April 30/12: F-15SA Rollout. Boeing formally rolls out the 1st F-15SA fighter, in a St. Louis ceremony. Boeing.

March 25/13: Saudi. Sikorsky in Stratford, CT receives a $49 million firm-fixed-price contract. This modification will provide engineering and configuration services to 4 utility helicopters for Saudi Arabia. The contract number indicates a MYP-8 purchase, and the amount indicates that there’s an accompanying base helicopter order still to come. There are ways that could be done outside the purview of standard contract announcements.

Work will be performed in Stratford, CT with an estimated completion date of Dec 31/16. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received by US Army Contracting Command in Redstone Arsenal, AL (W58RGZ-12-C-0008).

Saudi Arabia: 4 UH-60Ms?

March 14/13: F-15SA, subtraction edition. The Pentagon announces the removal of $456.2 million from the $4 billion contract to develop and test F-15S to F-15SA conversion kits, install 4 initial kits, and produce 68. The revised not-to-exceed amount is now $3.544 billion.

Schedules and other elements are unaffected – see Nov 2/12 entry for the full listing (FA8505-12-C-0001, PO 0004).

1st F-15SA flight
F-15SA: 1st flight
(click to view full)

Feb 20/13: 1st flight. The F-15SA’s maiden flight takes place at Boeing’s St. Louis, MO facilities, and goes as planned. The F-15SA flight test program will include 3instrumented F-15SAs operating from Boeing facilities in St. Louis, MO and Palmdale, CA.

The Saudi F-15SA is the first F-15 model with full fly-by-wire controls, something that was standard on F-16s decades ago. That change makes flight testing more important than it might be for another F-15E variant like Korea’s F-15K, or Singapore’s F-15SG. Which may also explain why 1st delivery will take place about 2 years after 1st flight, in 2015. Deliveries are expected to finish in 2019. USAF.

F-15SA first flight

Jan 3/13: Saudi? Boeing in Mesa, AZ receives an $18.4 million firm-fixed-price contract modification “to procure Apache Block III Aircraft in support of Foreign Military Sales.” We asked for further details to clarify which customer, but neither Boeing nor the US military will provide those any longer, except through Freedom of Information Act requests. AH-64 Foreign Military Sales seem to have different contracts for each country, however, and a subsequent announcement that pegs Saudi Arabia as the customer also offers totals that match the totals for this contract number.

Work will be performed in Mesa, AZ with an estimated completion date of April 30/13. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with 1 bid received (W58RGZ-12-C-0089).

2012

F-15SA fighter contract; F-15S upgrade kits and sensors bought; AIM-9X sidewinder missiles bought; AH-64E attack helicopter buys begin; MD-530F light utility helicopters bought; AH-6i armed scout helicopters bought.

RSAF F-15S at Red Flag 10.4
F-15S: right this way
(click to view full)

Dec 31/12: F-15 Upgrades. Lockheed Martin in Akron, OH receives a $253.4 million firm-fixed-price contract for the F-15SA modernization program.

Work will be performed in Akron, OH, and is expected to be complete by June 2020. The AFLCMC/WNSK at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH manages the contract on behalf of their Saudi Foreign Military Sale client (FA8621-12-R-6256).

Dec 28/12: F-15 support. PKL Services Inc. in Poway, CA receives a $95 million firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract for F-15C/D/S maintenance & upgrade training at King Khalid Air Base in Khamis Mushayt and King Abdul Aziz Air Base in Dhahran.

Work is expected to be complete by Jan 1/15. The AETC CONS/LGCI at Randolph AFB, TX manages the contract on behalf of their Saudi Foreign Military Sale client (FA3002-13-D-0003).

Saudi C-130
Saudi C-130
(click to view full)

Nov 9/12: Saudi Arabia The US DSCA announces [PDF] Saudi Arabia’s DSCA request for up to 25 C-130J family aircraft, in a deal that could be worth up to $6.7 billion once a contract is negotiated.

The RSAF currently operates 30 C-130H medium transport aircraft, and another 7 KC-130H aerial refueling tankers with secondary transport capabilities. External engine fleet and depth maintenance contracts take care of them, but as the hours pile up, replacement looms. The Saudis would replace their fleet with just 20 stretched C-130J-30s, and another 5 KC-130Js. On the other hand, the stretched planes offer more room, and the C-130J’s extra power makes a big difference to real cargo capacity in Saudi Arabia’s lift-stealing heat. The request includes:

  • 20 C-130J-30 stretched transports
  • 5 KC-130J aerial tankers, which could be armed in future
  • 120 Rolls Royce AE2100D3 Engines (100 installed and 20 spares)
  • 25 MIDS-LVT Link-16 systems
  • Plus support equipment, spare and repair parts, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical data, and U.S. Government and contractor support.

The prime contractors will be Lockheed-Martin in Bethesda, MD (C-130Js); General Electric Aviation Systems in Sterling, VA; and Rolls Royce Corporation in Indianapolis, IN (engines). Implementation of this sale will require the assignment of U.S. Government and contractor representatives to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for delivery, system checkout, and logistics support for an undetermined period of time.

Request: 20 C-130J-30s & 5 KC-130Js

Nov 2/12: F-15 upgrades. Boeing in St. Louis, MO receives a $4 billion firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee, cost-reimbursable-no-fee contract for 68 F-15S to F-15SA conversion kits, Country Standard Time Compliance Technical Order (CSTCTO) development, CSTCTO integration and testing, fabrication of trial kits to support validation and verification activities, and the procurement and installation of 4 base stand-up kits.

This is the same listing as the June 26/12 entry, and the current announcement appeared to be the finalized version – until a March 14/13 announcement cut the total to $3.544 billion for the same work.

Note that this amount doesn’t reflect the full cost of the 72 upgrades. As one can see below, the conversion kits are accompanied by a wide variety of modern sensors, and other equipment from vendors beyond Boeing. That equipment is included in the fighter upgrade program, and installed / integrated under this contract, but it isn’t bought under this contract.

Work is expected to be completed by Dec 31/19. The AFLCMC/WWKA at Robins Air Force Base, GA manages this Foreign Military Sale on behalf of its Saudi Arabian client (FA8505-12-C-0001, PO 0002). See also Arabian Aerospace.

68 F-15S to F-15SA conversions

Aug 6/12: RSAF support.The US DSCA announces Saudi Arabia’s request to buy continued support and services for the Royal Saudi Air Force’s aircraft, engines and weapons; publications and technical documentation; airlift and aerial refueling; support equipment; spare and repair parts; repair and return; personnel training and training equipment; and other forms of US government and contractor support. To sum up: “Saudi Arabia needs this follow on support… in order to sustain the combat and operational readiness of its existing aircraft fleet.”

The estimated cost is $850 million. This appears to be a government-to-government agreement, so that limit is probably reasonably accurate. There is no prime contractor, and all the U.S. Government personnel or contractors required are already in Saudi Arabia.

RSAF Support request

July 13/12: MD-530Fs. MD Helicopter in Mesa, AZ receives a $40.7 million firm-fixed-price contract, to buy MD 530F helicopters and related equipment for Saudi Arabia’s National Guard. This is the type’s 2nd military order, after Afghanistan ordered it as a training & utility platform, so the buy is significant to the company.

Saudi Arabia’s Oct 20/10 DSCA request had mentioned 12 MD-530Fs, which are designed to operate in the thinner air created by hot and/or high-altitude conditions. These helicopters are often used in policing and light utility roles, but they can be armed with light weapons. The SANG’s forthcoming AH-6is (vid. Feb 13/12 entry) are more explicitly designed for the Armed Reconnaissance role.

Work will be performed in Mesa, AZ with an estimated completion date of July 30/13. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received by US Army Contracting Command in Redstone Arsenal, AL, on behalf of its Saudi Foreign Military Sale client (W58RGZ-12-C-0105).

MD-530F helicopter buy

June 26/12: F-15 upgrades. Boeing in St. Louis, MO receives a $1.837 billion firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee, cost-reimbursable-no-fee contract for 68 F-15S to F-15SA conversion kits, Country Standard Time Compliance Technical Order (CSTCTO) development, CSTCTO integration and testing, fabrication of trial kits to support validation and verification activities, and the procurement and installation of 4 base stand-up kits. This is a Foreign Military Sales requirement for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and subsequent announcements show that it’s meant to get work underway at about 45% funding.

Work is to be complete by Dec 31/13. The Warner-Robins air Logistics Center at Robins Air Force Base, GA manages the contract (FA8505-12-C-0001).

May 31/12: F-15 Sensors. Boeing in St. Louis, MO receives an $18.4 million addition to a firm-fixed-price contract, to pay for the “urgent requirement for limited integration of the DB-110 Reconnaissance Pod System” on 8 RSAF F-15S aircraft. The April 13/12 contract will add pods to the upgraded F-15SAs, but this urgent contract will improve Saudi Strike Eagles immediately. Those DB-110 pods would certainly help the F-15S Strike Eagles at Khamis Mushayt keep an eye on Yemen, for instance.

Work is to be complete by July 2013. The ASC/WWQ at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH manages the contract on behalf of their Saudi Foreign Military Sale client (FA8634-12-C-2651, PO 0004).

May 18/12: F-15S/SA. S7K Aerospace, LLC in Saint Ignatius, MT receives a $10 million firm-fixed-price/ cost-reimbursable-no-fee contract for 3rd party logistics repair and return management services, to support RSAF F-15s.

Work will be performed from Saint Ignatius, MT, and the contract runs until May 19/13. The Warner-Robins Air Logistics Center/GRMK at Robins AFB, GA manages the contract (FA8505-12-D-0002, PO 0002).

May 6/12: AH-64E? A $171.8 million firm-fixed-price contract “for the procurement of Apache Block III aircraft and related services in support of Foreign Military Sales.” The Pentagon does not mention which country, but AH-64 Foreign Military Sales seem to have different contracts for each country. A subsequent announcement that pegs Saudi Arabia as the customer also offers totals that match the totals for this contract number.

Work will be performed in Mesa, AZ, with an estimated completion date of Dec 30/14. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received. The U.S. Army Contracting Command in Redstone Arsenal, AL acts as Taiwan’s agent (W58RGZ-12-C-0089).

AH-64E contracts begin?

April 13/12: F-15SAs, Recon. Recent United Technologies’ acquisition Goodrich Corp. in Westford, ME received an $183 million firm-fixed-price unfinalized letter contract for DB-110 pods, support equipment, and contractor logistic support “for the Foreign Military Sales F-15 Modernization Program.”

No official confirmation yet, but the Saudis have the current FMS F-15 modernization program. Their Oct 20/10 DSCA request included 10 DB-110 Reconnaissance Pods, and a July 10/12 Goodrich release cites a new-customer order from Saudi Arabia for 10 dual-band reconnaissance pods from its Westford, MA facility; 5 fixed, transportable and mobile ground stations from its Malvern, UK facility; and “extensive training and logistics support.”

Work will be performed in Westford, ME, and is expected to be complete by July 31/22. The ASC/WINK at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, is acting as the agent for this contract (FA8620-12-C-4020).

April 9/12: F-15SA C2. Rockwell Collins, Inc. in Cedar Rapids, IA receives a $14.5 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, exercising an option for 168 RT-1851A-C / ARC receiver-transmitters (including royalty fees) for the government of Saudi Arabia under the Foreign Military Sales program. Note that the ARC-210 radio system uses 2 RT-1851s, whose Bandwidth Efficient Advanced Modulation (BEAM) Line of sight technology enables higher data rates.

AN/ARC-210 Talon radios can handle both voice and data, and can include jam-resistant and SATCOM modules. They are used by a number of platforms, including the F-15. Since 168 of these R-Ts would equip 84 aircraft, this order seems to be destined for Saudi Arabia’s new-build F-15SAs.

Work will be performed in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and is expected to be completed in December 2013. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, MD, is the contracting activity (N00019-09-C-0069).

March 30/12: AIM-9X. A $97.1 million firm-fixed-price, fixed-price-incentive-firm target contract modification, buying AIM-9X Sidewinder short range air-to-air missiles for South Korea and Saudi Arabia. The Saudi order is $85.3 million, or 87.85% of the total, for 120 AIM-9X Block II All Up Round tactical missiles in containers; 42 more containers; and 33 Block II captive air training missiles with no motor or warhead.

April 2/12: F-15S Sensors. Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control in Orlando, FL receives a $410.6 million firm-fixed-price contract for 95 sniper advanced targeting pod and spares; 35 compact multiband data links; 70 infrared search and track (IRST) systems and spares; 75 IRST pylons; and data, in support of the Royal Saudi Air Force F-15S to F-15SA conversion. The F-15S already uses LANTIRN, and both of these systems offer considerable improvements over that existing gear. The 2 systems can even be combined, via a single underbody pylon that contains the Tiger Eyes and mounts the Sniper pod.

Lockheed Martin’s Sniper pod offers pilots advanced day/night ground surveillance and laser or GPS targeting. The version offered is not clear; the most recent variant is the USAF’s new Sniper-SE.

Lockheed Martin’s Tiger Eyes IRST is also a long-range surveillance tool, but one focused on heat emissions from aircraft. That gives fighters a non-radar surveillance option, which is useful on a tactical level and offers options against stealth aircraft. As a side benefit, Tiger Eyes provides classic LANTIRN capabilities like terrain following, and all-weather navigation. Work is to be completed by Nov 31/17. The Warner Robins Air Logistics Center at Robins AFB, GA manages this contract on behalf of its Saudi FMS client (FA8540-12-C-0012).

April 2/12: F-15S EW. BAE Systems in Nashua, NH received a $366.5 million firm-fixed-price contract for 70 Digital Electronic Warfare Systems (DEWS) and Common Missile Warning Systems (CMWS) and spares; 3 DEWS/CMWS test stations and associated spares; and data. This effort is in support of the Royal Saudi Air Force F-15S to F-15SA conversion, and will improve the planes’ ability to be aware of and counter enemy radar threats. DEWS was picked by Boeing in 2008, as its future F-15 EW offering.

Work will be performed in Nashua, NH Work is to be complete by Nov 31/18. The Warner Robins Air Logistics Center at Robins AFB, GA manages this contract on behalf of its Saudi FMS client (FA8540-12-C-0013). See also BAE release.

March 8/12: F-15SA contract. Following the December 2011 $29.4B LOA, this is a $11.4B firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee, time-and-materials procurement contract for 84 new planes, as well as some related development work. This is a subset of what the LOA covers, since there are also retrofits on 70 existing planes, weapons and support services in the overall package.

Work will be done at El Segundo, CA, Ocala, FL., and Cedar Rapids, IO, with an expected completion date set to October 2020. ASC/WWQ, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH manages the contract (FA8634-12-C-2651) on behalf of the Kingdom.

F-15SA contract

Feb 13/12: SANG AH-6is. Boeing representatives tell reporters that Saudi Arabia signed a Letter of Agreement for 36 AH-6i light scout and attack helicopters “a few weeks ago.” The AH-6i were part of the Oct 20/10 DSCA request for its National Guard, and the next step involves negotiations on price and delivery schedules. If those are completed, it isn’t clear whether Saudi Arabia would be the type’s 1st customer. A Rotor & Wing report says that:

“Tilton can also see further military riches on the horizon as Boeing pushes the AH-6i into the world market as a mini-Apache “with attitude.” There is a first order of 24 aircraft with more to follow.”

The other country that has been publicly associated with the AH-6i is Jordan, who reportedly signed a Letter of Intent in 2010. The actual contract takes until 2014, and it makes the SANG the type’s 1st customer. Sources: Rotor & Wing, “A Modern Love Affair: Lynn Tilton and U.S. Army” | Defense News, “Saudi Arabia, Boeing Strike Deal for 36 AH-6i”.

Jan 5/12: SANG AH-64s. Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control in Orlando, FL received a $66.6 million firm-fixed-price and cost-plus-fixed-fee contract. The award will provide for the procurement of AH-64D Apache M-TDAS/PNVS (“Arrowhead“) systems and spares for the Saudi Arabia National Guard. Work will be performed in Orlando, FL, with an estimated completion date of March 31/15. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received by US Army Contracting Command in Redstone Arsenal, AL as the Saudi’s FMS agent (W58RGZ-11-C-0120).

This is one of several ancillary contracts supporting reports that Saudi Arabia has signed a deal to buy AH-64D Longbow Block III helicopters. That deal wasn’t announced publicly, so it isn’t clear if other services may be covered. Beyond the SANG’s interest in buying 36 Apache Longbow Block IIIs, the Royal Guard wanted 10, and the regular Army wanted to add 24 Block IIIs to its existing fleet of 12 Block IIs. See the Oct 20/10 DSCA request for more.

2011

F-15SA LoA signed; LAV armed vehicle request & contract; WCMD smart bomb request; AH-64s bought?

AH-64D Longbow
AH-64D Longbow
(click to view full)

Dec 24/11: F-15SA LoA. Saudi Arabia signs a $29.4 billion Letter of Acceptance to buy 85 new F-15SA Strike Eagle fighters, upgrade 70 existing F-15S Strike Eagles, purchase all of the accompanying weapons named in the fighters’ Oct 20/10 DSCA request, and pay for support work and 10 years of training. Much of the Saudi training in the F-15SA will occur alongside U.S. forces, and approximately 5,500 Saudi personnel are expected to be trained through 2019. They expect upgrades of the F-15S to the F-15SA configuration to start rolling out in 2014, and 1st delivery of new-build F-15SAs in early 2015.

The additional work is expected to keep Boeing’s F-15 line open until at least 2017 or so, along with 600 suppliers in 44 states. Big winners include Raytheon (radar, many weapons), and GE Aircraft Engines. While the State Department briefing would not answer the question of which engine the fighters would use, the DSCA request was clear: GE’s F110-GE-129 IPE. It will also create work in Saudi Arabia, as some of the F-15S upgrade work, and some structural sub-assembly fabrication, will be handled through the Alsalam Aircraft Company.

An Aviation Week report adds that Saudi Arabia had previously signed a Letter of Agreement for the 36 AH-64D Apache Longbow attack helicopters it requested on Oct 20/11. That would make 2 components worth over half of the $60 billion mega-deal under contract, plus a major upgrade of the kingdom’s PATRIOT missile system on the side, in the space of just over a year beyond the DSCA announcement. Boeing | US White House | US State Dept. Briefing | Aviation Week | BBC | Bloomberg | Defense News | St. Louis Today | Flight International DEW Line.

F-15SA LoA

Dec 20/11: LAVs. GDLS SVP for international operations, Dr. Sridhar Sridharan, announces that U.S. Army TACOM Life Cycle Management Command has awarded a $126 million contract modification for 73 more Light Armored Vehicles (LAVs) “for a Foreign Military Sale (FMS).” The release adds that: “With this latest contract modification, the original contract, announced on January 4, 2011, is now valued at USD$264 million for 155 LAVs.”

Vehicles provided under this contract will be the 300hp, 8×8 LAV II, with a base gross vehicle weight of up to 32,000 pounds/ 14,500 kg. The vehicles will be produced in 6 different variants, which matches all numbers and information from the June 13/11 DSCA request.

Since the LAVs are made in London, ON, Canada, the contract was signed through the Canadian Commercial Corporation, the Canadian government’s Crown Agency for military exports.

LAV contract

Nov 10/11: Aviation Week’s Robert Wall writes that some observers are beginning to doubt whether the huge 2010 arms request will become a deal in time. Boeing has already spent money to avoid an F-15 production gap, and that’s the portion of the deal with the greatest need for a signed contract.

It would not be the first time a Saudi DSCA request has failed to become a signed deal, but the size and scope creates its own financing issues, even as it raises expectations and scrutiny. Unfortunately, at this point, all he can say is that uncertainty exists, not why it exists, or how deep it is.

Sept 19/11: Artillery. The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency announces Saudi Arabia’s formal request for up to $886 million of equipment to augment the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s existing light artillery capabilities. The Royal Saudi Land Forces already have towed 155mm and 105mm howitzers and support vehicles and systems, but the 105mm M119A2 and lightweight 155mm M777A2 would be an upgrade over the Royal Saudi Land Forces’ existing M102 105mm guns. The Saudis are also looking to buy C3 systems, artillery locating radars, and Humvees as part of this buy.

Artillery request

Sept 7/11: AH-64s. Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control in Orlando, FL receives a $15.3 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, buying M-TADS/PVNS “Arrowhead” surveillance and targeting turrets for Saudi Arabia’s AH-64D helicopters. This could be an upgrade to existing helicopters, or part of the new aircraft order.

Work will be performed in Orlando, FL, with an estimated completion date of Nov 30/13. One bid was solicited, with one bid received, by U.S. Army Contracting Command at Redstone Arsenal, AL (W58RGZ-06-C-0169).

June 13/11: LAVs. The US DSCA announces [PDF] Saudi Arabia’s formal request to buy up to 73 LAV wheeled armored vehicles, plus additional equipment. The force within Saudi Arabia requesting them is not named, unlike other DSCA releases. Saudi Arabia’s National Guard also requested 82 LAVs on the same day, but this is separate request, implying a separate customer within Saudi Arabia. LAVs haven’t traditionally been part of the RSLF’s American-equipped divisions, but an Oct 4/07 DSCA request [PDF] for 126 LAVs and other vehicles confirmed that Saudi Arabia has been thinking along these lines:

“The Light Armored Vehicle is the primary combat vehicle of the Saudi Arabian National Guard (SANG). This proposed procurement by the Royal Saudi land forces will promote interoperability between the SANG and Ministry of Defense and Aviation.”

Absent any other matching DSCA requests since 2001, it’s possible that the release’s noted Jan 4/11 contract for 82 LAVs was a partial fulfillment of that 2007 request – but its exact match remains unclear. The 2011 DSCA request also repeats a justification from that notice:

“The proposed sale of Light Armored Vehicles will provide a highly mobile, light combat vehicle capability enabling Saudi Arabia to rapidly identify, engage, and defeat perimeter security threats and readily employ counter- and anti-terrorism measures. The vehicles will enhance the stability and security operations for boundaries and territorial areas encompassing the Arabian Peninsula.”

This sale is worth up to $263 million, but that will depend on the contract details, if one is negotiated after the 30-day blocking period expires in Congress. Requested items include:

  • 14 standard LAV wheeled armored personnel carriers
  • 23 LAV-25s, with 25mm cannon turrets
  • 20 LAV-ATs, whose pop-up turrets carry BGM-71 TOW missiles
  • 4 LAV-A Ambulances
  • 3 LAV-R Recovery Vehicles, which can tow or winch other vehicles out of trouble
  • 9 LAV-C2 Command and Control Vehicles

Vehicle accessories

  • Driver vision enhancers
  • Sight bore optical sets
  • Improved Thermal Sight Systems (ITSS) and Modified Improved TOW Acquisition Systems (MITAS), where applicable
  • Defense Advanced Global Positioning System Receivers
  • M257 Smoke Grenade Launchers
  • AN/USQ-159 Camouflage Net Sets

Other Accessories

  • 155 AN/PVS-7B night vision goggles
  • M2A2 Aiming Circles, compasses, plotting boards, reeling machines, telescopes
  • switchboards, spare and repair parts, support and test equipment, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical documentation, and U.S. Government and contractor support.

The prime contractors will be General Dynamics Land Systems in Sterling Heights, Michigan (LAVs) and Raytheon in Tucson, AZ (LAV-AT weapons etc.). Implementation of this proposed sale may require the assignment of approximately 5 additional U.S. Government and 10 contractor representatives through at least 2014. The requirement for support personnel in-country suggests that they’re going to a branch that does not already employ LAVs. Possibilities include the Royal Guard, or use by Army Military Police/ Air Force/ Navy forces in a rapid response security role.

LAV request

BLU-108
BLU-108 submunition

June 13/11: Bombs. The US DSCA announces [PDF] Saudi Arabia’s formal request to buy up to 404 GPS-guided CBU-105D/B WCMD Sensor Fuzed Weapons, 28 CBU-105 Integration test assets, containers, spare and repair parts, support and test equipment, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical documentation, and U.S. Government and contractor support. The prime contractor will be Textron Systems Corporation of Wilmington, MA, and the estimated cost is up to $355 million. Implementation of this proposed sale will require annual trips to Saudi Arabia involving up to 2 U.S. Government and 3 Textron representatives for technical reviews/support, and program management for a period of approximately 2 years.

WCMD is a GPS-guidance tail kit for cluster bombs, similar to JDAM, and bombs equipped with them take on new designations. The base CBU-97 Sensor Fuzed Weapon bomb body contains BLU-108 submunition cylinders, each of which carries explosive projectiles that look like cans of tuna. If their millimeter-wave sensor detects sizable objects below after release from the bomb body, a shaped charge fires, forming a metal slug that drives down through armor. If the projectiles don’t find a target, 3 safety modes will deactivate them. That’s why DSCA can say “After arming, the CBU-105D/B Sensor Fuzed Weapon will not result in more than one percent unexploded ordnance across the range of intended operational environments.” Other countries in the region already use WCMDs, including Oman. DSCA adds that:

“Saudi Arabia intends to use Sensor Fused Weapons to modernize its armed forces and enhance its capability to defeat a wide range of defensive threats, to include: strongpoints, bunkers, and dug-in facilities; armored and semi-armored vehicles; personnel; and certain maritime threats… The agreement applicable to the transfer or the CBU-105D/B and the CBU-105 integration test assets will contain an agreement of the Government of Saudi Arabia that the cluster munitions and cluster munitions technology will be used only against clearly defined military targets and will not be used where civilians are known to be present or in areas normally inhabited by civilians.”

The target list is interesting, since CBU-105s, unlike some of their WCMD cousins, are not primarily anti-personnel weapons – unless the target is riding in a truck or something. It could certainly be a deadly way of taking out a small truck convoy of AQAP types, and might be equally effective against some fast boat swarms. See also the Oct 20/10 DSCA request, for 1,300 CBU-105/Bs.

WCMD bomb request

March 18/11: Amidst an environment of widespread unrest in the Arab world, including the invited intervention of Saudi troops to quell protests in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah returns from 3 months of medical treatment, and announces nearly $100 billion in spending. Even with the ability to pump more oil, Saudi finances have limitations, and a program worth over 20% of 2010 GDP, or 56% of the state’s FY 2010 budget, can hardly help but impact military spending plans.

The initiative includes 60,000 more military and security jobs to beef up the Interior Ministry, a large number of promotions for soldiers and officers, boost in salaries for all public sector workers including the military; and an announcement of massive social benefits for the populace at large, including unemployment payments, better health care and improved housing services. The Saudi private sector is reportedly less than happy about its exclusion from pay raises… but then, if the government could offer them pay raises, would it really be the private sector? Arab News | Zawya. Political concept: “rentier state.”

March 14/11: Link-16. The new Link-16 capability for Saudi Arabia’s F-15 fleets is a significant development, but it comes with a corresponding need for training. Tactical Communications Group, LLC announces that it has deployed a Link-16 Ground Support System (GSS) at 4 Royal Saudi Air Force (RSAF) airbases, to provide a training and simulation environment for Live, Virtual, and Constructive training in the RSAF F-15 fleet’s growing Link-16 capabilities.

TCG, LLC installed the units and trained on-site RSAF Personnel to provide live operations and training, under a USAF NETCENTS held by General Dynamics Information Technology. The firm describes it as “the first of several Foreign Military Sales (FMS) awards for the U.S. Government’s data link Ground Support System (GSS) which teams General Dynamics Information Technology and TCG’s GSS.”

2010

Ship buys considered.

Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)
Austal’s LCS

(click to enlarge)

Oct 26/10: LCS. Lockheed Martin MS2 President Orlando Carvalho confirms that his company has supplied price and availability information on its version of the littoral combat ship (LCS) to Saudi Arabia, which is looking to buy 8 modern frigate-sized warships. Lockheed is proposing an LCS equipped with AN/SPY-1F radars, an AEGIS combat system, and set equipment instead of mission modules.

It remains understood the Saudi authorities are waiting to see which LCS version the U.S. Navy chooses, but the ship’s capabilities might be well suited to the Arabian/Persian Gulf’s shallow waters. At Euronaval 2010, a French official reportedly said that France is hoping to sell between 4-6 FREMM frigates for the Saudis’ western (Red Sea and Indian Ocean) fleet, while the LCS was seen as likely for the eastern (Gulf) fleet. Defense News | Shephard Group | Tactical Report.

Oct 20/10: DSCA Mega-Request. The potential Saudi deals are announced as 4 separate Foreign Military Sales cases, one for each military service branch looking to receive equipment. As usual, this is a step required under US law, not a set of contracts. If Congress does not vote to block these sales within 30 days, the Saudis can begin negotiations for some or all of the items below. As we’ve seen with past notifications, those negotiations can take a long time as the Saudis look to fit each item into their own budgetary planning and foreign policy diplomacy.

Each DSCA request is linked where it’s detailed. Other sources and reactions include: Bloomberg | LA Times | Washington Post | Voice of America || Saudi Arabia’s Arab News | Al-Jazeera | Jerusalem Post || Agence France Presse | Malaysia Star | Reuters | Straits Times | China’s Xinhua || Defense News.

USAF re: Saudi F-15SAs
(click to view full)

Oct 20/10: Air Force. The US DSCA announces [PDF] Saudi Arabia’s formal request for 84 new “F-15SA” fighters, upgrades for the RSAF’s 70 existing F-15S fighters to full F-15SA configuration, an array of advanced weapons to equip them, and long-term support that explicitly includes infrastructure and construction. The estimated cost is up to $29.432 billion.

Overall, the fighters appear to be very close to Singapore’s new F-15SGs, which are currently the most advanced Strike Eagles in the world. The DSCA does not detail the support personnel required, but it does spend time on the rationale for this sale, since this is the one that’s going to create any controversies in Congress:

“For the past twenty years the F-15 has been a cornerstone of the relationship between the U.S. Air Force (USAF) and the RSAF. The procurement of the F-15SA, the conversion of the F-15S fleet to a common configuration, and the CONUS (CONtinental US) training contingent will provide interoperability, sustained professional contacts, and common ground for training and support well into the 21st century.

The F-15SA will help deter potential aggressors by increasing Saudi’s tactical air force capability to defend KSA against regional threats. The CONUS-based contingent would improve interoperability between the USAF and the RSAF. This approach will meet Saudi’s self-defense requirements and continue to foster the long-term military-to-military relationship between the United States and the KSA. Saudi Arabia, which currently has the F-15 in its inventory, will have no difficulty absorbing the F-15SA aircraft into its armed forces.

The proposed sale of this service will not alter the basic military balance in the region.”

  • 84 F-15 SA Strike Eagle fighters
  • 193 F-110-GE-129 Improved Performance Engines. Saudi Arabia is shifting firmly toward the GE F110 for its future fleet, and away from Pratt & Whitney’s original F100. Each fighter requires 2 engines.
  • 170 AN/APG-63v3 Active Electronically Scanned Array Radar (AESA) radar sets, which would equip all F-15S fighters as well. Answers a big pre-deal question. The USA is developing an APG-82v1 derivative to retrofit its own F-15E Strike Eagles, but the APG-63v3 is the most advanced exported radar for F-15s.
  • 100 M61 Vulcan Cannons. The F-15’s 20mm gatling gun.
  • 300 AIM-9X Sidewinder short range, infrared air-to-air missiles. AIM-9X is the most advanced version, and Saudi Arabia already has them.
  • 25 Captive Air Training Missiles (CATM-9X). Seeker, no warhead or motor – used for training.
  • 25 Special Air Training Missiles (NATM-9X). Fully live, but telemetry instead of a warhead.
  • 500 AIM-120C/7 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM). The C7 is the most advanced exportable version, and Saudi Arabia already has them.
  • 25 AIM-120 CATMs. Seeker, no warhead or motor – used for training.
  • 1,000 of Lockheed Martin’s 500 pound Dual Mode Laser/Global Positioning System (GPS) Guided Munitions (DMLGB).
  • 1,000 of Lockheed Martin’s 2,000 pound DMLGBs
  • 1,100 GBU-24 Paveway-III 2,000 pound Laser Guided Bombs, with penetrator warheads for use against hardened targets.
  • 1,000 GBU-31Bv3 2,000 pound Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) GPS/INS guided bombs.
  • 1,300 CBU-105D/B Sensor Fuzed Weapons (SFW)/Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser (WCMD). These are GPS-guided cluster bombs that can destroy both troops and tanks. DID has a better name for them.
  • 50 inert training CBU-105s
  • 1,000 MK-82 500 pound General Purpose Bombs. These can be converted by using precision kits like Paveway, DMLGB, and JDAM.
  • 6,000 MK-82 500 pound Inert Training Bombs
  • 2,000 MK-84 2,000 pound General Purpose Bombs. These can be converted by using precision kits like Paveway, DMLGB, and JDAM.
  • 2,000 MK-84 2,000 pound Inert Training Bombs
  • 200,000 20mm Cartridges
  • 400,000 20mm Target Practice Cartridges
  • 400 AGM-84 Block II Harpoon missiles. The Block II has a GPS guidance mode, and can attack land targets as well as ships.
  • 600 AGM-88B HARM missiles. Used to destroy enemy radar sites.
  • 100 Link-16 MIDS/LVTs and spares. Link 16 offers all participating aircraft and ground platforms to share what they see and where they are, creating a common view of who’s where.
  • 169 AN/AAS-42 Infrared Search and Track (IRST) Systems. IRST allows pilots to look for enemy aircraft using their infrared signatures, but because it’s passive, the target can’t detect the scan the way it can detect radar emissions.
  • 158 AN/AAQ-33 Sniper advanced surveillance and targeting pods.
  • 193 LANTIRN Navigation Pods (3rd Generation-Tiger Eye). Largely succeeded by the Sniper ATP, but Saudi F-15S aircraft use the twin-pod LANTIRN, and the navigation pod’s features are not copied in the Sniper.
  • 10 of Goodrich’s DB-110 Reconnaissance Pods.
  • 40 of L-3’s Remotely Operated Video Enhanced Receivers (ROVER). Allows equipped fighters to share more information with ground forces, and get targeting information from them.
  • 80 Air Combat Maneuvering Instrumentation Pods. Used for combat training; transmits the position, velocity, etc. of the attached fighter to the central coordinators.
  • The DSCA specified both 338 Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems (JHMCS) and 462 JHMCS Helmets. JHMCS is a helmet-mounted sight that performs the same functions as a Head-Up Display for key information, weapons targeting, etc., but moves with the pilot’s head.
  • 462 of ITT’s AN/AVS-9 Night Vision Goggles (NVGS).
  • 169 Digital Electronic Warfare Systems (DEWS) for self-defense.
Saudi F-15 Parked
Saudi F-15

Under the contract, Saudi Arabia will take a step beyond existing modernizations of its F-15S fleet, and upgrade all 70 F-15S Strike Eagles to the F-15SA configuration.

The existing F-15 A-D Eagle fleet of air superiority fighters will remain unaffected. In addition, Saudi Arabia may order:

  • Provision for US-based fighter training operations for a contingent of 12 F-15SA fighters, leaving 72 in Saudi Arabia.
  • Construction, refurbishments, and infrastructure improvements of several support facilities for the F-15SA in-Kingdom and/or CONUS(CONtinental US) operations.
  • RR-188 Chaff
  • MJU-7/10 Flares
  • Training munitions
  • Cartridge Actuated Devices/Propellant Actuated Devices
  • Plus communication security, site surveys, trainers, simulators, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, and other forms of U.S. government and contractor support.

The prime contractors aren’t mentioned, but:

  • Boeing (F-15, JHMCS, Harpoon, JDAM)
  • GE (F110 engines)
  • Lockheed Martin (DMLGB, LANTIRN, Sniper, IRST)
  • Raytheon (AN/APG-63v3 radar, AIM-9X, AMRAAM, Paveway III, HARM)
  • General Dynamics OTP (Basic bombs, Cannons, Ammunition)

Would form a partial list.

F-15S/SA request

AH-64 Apache With Arrowhead
AH-64 Apache
with Arrowhead sensor
(click to view full)

Oct 20/10: The Saudi Royal Guard – see DSCA announcement [PDF]. The Royal Guard is pretty much what it sounds like: a force made up of troops whose tribes and members are considered most loyal to the King. They’re about to get AH-64 Block III Apaches, if this US DSCA announcement of the Saudis’ formal request leads to a contract. That contract could be worth up to $2.223 billion, when all services and support are included.

If a contract is signed, the Royal Guard may need up to 35 U.S. Government and 150 contractor representatives in Saudi Arabia, beyond the existing 250 U.S. Government personnel and 630 contractor representatives in Saudi Arabia supporting the modernization program. Also, this program will require multiple trips to Saudi Arabia involving U.S. government and contractor personnel to participate in annual, technical reviews, training, and one-week Program Reviews in Saudi Arabia.

This would be a high priority contract, within the constellation of Saudi Requests. The Royal Guard would receive:

Night Vision Sensors. M-TADS/PVNS, also known as the AH-64D’s “Arrowhead” turret.
  • 14 30mm Automatic Weapons. The Apaches use ATK’s M230 chain gun
  • 7 AN/APG-78 Fire Control Radars with Radar Electronics Unit. The Apache Longbow’s mast mounted radar.
  • 7 AN/APR-48A Radar Frequency Interferometer
  • 640 AGM-114R Hellfire II Missiles. The -114R is the most modern version, with a triple-threat blast, armor defeating, and fragmentation warhead.
  • 2,000 2.75″/ 70mm Laser Guided Rockets. It will be interesting to see which rockets they buy – they might be the big kickoff sale for Lockheed Martin’s DAGR, but the Raytheon/UAE LOGIR is also available, as is BAE/GD’s APKWS-II.
  • 13 of Northrop Grumman’s AN/APR-39 Radar Signal Detecting Sets
  • 13 of Goodrich’s AN/AVR-2B Laser Warning Sets
  • 13 of BAE’s AAR-57v3/5 Common Missile Warning Systems
  • 26 Improved Countermeasures Dispensers
  • 26 Improved Helmet Display Sight Systems. IHDSS is the Apaches helmet-mounted sight.
  • 14 AN/AVS-9 Night Vision Goggles
  • 307 Combat Survivor Evader Locators (CSEL). Radios used by pilots, especially if they’re shot down.
  • 6 Aircraft Ground Power Units.
  • 1 BS-1 Enhanced Terminal Voice Switch
  • 1 Fixed-Base Precision Approach Radar
  • 1 Digital Airport Surveillance Radar
  • 1 DoD Advanced Automation Service
  • 1 Digital Voice Recording System
  • Also included are trainers, simulators, generators, training munitions, design and construction, transportation, tools and test equipment, ground and air based SATCOM and line of sight communication equipment, Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) systems, GPS/INS, spare and repair parts, support equipment, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical documentation, and U.S. Government and contractor support services. The Saudis usually require a lot of support from contractors, in part because it’s an opportunity for royal family members to take a cut.

The prime contractors will be:

  • Boeing in Mesa, AZ (AH-64D, CSEL)
  • Lockheed Martin Corporation in Orlando, FL (Arrowhead, Hellfire IIs, launchers)
  • Lockheed Martin Millimeter Technology in Owego, NY (Longbow system)
  • Longbow LLC in Orlando, FL. A Lockheed/Northrop-Grumman joint venture (Longbow system)
  • General Electric Company in Cincinnati, OH (engines)

A number of other items above will be provided by sub-contractors.

Saudi Royal Guard

DAGR Mounted w Hellfires Concept
DAGRs & Hellfires
(click to view full)

Oct 20/10: Army Apaches. The US DSCA announces [PDF] Saudi Arabia’s formal request to grow its 12-helicopter AH-64 Apache attack helicopter fleet, adding 24 of the most modern AH-64D Block III variant, plus extensive support that may include construction activities, for a total cost of up to $3.33 billion.

The Royal Saudi Land Forces (RSLF) “will use the AH-64D for its national security and to protect its borders and vital installations. This sale also will increase the RSLF’s APACHE sustainability and interoperability with the U.S. Army, the Gulf Cooperation Council countries, and other coalition forces. Saudi Arabia will have no difficulty absorbing these helicopters into its armed forces.”

Perhaps that’s because implementation of this proposed sale may another 35 U.S. Government and 130 contractor representatives in Saudi Arabia, beyond the existing contingent of 250 U.S. Government personnel and 630 contractor representatives supporting the Saudis’ modernization program. Also, this program will require multiple trips involving U.S. government and contractor personnel to participate in annual, technical reviews, training, and one-week Program Reviews in Saudi Arabia.

The RSLF would buy:

Night Vision Sensors. M-TADS/PVNS, also known as the AH-64D’s “Arrowhead” turret.

Also included are trainers, simulators, generators, training munitions, design and construction, transportation, tools and test equipment, ground and air based SATCOM and line of sight communication equipment, Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) systems, GPS/INS, spare and repair parts, support equipment, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical documentation, and U.S. Government and contractor support services. The Saudis usually require a lot of support from contractors, in part because it’s an opportunity for royal family members to take a cut.

The prime contractors will be:

  • Boeing in Mesa, AZ (AH-64D, CSEL)
  • General Electric Company in Cincinnati, OH (engines)
  • Lockheed Martin Corporation in Orlando, FL (Arrowhead, Hellfire IIs, launchers)
  • Lockheed Martin Millimeter Technology in Owego, NY (Longbow system)
  • Longbow LLC in Orlando, FL. A Lockheed/Northrop-Grumman joint venture (Longbow system)

A number of other items above will be provided by sub-contractors.

RSLF AH-64D attack helicopters

AH-6 ARH
Boeing’s AH-6 ARH
(click to view full)

Oct 20/10: Saudi National Guard. The US DSCA announces [PDF] Saudi Arabia’s formal request to buy helicopters, long-term support, and possibly even base construction, worth up to $25.6 billion.

Implementation of this proposed sale will require approximately 900 contractor representatives and 30 U.S. Government personnel on a full time basis in Saudi Arabia, for a period of 15 years. Also, this program will require multiple trips to Saudi Arabia involving U.S. government and contractor personnel to participate in annual technical reviews, training, and one-week Program Reviews in Saudi Arabia.

Items requested include:

  • 36 Boeing AH-64D Apache Longbow Block III attack helicopters. This is the latest version, and Saudi Arabia could become its first confirmed export customer.
  • 72 Sikorsky UH-60M Black Hawk Helicopters. The most current variant. Saudi neighbors Bahrain and the UAE have already ordered them.
  • 36 Boeing AH-6i Light Attack Helicopters. A different branch of the same family tree that gave birth to the MD 530F. Nearby Jordan signed a Letter of Intent for the AH-6i in May 2010.
  • 12 MD Helicopters MD-530F helicopters. Often used by law enforcement as an excellent light utility helicopter, though some countries operate militarized light attack variants. The 530F variant has longer rotor blades and other enhancements, so it performs better in the thinner air of hot or high altitude conditions. It doesn’t use MD’s patented NOTAR system.
  • 243 T700-GE-701D turboshaft engines. The UH-60M and the AH-64D both use 2 engines for each helicopter.
  • 40 Modernized Targeting Acquisition and Designation Systems/Pilot
Night Vision Sensors. M-TADS/PVNS, also known as the AH-64D’s “Arrowhead” turret.

  • 20 AN/APG-78 Fire Control Radars with Radar Electronics Unit. The Apache Longbow’s mast mounted radar.
  • 20 AN/APR-48A Radar Frequency Interferometer
  • 40 Wescam MX-15Di (AN/AAQ-35) Sight/Targeting Sensors. Likely for the AH-6is.
  • 52 30mm Automatic Weapons. AH-64D Apaches use ATK’s M230 chain gun.
  • 40 GAU-19/A 12.7mm (.50 caliber) Gatling Guns. Can be used as door guns, or pylon-mounted on helicopters. Popular light helicopter weapon.
  • 168 M240H Machine Guns. FN Herstal USA’s 7.62mm helicopter door guns, not used on Apaches.
  • 421 M310 A1 Modernized Launchers. For Hellfire missiles.
  • 158 M299 Hellfire Longbow Missile Launchers
  • 2,592 AGM-114R Hellfire Missiles. The -114R is the most modern version, with a triple-threat blast, armor defeating, and fragmentation warhead.
  • 171 of Northrop Grumman’s AN/APR-39 Radar Signal Detecting Sets
  • 171 of Goodrich’s AN/AVR-2B Laser Warning Sets
  • 171 of BAE’s AAR-57v3/5 Common Missile Warning Systems
  • 318 Improved Countermeasures Dispensers
  • 108 of EFW’s Improved Helmet Display Sight Systems. IHADSS is used by the Apache. The number involved indicates that they may have been picked for the AH-6is as well.
  • 300 AN/AVS-9 Night Vision Goggles.
  • 1,229 AN/PRQ-7 Combat Survivor Evader Locators (CSEL). Radios used by pilots, especially if they’re shot down.
  • 18 Aircraft Ground Power Units.
  • 4 BS-1 Enhanced Terminal Voice Switches
  • 4 Digital Airport Surveillance Radars
  • 4 Fixed-Base Precision Approach Radar
  • 4 DoD Advanced Automation Service
  • 4 Digital Voice Recording System
  • Also included are trainers, simulators, generators, munitions, design and construction, transportation, wheeled vehicles and organization equipment, tools and test equipment, communication equipment, Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) systems, GPS/INS, spare and repair parts, support equipment, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical documentation, and U.S. Government and contractor support services. The Saudis usually require a lot of support from contractors, in part because it’s an opportunity for royal family members to take a cut.
UH-60M Blackhawk Test
UH-60M Test flight
(click to see full)

The DSCA specifies the Saudi Arabian National Guard (SANG) as the AH-64D recipient, but is less clear about the other helicopters. The implicit message is that they’re part of the same FMS case to the same military entity, and the SANG could certainly make good use of the UH-60Ms, AH-6is, and MD 530Fs for “the defense of vital installations and will provide close air support for the Saudi military ground forces.” The DSCA adds that this sale will improve the SANG’s “Apache sustainability and interoperability with the U.S. Army, the Gulf Cooperation Council countries, and other coalition forces.” Saudi Arabia already operates some AH-64s and UH-60s, and the DSCA believes they will have no difficulty absorbing all of these helicopters into their armed forces. Given the level of contractor support included, that’s no surprise.

The prime contractors will be:

  • Boeing in Mesa, AZ (AH-64D, AH-6i, CSEL)
  • Lockheed Martin Corporation in Orlando, FL (Arrowhead, Hellfire IIs, launchers)
  • Lockheed Martin Millimeter Technology in Owego, NY (Longbow system)
  • Longbow LLC in Orlando, FL. A Lockheed/Northrop-Grumman joint venture (Longbow system)
  • Sikorsky Aircraft West in Palm Beach, FL (UH-60M)
  • MD Helicopters in Mesa AZ (MD 530F)
  • General Electric Company in Cincinnati, OH (engines)
  • ITT Aerospace/Communications in Fort Wayne, IN (night vision)

A number of other items above will be provided by sub-contractors.

Saudi National Guard request

 

Sept 14/10: LCS for Saudi Navy? Saudi Arabia may be interested in the Littoral Combat Ship as part of its rumored $60 billion weapons package. Saudi Arabia has focused on the General Dynamics/ Austal trimaran design before, but a Washington Post report says that:

“The official said the Saudis continue to have internal discussions about those purchases and are watching to see the outcome of a competition to build a new Littoral Combat Ship.”

Aug 14/10: The Wall Street Journal reports that adding UH-60 Black Hawk and AH-64 Apache helicopters, plus other equipment, to Saudi Arabia’s arms shopping list could push the eventual deal set as high as $60 billion. WSJ [subscription] | Bloomberg | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette | Israel’s Arutz Sheva | Jerusalem Post.

Aug 8/10: The Wall Street Journal reports that the US and Saudi Arabia are pursuing a $30 billion weapons deal, which could include up to 84 F-15 Strike Eagles. An order that size would keep the production line open for about 4 more years:

“After a round of talks in Washington late last month between Mr. Barak and top U.S. officials, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Israeli officials said they felt more comfortable about how the F-15s would be equipped. The U.S. argued to Mr. Barak that the proposed sale would strengthen moderates in the Gulf, ultimately bolstering Israel’s security. U.S. officials say the F-15s in the package will be “very capable” aircraft, comparable to the F-15s flown by South Korea and Singapore, which are among Asia’s most advanced militaries, said a senior U.S. defense official.”

See: WSJ [subscription] | Agence France Presse | Newsweek | St Louis Today.

Appendix A: Rumors, Questions & Competitors (2010)

Before the sales were finalized, a number of questions and political crosscurrents swirled around Saudi Arabia’s rumored and potential choices, as well as its alternatives if the USA balked.

Wings of Eagles – Which F-15s?

F-15SG
F-15SG, armed
(click to view full)

Before October 2010, Saudi Arabia’s F-15 sale was the least clear aspect of the proposed deal. It was fairly clear that the Kingdom wanted F-15s. The question was what configuration of F-15, with what equipment, to replace which platforms.

The Panavia consortium’s swing-wing Tornado was designed for low level strike missions during the Cold War, and the Saudi fleet continues to receive upgrades. Their lifespan is finite, however, and replacements are reportedly being considered as a way of enhancing Saudi Arabia’s perceived and actual capabilities. Iran looms as a threat, and Saudi military operations near the Yemeni border have apparently led to requests for more advanced aircraft with better precision attack capabilities, to be delivered sooner rather than later.

Saudi Arabia currently operates about 87-96 strike-optimized Tornado IDS, and Scramble places them within 7, 66, 75 & 83 Squadrons, based at Dhahran on the east coast. A 2006 upgrade contract was intended to keep them in service to about 2020. The Tornado is notorious for its heavy maintenance requirements. On the other hand, that is not necessarily a disadvantage in a society where foreign subcontractors perform that work, and the contracts themselves are seen as lucrative opportunities for the Saudi elite.

The Kingdom also operates 153 F-15s: about 82 F-15 C/D air superiority fighters that may also be targeted for replacement, and 70 (of an original 72) newer F-15S Strike Eagles bought in 1999. The Saudi F-15S is an F-15E Strike Eagle variant with downgraded avionics, and a simplified Hughes APG-70 radar without computerized radar mapping refinements. Subsequent upgrades are adding higher-thrust GE F110 engines, Link-16 compatible datalinks, and Lockheed Martin’s Sniper Advanced Targeting Pods with excellent long-range surveillance capabilities, laser rangefinding and designation, and targeting geolocation capabilities.

F-15SE
F-15SE unveiled
(click to view full)

The F-15 Strike Eagle is a stable weapons system that provides excellent versatility in both air superiority and ground attack roles, with very good range for a fighter if conformal tanks are used. All Strike Eagles are not created equal, however, which makes quotes like F-15s that are “comparable to the F-15s flown by South Korea and Singapore” very ambiguous. There were at least 3 possible options:

F-15SG equivalent. Singapore currently flies the world’s most advanced operational F-15s, with GE F110 engines, integrated Infrared Search and Track capabilities, and an APG-63v3 AESA radar whose capabilities far outstrip the mechanically-scanned APG-70. Detailed mapping down to surveillance of man-sized targets, simultaneous air-air and air-ground modes, better range, and maintenance free operation would all offer significant advances over anything the Saudis or even the Israelis currently field. American F-15Es are being retrofitted with an advanced variant of this radar, the AN/APG-82v1. The resulting aircraft would be markedly better than the F-15S or Israel’s F-15I, but a step below the F-35As that Israel has approved for delivery in 2015-2017.

This is the path suggested by the F-15SA’s listed equipment, with the reported inclusion of BAE’s integrated DEWS (Digital Electronic Warfare System). Like the Singaporean fighters, F-15SAs will carry advanced Sniper ground surveillance and targeting pods, alongside Tiger Eyes IRST thermal imaging systems that offer long-range passive air-to-air targeting. A set of Goodrich’s popular DB-110 reconnaissance pods will round out the fighter fleet’s core capabilities. For F-15SAs derived from upgraded F-15S fighters, their internal electronics and mission computers may need another upgrade, and some structural life extension work may also be part of the program. Those details aren’t yet clear.

F-15SE Silent Eagle (No). Boeing is financing initial development of this stealth-enhanced Strike Eagle with internal weapon carriage options and fully digital fly-by wire, and was known to be looking for a launch customer and partner. A sale to Saudi Arabia would hardly be the first time that an advanced Western fighter reached production status thanks to a middle eastern order, though the USA’s experience with Iran and the F-14 offers a cautionary note. Boeing’s future F-15 program manager Brad Jones has previously commented that it’s not a question of how much stealth can be added to an airframe like the F-15 or F/A-18, but how much would be permitted for export to a given country.

The USA’s sensitivity concerning stealth technology, quiet concerns about Saudi Arabia’s long-term stability, and Israeli unease about an enemy with stealth capabilities, made this a tough and unlikely sale. The Saudis didn’t want, or didn’t get, this option.

F-15S+ equivalent (No). This option would essentially field new-build counterparts to Saudi Arabia’s upgraded F-15S fleet, with Link-16 capability, Sniper targeting pods, and F110 engines. The key difference would be the radar. The APG-70 is out of production, but there are reports that USA would like to offer the AN/APG-63v1, chosen by South Korea for its F-15Ks. The APG-63v1 has a fully digital back end, but uses a mechanically-scanned array like the APG-70’s up front. Its performance would be an improvement on the APG-70, while its back end reportedly gives operators the option of adding an AESA front end at a later date.

This might have offered a graceful way to finesse the issue of AESA capability with the Saudis – if the Saudis were inclined to accept it. They weren’t. In the end, they got their way.

The other controversy concerned weapons.

U.S. officials have said that said weapons systems deemed “not conducive to regional stability,” or likely to create serious issues with Israel or with Congress, are being excluded. That includes long-range, precision-guided “standoff systems” like cruise missiles. America has reportedly refused to provide the most advanced long-range strike missiles for the Saudis’ new F-15s, which would eliminate options like Lockheed Martin’s stealthy AGM-158 JASSM, or Boeing’s AGM-84K SLAM-ER anti-ship and land attack missile that will serve with South Korea’s F-15Ks.

The Saudis still got their share of precision weapons. Their request proceeded with GPS-guided JDAM bombs, and even dual laser/GPS guidance DMLGBs. Unlike existing RSAF Paveway laser-guided bombs, they are not affected by conditions like sandstorms, adding important short-range precision-strike against targets the F-15s can overfly. CBU-105 cluster bombs add another GPS-guided weapon that can decimate armored vehicles, and AGM-88 HARM missiles will make life very difficult for enemy radars. The Saudis even got AGM-84 Harpoon Block II missiles, with dual GPS and radar guidance and the ability to attack land or maritime targets over 100 miles away.

The Harpoon isn’t a stealthy weapon like Lockheed’s JASSM or MBDA’s Storm Shadow cruise missiles, and offers less range. The Saudis can live with that, since the RSAF’s Tornado fleet is receiving stealthy, long-range MBDA Storm Shadow missiles from Europe, and its advanced Eurofighters will eventually be Storm Shadow qualified as well. The Harpoon gives their F-15SA’s an acceptable medium range land strike capability, whose effectiveness against maritime targets fills an existing gap.

What’s the Buzz – Helicopters

AH-64D versions
AH-64D Blocks
(click to view full)

The helicopter buy is interesting, because 2006 and 2007-2009 reports had the Saudis modernizing their force with 130-150 French Eurocopter or Russian Mi-family helicopters, respectively. The French deal has been in limbo for a very long time, and the Russian deal has never been confirmed.

Initial reports concerning the prospective American deal revolved around 2 types: the UH-60/S-70 Black Hawk, and the AH-64 Apache attack helicopter. Both types are already in Saudi service.

Bell Helicopter’s 212 and 412 twin-Hueys, and single-engine 205 Hueys, currently form the biggest fraction of Saudi Arabia’s helicopter fleet. The RSAF also fields about 30 UH-60/S-70 Black Hawk helicopters, and seems interested in adding more. On the attack front, the Saudis field 12 AH-64A Apache helicopters, and a 2008 DSCA request involved another 12 AH-64D Apache Longbow Block IIs, but there has been no subsequent contract announcement.

Early reports correctly placed the potential UH-60 buy at around 72 machines, which would instantly make the Black Hawk the backbone of the Saudi helicopter fleet. Those reports did not specify which type, but earlier reports concerning a Eurocopter deal involved naval helicopters, which could result in a mixed UH-60/MH-60 deal.

The 1st question involves what type of Black Hawk the Saudis will want, for use on land. Gulf Cooperation Council neighbors Bahrain and the UAE have both ordered the latest UH-60M Black Hawks. Keeping up with the neighbors is an important tradition in the region, and the volume buying terms in the USA’s multi-year contracts are likely to make UH-60Ms the Saudis’ most attractive land option.

In the end, the official request specified UH-60Ms. What other possibilities were there?

AMCM MH-60
MH-60S AMCM
(click to view full)

The MH-60S Seahawk naval utility helicopters, which has already been exported to Thailand, is the most likely naval helicopter buy. The MH-60S is already designated for search and rescue roles in the US Navy. Armed with Hellfire missiles and/or light gatling guns, they could decimate the fast patrol boats that Iran prefers, or provide capable patrols to help enforce actions like the quiet Saudi naval blockade around Yemen. If fitted with the AMCM system set, they become a potent force against the mines that Iran has used in the past to disrupt Gulf shipping. Those 4 roles (utility/ SAR/ scout-attack/ MIW) cover most of the Saudis’ naval needs, but if they are determined to counter Iranian submarines as well, a purchase of MH-60R anti-submarine helicopters was also possible. Fortunately for the Saudis, the USA’s umbrella MYP-VII helicopter contract also covers production of the MH-60R/S.

The 3rd question revolves around whether the Saudis wish to arm their UH-60s as additional battlefield support, using the “Battlehawk” kits under development by Sikorsky. The UAE had been expected to serve as the lead customer for the UH-60M Battlehawk Level 2/3 kits, which add precision-guided missiles and a 20mm cannon to the standard utility model, but a Saudi order could easily place them in that role instead. The DSCA requests leave that topic unclear.

They may not need the option, anyway.

The Wall Street Journal gave a figure of 60 AH-64D Apache Longbow helicopters in its more recent reports, which would grow the Saudi fleet to 72. In the end, the actual figure turned out to be 70 total, spread across the Royal Guard, Army, and National Guard. Most orders these days are for AH-64D Apache Block IIs or Block II upgrades, but it was always possible that the Saudi order would focus on the more advanced AH-64D Block III, becoming the type’s first export sale. It did, and they might.

Upgrades of the existing 12 Apaches to the same configuration would be an expected complementary sale, but is not mentioned.

AH-6i
AH-6i, 1st flight
(click to view full)

The other attack enhancement for Saudi forces came in the form of additional light helicopters.

Boeing has developed the AH-6i light attack and scout helicopter, as a thoroughly updated form of the AH-6J Little Bird used so successfully to support trapped US Special Operations forces in Mogadishu, Somalia. The Saudis may buy up to 36 of them, giving them a potent armed scout and urban warfare option. Of course, you’d have to fly them the way the “Night Stalkers” do, which is a pretty tall order.

The other unheralded addition was 12 of MD Helicopters MD-530F helicopters. MD has descended in a long and convoluted line from the same Hughes OH-6 Cayuse/ “Loach” helicopters that led to the AH-6i. Corporate shifts and sales have left MD Helicopters in a weakened market position, and attempts in the past few years to re-enter the military market hadn’t gone so well for them. The MD-530 is often used by law enforcement as an excellent light utility helicopter, though some countries like South Korea still operate militarized light attack relatives as a holdover from previous era military sales, and Boeing used it the MD-530F as the basis for its Unmanned Little Bird demonstrator. A successful sale to Saudi Arabia could offer MD Helicopters a useful market opening, and burnish its military and parapublic credentials.

Foreign Affairs: Considerations and Competitors

Tiger HAD testing
Spanish Tiger HAD
(click to view full)

The Saudis have long-standing relationships with America and its defense firms. That relationship frayed in the wake of 9/11, as 15 of the 19 attackers were Saudis, and the kingdom’s global financial support for Wahabbi preachers of jihad became a sore point. Iran’s nuclear weapons program, and its proxy wars to gain armed influence in the region, have helped paper over those wounds by putting the Saudis back on the front lines against a common foe. Saudi Arabia’s own internal struggles with al-Qaeda have also represented a form of progress for its American relationships.

In a world where people often buy arms from you because they want you to be their friend, and a region where shiny new equipment is often meant as a message to neighbors, these political winds bode well for American arms sales to the desert kingdom.

The Americans aren’t the Saudis’ only options, however. Nor is support for Saudi Arabia America’s only regional consideration. Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell responded to the Wall Street journal by saying that “Israel is not the only one with security concerns in the region, and we have responsibilities to other allies as well.” Which is a lot more diplomatic than: “Well, their Gulf neighbors are also a bit uneasy, and frankly, we wonder who’s going to be in charge there 10 years from now.”

Saudi choices are most clearly represented in its helicopter buys. If it chose not to buy 72 UH-60/MH-60s transports, 60 AH-64D attack helicopters, 36 AH-6i light scouts, and 12 MD-530F light utility helicopters (180 total), it could just as easily buy 120 Mi-17s with cargo and weapon capabilities, and 30 Mi-35 attack helicopters from Russia (150 total). Or turn to France for 54 NH90 TTH troop transports, 10 NH90 NFH naval helicopters, 32 AS 550 Fennec light scouts, 20 AS 532-A2 Cougar CSAR helicopters, 4 AS 565 Panther naval CSAR helicopters, and 12 Tiger attack helicopters (132 total).

Relations with France are somewhat cool at the moment, and Russia’s enabling role in Iran’s nuclear program may be an obstacle to improved Saudi relations, but it’s certain that either country would be delighted to sell the Saudis whatever they ask for. A Russian relationship would also offer the Saudis interesting political diversification, giving Saudi Arabia both a new lever with the Russians, and assured access to an friendly country who sells weapons with no strings attached.

Rafale F3
Rafale F3 w. AASMs
(click to view full)

Likewise, a crashed deal for more American F-15s could have lead the Saudis to turn to the French for the Rafale, a versatile fighter with less range than the F-15, but more advanced features and weapons. An AESA radar is currently under development for the jet. In a similar situation, the neighboring UAE chose French diversification to co-develop the Mirage 2000v9 variant for service alongside its American F-16s. Since the Americans would not sell them long range strike weapons for their F-16s, they armed the Mirages with long range, stealthy “Black Shaheen” derivatives of MBDA’s Storm Shadow cruise missile, which has already been approved for Saudi Arabia’s Tornado IDS fleet. France’s GPS-guided, rocket-propelled AASM glide bombs would also be available to customers buying French aircraft.

Adding French Rafale fighter jets would force the Saudis to support a whole new set of equipment, and to buy a different set of aircraft weapons all the way down to fighter cannon ammunition. Since most support costs are outsourced by the Saudis no matter what they buy, and dealing with many kinds of equipment for similar roles has never been a consideration with the Saudis before, those issues aren’t likely to present significant obstacles. On the flip side, the Rafale currently has issues with precision attack missions, owing to delayed integration of its Damocles targeting pod. In the end this gap, and the lack of an AESA radar, might have made the Saudis more eager to do an F-15 deal for military as well as political reasons.

RSAF Eurofighter
RSAF Eurofighter
(click to view full)

A less drastic option could simply have involved a doubling of the RSAF’s Eurofighter Typhoon order, something that was reportedly discussed. The Wall Street Journal add reports from Saudi officials that a desire to avoid dependence on American permissions was partially behind the 2007 BAE deal for 72 Eurofighters, which have become the kingdom’s top-end air superiority fighters. Long-range MBDA Meteor air-air missiles, and an AESA radar, are both slated as future upgrades for global Eurofighter customers.

Typhoons slated for more of a strike role would still use the existing set of IRIS-T and AMRAAM air-air weapons common to the existing Typhoon and/or F-15 fleets, while options like the Taurus KEPD 350 long range cruise missile, Storm Shadow cruise missile, Brimstone anti-armor missile, and possibly even Raytheon UK’s dual-guidance laser/GPS Paveway IV bombs would all be available to replace equipment types the USA does not have, or might decline to sell. Lockheed Martin’s Sniper ATP surveillance and targeting pod would require an integration program, however, as the Saudis cannot use the RAFAEL/Northrop Grumman LITENING pod currently qualified on the type. On the support side, the Saudis already have a complete set of support agreements with BAE, who is building a maintenance & training facility in Saudi Arabia.

A more esoteric option could have involved taking a cue from Algeria and Malaysia, by buying Russian SU-30MKA/M variants. These fighters compare very favorably to American F-15s, with better aeronautical performance, similar versatility, and similarly impressive range. They even come with French avionics and targeting pods. That option was far less likely for the Saudis, however, because the Russians are known for offering poor support capabilities, and Saudi Arabia needs partners with the structures and experience to handle most of their support needs.

Additional Readings & Sources

Readers with corrections or information to contribute are encouraged to contact editor Joe Katzman. We understand the industry – you will only be publicly recognized if you tell us that it’s OK to do so.

Key Equipment: Platforms

Key Equipment: Weapons & Ancillaries

News & Views

India’s Rustom MALE UAV: A Step Forward – Or Back?

$
0
0
ATK PGM
Rustom-H mockup
(click to view full)

India has not been left out of the global UAV push. The country operates Israeli Searcher tactical UAVs, and Heron Medium Altitude, Long Endurance (MALE) UAVs, placing an additional Heron order in 2005. It has also undertaken development programs for a smaller UAV, the “Nishant”. With its “Rustom” program, however, India hopes to offer a UAV in the Heron/ Predator/ Watchkeeper class of MALE UAVs.

It had also hoped to begin to change a culture and tradition of wholly state-owned development of military hardware, which has not always performed well, or served India’s needs. A recent award has selected a winner, and moved the project forward. It may also serve as a reminder that bureaucracies are very difficult to change.

The Rustom family of UAVs

Rustom-1
Rustom-1 scale model
(click to view full)

“Rustom” translates as “warrior,” and may remind some readers of the great hero in Persia’s classic The Shah-nameh. Reports indicate that India’s UAV is named after a more contemporary personality, however: Rustom Damania, a former professor of IISc, Bangalore, who led the National Aeronautical Laboratories’ light canard research aircraft (LCRA) project in the 1980s.

The LCRA is reportedly the initial basis for the DRDO ADE’s 1,100-1,800 kg UAV design, which aims for a maximum altitude of 35,000 feet and a range of 300 km/ 240 miles, with endurance around 24 hours. This will be the Rustom-C/H, with the “C” variant expected to carry weapons as well as surveillance gear.

A lighter “Rustom-1” looks more like Burt Rutan’s Long-EZ design, with canards up front, winglets on a squared delta wing, and a pusher propeller in back. It will act as a test platform, and could fill a tactical UAV slot, with endurance of only 12-14 hours, maximum altitude of 22,000 feet, and a range of around 250 km.

Procurement & the Private Sector: India’s Struggles

Indian flag

In some ways, Rustom’s naming is also a fine encapsulation of India’s defense industry struggles. Given the sensitive nature of defence projects, private firms have generally been limited to step-and-fetch roles as component suppliers or sub-contractors on projects designed and managed by state-owned agencies or firms such as DRDO, NAL, HAL, BEL, et. al. Many of those projects have fared poorly, leaving India with gaps in critical defense capabilities that then had to be filled by buying foreign equipment as a “temporary” measure. Which would frequently become permanent mainstays for India’s forces.

In 2002, India took the first steps toward changing its procurement model. It opened up defence equipment production to private sector companies, and even allowed up to 26% foreign direct investment in such ventures. In 2006, “India’s DRDO Rethinking the Way it Does Business” covered changes in government statements, and even grudging DRDO admissions that more private sector involvement was necessary, if India’s industry was to develop and deliver the equipment a rising power needs. Subsequent moves by the government on a number of fronts, from aircraft to tanks, are opening up a far larger role for global defense firms in supplying India’s needs.

The problem is that bureaucracies are entirely uninterested in changing their long-standing and comfortable models, especially if those changes promise reduced future roles for those bureaucracies. Domestic development remains largely the bailiwick of existing agencies and bureaucracies. In those competitions so far, Indian firms partnered with experienced foreign suppliers like Thales, IAI, et. al. continue to lose to state-owned Indian firms whose overall record in the sectors under competition is shallower, and arguably adds development risks to these projects.

That appears to have been the case with Rustom.

UAV Heron
IAI Heron UAV
(click to view larger)

DRDO intended to move away from its traditional model of developing and finalizing the system itself, then handing the designs and technology over to a production agency. Instead, they would introduce concurrent engineering that involves the producing firm, and initial design efforts also take into consideration production issues. This production agency development partner (PADP) was whittled down from 23 firms to 4 finalists: Larsen and Toubro Ltd. (L&T), Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Tata Advanced Systems Ltd. – and a joint bid from state-owned firms Hindustan Aeronautics Limited and Bharat Electronics.

The accompanying maritime patrol radars and electro-optical systems were expected to come from Israel, whose systems equip current UAVs and aircraft. The engine is also expected to come from a selection process, rather than being a product of new R&D.

So far, that’s an improvement. Unfortunately, Rustom’s reported contract structure is a fine illustration of the time and performance blindness that has crippled so many indigenous Indian efforts. LiveMint describes an agreement that involved INR 4 billion investment in prototypes and trials, over a decade or more. All in a field where major new designs are being fielded, now, in 2 year cycles – and where the capabilities India seeks already exist in several fielded platforms. One hopes that is a reporting error.

The Rustom development contract also contains no guarantee of an order from the armed forces once it is complete. That’s normal in India, and not unusual in many countries that used staged-gate approval processes for weapons. What’s unusual is the combination of no commitment plus partnership financing requirements, which is a poor fit for the private sector. The HAL official who confirmed these arrangements for LiveMint asked the logical question: “If there is no assurance of an order [and such a high investment target], why should the private industry come forward and invest?” Yet some firms did make that offer, in conjunction with experienced foreign partners. They lost to HAL, whose history of aviation production does not extend to UAVs of this size and complexity.

What is clear, is that India’s efforts to build up its private sector defense industry beyond a mere conduit for foreign firms’ industrial offset programs is off to a slow start. N.S. Sisodia, director general of the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, is typically diplomatic in his survey of the broader situation. He is also correct:

“The process does take a little time. There are efforts made in DPP (the defence procurement procedure) to involve private industry. But I think much more can be done.”

Contracts & Key Events

HAL defense contractor

November 18/15: The Indian Army has decided to cancel a two decade long indigenous Nishant UAV program after the third of four in use by the army crashed near the city of Jaisalmer on November 4. The Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) had been developing the Nishant UAV since 1995 with the aim of developing India’s own reconnaissance and intelligence gathering abilities. Phase 1 had seen four of the UAVs introduced in 2011 and continuation would have seen 8 more orders of the UAV by the army. The announcement comes shortly after Prime Minister Modi’s recent push to increase development within India’s private defense industry and the sharing of indigenously designed Rustom UAVs by the government. In the wake of the Nishant duds, these companies may be best served looking elsewhere for design ideas.

September 25/15: In a bid to spur development in the country’s private defense industry, the Modi government has decided to share designs of indigenously-developed unmanned aerial vehicles with private firms. Developed by the Indian state-owned Defence Research and Development Organisation, details of the Rustom family of UAVs were until now kept secret from the private sector. As the Indian government looks to develop its defense industrial base domestically, it has also recently relaxed joint venture restrictions on foreign companies in a bid to build expertise through collaborative working. However, foreign companies still face stringent offset policies and investment restrictions, despite slow progress.

November 2013: Rustom-II. India Strategic quotes Honeywell Aerospace India President Pritam Bhavnani as saying that:

“As well as propulsion, our technology portfolio across these [American UAV] platforms spans electrical power systems, Auxiliary Power Units, navigation, air thermal systems, fuel controls, pneumatics, wheels and brakes and high integrity controls…. Rustom II is an exciting development in the evolution of India’s defence capabilities. I cannot give any specific details today regarding our involvement with the program…”

Sources: India Strategic, “Rustom II: An exciting opportunity for Honeywell”.

May 8/12: Test flight 14. India’s MoD:

“Indigenously designed and developed RUSTOM-1 made 14th successful flight this morning at Kolar with attainment of about 11,500 ft AGL (above ground level) and speed of above 140 Kmph during 2 hrs 10 minutes of cruise. It may be noted that this unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), developed by Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE), a DRDO lab at Bangalore, had its maiden flight in Nov 2009. Mr. PS Krishnan, Director ADE stated that the flight was successful. All the parameters were achieved by the UAV which weigh around 690 Kg and the total performance was satisfactory.”

Nov 11/11: Test flight 5. India’s government announces that the 661 kg Rustom-1 UAV had made its 5th test flight, at 100 knots and 2,300 feet above ground level near Hosur. The release adds that: “This UAV can attain a maximum speed of 150 Knots, 22,000 ft of altitude and endurance of 12-15 Hours with an operating range of 250 Kms when fully developed.”

May 24/11: DRDO’s Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE) has flown an upgraded version of “Rustom-1” from TAAL’s airfield near Hosur. It’s reported to be a converted manned aircraft, and the goal is an endurance of 14 hours and altitude ceiling of 8 km/ 26,000 feet. ADE reports it was happy with the flight, conducted as a precursor to flights with payloads. DNA India.

Prahlada, chief controller of research and development (aeronautics programme), said “with the successful accurate flying of Rustom 1, ADE is geared up for integration of payloads with the Aircraft within next three months, to demonstrate performance of payloads and necessary secure data-link to the users.”

Rustom 1st flight
(click for video)

Oct 26/10: Rustom-1’s first flight.

April 25/10: State-run Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) and Bharat Electronics Ltd (BEL) win the bid to design and build Rustom. The award marks the 3rd large Indian defence project in which private firms have lost out to public sector rivals, after the Saras light passenger plane and the Army’s tactical communication system project. That trend is causing some questioning of the government’s sincerity regarding its pledges to advance private Indian defense firms. Larsen & Tourbo aerospace and defence VP M.V. Kotwal, whose firm bid on all 3 contracts, is quoted by LiveMint:

“This is a disappointment for us since we had been told that the projects would be open for participation by the private sector on a competitive basis… Otherwise we would not have spent the time and efforts in preparing for the bids. Detailed plans for execution had also been presented as required…”

That last statement alludes to DRDO chief controller of R&D Prahlada’s statement that “HAL-BEL gave us a clear road map for manufacture” as the reason for their victory. LiveMint.

Nov 16/09: DRDO’s Rustom technology demonstrator crashes at the Taneja Aerospace Air Field near Hosur, during its 1st flight. The taxiing and takeoff went as planned, but “due to misjudgment of altitude of the flight, the on-board engine was switched off through ground command…”

That’s not generally a good thing. On the flip side, DRDO says the shortened flight was useful for establishing more confidence in the UAV’s aerodynamics, redundant flight control, engine and datalink. Defense News.

Aug 6/09: India’s Tata Group signs a wide-ranging joint venture agreement with Israel Aerospace Industries, the builders of India’s Searcher and Heron UAVs. The agreement finalizes a commitment made in February 2009 by IAI CEO Itzhak Nissan and Tata Sons Chairman Ratan N. Tata.

Under the terms of the MoU, the new Company will develop, manufacture and support a wide range of defence and aerospace products, including missiles, UAVs, radars, electronic warfare (EW) systems and home land security (HLS) systems. The new company will also perform offset work for IAI and other defence and aerospace programs in India. domain-b.

May 15/09: Larsen and Toubro Ltd. (L&T), Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd., and Tata Advanced Systems Ltd. bid to develop India’s Rostam MALE UAV. The 4th bidder is a joint effort by state-owned defence equipment makers Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) and Bharat Electronics Ltd. (BEL).

The Defence Research and Development Organisation’s (DRDO) Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE) is testing a technology demonstrator. Once a vendor is selected, ADE and that vendor will design an enhanced version; a selection is expected later in 2009.

ADE’s tender expects that the cost of producing one set of 5 Rustom vehicles with 5 sets of spares, plus payload and ground handling/control equipment, would be around INR 2.5 billion (just under $50 million). India Defence.

Sept 22/08: The first low-speed taxi tests of ADE’s Rustom technology demonstrator take place.

Additional Readings

Two to Tango? Argentina Looking Everywhere for New Warplanes

$
0
0
ATAC: Kfir C2
Kfir C2
(click to view full)

Argentina’s air force is having a hard time maintaining its core Nesher/”Finger” fighters, even as the Kirchner regime seeks to take control of the Falkland Islands and their potential offshore oil reserves. That led Argentina to search for new fighter options, as the most reliable way of projecting power to likely exploration zones. Britain’s defenses are also much more run down than they were in the 1980s, and their complete lack of a carrier force leaves ongoing protection of the islands’ surrounding economic zones to just 2-4 Eurofighter Typhoon fighters, an offshore patrol vessel, and part of a regular navy ship rotation.

Argentina’s window of opportunity will close when Britain’s advanced carrier force enters service in 2020, which has added urgency on both sides as Argentina tries to make a deal. Can Argentina find its partner?

Forces Around the Falklands: Situation Report

British Breakdown

Harrier GR9 from HMS Illustrious
Gone.

The islands’ inhabitants voted overwhelmingly to remain part of Britain during the referendum. Unfortunately, Britain has lost more than just its carrier force in the intervening years since the Falklands War. The Vulcan bombers and Victor tankers that staged ultra-long range bombing raids are long gone. The Harriers bought after the war ended, and modernized for use in Afghanistan, were retired. So were the Tornado F3 aircraft that were bought in the 1980s for long-range combat air patrols. The Royal Navy’s number of serious surface combatants has sunk to just 19, only 1 of which patrols the South Atlantic and West Africa at any given time. Worse, it has readiness issues with its attack submarines.

All this creates a window of opportunity for Argentina – one that will slam shut decisively around 2020, once Britain’s new 65,000t HMS Queen Elizabeth and its F-35B fighters steam into service.

RAF C-17 over water
RAF C-17
(click to view full)

Until then, an Argentinian force with modern jets and enough anti-ship missiles could conceivably open the door for a repeat invasion, by making recapture too risky and difficult. First, however, they’d have to take the island. Britain has extended and considerably reinforced the Mount Pleasant airfield with radars, air defenses, and a rotating infantry battalion. The addition of long-range C-17 heavy jet transports to the RAF makes fast long-range troop & vehicle reinforcement possible, forcing any invader to capture, destroy, or interdict the airfield in order to succeed. Meanwhile, the mere threat of nuclear submarines will continue to keep Argentina’s surface navy, such as it is, out of the picture as always.

That’s why harassment and access denial attempts are far more likely, as Argentina continues to attempt intimidation of any oil & gas companies that will be working in the Falklands’ Economic Exclusion Zone. That sort of gambit is harder to thwart, requiring the British to commit more forces and incur more expense than they would like.

If Britain wants to protect the Falklands this time, the rag-tag state of Argentina’s military is its biggest asset. Their goal is too keep Argentina from acquiring the tools they need to create even a moderately effective anti-access zone. If Argentina gets any new fighters at all, Britain’s goal becomes much harder and more expensive.

Argentina’s Efforts

FAA Super Etendards

Argentina’s Super Etendard fighters, which were used to launch Exocet missiles in the 1980s and still serve, come from France. Its Mirage III/ V/ “Nesher” fighters were originally bought second-hand from Israel and Peru, but they have deteriorated badly. Its A-4R “Fightinghawk” Skyhawk models were sold to Argentina by the USA, and what’s left of those deliveries make up the bulk of their jet fleet.

Despite steadily-worsening relations with Britain under the Obama administration, the USA is not about to sell Argentina jet fighters. British diplomacy has already worked to delay Argentina’s proposed Super Etendard modernization, and also scuttled a reported deal to buy 16 second-hand Mirage F-1M fighters from Spain.

SAAF Cheetahs (outside), Swedish Gripens (middle)
Cheetahs & Gripens
(click to view full)

That leaves Argentina’s original source for the Neshers. Israel doesn’t have any of those left, but they do have their own Kfir design that made structural changes to the Nesher blueprints, added a more powerful American J-79 turbojet, and received progressive modifications to its radar, electronics, and weapons. Those upgrades continued even after the Kfirs were retired from Israeli service in the late 1990s, on behalf of customers like Colombia, Ecuador, and Sri Lanka. Kfir C.10/ Block 60s carry modern radars and electronics on par with F-16 Block 40/50s, and have the ability to use beyond visual range aerial weapons, advanced short range AAMs, and a variety of precision strike weapons. Their combat radius is a bit short, and it would take a brave Kfir pilot to face a Eurofighter Typhoon in single combat. Even so, they’re capable fighters with aerial refueling capability, which makes them well suited to intimidation and presence patrols. Negotiations for a sale are in an advanced stage.

The good news for Britain, such as it is, is that Argentina still has to hang weapons on any fighters they buy. The FAA must either stick with their existing set of old equipment and forego most of the new fighter’s potential, or buy new weapons from the USA or Israel. Any new weapon sales would be a double escalation, making those sales less likely. The most dangerous Kfir-related sale, of Gabriel 3 anti-ship missiles, would make Britain an outright enemy of Israel’s. That won’t happen. The question is whether Britain can pressure Israel to block the Kfir fighter sale in toto – or have it blocked by the Americans, who control the J-79 engines.

If the Israeli sale falls through for some reason, South Africa has already sold similar Cheetah fighters to Ecuador and Chile. Enough were produced to sell 18 more to Argentina, but the best airframes have presumably been taken already. Cheetahs are powered by French Snecma Atar 9K50 engines, instead of the Kfir’s American J-79. That removes a key American veto, but it also means that South Africa would need some level of French cooperation. Given French delays and demurrals around refurbishing Argentina’s French Super Etendards, that cooperation could become problematic.

Chile’s decommissioned Mirage 50 Pantera fighters are similar to the Cheetahs, but Chile isn’t interested in selling any to Argentina.

PAF JF-17 w. PL-8, PL-12, and C802
JF-17 – note C802!
(click to view full)

If those options fail, Argentina faces a shrinking set of choices.

South Korea’s TA-50 and FA-50 light fighters would be more expensive than the proposed Israeli deal, which already strains Argentina’s finances. They also use American F404 engines, requiring US export approval, and can’t mount anti-ship missiles yet.

Swedish JAS-39 Gripen fighters are the subject of talks with Brazil, but they use American F414 engines and British Martin-Baker ejection seats, to name only the most difficult substitutions. Indeed, about 30% of those planes are traceable to British firms – and Britain has stated that they will block such exports.

The only sources free of American or European influence are Russia and China.

Chinese F-8 “Finback-Bs” would be a very cheap used option, presenting no serious threat, but good for harassment patrols and shows of force at range. The question is whether they could be kept in the air. The JF-17 Thunder from China and Pakistan would be a more advanced option and a definite threat, thanks to its ability to carry C802 subsonic and CM-400AKG supersonic anti-ship missiles. Argentina has expressed interest in the JF-17, and has held discussions directly with China.

Russia is the other potential source. They may have used or used/new-build MiG-29S+ multi-role planes to offer, if Putin wants to stick a finger in Britain’s eye for sanctions over the annexation of Crimea. The problem with the MiGs is that even with the extra fuel tanks in recent variants, the fighters have poor range. That makes them less useful to Argentina. SU-30 family planes have plenty of range, but they’re more expensive, and may be out of Argentina’s reach unless Russia really wants to make a point by offering subsidies.

Contracts & Key Events

Shattered Glass

November 18/15: Argentina’s drive to replace its aging Mirage fighter fleet with second hand Israeli Kfir Block 60 fighters has come under criticism from Argentine Air Force number three, Brigadier Mario Roca. Argentina had planned to purchase fourteen of the fighters (which included two two-seat traners) with the deal to have cost between $220-360 million. The criticisms arose when the first six fighters would arrive within 18 months, but without weapons systems, and all upgrades needed to be completed in Israel. The deal has for now been put on hold indefinitely with Defence Minister Agustin Rossi deciding to leave the deal to be concluded by the next administration. Opposition politicians have stated that if elected, they would look into replacing the fleet independently.

August 20/15: Argentina is formally retiring its fleet of Mirage fighters, which will leave active service in November. The Argentinian Air Force has been looking for a new fighter fleet for a while now, with reports in July indicating that the South American country may be in negotiations to buy second-hand Israeli Kfir Block 60 fighters.

Dec 1/14: What Now? In the aftermath of Argentina’s short-lived, clumsy attempt to procure aircraft with British parts through Brazil, analysts review what both Argentina and Brazil may do next.

On Argentina’s side, a history of failed negotiations to acquire used aircraft with France, Spain and Israel will make it tough to revive talks with these parties. One possibility would have been to buy the 12 used Mirage 2000s acquired by Brazil from France in 2005 and retired by the Brazilian Air Force at the end of 2013. This may buy time for Argentina but they would need to reinvest in these aircraft, and also find more elsewhere. But it is reportedly because of high maintenance costs and problems with parts availability that Brazil decided to retire aircraft that sported 10,000+ flight hours each. Add the fact Brazil would have needed to secure resell rights from Dassault, and that is a long list of hurdles for Argentina to clear even if the seller is a friendly neighbor. See DID’s coverage of Brazil’s FX-2 program, Aug 5/13 entry.

Another option is to procure used or new jets from China or Russia, and even though the Argentinian Air Force would prefer Western aircraft, Both China and Russia are likely to be more flexible on financing and/or payment in kind than Western countries would, especially as long as Argentina’s financial situation has not been fully normalized on global markets. Fabrica Argentina de Aviones (FAdeA) held initial talks with China about the potential local production of FC-1 fighters back in mid-2013. Meanwhile Argentina and Russia have been getting cozy on diplomatic and energy matters. See the “Argentina’s Efforts” section above for a more detailed discussion of the available options.

Meanwhile Embraer is reportedly worried that the Brazilian government’s decision to develop a strategic partnership with Argentina may curtail technology transfers from Saab and even lead to reprisals by Western suppliers. That the alliance was announced as a government-to-government affair may only partly shield the company from consequences. Is getting along with its weaker, chronically ill southern neighbor worth potential diplomatic and business problems for Brazil? Sources: DefesaNet: “Full of uncertainty, strategic alliance with Argentines can bring damage to Brazil” | Defense News: “Argentina’s Jet Fighter Replacement Options Narrow” | FP: “Keeping Putin’s Hands Off Argentina’s Oil”.

Nov 9/14: Gripen NG. Argentina may want to do a deal with Brazil (q.v. Oct 22/14), but Britain has now publicly said “no.” To be more precise, they reiterate the continued existence of a ban. A spokesperson for the UK Department of Business, Innovation and Skills:

“We are determined to ensure that no British-licensable exports or trade have the potential to be used by Argentina to impose an economic blockade on the Falkland Islanders or inhibit their legitimate rights to develop their own economy…”

About 30% of the JAS-39E/F will be British, from the ejection seats to the radar, landing gear, and a number of electronic systems. Embraer could try to downgrade and substitute, but Argentina lacks the money to finance such an ambitious effort. Now add the fact that a newly-Republican US Senate and House would block export’s of GE’s F414 engines. As knowledgeable observers expected, Argentina will have to look elsewhere. C4ISR & Networks, “Argentina Buying Gripens? Brits Say ‘No Way'”.

Oct 22/14: Gripen NG. During the Embraer KC-390 medium jet transport’s rollout, Argentina and Brazil sign a formal “Alianca Estrategica em Industria Aeronautica.” Argentina is already making parts for the KC-390, and they need a larger partner for a number of other reasons. The FAB’s releases add that Argentina is also thinking of buying JAS-39E/F Gripens from Embraer, whose Brazilian factory will assemble at least 36 of the advanced Swedish fighters under the pending F-X2 program:

“El Gobierno nacional decidio iniciar una negociacion con la administracion de Dilma Rousseff para la adquisicion de 24 aviones Saab Gripen dentro del programa denominado FX 2…”

Regional export rights are also expected to be part of the $5+ billion deal, which is signed on Oct 24/14. That could get interesting, because the Gripen has systems from the USA and Britain in it. You might be able to replace electronics, but it’s expensive – and ejection seats and engines are a lot tougher. Sources: FAB NOTIMP, “Argentina quiere comprar 24 cazas supersonicos”.

Kfir, improved

March 23/14: Kfir. A high-level Argentine delegation has reportedly visited Israel to finalize the sale of 18 Kfir jets. Most sources mention the “Block 60” version, which is very similar to the Kfir C10 that has been sold to Ecuador and Colombia, and reports also mention the EL/M-2032 radar. Once again, however, this is a proposed deal that comes despite issues with Argentina. Ha’aretz:

“…Kirchner government made [a deal] last year with Iran to jointly investigate the 1994 bombing of the AMIA Buenos Aires Jewish community building that killed 85 people and is widely believed to have been carried out by Hezbollah with Iranian backing.”

That may cause controversy in Israel, and British pressure can be expected as well. On the other hand, Israel was less than pleased by Britain’s recent role in ending sanctions against Iran for its nuclear weapons program. A fighter sale to Argentina would certainly be one way to attach significant consequences to Britain’s actions, without the anti-ship capabilities that would mark a huge escalation. The British do have one big lever left, however: the Kfirs’ J79 turbojets need American approval for re-export. America needs British support regarding Russia right now, so despite past snubs, the Obama administration will find it inconvenient to alienate Britain further.

Finally, note that Ha’aretz is wrong about Kfirs being sold to South Africa. Israeli expertise was likely transferred, but they are not interchangeable in a fleet – Cheetahs use different engines than the Kfirs, and South Africa did modify its Mirages locally. Is basic fact-checking and editorial oversight too much to ask? Sources: Ha’aretz, “Argentina buying 30-year-old Israeli fighter jets” | LU22 Radio Tandil, “Avanzan las negociaciones para la compra de aviones Kfirs Block 60 a Israel”.

March 10/14: Super Etendard. Argentina’s efforts to upgrade 10 of its 11 remaining Super Etendard fighters have hit a bit of a snag in France:

“The Argentine Navy still wants 10 SEM kits for its Super Etendards, but has to date received no indication from France as to how or when this order might be filled.

Moreover, military relations between the two states have cooled due to a deal last year between France and the UK that could create roadblocks to France’s selling the kits, and an updated version of the Exocet missile, to Argentina…”

Sources: IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly, “Argentine Super Etendard modernisation hits major snags”.

Super Etendard modernization stalls

short SEO-friendly description
Colombian Kfirs
(click to view full)

Jan 23/14: Kfir. Argentina has reportedly opened discussions with Israel about selling up to 18 refurbished Kfir fighters. The proposed deal is reportedly worth about $500 million, with 6 jets to be refurbished in Israel. Another 12 would be shipped to Argentina along with modernization kits, for local assembly under Israeli supervision.

“Brazilian journalist Roberto Lopes, who specializes in defense issues was the first to reveal that Israel/Argentina deal negotiations caused concern in the government of PM David Cameron and allegedly representatives from the UK Defense ministry asked their Israel counterparts “for a detailed description of the electronic systems and avionics” of the 18 Kfir…. London fears the aircraft could be used to track and intimidate vessels involved in the Falklands oil and gas industry development…. Lopes also reveals that “the issue is being monitored since the end of 2013 by Brazil’s Itamaraty (foreign ministry) and defense ministry”.”

IAI’s offer had reportedly been made earlier, but the proposal was reportedly pursued only after Spain declined to pursue the Mirage F1 deal any further. Sources: MercoPress, “Argentina after Israeli fighter planes; concern in London and Brasilia, says defense expert”.

Jan 2/14: Mirage F1. Argentine sources tell IHS Jane’s that the Spanish Mirage deal has stalled and could be cancelled.

“Local media reports indicated that the Argentine Air Force (FAA) has begun analysing other options, including second-hand Dassault Mirage 2000s from France or Brazil, but appears to be leaning towards an Israeli offer of 18 IAI Lahav Kfir Block 60 multi-role fighters for USD500 million, with a possible delivery date some 15 months after a contract signature.”

While Spain’s economic situation made them receptive to Argentina’s request, Spain could lose much more if relations with Britain become problematic. Sources: IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly, “Argentine Mirage F1 buy reportedly stalls”.

No Mirage F1s

Oct 6/13: Kfir. IAI and even the Israeli Air Force begin to talk about the new “Block 60” Kfir variant, which is based on Colombia’s refitted C10 aircraft:

“The Kfir Block 60 offers a robust and versatile Mach 2+ multi-role jet fighter, carrying 5.5 tons payloads on nine hard-points under the wings and fuselage. The weaponry is enhanced to include Python 5 and Derby. Kfir Block 60 has also completed the integration of RAFAEL Spice autonomous guided weapon, (second platform offering that capability, after the F-16). Conforming to NATO standards, Kfir Block 60 supports Link-16 datalink protocol. The aircraft has combat radius of 1,000 km (540 nm) unrefueled. With refueling the aircraft can fly to a range of 1,100 nm.”

Whether or not Israeli Kfir C2s could carry Gabriel Mk.III anti-ship missiles, Argentina doesn’t have any, and any sale by Israel would have serious diplomatic repercussions. Refurbished Kfirs are reportedly restored to 8,000 safe flight-hours hours under warranty, meaning the plane can easily serve for 20-30 years. “Sources: Defense Update, “At 40 Years of age, Kfir Turns into a “Networked Fighter”” | Israeli Air Force, “Roaring Back”.

Spanish Mirage F1M, clean:
Spanish F1M
(click to view full)

Oct 1/13: Mirage F1. After several months of advance reports, Argentina has reportedly come to an agreement with Spain to buy 16 used Mirage F1s. Iraq’s F1EQ-5 jets were modified to carry the Exocet anti-ship missile, but they required modifications. Spain upgraded their F1Cs to F1Ms, but it isn’t clear whether their planes ever added Exocet capability.

The deal is something of a surprise, given the Argentine government’s 2012 seizure of Spanish oil major Repsol’s majority stake in Argentina’s national YPF oil company. Respol’s international legal claim is for $10 billion, but the Spanish government is facing depression-level economic conditions, and has few other options to sell those planes. Sources: MercoPress, “Argentina buys 16 Mirage F 1 from Spain; half have air-refuelling capacity” | UPI, “Argentina goes for second-hand jets for air force”.

Mirage F1 deal

Aug 5/13: Mirage F1. Spain is reportedly working on a deal with Spain for its recently-decommissioned Mirage F1 fighters, which have been replaced in Spain’s service by the Eurofighter:

“The only real hard news and from Spanish defence media, is that Spain is effectively decommissioning the last eight Mirage F 1 –which have been on service for 35 years–, to be replaced by the Eurofighter, and is looking for buyers and among the countries named are Argentina, Egypt and Ecuador…. The Argentine air force currently has an estimated 25 Mirage 5 and Mirage III with over thirty years in service…. However according to Argentine sources the aircraft are virtually out of use because of lack of spares and an adequate maintenance.”

Depending on how one counts, it has been more like 22 years of service since their deep modernization to F1M status. The RAF won’t give an on-the-record response, but British newspapers are told by unnamed sources that “If the Argentines start playing games and escalate the tension we will see more RAF aircraft being deployed to the Falklands.” That would help prevent a takeover, but unless Britain adds a lot of fighters, it may not quite stop intimidation flights against energy companies working in the Falklands EEZ. MercoPress, “Falklands and the Mirages: playing with the Islanders worst memories” | Daily Express, “Jet fighter threat to the Falkland Islands” | Daily Mirror, “Falklands alert as Argentina strikes £145 million deal for 20 Mirage warplanes” | Israel’s Globes, “IAI selling upgraded Kfir jets for $20m”.

June 27/13: JF-17. Argentina is reportedly in talks with China concerning the FC-1/ JF-17 fighter, a joint project with Pakistan whose performance lies somewhere between a Mirage F1 and an F-16. It can use radar-guided air-to-air missiles, but its most important asset is the CASIC CM-400AKG supersonic anti-ship missile, with a range that’s longer than France’s sub-sonic Exocets. Its is also shown at air shows like Farnborough with China’s C802 sub-sonic anti-ship missile, which is very similar to the American Harpoon.

“Speaking at the Paris Air Show in mid-June, officials from Fabrica Argentina de Aviones (FAdeA) told IHS Jane’s that the company has had multiple discussions with Chinese officials over co-producing the fighter in Argentina. Although the FC-1/JF-17 is already jointly built with Pakistan Aeronautical Complex, FAdeA officials stressed that they are dealing solely with the Chinese…. While discussions are said to be far from over, if realised they will open up a wide panoply of Chinese weapon systems to Argentina…”

Sources: IHS Jane’s Missiles & Rockets, “Fighter talks may afford Argentina advanced Chinese missile systems”.

Additional Readings

Up above, DID asked of Ha’aretz, “Is basic fact-checking and editorial oversight too much to ask?” Sometimes, that comes back to bite. Thanks to readers who wrote in to us about local defensive measures and options in the Falklands that we had not covered. We had good discussions, but the plain fact is that some of the omissions were important items. They have been added to the article, with our thanks – and our apologies.

Readers with corrections, comments, or information to contribute are encouraged to contact DID’s Founding Editor, Joe Katzman. We understand the industry – you will only be publicly recognized if you tell us that it’s OK to do so.

Background: Aircraft

News & Views

Morocco’s Air Force Reloads: And Now, The Training…

$
0
0
AIR Mirage F1s France
French Mirage F1s
(click to view full)

Morocco’s combat air force currently flies 2 squadrons of old F-5 fighters, and 2 squadrons of only slightly newer Mirage F1s. T-37 light jets serve as high-end trainers. Their neighbor and rival Algeria flies MiG-23s of similar vintage, but the Force Aérienne Algérienne also flies SU-24 Fencer and SU-25 Frogfoot strike aircraft, plus even more modern and capable MiG-29s, and is receiving multi-role SU-30MKAs as part of a multi-billion dollar weapons deal with Russia.

Morocco can’t beat that array. Instead, they’re looking for replacement aircraft and upgrades that will prevent complete overmatch, and provide a measure of security. Initially, they looked to France, but key reversals have handed most of this modernization work to the United States.

Slips and Shifts

Rafale-B
Dassault Rafale-B
(click to view full)

France’s Rafale is part of a set of European 4+ generation fighters that were developed and fielded during the 1990s-early 21st century, with the aim of surpassing existing offerings among America’s “teen series” fighters, as well as Russia’s MiG-29 Fulcrum and SU-27/30 Flanker family. “Dogfight at the Casbah: Rafale vs. F-16” discussed the French sales slip-ups that cost Dassault its first export order for the 4+ generation fighter. That outcome is now official.

In a final twist of the knife, the multi-billion dollar fighter deal involves new-build F-16s, at a price comparable to the rumored figures for the Rafale. Not to mention an accompanying American deal to replace Morocco’s T-37 trainer fleet with T-6Cs, and contracts for air-launched weapons, targeting pods, C-27J short-haul transports, and CH-47D helicopters.

France has retained upgrade work for the Mirage F1 fleet, and their program could end up having applications elsewhere. Other Mirage F1 upgrade opportunities may exist in Gabon, Libya and perhaps Ecuador; while countries like Argentina may become buyers for second-hand but similarly-refurbished French, Jordanian, and/or Spanish aircraft.

Contracts and Key Events

2013 – 2015

P5 System

November 19/15: The US State Department has approved a sale worth $157 million to the Kingdom of Morocco. The deal includes TOW 2A, Radio Frequency (RF) Missiles (BGM-71E-4B-RF), M220A2 TOW Launchers as well as the associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support with the principal contractor being Raytheon. The sale goes as part of the cooperation between the two countries and aiming to help against security threats in the region.

July 31/14: CH-47 engines. Honeywell Aerospace International, Phoenix, Arizona, was awarded a $121.9 million initial foreign military sales contract order, on behalf of Turkey, Australia, the United Arab Emirates and Morocco. Morocco’s request for 3 CH-47Ds (q.v. Oct 26/09) included the uprated T55-GA-714A engines.

It’s the 1st order under a new contract covering up to 440 total engines and 365 engine fielding kits. All funds for this order are committed immediately, but the wider contract will have a total potential value well north of $121 million. Work will be performed until Dec 31/18 in Phoenix, AZ. US Army Contracting Command in Redstone Arsenal, AL (W58RGZ-14-C-0021, PO 0001).

April 11/14: Cubic Corporation announces a $5 million contract from the U.S. Air Force to supply its P5 Combat Training System to the Moroccan Air Force. The system includes both pods carried on aircraft and ground infrastructure, allowing “rangeless” training and reconstruction of air combat for debriefing later. Since the US military also uses the system, it will also allow joint training.

The system will be used with Morocco’s F-16s, and it will make a big difference to the effectiveness of Morocco’s pilots. Sources: Cubic, P5 CTS/TCTS Brochure [PDF] | PR Web, “U.S. Air Force Selects Cubic for Moroccan P5 Air Combat Training System”.

2012

F-16C Block 52 RMAF
RMAF F-16C
(click to view full)

Aug 29/12: F-16s. The last 3 Moroccan F-16s leave Texas and head to Ben Guerir AB, Morocco. That makes 22 F-16s, with 2 more delivered but based at Edwards AFB, CA for integration testing of new weapons, etc. The RMAF owns them, but they won’t arrive in Morocco until 2013. Arabian Aerospace | defenceWeb.

Aug 10/12: F-16s. Arabian Aerospace offers an update on the status of Morocco’s F-16s. All 8 F-16Ds are in service, along with 5 of the F-16Cs. The F-16 Block 52 fighters are now in service with the Escadron de Chasse ‘Falcon’ at Ben Guerir AB, near Marrakech. Two further squadrons, ‘Spark’ and ‘Viper’ will stand up at the same base.

A cadre of 10 pilots have graduated from instructor training in the USA with the Arizona Air National Guard’s 162nd Fighter Wing, and that group will train the other Moroccan pilots. Meanwhile, Morocco’s F-5 fleet may find itself relegated to advanced trainer and reserve duties.

July 8/12: AIM-9X-2. The May 19/11 DSCA request leads to a letter of offer and acceptance (LOA) to buy Raytheon’s AIM-9X Block II short range air-to-air missile for Morocco’s new F-16C/Ds. Numbers and prices are an “undisclosed quantity,” but can be inferred by consulting the DSCA request: 20 + training missiles.

The RMAF will be the 4th country using the Block II version with the added datalink and lock-on after launch capability, after the USA, Saudi Arabia, and South Korea. AIM-9X Block I customers include Australia, Denmark, Finland, Poland, Singapore, Switzerland, and Turkey. Raytheon.

20+ AIM-9X-2 missiles

April 3/12: F-16 #4,500. Lockheed Martin commemorates the 4,500th F-16 Fighting Falcon delivery – “an advanced Block 52 aircraft destined for Morocco.”

Later reports peg it as the last Moroccan F-16, and 1 of 2 that will be retained in the USA for integration tests at Edwards AFB, CA until some time in 2013. LMCO Release | Flickr photo gallery.

2011

RMAF F-16s

Dec 5/11: F-16 ECM. Lockheed Martin in Fort Worth, TX receives a not-to-exceed $32.4 million firm-fixed contract, to provide Morocco’s 24 F-16s with Advanced Countermeasures Electronic Systems Electronic Warfare Systems (ACES) modules that have “updated date protection.”

ACES defensive systems are actually a Raytheon product (vid. the Dec 1/08 entry), but they were explicitly included in Lockheed Martin’s base F-16 contract (vid. Dec 22/09 entry). That’s why the work location lists as Fort Worth, TX. The USAF Aeronautical Systems Center at Wright-Patterson AFB acts as Morocco’s managing agent (FA8615-08-C-6050, PO 0026).

Aug 1/11: F-16s. The first 4 of 24 new Block 52 F-16s leave Lockheed Martin’s facility in Fort Worth, TX, on a ferry flight to Morrocco. Lockheed Martin.

ORD_AIM-9X_F-16_Launch.jpg
F-16 launches AIM-9X
(click for AIM-9X zoom)

May 19/11: AIM-9X missile request. The US DSCA announces Morocco’s official request to buy 20 AIM-9X Block II Sidewinder short range air-to-air missiles, plus 10 CATM-9X-2 Captive Air Training Missile All-Up-Rounds (missiles with seekers and wiring, but no motor, in their case), 8 CATM-9X-2 Missile Guidance Units, 8 AIM-9X-2 Block II Tactical Guidance Units, 2 Dummy Air Training Missiles, plus containers, missile support and test equipment, provisioning, spare and repair parts, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical data, and other forms of U.S. Government and contractor support. The DSCA adds that the “Royal Moroccan Air Force is modernizing its fighter aircraft to better support its own air defense needs.”

Recall that the July 9/08 DSCA request for F-16s involved AIM-9Ms, which still equip many American aircraft and are inferior to the Vympel R-73/AA-11 Archer missiles flown on Algerian fighters. AIM-9X missiles are significantly more advanced, with greatly improved seekers and maneuverability. The key Block II addition is lock-on after launch, which takes full advantage of the missile’s characteristics, and the advantages of helmet-mounted sights. By telling the missile to fly to a designated location and look for a target, kills have even been scored behind the firing aircraft. This initial number of missiles would give the RMAF’s new F-16s enough missiles to train with, and field a very preliminary operational capability.

The estimated cost is up to $50 million, with exact totals to be negotiated if a contract is signed with prime contractor Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, AZ. Implementation of this proposed sale will require travel of U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Morocco on a temporary basis for program technical support and management oversight, but the DSCA has no estimate of how many yet.

AIM-9X-2 missile request

May 18/11: T-6Cs. The Royal Moroccan Air Force (RMAF) has received the first 12 of 24 T-6C trainers from Hawker Beechcraft, to replace its existing fleet of T-34 and T-37 jet trainers. Arabian Aerospace.

2010

RMAF C-27J
RMAF C-27J
(click to view full)

Sept 30/10: F-16s. Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control in Orlando, FL wins an $8.1 million contract for Type I special operations and maintenance training for the government of Morocco in support of their F-16 program. At this time, $6.2 million has been committed by the AETC CONS/LGCI at Randolph Air Force Base, TX (FA3002-10-C-0030).

This seems like a minor award. Without awards like this, however, you can throw away everything else spent on the aircraft. Or, you can rely on foreign contractors to keep a fleet ready, and hope they stick around if that fleet ever gets used in a state-to-state shooting war

July 19/10: F-16s. Pratt & Whitney announces a $145 million to provide F100-PW-229 Enhanced Engine Package (EEP) turbofan engines for the RMAF’s new F-16s. The new engines will be delivered in 2010 and 2011.

The Royal Moroccan Air Force became the 22nd international customer to select the F100 engine family, which powers F-16s and F-15s around the world. The F100 was the launch engine for these fighters, but technical problems led to severe readiness issues. Eventually GE’s rival F110 engine entered the market, and wound up powering most of the USAF’s new F-16s. The 2 engine competition never let up, however, and the new F100-PW-229 EEP has given the Pratt & Whitney team a number of important wins in head-to-head competitions around the world. To date, F100-PW-229 powered aircraft have logged more than 2.5 million flight hours in more than 18 years worth of operational service.

July 19/10: T-6Cs. Hawker Beechcraft Corporation rolls out the first of 24 Beechcraft T-6C military trainers ordered by the Royal Moroccan Air Force (RMAF). Hawker Beechcraft [PDF].

July 7/10: C-27Js. Alenia Aeronautica delivers a C-27J to Morocco, the 1st of 4 aircraft ordered in October 2008. Source: Combat Aircraft, Sept 2010 | Flight International | Morocco Aeronautique.

April 28/10: Mirage F1s. Arabian Aerospace reports on progress with Morocco’s MF2000 Mirage F1 upgrade program, which will upgrade 27 Mirage F1s (F1CH, F1EH and F1EH-200) at an estimated cost of $420 million. In the case of the Moroccan upgrade, the first 2 aircraft were upgraded at Charleroi in France, with the 3rd undergoing modifications in-country. The prototype made its maiden flight on Oct 19/09, and flight tests and certification are expected to continue throughout the spring and summer of 2010. The upgrade is handled by the new Association Sagem Thales pour la Renovation d’Avions de Combat (ASTRAC) joint venture between Thales and Sagem’s SAFRAN.

The MF2000 adds the standard “glass cockpit” of digital 2-color displays. A new Head-Up Display and full HOTAS(Hands On Stick And Throttle) controls brings the pilot area into line with modern standards, as does a modern zero-zero ejection seat, and compatibility with a helmet-mounted display system if one is added later. A pair of SAGEM mission computers interfaced with a MIL STD 1553B digital databus, and a hybrid Sigma IN/GPS, back this up, and modern secure radios are used for communications. The older Snecma ATAR 9K50 engines are retained, but with a 4% thrust boost and longer life through a new compressor module, redesigned high-pressure turbine, and corresponding increases in mass flow and engine temperatures.

The old Cyrano IV radar is replaced by Thales RC400 (RDY-3) multi-mode pulse Doppler radar, which is similar to but smaller than the Mirage 2000-5’s. Weapons carried can include a variety of guided and unguided weapons, in addition to the onboard 30mm DEFA cannon. Air-air options include the short-range MBDA Magic 2 or Raytheon AIM-9 Sidewinder, with MICA IR/RF missiles available as longer-range options. Damocles surveillance and targeting pod integration makes a big difference in the plane’s air-ground capabilities, as does its ability to carry French AASM GPS-guided bombs. ARMAT anti-radiation missiles and AM39 Exocet anti-ship missiles can be used for specialty missions. For defense, a new digital radar warning receiver (RWR) and an external PAJ FA ECM pod, plus Corail flare launchers and Phimat chaff dispensers, improve survivability.

Mirage F1 MF2000

April 8/10: F-16 insurance. In FedBizOpps solicitation #FA8615-10-R-6045, the USAF issues a request for information. Seems that Morocco is looking to insure its F-16s between the time the US government accepts them from the manufacturer, and the time they are handed over in Morocco. When you consider the need for checkout flights by Lockheed Martin test pilots, long ferry flights, and ongoing integration flight tests, this makes sense.

One all-risks insurance policy would cover 22 planes for 3-5 months each, and another would either cover 2 planes for up to a year and a half, or just cover those final ferry flights. Coverage would be up to $50 million per plane, with a $250,000 deductible. Coverage would last from initial delivery in Texas until engine turn-off and completion of all published post-flight pilot checklists. The coverage would also include a desired $500 million in liability coverage, with no deductible. Edwards AFB is in California… are they sure $500 million is enough?

The first twenty-two (22) aircraft will be ferried over the period of July 2011 – December 2012. These last 2 aircraft will be held in the US for up to a year, performing integration and characterization flight tests at Edwards AFB, CA, and integration and characterization flight tests at Fort Worth, TX. The last ferry will occur sometime in the year 2013 for the last two aircraft.

2009

CH-47D
US CH-47D, Iraq
(click to view full)

Dec 22/09: F-16s. Lockheed Martin Corp. in Fort Worth, TX receives an $841.9 million contract for 24 F-16 Block 52 aircraft with electronic warfare systems (Raytheon’s ACES, see Dec 1/08), along with associated support equipment, alternate mission equipment and support elements for the government of Morocco. At this time, $672.8 million has been committed under management of the 312th AESG/PK at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH (FA8615-08-C-6050, PZ0008).

Note also the $233.6 million long-lead buy on May 30/08. As one can see, some expensive but essential components like engines (vid. July 19/10, June 6/08) are covered under separate contracts, so even $1.075 billion (about $45 million per plane) isn’t the full price for an operational fleet of 24.

24 F-16s

Nov 25/09: F-16s. L-3 Communications in Arlington, TX receives a $21.6 million contract to provide the Royal Moroccan Air Force with 2 F-16 Block 52 aircrew training devices and associated support. The 677 AESG/SYK at Wright Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio manages the contract (FA8621-10-C-6251).

Oct 26/09: Chinooks. The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency announces [PDF] Morocco’s official request to buy 3 CH-47D Chinook helicopters with 6 (2 per helicopter) uprated Honeywell T55-GA-714A Turbine engines, 2 spare T-55-GA-714A Turbine engines, 4 AN/ARC-201E Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio Systems (SINCGARS); plus associated mission, communication, navigation and ground support equipment, as well as spare and repair parts, special tools and test equipment, technical data and publications, site survey, and U.S. government and contractor technical and personnel services. The estimated cost is $134 million, and Boeing in Ridley Park, PA will be the prime contractor.

Morocco’s air force ordered 12 CH-47Cs, from Italy’s Elicotteri Meridionali (now AgustaWestland, see photos), who built them under license by Boeing. They were delivered in 2 batches of 6 each, in 1979 and 1982, and fly with the Escadre Hélicoptère in Rabat. Their current state of repair and serviceability are not known for certain; some orders of battle place their current operational number at 9, in which case these 3 helicopters would return the fleet to full strength.

CH-47D request

Oct 20/09: F-16s. Lockheed Martin CFO Bruce Tanner, discussing Q3 2009 earnings, reveals that Morocco and Iraq will be delaying their planned F-16 purchases “beyond 2011”. Q3 Podcast [MP3] | Q3 Earnings slides [PDF] | Flight International.

Sept 21/09: T-6. Hawker Beechcraft Corp. in Wichita, KS receives a contract for 24 T-6C trainer aircraft, spares, program support, operational flight trainers, ground support, on-site support and technical publications. The Dec 19/07 DSCA listing said that Morocco was requesting 24 T-6B trainers, but Morocco will be the launch customer for the new variant.

At this time, $37.1 million has been obligated. The AESG/SYI at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base manages this foreign military sales contract (FA8617-09-C-6170).

The Royal Moroccan Air Force is the launch customer for the new T-6C model, and Hawker Beechcraft’s Oct 12/09 release adds more details. Like the US Navy’s newly certified T-6B, the T-6C features an integrated digital “glass” cockpit and advanced avionics suite, including a a Head-Up Display (HUD), Up Front Control Panel (UFCP), 3 Multifunction Displays (MFDs) and Hands-On Throttle and Stick (HOTAS) controls. What it adds is wings equipped with hard points, to allow for external fuel tanks, and an open architecture Esterline CMC Cockpit 4000 avionics suite that’s the first in its class to incorporate a fully integrated and FAA-certified dual FMS/GPS navigation suite. See also Dec 19/07 entry.

24 T-6Cs

Sept 9/09: F-16s. The US DSCA announces [PDF] Morocco’s formal request for F-16 C/D Block 50/52 aircraft support equipment and weapons at an estimated value of $187 million.

DSCA said that the proposed sale will allow the Moroccan air force to modernize its aging fighter inventory, thereby enabling Morocco to support both its own air defense needs and coalition operations (emphasis DID’s), adding that “Morocco is a major non-NATO US ally.” The proposed sale includes:

  • 40 LAU-129A launchers;
  • 20 AGM-65D infrared-guided Maverick air-to-surface missiles;
  • 4 AGM-65D Maverick training missiles;
  • 4 AGM-65H TV-guided Maverick training missiles;
  • 60 Enhanced GBU-12 Paveway II kits, which include GPS-aided, laser guidance systems for the 500 lbs GBU-12 bombs;
  • 28 M61 20mm Vulcan cannons;
  • 28 AN/ARC-238 Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radios (SINCGARS) with HaveQuick I/II (a frequency-hopping system used to protect military radio traffic) or Saturn I/II;
  • 1 ground based simulator;
  • 40 LAU-118A missile rails;
  • 6 AN/AAQ-33 SNIPER targeting pods with ground station. Previous DSCA requests had included 12 SNIPER ATP or LITENING pods, and the RMAF has begun buying SNIPER;
  • 16 Air Combat Maneuvering Instrumentation (ACMI) pods that record an aircraft’s in-flight data during dogfighting exercises;
  • 4 ACMI ground stations:
  • 8 Joint Mission Planning Systems (JMPS);
  • 2 Remotely Operated Video Enhanced Receivers (ROVERs);
  • 30 AN/ALR-93 radar warning receivers;
  • 30 AN/AVS-9 night vision goggles.

Other items included in the request are containers, bomb components, support equipment, repair and return, spares and repair parts, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, US government and contractor technical, engineering, and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics support.

The principal contractors will be:

  • Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company in Fort Worth, TX
  • Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, AZ
  • L3 Communications in Arlington, TX
  • Advanced Night Vision System in North Salt Lake, UT
  • Marvin Industries in Inglewood, CA
  • Pratt & Whitney in East Hartford, CT
  • Goodrich ISR Systems in Danbury, CT
  • BAE Advanced Systems in Greenland, NY
  • Boeing in Seattle, WA
  • Boeing Integrated Defense Systems in St Lewis, MO
  • Boeing IDS in Long Beach, CA
  • Boeing IDS in San Diego, CA
  • Raytheon in Lexington, MA
  • Raytheon in Goleta, CA
  • Lockheed Martin Missile and Fire Control in Dallas, TX
  • Northrop-Grumman Electro-Optical Systems in Garland, TX
  • Northrop-Grumman Electronic Systems in Baltimore, MD

Some contractors on this list may not be featured in final orders, depending on which ancillaries are chosen.

F-16 weapons request

ELEC Sniper ATPs Assembly
Sniper ATPs
(click to view full)

Aug 03/09: F-16s. Lockheed Martin Missile and Fire Control in Orlando FL receives a $30.3 million contract for the purchase of Sniper Advanced Targeting Pods (ATPs) for Morroco’s F-16s. The Dec 19/07 DSCA request specified either Sniper ATP or the LITENING pod.

The contract includes integration support, product spares. and logistics support. Sniper ATP deliveries will be completed in 2011. The number of pods was not disclosed. Warner-Robins Air Logistics Center/448 SCMG/PKHCB at Robins Air Force Base, GA manages the foreign military sales contract (FA8522-09-C-0013).

Feb 23/09: F-16s. General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products announces a 5-year, $39 contract from Lockheed Martin for F-16 Ammunition Handling Systems (AHS). The initial order is $8.9 million, covering guns that will equip Turkey’s 30 new F-16C/D Block 50s, and Morocco’s 24 new F-16C/D Block 52s. Final assembly will be performed at GDATP’s Saco Operations facility in Saco, Maine, with testing and program management performed at the company’s Burlington Technology Center in Burlington, VT. Deliveries will begin in April 2010.

The General Dynamics F-16 Ammunition Handling System utilizes a closed-loop, linkless feed system, giving it greater ammunition capacity than previous designs and eliminating potential damage from ejected ammunition casings. The system is combined with GDATP’s M61A1 20mm Gatling gun.

2008

AIR_C-27J_Bank_Right.jpg
C-27J Spartan
(click to view full)

Dec 1/08: F-16s. Raytheon announces a contract from Lockheed Martin for its ACES (advanced countermeasures electronic system) for 24 Royal Moroccan Air Force F-16 Block 52 aircraft.

The ACES system is Raytheon’s latest offering for the F-16, and consists of a radar warning receiver, digital jammer and chaff-flare dispensers. The system features a new, all-digital, low cost, high performance radar warning receiver for dense signal environments, and a new digital RF memory-based (DRFM) jammer with enhanced resource management and an upgraded bag of tricks. Raytheon’s contract calls for deliveries to begin in December 2009.

Note that the original DSCA announcement involved 28 of ITT’s AN/ALQ-211 AIDEWS; or BAE Systems’ AN/ALQ-178 SPEWS suites, or or Raytheon’s AN/ALQ-187 ASPIS II suites. ACES would represent an upgrade from ASPIS II.

Oct 23/08: C-27Js. Finmeccanica subsidiary Alenia Aeronautica announces [PDF] that the Moroccan Defence Ministry has placed a EUR 130 million order for 4 C-27J Spartan tactical transport aircraft. Industry and local sources say it also includes a 2-year training and spares package, plus options for a VIP module.

This brings the total number of firm C-27J orders received to 121 (US Army 78, Italy 12, Greece 12 + 3 option, Romania 7, Bulgaria 5 + 3 option, Morocco 4, Lithuania 3), and is the first order from a non-NATO country.

The Alkowat al malakiya al jawiya (RMAF) currently operates a fleet of about 19 C-130H/KC-130H Hercules aircraft as its mainstay transports. This order appears designed to supplement that C-130 feet with smaller short-field cargo aircraft, which don’t have the same number of flight-hours on their airframes. Later reports, however, indicate that the C-27Js will actually replace some C-130s.

4 C-27Js

Aug 28/08: F-16s. Goodrich Corp. Surveillance and Reconnaissance Systems of Chelmsford, MA wins an $87.9 million contract for 4 DB-110 airborne reconnaissance pods, 1 mobile ground station, 1 fixed ground station, 2 mission planners, data links, in-country technical representatives, technical manuals, and test and integration support. At this time $37.8 million has been committed. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH is managing the contract (FA8620-08-C-3013). See the DSCA listing in the Dec 19/07 entry; the DB-110 beat BAE’s TARS alternative.

Goodrich Corporation announced the contract back on July 14/08, to equip the Royal Moroccan Air Force’s new Block 52+ F-16 fighters. Work will be performed by the company’s ISR Systems teams in Chelmsford, MA and Malvern, UK.

AIR_F-16D_Chile_Closing_Tarmac.jpg
Chilean F-16D Block 52
(click to view full)

July 9/08: F-16s. The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency announces [PDF] Morocco’s formal request for weapons to equip its new F-16s. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $155 million.

The request includes a number of different weapons, along with containers, bomb components, spare/repair parts, publications, documentation, personnel and training, contractor technical and logistics personnel services, and other related support elements.

The principal contractors will be:

  • Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company in Fort Worth, TX (F-16)
  • Lockheed Martin Missile and Fire Control in Dallas, TX (Paveway)
  • Boeing Integrated Defense Systems in Seattle, WA (JDAM)
  • Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, AZ (AMRAAM, HARM, Maverick, Paveway, Sidewinder)

Weapons requested will include:

  • 30 AIM-120-C5 Advanced Medium Range Air-to Air Missiles (AMRAAM). The most recent production version is the C7.
  • 60 AIM-9M SIDEWINDER Missiles. The most recent production version is the next-generation AIM-9X, but most American aircraft still carry AIM-9Ms.
  • 20 AGM-88B/C HARM Missiles, used to attack radar sites.
  • 8 AGM-65D/G MAVERICK Missiles, which use imaging infrared (IIR) guidance. The AGM-65G is especially useful against hardened targets.
  • 45 AGM-65H MAVERICK Missiles. These use camera-based guidance, which can be more useful in hot desert environments.
  • 50 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) tail kits (20 GBU-31 for MK-82 500 lb bombs, and 30 GBU-38s for MK-84 2,000 lb bombs);
  • 20 GBU-24, PAVEWAY III laser-guidance and fin kits to convert 2,000 pound bombs.
  • 50 GBU-10, PAVEWAY II laser-guidance kits for 2,000 lb. bombs with penetrating warheads for hardened targets.
  • 150 GBU-12, PAVEWAY II laser-guidance kits for 500 lb. bombs.
  • 60 Enhanced GBU-12 PAVEWAY II bombs, with dual-mode GPS/laser guidance.
  • 300 MK-82 training “bombs”
  • 60,000 training projectiles for 20mm cannons, which are found in the F-16 and in Morocco’s F-5s
  • 4,000 self-protection chaff for use in the ALE-47 self-protection system
  • 4,000 ALE-47 self-protection flares and associated equipment and services.

Morocco can order up to these amounts, if the sale is not blocked by Congress within 30 days.

F-16 weapons request

June 6/08: F-16s. Pratt & Whitney announces that its F100-PW-229 engine has been selected by the Royal Moroccan Air Force to power their new fleet of F-16 Block 52 aircraft, beating GE’s F110-GE-129. The engine program is valued at approximately $170 million, with deliveries to take place in 2010 and 2011.

The F100-PW-229’s Engine Enhancement Package (EEP) aims to increase the time until full depot inspection from 7-10 years, while providing up to 30% life cycle cost reductions and reduce the predicted in-flight shutdown rate by up to 25%. To date, F100-PW-229 powered aircraft have logged more than 963,000 flight hours in more than 16 years of operational service, and the Royal Moroccan Air Force becomes the 22nd international customer to select the F100 engine family for F-16 or F-15 aircraft.

May 30/08: F-16s begin. Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems Co. of Fort Worth TX received a firm fixed price contract not to exceed $233.6 million for 24 F-16 Block 52 aircraft, along with associated support equipment, alternate mission equipment and support elements for the Government of Morocco. At this time $124.3 million has been obligated. The 312AESG/PK at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH manages this contract (FA8615-08-C-6050).

As one might guess from the amount, this isn’t the full purchase price, just the cost of key materials and components that have long lead times, and must be ordered now to ensure timely delivery of the finished fighters. Note: this contract was re-announced on June 5/08.

24 F-16s

2007

AIR T-6A Texan-II JPATS
Start here –
T-6A JPATS
(click to view full)

Dec 19/07: F-16s. The US DSCA announces [PDF] Morocco’s formal request for 24 F-16C/D Block 50/52 aircraft as well as associated equipment and services – but not weapons. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $2.4 billion. The proposed sale includes:

  • 24 F-16C/D Block 50/52 aircraft with either the F100-PW-229 or F110-GE-129 Increased Performance Engines (IPE), and APG-68v9 radars;
  • 24 Conformal Fuel Tanks (pairs);
  • 5 F100-PW-229 or F110-GE-129 IPE spare engines;
  • 4 APG-68v9 spare radar sets;
  • 30 AN/ALE-47 Countermeasures Dispensing Systems (CMDS)
  • 30 AN/ALR-56M Radar Warning Receivers (RWR)
  • 60 LAU-129/A Launchers;
  • 30 LAU-117 Launchers;
  • 6 Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems;
  • 12 AN/AAQ-33 Sniper ATP, or AN/AAQ-28 LITENING advanced surveillance and targeting pods. Even the choice is surprising, as Northrop Grumman’s LITENING was jointly developed with RAFAEL of Israel; DID predicts a Sniper ATP purchase.
  • 5 Tactical Air Reconnaissance Systems (TARS) or DB-110 Reconnaissance Pods (RECCE); Goodrich’s DB-110 is already integrated into Poland’s F-16s, an eventually won here, too.
  • 4 AN/ARC-238 Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System (SINCGARS) radios with HAVE QUICK I/II;
  • 4 Link-16 Multifunctional Information Distribution System-Low Volume Terminals (MIDS-LVT);
  • 2 Link-16 Ground Stations;
  • 4 Global Positioning Systems (GPS) and Embedded GPS/ Inertial Navigation Systems (INS);
  • 4 AN/APX-113 Advanced Identification Friend or Foe (AIFF) Systems;
  • 28 AN/ALQ-211 Advanced Integrated Defensive Electronic Warfare Suites (AIDEWS); or 28 AN/ALQ-187 Advanced Self-Protection Integrated Suites (ASPIS II); or 28 AN/ALQ-178 Self Protection Electronic Warfare Suites (SPEWS)
  • 1 Unit Level Trainer
  • Associated support equipment, software development/integration, tanker support, ferry services, CAD/PAD, repair and return, modification kits, spares and repair parts, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor technical, engineering, and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics support.

The principal contractors (and some of their key offerings) will be:

  • Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company in Fort Worth, TX (F-16 prime)
  • Lockheed Martin Missile and Fire Control in Dallas, TX (Sniper ATP)
  • BAE Advanced Systems Greenlawn, New York (Electronic Warfare, IFF, TARS)
  • Boeing Corporation Seattle, Washington
  • Boeing Integrated Defense Systems (three locations) St Louis, MO; Long Beach and San Diego, CA
  • Raytheon Company (two locations) Lexington, MA; Goleta, CA
  • Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, AZ
  • Northrop-Grumman Electro-Optical Systems in Garland, TX (LITENING)
  • Northrop-Grumman Electronic Systems in Baltimore, MD (AN/APG-68v9)
  • Pratt & Whitney in East Hartford, CT (F100 engine)
  • General Electric Aircraft Engines in Cincinnati, OH (F110 engine)
  • Goodrich ISR Systems in Danbury, CT (DB-110)
  • L3 Communications in Arlington, TX

Implementation of this proposed sale will require multiple trips to Morocco involving U.S. Government and contractor representatives for technical reviews/support, program management, and training over a period of 15 years.

F-16 request

Dec 19/07: T-6. The DSCA release [PDF] notes that:

“The Royal Moroccan Air Force’s (RMAF) fleet of T-37 aircraft was produced in the early 1960s. The T-37s high fuel and maintenance costs, and low mission-capable rates led to the RMAF’s decision to procure new trainer aircraft. The T-6B aircraft will reduce fuel requirements by 66%. The RMAF will use these new aircraft to modernize its air force and to improve operational capability in coalition operations and exercises, and contribute to a modern air defense network for the legitimate defense of Morocco.”

Hence Morocco’s official request for 24 T-6B Texan trainer aircraft with very secondary light attack capability. Associated equipment will include Global Positioning Systems (GPS) with CMA-4124 GNSSA card and Embedded GPS/Inertial Navigation System (INS) spares, ferry maintenance, tanker support, aircraft ferry services, site survey, unit level trainer, spare and repair parts, support and test equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, contractor technical and logistics personnel services, and other related elements of logistics support.

The estimated cost is $200 million, and the principal contractors would be:

  • Hawker Beechcraft Corporation in Wichita, KS (aircraft)
  • Pratt & Whitney Corporation near Montreal, Canada and in Bridgeport, WVA (engines)
  • Martin Baker in Middlesex, United Kingdom (ejection seat)
  • Hartzel Propeller in Pique, OH (propeller)
  • CMC, with headquarters in Montreal, Canada and offices in Ottawa, Canada and Sugar Grove, IL (cockpit avionics)
  • L-3 Vertex in Madison, MS

Implementation of this proposed sale will require multiple trips to Morocco involving U.S. Government and contractor representatives for technical reviews/support, program management, and training over a period of 15 years.

T-6C request

Why The F-16? DID Analysis

Dassault Rafale
Dassault Rafale
(click for cutaway view)

Defence Aerospace claims that France’s Rafale offers were 18 jets for EUR 1.8 billion (currently $2.6 billion), or 24 jets for EUR 2.4 billion (currently $3.45 billion), along with MBDA’s Mica air-air missiles and AASM GPS-guided bombs:

“Contrary to earlier reports, Morocco is buying new F-16s, and not surplus US Air Force aircraft. The price it is paying is broadly comparable to that offered by France for the Rafale, giving the lie to reports that Moroccan authorities were swayed by a cut-rate offer made by the United States.

France made two offers, one for 18 Rafales for 1.8 billion euros ($2.6 billion), and one for 2.2 billion euros ($3.2 billion) for 24 aircraft. The French offers included a full weapons suite (MICA air-to-air missiles and AASM laser-guided bombs) as well as an extensive ground environment, that Morocco will have to buy separately for the F-16s.”

A 2012 Arabian Aerospace report says that the French bid shift came when the US reportedly counter-offered up to 36 second-hand F-16s at a cost of just $1.4 billion. France’s revised offer reportedly offered the choice of 12 Rafales and 12 Mirage 2000 aircraft, or a higher-end buy of 24 Rafales. The US response involved 24 fully up to date F-16C/D Block 52s at $2.4 billion.

There’s little transparency in these sorts of negotiations, so the public may never know why Morocco chose as it did. Few would dispute that the Rafale is a significantly better plane, offering Morocco a level of quality overmatch that the F-16C/Ds cannot promise against neighboring Algeria’s MiG-29s and SU-30s. The F-16s’ potential winning edge thus comes down to some combination of the most likely explanations: price, network effects, strategic leverage… and pride.

When comparing the offers, the first thing any analysis must note is that a reasonably extensive support network is in fact built into the American offer. Equivalent weapons like the AIM-120 AMRAAM and Paveway II/III kits were not included, but they are unlikely to add more than $200 million to the price of 24 aircraft. An American dollar discount of 45% can still make that an attractive offer; indeed Morocco’s “equivalent choice” actually involves a 33% discount of 24 F-16C/Ds for the price of 18 Rafales, assuming a budget of around $2.6 billion for the aircraft and basic weapons.

Depending on relative in-service rates, the difference in aircraft that are actually available for use at any given time could widen further. That’s a significant consideration when the numbers neck down to under 24 aircraft, in order to cover an entire country against a potential opponent who can field over 60 aircraft of comparable or better quality.

AIR_F-16s_Turkish_Armed.jpg
TuAF F-16s
(click to view full)

The second factor to consider is “network effects,” in which the value of a military platform increases with the number of associated choices in weapons et. al. F-16s do have the advantage of offering a much wider set of choices in weapons, targeting pods, engines, and other related equipment. This expands Morocco’s weaponry options to handle a variety of strategic scenarios, and avoids the Rafale’s limiting choices of either accepting supplier lock-in, or pursuing expensive local integration projects. The F-16’s network effects could well be more attractive to a country who values flexibility highly, and understands that flyaway aircraft cost, like the cost of a new car from a dealer, is only the beginning of the real expense of ownership.

The 3rd factor to consider is that the F-16 sale may also be set in the context of a wider security relationship with the USA, which would offset Morocco’s aircraft quality differential in a different way. The US DSCA adds that:

“The proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by enhancing Morocco’s capacity to support U.S. efforts in the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT), as well as supporting Morocco’s legitimate need for its own self-defense. Morocco is one of the most stable and pro-Western of the Arab states, and the U.S. remains committed to a long-term relationship with Morocco.”

That relationship undoubtedly had a role to play getting the American F-16 in the door as an alternative. Many people think that countries sell arms to people they wish to befriend; that is only very partially true. It is more true to say that countries tend to buy arms from nations whom they wish to be their friends, when the potential for a strategic relationship is a factor at all. This helps to explain why the F-16 became Morocco’s #1 alternative instead of (for instance) Sweden’s JAS-39 Gripen. Or cheap Russian fighters, which would be fatally compromised by Russia’s near-certain choice of Algeria and its gas reserves over Morocco in the event of a crisis.

While these security relationship dynamics always apply to global weapon purchases, it is very unlikely that they were decisive in winning the deal. If Morocco desires a relationship with the USA that extends to military support in times of crisis, that relationship cannot be dependent on a single minor aircraft sale; given the way America works, it either exists in any event, or it does not exist at all.

The last factor to consider is pride. Past reports have indicated that France’s initial sales efforts quoted one price, while a later call to the DGA concerning France’s price per aircraft gave a much lower figure. Negotiations went very cold after that, and serious discussions began with the Americans that would eventually lead to the F-16 sale. In a part of the world known for holding pride and honor in very high esteem, that kind of gaffe tends to have serious consequences. Not serious enough to break Morocco’s relationship with France entirely, of course; France is valued for strategic reasons. It was serious enough, however, that if the French reports are true and Morocco could find a “good enough” alternative, pride and the satisfaction of honor alone could explain the denouement we have seen:

# Buy American jets to exact redress and serve as a warning to France not to do that again, while improving relations with another powerful ally.
# Couple that with a EUR 500 million order for a French FREMM frigate to shore up another need, and demonstrate to France that relationship still exists, and honor has been satisfied.

Additional Readings

KF-X Fighter: Korea’s Future Homegrown Jet

$
0
0
KF-X on KODEF 2011 slide
KODEF ’11 slide
(click to view full)

South Korea has been thinking seriously about designing its own fighter jet since 2008. The ROK defense sector has made impressive progress, and has become a notable exporter of aerospace, land, and naval equipment. The idea of a plane that helps advance their aerospace industry, while making it easy to add new Korean-designed weapons, is very appealing. On the flip side, a new jet fighter is a massive endeavor at the best of times, and wildly unrealistic technical expectations didn’t help the project. KF-X has progressed in fits and starts, and became a multinational program when Indonesia joined in June 2010. As of March 2013, however, South Korea has decided to put the KF-X program on hold for 18 months, while the government and Parliament decide whether it’s worth continuing.

Indonesia has reportedly contributed IDR 1.6 trillion since they joined in July 2010 – but that’s just $165 million of the DAPA’s estimated WON 6 billion (about $5.5 billion) development cost, and there’s good reason to believe that even this development budget is too low. This article discusses the KFX/IFX fighter’s proposed designs and features, and chronicles the project’s progress and setbacks since 2008…

Changing Stories: The “F-33/ Boramae” KF-X Fighter

Unofficial KF-X vid
click for video

Unrealistic early visions of an F-35 class stealth aircraft developed on the cheap produced some attention-getting models, but they appear to have given way to the idea of a fighter with slightly better kinematic performance than an F-16C/D Block 50, along with more advanced electronics that include a made-in-Korea AESA radar, the ability to carry a range of new South Korean weapons under development, and a better radar signature. The Jakarta Globe adds that the plane is eventually slated to get the designation F-33.

The project goes ahead, the 1st step will involve picking a foreign development partner, and the next step will involve choosing between 1 of 2 competing designs. The C103 design’s conventional fighter layout would look somewhat like the F-35, while the C203 design follows the European approach and uses forward canards in a stealth-shaped airframe. It’s likely that the choice of their foreign development partner will determine the design choice pursued.

Either aircraft would be a twin-engine fighter weighing around 10.4 tonnes, with stealth shaping. In order to keep ambitions within the bounds of realism, KFX Bock 1 fighters would only have to meet the radar cross-section of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet or Eurofighter Typhoon. Sources have used figures of 0.1 – 1.0 square meters.

Note that even this specification amounts to developing a plane similar to or more advanced than the JAS-39E/F Gripen, from a lower technological base, with less international help on key components, all for less development money than a more experienced firm needed to spend. South Korea’s own KIDA takes a similar view, questioning the country’s technical readiness for something this complicated, and noting an overall cost per aircraft that’s twice as much as similar imported fighters.

KFX Block 2 would add internal weapon bays. Present plans call for Block 1 would be compatible with the bays, and hence upgradeable to Block 2 status, but Block 1 planes wouldn’t begin with internal bays. The fighter’s size and twin-engine design offer added space compared to a plan like the Gripen, but this feature will still be a notable design challenge. Additional tolerance and coating improvements are envisioned to reduce stealth to the level of an F-117: about 0.025 square meters.

KFX Block 3 would aim for further stealth improvements to the level of the B-2 bomber or F-35.

No timeline has been discussed for Block 2 and Block 3 improvements. At this stage of the program, any dates given would be wildly unreliable anyway.

KF-X: Program & Prospects

Building T-50s
T-50 line
(click to view full)

The KF-X project remains a “paper airplane,” without even a prototype under construction. The program was reportedly postponed until April 2011 due to financial and technological difficulties, and now a second postponement appears to extend to June 2014. If South Korea elects to proceed at all. The ROK Agency for Defense Development says that if full-scale development begins in October 2014, the 1st KF-X Block 1 prototype flight wouldn’t take place until September 2020. Based on the history of other programs, the new plane would be hard pressed to enter service before 2025.

Indonesia is currently the only KF-X foreign development partner, with 20% of the project. The project is sometimes referred to as “IFX” (Indonesia Fighter eXperimental) in that country, whose huge archipelago leads them to value range. That could create a problem if the KF-X design shrinks, in order to present a lower cost profile.

Turkey is a big defense customer for South Korea, and discussions have been held concerning KF-X, but Turkey wanted more control over the project than a 20% share, and no agreement has been forthcoming. The TuAF is already committed to buying about 100 F-35As to replace its F-4 Phantoms, and many of its F-16s as well. They’re also investigating the idea of designing their own fighter, and have enlisted Sweden’s Saab to assist (vid. March 20/13 entry).

In the interim, KAI’s FA-50 is emerging as a low-end fighter to replace existing ROKAF F-5s and F-4s, and South Korea is scheduled to have its F-X-3 competition decided before the KF-X resumes. That could leave them with a high-end fleet plan of 80-100 stealth-enhanced F-15SE Strike Eagles, split between new buys and upgrades. It’s fair to ask where an expensive KF-X program would fit in that mix, especially when even on-budget performance of WON 14 billion for development and production could buy and equip over 110 more F-15SEs, instead of 130-150 “F-33s”.

ROK Flag
ROK Flag

Moreover, if KF-X was developed, how big would the 2025 – 2040 export market really be? The Teal Group’s Richard Aboulafia is right that “The world fighter market needs a modern, F-16-class mid-market fighter.” With that said, even in a hypothetical market where F-16, F/A-18 family, Eurofighter, and Rafale production lines had all shut down, that would still leave South Korea competing for mid-tier purchases against China’s J-10, J-11, and “J-31”, Russia’s SU-35 and possibly its MiG-35, and Sweden’s JAS-39E/F.

On the other hand, KAI needs development work after the FA-50 is done. As one 2009 article asked, how far can industrial nationalism go? The next 18 months will offer an answer to that question.

Contracts & Key Events

2014-2015

K-FX C-501 concept
K-FX C-501: no.
(click to view full)

November 19/15: Lockheed Martin staff are visiting South Korea this week to further discuss the transfer of technologies in relation to the development of the $6.9 billion KF-X fighter program. The talks come following a recent refusal by the US to allow the transfer of the four core technologies necessary for the program which could put the future of its development in jeopardy. Despite this, both Lockheed and the South Korean government are confident that the transfer of another 21 technologies will go ahead as planned with possibly some minor alterations to the technologies initially listed. The State Department however did approve the sale of 19 UGM-84L Harpoon Block II All-Up-Round Missiles and 13 Block II upgrade kits totally $110 million.

October 30/15: A subcommittee in South Korea’s Parliament has passed a $58.8 million budget for the country’s indigenous KF-X fighter program, with the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) planning to press ahead with the development of critical technologies required for the jet, despite the US State Department preventing F-35 prime contractor Lockheed Martin from exporting four key technologies to the country. The country’s Ministry of National Defense will also stand-up a KF-X project team to manage the development of these four technologies.

October 26/15: South Korea’s defense acquisition agency is reportedly planning to press ahead with development of the four key technologies required for the country’s KF-X indigenous fighter program, refused by Washington in April. South Korea is thought to be capable of finding replacements for three of these technologies; however the acquisition of an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar system is a particularly difficult problem for Seoul. It was thought that the technology would be transferred as part of offset arrangements for the South Korean F-35 acquisition, with Saab reportedly offering to develop an AESA solution for South Korea, unveiling a new radar system earlier this month.

October 21/15: South Korea’s president has fired the country’s senior presidential secretary for foreign affairs Ju Chul-ki following failure to secure the transfer of four key technologies from the US required for the country’s KF-X indigenous fighter program. The blockage of the technologies in April – subsequently confirmed by the South Korean government in September – has also led to a criminal investigation into a senior security official in the country, as US SecDef Carter publicly reiterated the refusal to transfer the critical technologies last week.

October 7/15: South Korea and Indonesia look set to sign a set of agreements later this month to cement the two countries’ industrial commitments to the collaborative development of the South Korean KF-X indigenous fighter program. The two states signed an engineering and development agreement in October 2014, which split the development costs 80-20 to South Korea. The two countries reiterated their commitment to the program in May this year. Meanwhile, the South Korean Defense Acquisition Program Administration announced on Tuesday that a separate organization will be established specifically to manage the KF-X program.

September 28/15: South Korea’s $6.9 billion KF-X program has hit a major speed bump with refusal by the US government to approve the transfer of four core technologies from F-35 prime contractor Lockheed Martin to the country’s defense procurement agency, with the South Korean government now confirming that Washington refused the transfer back in April. The Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) will now have to look elsewhere to acquire these technologies, which include an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, EO targeting pod, RF jammer and IR search and track system. Lockheed Martin promised to transfer 25 technologies to the country when it signed a Foreign Military Sales contract for 40 F-35s in September, with the homegrown fighter project seemingly now in jeopardy.

April 10/15: GE to push engines. General Electric is reportedly looking to supply jet engines for the South Korea KF-X program, submitting a proposal to Korea Aerospace Industries, following the company’s selection as preferred bidder at the end of last month. The F414 engines GE is proposing has previously equipped the US Navy’s Super Hornets and Growlers, the Saab Gripen NG and the Indian Mk II Tejas.

March 31/15: KAL eliminated. South Korean manufacturer Korean Aerospace Industries (KAI) was selected as preferred bidder today in the country’s indigenousKF-X fighter program, South Korean media reported today, beating a partnership of Airbus and Korean Airlines. KAI are expected to partner with Lockheed Martin for the $7.9 billion program, which will replace the existing Korean fleet of F-4 and F-5 fighters, as well as equip the Indonesian Air Force, which joined the project in 2010.

Feb 23/15: KAL partners with Airbus.
On February 22, Yonhap reported that KAL indeed signed an MOU with Airbus to present a join offer.

Jan 27/15: KAL prospects dim. After proposals were sought on December 23, one government official was quoted as saying that price may be a controlling factor. That probably presupposes that KAL’s international partners, like Boeing, were staying with them, as they can help make up for the leaner engineering department at KAL. But one report indicated that Boeing was pulling out. The consortium, also to have included Airbus, would have pushed a revised F-18 model.

Oct 15/14: F-35 & KF-16. Korean media report that a proposed $753 million price hike for BAE’s KF-16 upgrade deal could result in cancellation. Lockheed Martin waits in the wings, and is reportedly extending an offer that would include more technical help with the multinational KF-X fighter program if the ROKAF switches.

The US government is reportedly demanding another WON 500 billion (about $471 million) for unspecified added “risk management,” while BAE is reportedly requesting another WON 300 million ($282 million) to cover a 1-year program delay. The Koreans are becoming visibly frustrated and distrustful, and have said openly that the deal may be canceled.

Lockheed Martin’s angle is a spinoff from their recent F-35A deal, which will supply 40 aircraft to the ROKAF. Part of their industrial offsets involved 300 man-years of help designing the proposed KF-X. They were cautious about providing too much help, but they reportedly see enough benefit in badly wounding an F-16 upgrade competitor to offer another 400 man-years of support for KF-X (total: 700) if the ROKAF switches. Sources: Chosun Ilbo, “U.S. in Massive Price Hike for Fighter Jet Upgrade” | Defense News, “F-16 Upgrade: Problems With S. Korea-BAE Deal Could Open Door to Lockheed” | Korea Times, “Korea may nix BAE’s KF-16 upgrade deal”.

Sept 24/14: F-35A. DAPA agrees on a WON 7.3 trillion deal for 40 F-35A fighters. including technology transfer in 17 sectors for use in KF-X. Transfers will include flight control and fire suppression technologies, and this appears to have been the final part of the KF-X puzzle. DAPA is said to have finalized their WON 8.5 trillion KF-X development plan, but it still has to be approved.

Subsequent reports indicate that Lockheed Martin has limited its proposed help with KF-X to just 300 man-years, rather than the 800 desired. In exchange, they offered a very unusual offset: they would buy a military communications satellite for South Korea, and launch it by 2017. Lockheed Martin isn’t saying anything, but Thales is favored as the source, as they provided the payload for South Korea’s Kopmsat-5 radar observation satellite, and have played a major role in KT Sat’s Koreasat commercial telecommunications satellites.

Why wouldn’t Lockheed Martin, which makes these satellites itself, just built one? Because this way, it doesn’t have to deal with any American weapon export approval processes and restrictions, which would have delayed overall negotiations and might have endangered them. That’s a lot of effort and money, in order to avoid ITAR laws. Or added help for KF-X. Sources: Yonhap, “Seoul to buy 40 F-35A fighters from Lockheed Martin in 7.3 tln won deal” | Defense News, “F-16 Upgrade: Problems With S. Korea-BAE Deal Could Open Door to Lockheed” | Reuters, “Exclusive: Lockheed to buy European satellite for South Korea in F-35 deal”.

Aug 31/14: DAPA gave public notice of KF-X bids this month, with plans to pick the preferred bidder (likely KAI) in November 2014, and sign a system development contract in December 2014.

The estimated WON 20 trillion development and production cost for 120 fighters is giving South Korea pause, especially with the ROKAF’s coming fighter fleet shortage (q.v. March 26/14). Sources: Korea Herald, “Fighter procurement projects pick up speed”.

Aug 21/14: Engines. GE declares their interest in equipping the ROKAF’s KF-X. The firm already equips some ROKAF F-15Ks (F110), Korea’s own T/TA/FA-50 fighter family (F404), Surion helicopters (T700-701K), and many ROK naval ships (LM2500). The F404, LM2500, and T700 are all assembled locally in South Korea. GE is promising to expand aero engine technology cooperation, increase the component localization rate, and support KF-X exports via joint marketing, while ensuring that over half of KF-X’s engine components are locally assembled.

GE’s F404, F414, and F110 jet engines are all viable possibilities. The key questions will involve matching their engineering specifications to the new platform: space, weight and balance, fuel consumption vs. onboard fuel, and twin-engine thrust vs. expected weight.

GE competitor Pratt & Whitney’s F100 engine equips some ROKAF F-15Ks, and all of its F-16s. Sources: Yonhap, “GE eyes S. Korea’s fighter jet development project” | Joong An Daily, “GE wants in on new fighter jets”.

July 18/14: Twin-engines. South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff endorse the plan to develop KF-X as a twin-engine fighter by 2025. That seems to pick the C-103/ C-501 (q.v. Feb 6/14), a twin-engine design that’s similar to the F-35 in overall shape. This decision an important step, but it isn’t a contract, or even a budget.

The state-funded Korea Institute for Defense Analysis (KIDA) didn’t favor the twin-engine option, because they believed it would increase the fighter’s cost, and wouldn’t have a competitive edge. There actually is an edge for twin-engine fighters in a number of markets, because they’re less likely to crash due to engine failure. A country with large or remote areas to cover – Indonesia, for instance – will benefit from that choice. As for increases in cost, fighters like the Anglo-French Jaguar and Taiwan’s F-CK are smaller twin-engine planes that were successfully developed at reasonable cost. The key cost factor isn’t engines, it’s overall specifications.

With that said, this choice does rule out KF-X’s least-cost, least-risk C-501/ KFX-E design, which would have been derived from the single-engined FA-50 that’s currently in production at KAI. Sources: Defense News, “S. Korea Opts for Twin-Engine Fighter Development” | Reuters, “S.Korea military chiefs endorse $8.2 bln development plan for home-built fighters”.

JCS picks twin-engine C-103 design

March 26/14: Fill-ins. The ROKAF needs to retire its fleets of 136 or so F-5E/F Tiger light fighters, and about 30 F-4 Phantom fighter-bombers. Meanwhile, The F-16 fleet is about to begin a major upgrade program that will keep part of that fleet out of service. The F-X-3 buy of F-35As is expected to be both late, and 20 jets short of earlier plans. The KF-X mid-level fighter project will be even later – it isn’t likely to arrive until 2025, if it arrives at all. The ROKAF is buying 60 FA-50s to help offset some of the F-5 retirements, but the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses (KIDA) sees this combination of events leaving South Korea about 80 planes short.

FA-50 deliveries only began in August 2013, and foreign FA-50 orders from Iraq and the Philippines are beginning to take up additional slots on the production line. As such, the ROKAF may be leaning toward a quicker stopgap:

“The Air Force is considering leasing used combat jets as part of ways to provide the interim defense capability because replacement of aging F-4s and F-5s wouldn’t take place in a timely manner,” a senior Air Force official said, asking for anonymity. “As midlevel combat jets are mostly in shortage, the Air Force is considering renting 16 to 20 used F-16s from the U.S. Air Force…. “The U.S. Air Force stood down some F-16s in the wake of the defense spending cut affected by the sequestration,” another Air Force official said, asking not to be named. “Under current circumstances, we can rent F-16s or buy used ones.”

It will be interesting to see if the USAF will let the ROKAF lease, or just have them buy the jets at cut-rate prices. Sources: Yonhap, “S. Korea considers F-16 lease deal to replace aging jets”.

Jan 5/14: Budget. The Korea Times reports that the 2014 defense budget has appropriated KRW 20 billion (about $19 million) to finalize KF-X’s design. A subsequent report from Aviation Week describes conditions that might be difficult for KF-X to meet:

“The latest South Korean budget provides 20 billion won ($19 million) to continue KF-X studies in 2014, hedged by two major conditions—development cost must be capped at just under $8 billion and be complete by 2025, and the aircraft must be approved for export by the U.S. An international partner must be found and contribute a 15% investment.”

A decision between the available design options is possible by February, and would be followed by detail design work. With respect to US export approval, AW confirms that “Eurofighter is still trying to offer South Korea 40 Typhoons, along with support for KF-X.” Unlike Lockheed Martin’s expected assistance, the vast majority of Eurofighter GmbH technology would be beyond American export approvals. Unfortunately, the ROK military’s short-circuiting of DAPA’s fighter competition (q.v. Nov 22/13) will expand the scope of possible American KF-X export clearance interference. Korea Times, “Military to flesh own fighter jet plan” | Aviation Week, “Fast-Changing Trends In Asia Fighter Market”.

Feb 6/14: KAI’s official blog talks about the prospects for the K-FX. It clarifies that the design decision will be between the C-103, which is a twin-engine design similar to the F-35 in overall shape, and the FA-50 derived C-501/ KFX-E. Sources: KAI Blog.

2011 – 2013

Program halt lifted, as specs get clearer; Indonesia confirms, then faces a delayed program again; Turkey invited, but seem to be going their own way.

FA-50 fighter
KAI’s FA-50
(click to view full)

Nov 22/13: KF-X moved up. South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff add urgency to proposed development of the local KF-X fighter, moving it from a long-range project to an intermediate-term project for development by 2020. Past timelines have given 7 years from the beginning of development to the end, which is already pretty fast. Even if KF-X receives follow-on approval and budgets, 7 years means development doesn’t end until 2022 or so.

They also announce that there will be no competition for F-X Phase III – the F-35 is the only option. As a result, Lockheed Martin is expected to lend its expertise to KAI for KF-X, as part of an industrial offsets program that will also include a new military communications satellite and a cyber-warfare training center. ROK’s Yonhap, “(LEAD) S. Korea decides to buy 40 Lockheed F-35s from 2018” | Aviation Week, “South Korea To Order 40 F-35s, Maybe 20 More Later” | E&T, “South Korea confirms F-35 fighter jet deal” | NY Times, “In South Korea, Delays Drag a Project to Build Homegrown Fighter Jets” | China’s Xinhua, “S. Korea picks Lockheed Martin’s F-35 as main fighter jet”.

Nov 5/13: Sub-contractors. Rockwell Collins is expressing interest in KF-X. They’re already a significant avionics supplier for existing T-50 family jets and Surion helicopters. Honeywell’s senior director of APAC Customer Business Mark Burgess:

“We are in discussions with KAI and Samsung Techwin to explore how Honeywell can contribute to the KF-X program.”

Oct 28/13: KF-X shrunk? Aviation Week reports that KAI has responded to the KF-X’s program’s stall with a smaller, single-engine “KFX-E/ C501” design that uses the F-35-style C103 design as a base, and proposes to reuse some systems from the FA-50. Overall weight would drop from around 11 tonnes to 9.3t (an F-16 is 8.9t), removing advance provision for an internal weapon bay, and leaving 2 underbody stations unused if a centerline fuel tank is carried.

Engine choices would involve the same PW F100 or GE F110 choice available to F-16s, leaving KFX-E vulnerable to US export bans. Avionics would come from LIG Nex1, and a Korean AESA radar with about 1,000 T/R modules and a claimed performance similar to the F-16E/F’s AN/APG-80 would be fitted. Unlike the F-35, the targeting pod would have to be carried externally, and self-protection antennas will be part of a carried package, rather than conformal. South Korea believes they can develop the targeting pod themselves, and they’ve already developed an ALQ-200K ECM pod that could be adapted for internal carriage.

The problem with all of this is that the design math is adverse. KFX-E’s ceiling offers poorer acceleration and range versus the F-16, a design that doesn’t appear to be optimized for maneuverability, and a radar that’s likely to be technically behind the ROKAF’s upgraded KF-16 fighters, all without the benefits of stealth in its initial configuration. The product would due to enter service the mid-2020s, and costs are difficult to predict but are unlikely to be less than a current F-16. This would augur poorly for exports, and makes the case for internal ROKAF adoption more difficult. Worse, launch partner Indonesia in particular values range, which would endanger their continued participation. KFX-E seems to be a formula that minimizes one type of risk, while increasing others. Sources: Aviation Week, “KAI Proposes Smaller KF-X Design” | IHS Jane’s, “ADEX 2013: KAI unveils new version of KFX fighter” (incl. picture).

July 30/13: Turkey. Hurriyet quotes “a senior official familiar with the program” who says that $11 – $13 billion would be a realistic development cost for Turkey’s planned TF-X fighter. That actually is a reasonable estimate for a 4.5+ generation machine, but even this figure adds $50 million per plane to a large national order of 200 fighters. Keeping costs within the official’s $100 million per plane target will be challenging, which means a 200 jet program would cost Turkey $31 – $33 billion if everything goes well. Which won’t happen, especially if Turkey pushes for ambitious specifications.

That math offers daunting odds for a national jet program, and much of the same math can be expected to apply to KF-X. Will sticker shock cause Turkey to take another look at collaboration with Korea? Push them to abandon TF-X and buy something else? Or just be ignored by local politicians looking to make big promises? Hurriyet Daily News.

May 23/13: EADS. EADS Cassidian reportedly announces that they would invest $2 billion in the K-FX fighter development project, and help market the plane internationally, if the Eurofighter is chosen for F-X-3. Investments would include a maintenance repair and overhaul (MRO) facility that could extend to the KF-X, and an aerospace software center.

It isn’t a bad idea for EADS. Barring multiple orders from new sources, it’s very unlikely that the Eurofighter will still be in production by 2022. Upgrades and maintenance will continue for some time, but the C-203 KF-X design could offer EADS a new option to sell, with a fundamental design that can improve toward stealth fighter status. The question is whether South Korea wants to go forward. Yonhap News.

May 16/13: Indonesia. Indonesian Defense Minister Purnomo Yusgiantoro says that they remain committed to the KFX/IFX program. The Jakarta Post:

“We have told our South Korean counterparts that we will continue doing our part. Whatever their decision is, and whatever technology they focus on, we will follow their lead and our 20 percent of share will remain,” Purnomo said…. TB Hasanuddin of House Commission I on defense and foreign affairs, said that about Rp 1.6 trillion ($164.8 million) was already spent on the project.”

The question is whether South Korea chooses to pick up the project again, after the 18-month delay is over.

April 29/13: Details. Aviation Week recaps the ROK ADD’s KF-X plan (q.v. Feb 18/13 entry), and quotes “a former air force officer who has been involved in planning for KF-X” to say that radar cross-section for Block 1 will be between 0.1 – 1.0 square meters. It adds that the choice between the conventional layout C103 and C203 canard design probably comes down to the development partner Korea chooses: C103 if American, C203 if European.

Candidate engines for the twin-engine design are reportedly the GR F404 used in the FA-50, Eurojet’s EJ200 used in the Eurofighter, or GE’s F414 used in the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, JAS-39E/F Gripen NG, and India’s Tejas Mk.II. Snecma’s M88, used in Dassault’s Rafale, reportedly isn’t a candidate. Aviation Week.

April 5/13: South Korean media detail a proposal from EADS to produce 80% of F-X Phase 3’s 60 fighters at KAI, if DAPA picks their Eurofighter. The Yonhap report also discusses this potential industrial boost for KAI in the context of the KF-X program,:

“Many have been calling on the Park Geun-hye administration to promptly make a decision to either go ahead with the large-scale airplane development project or put on the brakes if it is deemed economically unsustainable.”

The rest of the Yonhap report may be switching contexts to the F-X-3 high-end fighter acquisition, as it describes a decision to be made by June 2013, as part of a renewed emphasis on major defense projects in light of North Korea’s actions. That doesn’t entirely track with previous reports that place resumption of KF-X at June 2014, if it happens at all. It does track with reports concerning the F-X-3 program, so the confusion could just be poor writing. What is true is that provocations from North Korea are very much a double-edged sword for KF-X. On the one hand, they boost the idea of defense spending generally. On the other hand, they raise needs like anti-submarine warfare, missile defense improvements, etc. that will be higher priorities than KF-X. Yonhap News Service | Hankoryeh.

March 20/13: Turkey. The Turks appear to be picking an independent course toward their future fighter aircraft, in line with rumors that they wanted more control than the KF-X program could give them. Their SSM signed an August 2011 deal with Turkish Aerospace Industries (TAI) to carry out the conceptual design work, and recent reports add a preliminary agreement between TAI and Saab Group for technical assistance. Reports add that TAI is expected to acquire Saab’s aircraft design tools, which would make cooperation much easier.

These moves don’t completely rule out KF-X participation, but they do weight the odds the other way. Defense Industry Undersecretary Murad Bayar says that Turkey’s project began in 2012, adding that after some modeling trials, one of the designs has matured. After completing the design phase, the undersecretary will offer a program plan to Turkey’s Defense Industry Executive Committee.

Turkey faces some of the same dilemmas as South Korea. If 2023 is the first flight date for a 4.5 generation fighter, there’s a real risk that the design will be outmoded from the outset. On the other hand, designing and prototyping an indigenous jet from scratch takes time, and technical overreach versus current capabilities is incredibly risky. One “top official from a Western aircraft maker” told Hurriyet that Turkey may already be headed down that path: “…we had to step back when we understood that the technical requirements for the aircraft are far from being realistic.” Hurriyet | Hurriyet follow-on | AIN.

March 1/13: 2nd Delay. Indonesian Defense Ministry official Pos Hutabarat confirms that KF-X has been postponed by 18 months to June 2014, while President Park Geun-hye decides whether to continue the project, and secures Parliamentary approval for that choice. Indonesia signed a 2010 MoU to become part of the project. Reports indicate an investment to date of IDR 1.6 trillion (about $165 million), with 30 PT Dirgantara Indonesia engineers at KAI working on the project.

UPI says that the KFX/IFX fighter’s price has already risen to $50-$60 million per aircraft, and this is before a prototype even exists. That’s already comparable to a modern F/A-18E/F Super Hornet or JAS-39 Gripen, in return for hopes of similar performance many years from now. Jakarta Globe | UPI.

2nd program delay

Feb 18/13: Details. Aviation Week reports that the Korea Institute for Defense Analysis has given KF-X a sharp negative review, even though it’s a defense ministry think-tank. In brief: the ROK isn’t technologically ready, and the project’s KRW 10+ trillion cost will be about twice as much as similar imported fighters. The 2013 budget is just KRW 4.5 billion, to continue studies.

Those studies are coming to some conclusions. The ROK ADD would still have a pick a design if they go ahead: either the conventional C103 fighter layout, or the C203 design with forward canards. Either aircraft would be a twin-engine fighter weighing around 10.4 tonnes, with stealth shaping. Bock 1 would only have to meet the radar cross-section of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet or Eurofighter Typhoon. Block 2 would add internal weapon bays, which Block 1 would be compatible with but not have. Additional tolerance and coating improvements would reduce stealth to the level of an F-117. Block 3 would aim for further improvements to the level of the B-2 bomber or F-35.

The ROK Agency for Defense Development says that if full-scale development begins in October 2014, the 1st KF-X Block 1 prototype flight would take until September 2020. Based on the history of other programs, the new plane would be hard pressed to enter service before 2025. Aviation Week.

Oct 27/11: KF-X specs. Fight International:

“In 2013, South Korea and two national partners will start developing a medium-sized and probably twin-engined fighter. It will be more agile than a Lockheed Martin F-16, with an advanced sensor suite and fusion software on a par with the US company’s new-generation F-35. Aiming to enter operations in 2021, the new design will also carry a bespoke arsenal of indigenous missiles and precision-guided munitions. That is the vision for the KF-X programme, outlined on 21 October at the Seoul air show by South Korean government and academic officials.”

DAPA’s technical requirements reportedly include an AESA radar and onboard IRST (InfraRed Search and Track) sensors, standard fly-by-wire flight and HOTAS (hands on throttle and stick) pilot controls, an NVG-compatible helmet-mounted display, and sensor fusion to the large screen single display. That last bit is especially challenging, and DAPA acknowledged that foreign partners will be needed. They hope to begin flight tests in 2016-2017, with an 8-year system development phase and a 7-plane test fleet (up from 5 prototypes at the Indonesian MoU).

Under this vision, South Korea’s LiG Nex1 would also develop a compatible line of short and medium range air-to-air missiles, strike missiles, and precision weapons to complement DAPA’s 500 pound Korea GPS guided bomb (KGGB). That array will expand global weapon choices if DAPA follows through, but the challenge will be getting them integrated with other countries’ aircraft. Ask the French how that goes.

KF-X specs

July 14/11: Indonesia confirmed. About a year after the MoU, The secretary general of Indonesia’s defence ministry, Erris Heriyanto, confirms the MoU’s terms to Indonesia’s ­official Antara news agency. KAI EVP Enes Park had called Indonesia’s involvement unconfirmed at the November 2010 Indo Defence show, but the Antara report appears to confirm it.

Turkey unveiled indigenous fighter plans of its own in December 2010, with the aim of fielding a fighter by 2023, but they haven’t made any commitments to KF-X. Flight International.

April 2011: Postponement of the KF-X project is reportedly lifted, as South Korea gets a bit clearer about their requirements.

Resumed

2008 – 2010

Reality check scales back specs, before indecision suspends program; Indonesia signs MoU.

A129 ATAK Components
T-129: Quid pro quo?
(click to view full)

Dec 27/10: Yo-yo. South Korea’s Yonhap News agency reports that South Korea’s military is trying to swing KF-X back to a stealth fighter program, in the wake of North Korea’s Nov. 23 shelling on Yeonpyeong Island.

Subsequent reports indicate that the uncertainty about KF-X requirements leads to a program halt, until things can get sorted out. Yonhap.

Aug 9/10: Turkey. DAPA aircraft programs director Maj. Gen. Choi Cha-kyu says that Turkey is actively considering the K-FX fighter program, and would bear the same 20% project share as Indonesia if they come on board.

There are reports that in return, Turkey wants the ROK to pick the T-129 ATAK helicopter under the AH-X heavy attack helicopter program. Turkey bought the A129 Mangusta design from AgustaWestland, as part of a September 2007 contract to build 51-92 helicopters for the Turkish Army. Korea Times | Hurriyet.

Indonesian F-16A
Now: TNI-AU F-16A
(click to view full)

July 15/10: Indonesia. Indonesia signs a Memorandum of Understanding to participate in KF-X. They’ll pay 20% of the estimated WON 5.1 trillion (about $4.1 billion) development effort, with 5 prototypes to be built before 2020, and commit to buying 50 of the fighters. South Korea has only committed to 60% of the development cost, which leaves 20% in limbo. DAPA’s KF-X program director Col. Lee Jong-hee says:

“There are two options on the table. One is to lure financial investments from other nations, such as Turkey and the United Arab Emirates. The other is to receive investments from Western aircraft makers wishing to participate in the KF-X.”

The Indonesian agreement follows a March 2009 Letter of Intent that was co-signed by South Korean President Lee Myung-bak. Indonesian MPs urged the government to conduct a feasibility test beforehand, but that wasn’t done. Key issues from Indonesia’s point of view include KF-X’s adequacy for the TNI-AU’s needs; technical and fiscal feasibility; technology and cost risk; the benefits to Indonesia’s aviation industry, given a break-even set by Aviation Week at 250-300 fighters for under $41 million each; and the role of 3rd country tech for engines. etc. which could still leave the fighters subject to foreign embargoes. Defense News | Jakarta Post.

Indonesia joins the program

Sept 12/09: KF-X drivers. Aviation Week offers their take on KFX’s positioning and industrial drivers:

“South Korea has decided that it can’t afford to build a cutting-edge stealth fighter…. it is considering building a gen-4.5 fighter, which might emerge as a jazzed up Typhoon or Super Hornet…. KFX would go into service in the early 2020s, perhaps a quarter of a century behind its technology level.

….Korea Aerospace will run out of fighter development work in a few years when the FA-50 is finished. It presumably does not have the technology to step straight from that to a combat drone. And it can’t spend next decade building up skills with an improved, single-seat FA-50, because the air force wants bigger aircraft…. the KFX would perhaps be an extreme example of sacrifices made in the name of self reliance or, perhaps, nationalism.”

July 23/09: KF-X. Defense News reports that “South Korea Drops 5th-Generation Fighter Plan,” but the title is misleading. The Weapon Systems Concept Development and Application Research Center of Konkuk University asked Boeing, Eurofighter, Lockheed Martin and Saab about their views on the per-plane cost estimate of $50 million, as well as budget-sharing ideas and technology transfer.

The problem is that South Korea’s specifications as described most closely mirror the ($150-180 million each, and $10+ billion development) F-22 Raptor, indicating that some reconciliation with reality is still necessary. The center will wrap up the feasibility study by October 2009, and DAPA is supposed to issue a decision on the KF-X initiative by year’s end. That will determine whether KF-X competes with/ supplants F-X-3, or proceeds as a separate program.

May 12/09: Changing gears. The Korea Times reports that the ROKAF’s Studies and Analyses Wing made an interim decision KF-X operational requirements in March 2009:

“Basic requirements call for a F-18E/F Super Hornet-class aircraft equipped with 4.5-generation semi-stealth functions, a domestically-built active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar [“based on accrued technologies from Israel”], a 32,000-pound of engine thrust and fully integrated weapons and sensors systems…. The KF-X aircraft would be either a single-engine fighter or a twin-engine one, [the source] added. It is the first time that KF-X operational requirements have been revealed.”

DAPA expects a final program decision around the end of 2009, and KF-X is expected to be part of the military’s 2010-14 force improvement package.

Jan 28/08: Reality check. The current program was scheduled to be followed by a KF-X program to develop and indigenous 5th generation/ stealth fighter to replace all F-5E Tiger IIs and F-4E Phantom IIs. After a feasibility study in 2008, the project would aim to produce the next-generation jets by 2020, with the goal of building 120 planes in a bid to secure proprietary technology and strengthen the country’s medium level fighter jet capacity. The goal is reportedly a single-seat, twin-engine plane with about 40,000 pounds of thrust from its engines, with more stealth than the Eurofighter Typhoon or Dassault Rafale, but less stealth than the F-35.

Now the Korea Development Institute has delivered a report concluding that the economic and industrial returns would be weak in proportion to its cost: about 3 trillion won/ $3 billion in returns, on a 10 trillion won investment. Papers quote foreign experts who estimate development costs of up to $12 billion. Korea’s Defense Acquisition Program Administration said the KDI report was for reference only, and the project decision would include other factors such as export prospects and technological capacity.

$7 billion is not a sum to be thrown away casually, and the difference would be very noticeable within South Korea’s defense budgets. Options like partnering with EADS on a stealthier version of the Eurofighter, for instance, might lower development costs and offer an additional option. Nevertheless, with F-X-3 likely to select a stealthy platform, a merger with the K-FX program and negotiation of an industrial deal seems more likely. Especially given South Korea’s demographic crunch, which will begin to bite by 2020. Chosun Ilbo | Korea Times.

Additional Readings

The KF-X Program

Related Programs

The MQ-4C Triton: Poseidon’s Unmanned Herald

$
0
0
BAMS ConOps NAVAIR
BAMS Operation Concept
(click to view full)

The world’s P-3 Orion fleets have served for a long time, and many are reaching the end of their lifespans. In the USA, and possibly beyond, the new P-8 Poseidon Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft will take up the P-3’s role. While the P-8’s base 737-based airframe offers strong service & maintenance arguments in its favor, the airframe is expensive enough that the P-3s cannot be replaced on a 1:1 basis.

In order to extend the P-8 fleet’s reach, and provide additional capabilities, the Poseidon was expected to work with at least one companion UAV platform. This DID FOCUS Article explains the winning BAMS (Broad Area Maritime Surveillance) concept, the program’s key requirements, and its international angle. We’ll also cover ongoing contracts and key events related to the program, which chose Northrop Grumman’s navalized MQ-4C Triton Global Hawk variant.

Next-Gen Maritime Patrol Systems: Issues and Options

ACS ERJ-145 Navy
USN ERJ-145 ACS concept

The P-3 fleet’s heavy use in both maritime surveillance and overland roles points up a potential problem with its successor the P-8A Poseidon. The 737-based aircraft will be bought in fewer numbers than the aircraft it replaces, but its high end Littoral Surveillance Radar System (LSRS) capabilities could quickly turn it into a sort of “mini-JSTARS,” making it a platform with strong maritime and land surveillance capabilities like NATO’s similar sized Airbus 321-based AGS battlefield surveillance aircraft.

As an expensive but in-demand asset, the P-8’s coverage scope could easily translate into a fleet run ragged by high flight hours per airframe, and forced into early retirement. See the Strategic Review article “Brittle Swords: Low-Density, High-Demand Assets” [PDF] for more background on this phenomenon.

The logical response is to pair the P-8s with a lower cost counterpart.

Hence the P-8 Poseidon’s companion Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) UAV program, run by NAVAIR’s PMA-263 program management office.

BAMS: Requirements and Missions

NGC on BAMS
click to play video

The BAMS UAV is formally designated MQ-4C Triton: “M” as a multi-mission aircraft, even though all of its missions are ISR/reconnaissance missions.

The name fits. In mythology, Triton was Poseidon’s son, and the messenger of the sea. Tritons will work with the P-8 Poseidon maritime surveillance aircraft on missions that will include maritime surveillance, collection of enemy order of battle information, battle damage assessment, port surveillance, communication relay; plus support for maritime interdiction, surface warfare, battlespace management, and targeting for maritime and strike missions. MQ-4C Increment 3 UAVs and beyond are slated to add SIGINT capabilities, to capture enemy communication and radar transmissions. They would begin replacing the current EP-3 fleet in that role.

The MQ-4C UAV’s required capabilities definitely placed it at the high end of today’s UAV spectrum. BAMS had to be capable of a completely pre-programmed mission track, communication plan, and sensor employment plan, with manual override possible to support real-time control and/or re-tasking. The baseline requirement for operation with the P-8A is currently Level II control (receipt of sensor data to/from), with a proposal to quickly increase to Level IV (full control except landings) in the P-8A’s first improvement cycle. It also needed the ability to land on its own if necessary, however, using pre-surveyed and pre-programmed air fields.

Many of those capabilities are already present in existing medium UAVs. The requirements that follow are not.

BAMS 5 Orbits
BAMS: expected ‘orbits’
(click to view full)

BAMS had to have a minimum mission radius of 3,000 nautical miles, with a 10 hour time to on-station at 2,000 nmi mission radius, and autonomous flight through moderate icing or turbulence. More to the point, the requirements were expressly crafted for persistence. They included an 80% Estimated Time On Station (ETOS) for a group of BAMS platforms, over a period of 1 week (168 hours). That means UAVs in the air, within their assigned patrol zones at an estimated 900 nmi distance from launch, for 134 hours out of 168. That’s the minimum – the goal is 95% ETOS, or almost 160/168 hours.

The Navy saw BAMS UAVs employed within 5 “orbits” around the globe, with no more than 3 UAVs operating at the same time within each orbit. While this may make BAMS seem like a tiny program, consider the fact that all aircraft have fatigue lifespans measured in flight hours. Many fighters have lifespans of 10,000-12,000 hours. Transport aircraft can reach 30,000-40,000 hours, with major rebuilds along the way. Now consider the number of UAVs required to support flight profiles within those orbits, which are estimated to sum to 43,800 on-station flight hours/year, plus flight times to and from station for each mission. Over an expected program operational lifetime of about 20 years.

BAMS also has an unlisted, but critically important, program requirement. As UAVs proliferate in this role and begin undertaking long-range missions, they’ll require enough secure bandwidth to transmit large first-pass processed data sets to accompanying aircraft or ground stations. That cannot be provided from within the BAMS program, though communications relay packages on high-altitude BAMS UAVs will help military commanders on the surface. BAMS is in turn reliant on the USA’s Global Information Grid’s future security and capacity, in order to reach its full potential.

BAMS Options

BAMS & P-8 Complementary
BAMS/P-8 mission sets
(click to view full)

Some nations use smaller business jet derivatives for maritime surveillance, and this option was closely considered by the Navy. The joint ACS (Aerial Common Sensor) program had potential dual-use features that could have made it a maritime surveillance supplement, as well as a SIGINT/ELINT (Signals & Electronic Intelligence & intercepts) platform to replace the Navy’s aging EP-3 Aries II fleet. The ACS program’s demise has taken that option off of the table for now. As it happens, however, the Navy had already chosen a different kind of companion for its P-8.

While business jets offered economy and numbers, the US Navy believed that unmanned UAVs could bring more to the long and oft-times tedious job of maritime surveillance. They can undertake very long-endurance flights of 30 hours or more, in part because they don’t have to carry processing stations and crew, or worry about aircrew endurance.

Northrop Grumman was always the favorite to win the BAMS competition. Its unarmed RQ-4 Global Hawk UAV had already proven itself in battlefield surveillance roles around the globe, and had been used as the Navy’s GHMD/BAMS-D maritime surveillance UAV testing and concepts research.

In contrast, the General Atomics MQ-9N Mariner’s main offered efficiency at much lower flight ceilings, up to 3,000 pounds of integrated weapons, and commonality with the Air Force’s MQ-9 Reaper strike UAV.

Boeing’s manned/unmanned G550 business jet was the 3rd major entry, offering the largest payloads, twin-engine redundancy, and compatibility with a civilian fleet.

BAMS: The MQ-4C Triton

Triton rollout
MQ-4C Triton rollout
(click to view full)

The “RQ-4N” system chosen by the US Navy was based on the USAF’s RQ-4B Block 20 Global Hawks, but it incorporated a wide range of changes on the way to its unveiling as the MQ-4C Triton.

Sensors received the biggest overhaul. MQ-4Cs will have a more rounded belly housing for Northrop Grumman’s own 360-degree coverage AN/ZPY-3 AESA radar, as part of their Advanced Integrated Sensor Suite (AISS). Unlike conventional mechanically-scanned radars, AESA radars offer the ability to zoom in on several targets of interest, and they can do this without stopping the broader scan. That shift from Raytheon’s side-looking AESA radar used in the RQ-4B could have become a major risk factor, which was a big reason behind Northrop Grumman’s decision to field their new radar on a Gulfstream II BAMS test bed during the competition.

Beyond the radar, “Electronic Support Measures” systems that can pick-up, map, and identify radar emissions initially relied on Northrop Grumman’s LR-100, but Sierra Nevada’s Merlin ESM system was substituted in order to meet the program’s requirement for 360-degree, 300 nm/ 555 km coverage. In the visual spectrum, AISS includes an optical day/night surveillance and targeting turret.

Other sensors expected for the MQ-4C include a “due regard” radar and other systems that let them descend safely into potential air traffic over international waters (currently facing development difficulties), Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) in various modes, and of course sensor packages with additional SIGINT/ELINT equipment and other specialty mission packages. The UAV must be able to perform “first pass” processing of any data it receives, before sending it on to other ships, aircraft, and/or ground stations.

RQ-4N concept
RQ-4N concept
(click to view full)

Communications. A Ka-band Wideband Gapfiller satellite link will replace the commercial Ku-band link used by the USAF, in order to ensure 100% accessibility over long stretches of water. In addition, a pair of Ku-band and X-band datalinks have been added to the fuselage sides, to act as communications relays. Those relays, plus the addition of dual Common Data Links instead of single-CDL, and Link 16 capability UHF/VHF radios with HAVE QUICK and SINCGARS capability, will allow real-time data feeds to other Navy ships and aircraft. The US Air Force is reportedly considering this upgraded set for its own Global Hawks.

On the MQ-4C, an Automatic Identification System (AIS) receiver will allow the detection, identification, geo-location, and tracking of cooperative ships equipped with AIS transponders.

Mechanical. The need to have Navy UAVs descend and rise from altitude during over-water missions requires de-icing systems on the MQ-4C’s engine inlet, wings and tail. Strengthened wing structures were also deemed to be necessary.

One final mechanical issue concerns the Global Hawk design’s single turbofan engine. To cope with possible engine outages without losing these ultra-expensive UAVs, the USAF reportedly uses a combination of modified control software and alternate “glide-to” landing bases. When flying over vast ocean expanses, high altitude flight will be required, in order to keep the “glide-to” option alive.

BAMS: The Program

BAMS MQ-4C: GAO Program Dashboard

In April 2008, NAVAIR’s PMA-263 selected Northrop Grumman’s RQ-4N Global Hawk, which has since been re-designated MQ-4C. The FY 2014 budget cut the program from 70 (5 test + 65 operational UAVs) to a total of 66: 5 test + 61 operational UAVs.

BAMS MQ-4C: Program Timeline, 2006 - 2017

BAMS Budgets from FY 2009 include:

MQ-4C BAMS: USN Budgets 2009 - 2018

Industrial team members include:

MQ-4C BAMS: Core Industrial Team

NGC performs Global Hawk sub-assembly work at its Unmanned Systems Center in Moss Point, MS, and anticipates performing final assembly at its St. Augustine, FL manufacturing center.

Triton’s Tactical Support Centers for command and control will be focused around the P-8A’s main bases: NAS Jacksonville, FL and NAS Whidbey Island, WA. Initial MQ-4C basing will include Ventura County Naval Base, at the Point Mugu, CA facility. Beyond that, NAVAIR has been tight-lipped, but reports have highlighted a few likely locations.

Andersen AFB on the island of Guam, which already supports some RQ-4 Global Hawks, is expected to become an important forward Pacific base, along with Hawaii and Diego Garcia. A fall 2013 agreement with Japan will provide for some Global Hawk basing in Japan itself, as a forward deployment from Andersen. It would be logical to expect MQ-4Cs as part of any eventual arrangement there. Australia’s Cocos Islands in the Indian Ocean have also been discussed as a way of relieving congestion at Diego Garcia, while keeping RQ-4 and possibly MQ-4 UAVs closer to sea lanes and countries of interest. The required infrastructure upgrade is an issue for Australia, however, and much may depend on Australia’s own purchasing decisions regarding the MQ-4C.

Sigonella AB in Sicily, Italy is already a key Global Hawk base, and it will also house NATO’s RQ-4B Block 40 AGS fleet. It’s likely to serve as the Triton’s hub to help cover Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, but other bases in that region would make the fleet much more effective. Advanced spy planes have already flown out of the UAE, which would be very convenient for covering the Middle East and western Indian Ocean. Portugal’s Azores was a key naval air waystation for decades until NAF Lajes was inactivated in the late 1990s, and would be well positioned for operations to cover Africa’s oil-rich and piracy rich western coast. It’s worth keeping an especial eye on developments in those 2 locations.

BAMS: The International Angle

Mariner UAV over water
Mariner UAV
(click to view full)

The US Navy has been using the RQ-4 Global Hawk as a demonstration and proving platform to refine requirements and concepts of operations for BAMS, under the GHMD(Global Hawk Maritime Demonstrator) program. Even so, UAVs aren’t widely used for maritime surveillance just yet.

Beyond America’s shores, India has successfully used Israel’s Heron and Searcher II UAVs for coastal patrol as well and overland surveillance; UAVs from their 2005 follow-on Heron order have also been pressed into service along the coasts. To the southeast, Australia has undertaken successful trials with the General Atomics’ Mariner UAV for Coast Guard duties along its resource-rich Northwest Shelf. In the Great White North, Canada is evaluating UAVs for a maritime surveillance role under its JUSTAS program; Phase 2 could even include arctic surveillance out of Goose Bay, Labrador. IAI/EADS’ Eagle UAV, and General Atomics’ Altair high-altitude UAV derived from the MQ-9 Reaper, have already been tested as part of requirements definition.

Every one of these countries could eventually end up involved in the BAMS program.

P-8I
P-8i test flight
(click to view full)

India’s MPA competition chose the “P-8I” as their next maritime patrol aircraft. With BAMS integration already scheduled for their chosen platform, a nation that sees its responsibilities stretching across the Indian Ocean from the Straits of Malacca near Singapore, to the Persian Gulf, and down to Madagascar, has obvious uses for the compatible Triton long-range, long-endurance UAV platform.

India seems to agree with this logic, but a treaty that it hasn’t signed is in the way. MTCR was originally aimed at limiting cruise missile exports, but a jet-powered UAV shares enough characteristics to create problems. Discussions are ongoing.

The Canadians have also been approached as possible partners in the P-8A Poseidon program, as a future replacement for their P-3/CP-140 Auroras. Thus far, they have made no commitments. Meanwhile, Northrop Grumman is offering them an RQ-4 variant called “Polar Hawk” for Arctic patrol, incorporating some MQ-4C features like de-icing. The vast expanses of Canada’s north make the speed of a jet-powered UAV very attractive, Northrop Grumman will have to beat General Atomics, which is offering its jet-powered Predator C as well as its slower MQ-9 UAV. If NGC can win, adding more Global Hawks for other missions would become easier.

P-3C Australia
AP-3C: who’s next?
(click to view full)

Australia went even further, and made itself a partner in BAMS via its AIR 7000 program. First Pass Approval was given in September 2006, and a Project Agreement was signed on Jan 13/07. Australian Embassy personnel have attended NAVAIR PMA-263 industry days, Australian technical experts are part of the BAMS integrated project teams, and NAVAIR’s BAMS RFP now includes an “Australian Unique Option” section. BAMS had passed its Milestone B “go/no-go” decision, and was analyzing unique Australian requirements before an expected Australian second-pass approval decision that could begin Australian BAMS production in 2012, and achieve Initial Operating Capability in 2015.

In 2009, however, Australia chose to drop out of the BAMS program, with sources citing both operational stress over the P-8A’s similarly-timed introduction, and fiscal pressures. They could still choose to drop back in, and their May 2013 Letter of Request for technical information is a step in that direction. The trade-off is that they’ll be looking at more of a finished product, with less scope for free-of-charge changes.

BAMS: Contracts & Key Events

BAMS Cutaway
BAMS cutaway
(click for full PDF)

Unless otherwise noted, all contracts originate with the Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD.

FY 2016

Know MQ-4C

November 20/15: he Northrop Grumman MQ-4C Triton UAV has reached a significant stage as it now enters the program’s Milestone C review. Operational tests will involve six test flights and if successful will lead to the Initial Operational Test & Evaluation (IOT & E) phase. Successful testing of the UAV will lead to a production contract (albeit at low levels initially) with the Navy committed to ordering three in 2016 but will increase orders to 68 in 2017. Overseas contracts potentially include seven of the Tritons being procured by Australia with Germany, India and the UK also looking at purchases.

FY 2015

August 21/15: Meanwhile, the heavyweight MQ-4C Triton UAV is scheduled to undergo a Navy operational assessment in September, with an initial production contract slated for next year hanging on successful completion of this assessment. The two months of testing could lead to a Milestone C decision and subsequently a production contract, ahead of an anticipated Initial Operation Capability date of 2018. The procurement of up to seven Tritons by Australia, announced in March 2014, is also dependent on the UAV achieving these milestones.

June 22/15: On Friday the Navy handed Northrop Grumman a $60.9 million contract to support the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance – Demonstrator (BAMS-D) UAV, also known as the MQ-4C Triton. The company was awarded a contract last week to improve the air-to-air subsystem design of the Triton. The Navy announced in March that the UAV’s first deployment will be to Guam.

June 16/15: In a third and final contract awarded to Northrop Grumman on Monday, the firm was handed a $39.1 million contract to improve the current air-to-air radar subsystem design of the Navy’s MQ-4C Triton UAV and to demonstrate that the radar technology is feasible and risk-mitigated. The Navy has previously stated that it intends to fit a “due regard” radar to the Triton, as part of capability upgrade scheduled for introduction by 2020.

March 9/15: First deployment scheduled. An MQ-4c Triton will be deployed to Guam in FY 2016, according to information passed to Congress from Admiral Jonathan Greenert, chief of naval operations. The drone, capable of staying in the air for more than a day, was first flight tested just six months ago.

Nov 3/14: Sense-and-Avoid. After canceling the original plan for a “due regard” sense-and-avoid system to prevent collisions with other aircraft (q.v. April 9/14, Aug 13/13), the Navy has re-issued a less advanced RFI.

Instead of requiring radars that could handle ground clutter for low-altitude landings, the MQ-4C will take the more sensible approach of using airport radar data. Instead of demanding full capability up front, the Navy wants a “modular” and “scalable” design that will be improved over time. Ultimately, they want Triton to comply with ICAO ANNEX 2, Section, 3.2; U.S. Code of Regulations (CFR) Part 91.111 and 91.113; and Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 4540.01 guidelines for safe flight. But they’re willing to begin with DoDI 4540.01. Sources: FBO.gov #N00019-15-P7-PMA-262-0029, “MQ-4C Triton Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Sense and Avoid Air-to-Air Radar Capability” | Flightglobal, “US Navy re-starts sense and avoid radar for MQ-4C”.

FY 2014

Basing; SIGINT limitations; Sense-and-
Avoid problems; Global Hawk Block 40 will have some maritime capability; Triton cuts coming?

MQ-4Cs at Palmdale, CA
MQ-4Cs at Palmdale
(click to view full)

Sept 23/14: Cuts? Reuters reports that reliability improvements in the MQ-4C may be a double-edged sword. The target had been 68 UAVs, in order to maintain 5 “orbits” of 4 UAVs on call for continuous surveillance. Better reliability could tempt the Navy to cut the number bought. The USAF’s RQ-4B Block 40s will also have some maritime surveillance capability (April 28/14), which adds to the pressure.

FY 2015 is expected to see the first production purchases of long-lead items, but budget cuts to date have already slowed program delivery to initial use in 2017, and IOC to mid-2018 with a full orbit of 4. Sources: Reuters, “UPDATE 1-Navy says may trim Northrop drone order due to better reliability”.

Sept 18/14: Testing. After an 11-hour, 3,290 nmi cross-country flight at 50,000 feet along the Mexican border, across Florida, and then up the Eastern Seaboard, Patuxent River, MD gets its 1st MQ-4C. PMA-262’s Pax River tests will include flight envelope expansion, sensor and communications testing, and interoperability testing. Sources: “Navy’s Triton unmanned aircraft completes first cross-country flight” | NGC, “MQ-4C Triton UAS Arrives at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Enters Next Phase of Testing.”

July 4/14: Front-line thoughts. Foxtrot Alpha’s “Confessions Of A US Navy P-3 Orion Maritime Patrol Pilot” interviews a US Navy P-3C pilot who now flies P-8As. He also has some thoughts regarding the MQ-4C, and its performance compared to the current EP-3E electronic eavesdropping plane. His 3 areas of concern are bandwidth limitations, jamming, and real-time strike support:

“It is worth considering what the MQ-4C Triton can and cannot do. Any Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) operations by Triton will likely be limited by satellite bandwidth. I’m speaking from my own knowledge and assumptions here, but consider the task at hand. If you want real-time data off a UAV you have to transmit it via a satellite uplink to a ground monitoring station…. Is it more cost-effective to simply wait till the MQ-4C lands and accept that the downloaded intel will then be hours old? Maybe or maybe not.

Now let’s consider a wartime scenario. Other nations have demonstrated anti-satellite capabilities, including kinetic hard-kill capabilities against low Earth orbit satellites. While this isn’t a concern for geo-synchronous communications satellites, the ability to jam or spoof UAV satellite uplinks was possibly demonstrated during the loss of the RQ-170 [stealth UAV] over Iran. How secure exactly are our satellite uplinks? Are they safe from cyber attack? Will this bandwidth be available to the Navy during wartime or will more pressing communications take precedence? This is all above my pay-grade but realize that UAV endurance doesn’t come without a price.

There’s another factor to consider and that’s the nature of the EP-3E’s mission. EP-3s are capable of supporting a Carrier Strike Group’s air wing by providing communications and signals intelligence support. This is a distinctly ‘real-time’ function as enemy air defense operators may only speak for a few moments or activate SAM radars for several seconds. The latency (time delay) inherent in satellite communications and control systems could possibly mean the difference between life and death for strike pilots in F/A-18 Hornets heading into the target area. If you take away EP-3E, you may lose that real-time SIGINT and COMINT capability.”

April 28/14: Friendly competition? The USAF is touting success in an 11.5 hour RQ-4B Global Hawk Block 40 flight over the Point Mugu sea range in California.

This Maritime Modes program risk reduction work involves testing software that lets the Block 40’s MP-RTIP AESA radar use a Maritime Moving Target Indicator and a Maritime Inverse Synthetic Aperture Radar (MISAR) to track surface vessels. The MQ-4C has other naval capabilities beyond these, but then, MP-RTIP is well-tuned for land surveillance. As budgets decline, Global Hawk variants that can do similar jobs may find themselves competing for budget dollars. Sources: USAF, “Air Force tests new surveillance capability”.

April 9/14: Sense-and-Avoid. The US Navy still wants to place this technology on the MQ-4C, not least because it will be required for low-altitude flying in many areas of interest. The problem is that miniaturizing the Exelis AESA radar turned out to be much harder than they thought, to the point where they had to pause and look at other options (q.v. Aug 13/13).

Above 18,000′, standard ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast) and TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidance System) “due regard” systems can keep the UAV from getting too close to civilian aircraft, and to many military airplanes as well. Below that altitude, ground and ship-based radars can be used, and something might be doable using aerial radars like AWACS plus datalinks. On the other hand, the whole point of the MQ-4C is to survey areas where those assets aren’t already on patrol.

This is a serious issue for UAVs generally, so it may be worth biting the bullet and investing the funds required to solve the problem. It may even be a hard and significant enough problem to justify DARPA’s involvement. Sources: USNI, “Navy Expanding Search for ‘Sense and Avoid’ Technologies for Triton”.

March 31/14: GAO Report. The US GAO tables its “Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs“. Which is actually a review for 2013, plus time to compile and publish. The program dashboard and timeline have been updated accordingly, though the Navy’s program office has authorized NGC to develop a new target baseline and schedule with increased costs and schedule delays. That isn’t represented in the charts yet. The program has 3 big technical risks left.

One is software, thanks to about 1.6 million lines of new code in an 8 million line system. There are another 2 software phases left before operational evaluation begins in January 2016.

Another is navigation. In September 2013, the Global Hawk program experienced an anomaly with a navigation system, suspending the derivative Triton’s test flights until a workaround was identified. The problem remains unfixed.

Finally, the air-to-air “sense and avoid” radar subsystem (q.v. Aug 13/13) for operating in civil airspace has hit a wall, and delayed the program by about 1 year.

March 28/14: Infrastructure. The Guam MACC Builders joint venture in Honolulu, HI wins a $45.5 million firm-fixed-price task order under a multiple-award construction contract. they’ll design and build a high bay maintenance hangar to support MQ-4C forward operations and maintenance at Andersen AFB, Guam. That involves scheduled inspections, airframe repairs, pre- and post-flight operations, as well as technical order compliance and aircraft modifications. A pair of unexercised options could raise the total to $46.7 million.

All funds are committed immediately, using a combination of FY 2010 and FY 2014 budgets. Work will be performed in Yigo, Guam, and is expected to be complete by April 2016. Six proposals were received for this task order by NAVFAC Pacific at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, HI (N62742-10-D-1309, #0003).

March 24/14: Testing. The Mq-4C has completed the envelope expansion portion of its test flights (q.v. Jan 6/14). Sources: NGC, “Northrop Grumman, U.S. Navy Complete Initial Flight Testing of the Triton Unmanned Aircraft System”.

March 4/14: FY15 Budget. The USN unveils their preliminary budget request briefings. Precise figures are only offered later, but the Navy does offer planned purchase numbers for key programs between FY 2014 – 2019.

MQ-4C Triton production was supposed to start with 3 UAVs in FY15, but that isn’t happening because the program is behind. In addition to the late start, the Navy’s mid-term budgets will also slow the production ramp-up. Production begins in FY16 instead with 4 (unchanged), and continues with 4 in FY17, 4 in FY18 (-2), and 4 in FY19 (no previous comparable). Subsequent documents show that the program’s overall budget doesn’t change all that much, but around $400 million is added to R&D, and costs per UAV rise a bit. Those costs may drop a bit in future, if Australia buys in as expected.

The immediate pause makes sense, but the vastness of the Pacific and supposed importance of the “Pacific Pivot” don’t seem to be getting a lot of weight in the Navy’s 5-year plan – which also cuts P-8 sea control aircraft, and E-2D Advanced Hawkeye AWACS. Sources: USN, PB15 Press Briefing [PDF].

Jan 6/14: Testing. Northrop Grumman announces that the MQ-4C is half-way through the envelope expansion portion of flight testing. It’s still early days, with the longest mission being just 9.4 hours at up to 50,000 feet. Sources: NGC, “Multimedia Release — Northrop Grumman, Navy Complete Nine Flights of Triton Unmanned Aircraft System”.

Nov 4/13: Sub-contractors. Northrop Grumman Corp. and Triumph Aerostructures’ Vought Aircraft Division have finished initial MQ-4C structural strength testing at Vought’s Dallas, TX facility. Which means torturing the wings and bending them 22% beyond US Navy structural requirements, in hopes they don’t break or permanently deform. This isn’t just a life-span issue. It’s a very immediate requirement whenever a Triton UAV has to drop down for a closer look at something, possibly through inclement weather.

Vought was involved in these tests because they produce Global Hawk family wings. A fatigue test of the entire airframe will begin in 2017. Sources: NGC, Nov 4/13 release.

Oct 7/13: Basing. The Whidbey News-Times reports that the MQ-4C’s Tactical Support Centers for command and control will be placed at the 2 main P-8A support centers: NAS Jacksonville, FL and NAS Whidbey Island, WA. It seems like a fairly obvious operational conclusion, but it was also the consensus of environmental assessments.

“Four of the MQ-4C Tritons will be based out of Ventura County Naval Base in California [by 2016], but the existing P3 tactical support center at Whidbey Island Naval Air Station will be expanded to support both the P8-A and the Triton…”

Sources: Whidbey News-Times, “New drone supports P-8A Poseidon”.

FY 2012 – 2013

Test plan approved and BAMS becomes “MQ-4C Triton”; NGC buying 1 for itself; Australia renews interest, but it’s lukewarm; India is interested; DOT&E testing report; RQ-4A BAMS-D crash; Sense and Avoid tech suspended.

MQ-4C: 1st flight
click for video

Sept 9/13: Australia. Australia’s Liberal Party is back in power after a convincing electoral win over Labor. While the new government’s commitment to 2% of GDP for defense spending is a broad positive for industry, their level of commitment to the MQ-4C weakened:

“The acquisition of unmanned aerial vehicles will be dependent on the advice of the chief of the Defence Force and service chiefs, as well as a clear cost-benefit assessment that demonstrates the value of these aircraft.”

Triton is likely to pass that test, but this is a step back from earlier statements to the effect that Triton was a high-priority buy. Sources: Australian Liberal Party, “The Coalition’s policy for Stronger Defence” | Defense News, “New Australian Leadership Pledges to Boost Defense Spending”.

Aug 14/13: Infrastructure. Small business qualifier Whitesell-Green, Inc. in Pensacola, FL wins a $15.9 million firm-fixed-price contract to build a BAMS Mission Control Complex at NAS Jacksonville, FL. It will be a freestanding 2-story structure with two Electromagnetic Interference Shielded Mission Control Systems, a Tactical Operations Center with sensitive compartmented information facility spaces, and numerous roof-top mounted antennas. This project will also renovate some interior spaces, including a reconfigured command suite, systems reconfiguration, and in some cases finish upgrades. Finally, additional antennas will be built at a remote site south of the new facility.

All funds are committed immediately. Work will be performed in Jacksonville, FL, and is expected to be complete by December 2014. This contract was competitively procured via Navy Electronic Commerce Online, with 8 proposals received by NAVFAC Southeast in Jacksonville, FL (N69450-13-C-1258).

Aug 13/13: Sense-and-Avoid. BAMS Program manager Navy Capt. Jim Hoke says that ITT Exelis’ radar-based Airborne Sense And Avoid system (q.v. Aug 10/12) is “behind schedule,” so the Navy has “made a decision to pause on the capability right now” and has stopped work. Hoke says that he understands how important this capability is for operations in crowded airspace and allied countries (vid. May 29/13, May 14/13), especially given the MQ-4C’s operational need to descend to lower altitudes at times for a closer look, but “all options are on the table.” If the system really is seen as critical, that could mean a re-compete of the sub-program, or the Navy could decide to join the USAF’s ABSAA effort (q.v. July 30/12).

Re-competes can be problematic, but this may be a case where the circumstances are attractive. The natural scalability of AESA radars means that any successful implementation could be applied to other large UAVs, from NATO’s planned RQ-4 Block 40 AGS Global Hawk variant, to smaller MALE UAVs like the MQ-9 Reaper or MQ-1C Gray Eagle. That’s a significant and growing opportunity for the winning contractor, with follow-on “proven leader” opportunities around civil UAV use. This dynamic could attract firms willing to invest up front with low bids or substantial resources, and the base ABSAA field is a mature one thanks to civil aircraft. Breaking Defense.

Sense-And-Avoid radar on hold

June 25/13: Australia. With an election coming, the MQ-4C Triton seems secure, as both parties remain committed to it. Reuters:

“There’s not a lot of new money in our policy, (but) we are going into Broad Area Maritime Surveillance, the Triton,” said conservative defense spokesman David Johnston, who is likely to become defense minister following the September 14 elections…. “This is about maritime security and surveillance in the Indian Ocean,” a senior Labor insider with close knowledge of defense planning said. “This is a force multiplier. It’s better to think of Triton as a mobile satellite we can steer around the Indian Ocean,”

June 14/13: Sense-and-Avoid. BAE Systems’ AN/DPX-7 Reduced Size Transponder (RST) Indentification Friend-or-Foe system flies on the MQ-4C for the 1st time. IFF transponders broadcast coded location signals to friendly aircraft, and also receive signals from civil and military aircraft around them. They aren’t a complete solution to the problem of operating in crowded airspace, but with the right programming and UAV flight system connections, they can help. Unmanned Systems Technology.

May 29/13: Sense-and-Avoid. Answers from Northrop Grumman clarify the MQ-4C’s sense-and-avoid systems:

“Triton’s due regard radar is meant to provide safe separation of aircraft while the system is in flight at lower altitudes. The U.S. Navy’s mission requires that Triton be able to descend to lower altitudes to make closer identification of surface vessels. The radar is still in development and would be flight tested on Triton at a later date. This is a Navy requirement to ensure that the Triton UAs can safely operate over international waters.”

With respect to ICAO certification issues, Northrop Grumman would only say Global Hawk is the first unmanned aircraft system to achieve a military airworthiness certification. That can only be used to fly a pre-approved, monitored flight plan in American civil airspace, and then only if a specific supplemental FAA certificate of authorization (COA) is granted in advance. Whether this level of certification will work at NAS Sigonella, Italy is a question that the US Navy will need to answer. “Saigon” has already been a base of operations for RQ-4B Block 20 Global Hawks, which lack any form of collision avoidance system. The question is how restricted future MQ-4C flight options would be, absent further certifications.

May 22/12: Fly! The MQ-4C has its 1st flight. The flight was originally scheduled for March 2013, but all goes well, The Navy and Northrop Grumman flight test team conducts an 80 minute flight from Palmdale, CA, reaching up to 20,000 feet while remaining within restricted airspace.

Northrop Grumman says that additional flight tests will take place from Palmdale to mature the system, before it’s flown to the main flight test facility at NAS Patuxent River, MD, later this year. It will be interesting to see if it flies there under its own power, or is disassembled and carried in a heavy-lift aircraft. Even the carrier-based X-47B stealth UCAV had to travel to Pax River on a truck, because the FAA wouldn’t certify it for flight in civil airspace. The MQ-4C is designed with a sense-and-avoid system, so the FAA could conceivably grant it a waiver. US Navy Capt. Jim Hoke is the current Persistent Maritime UAS office (PMA-262) program manager, and it will be up to him to oversee transportation arrangements. US Navy | US NAVAIR | US Navy Live | NGC.

1st flight

May 22/13: XP – 7. Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems in Bethpage, NY receives a $15.3 million cost-plus-award-fee contract modification to upgrade some MQ-4C Triton components from Windows XP to Windows 7. Microsoft is ending support for XP, hence the shift, which will happen in quite a few US military programs. We wonder about the security implications of using Windows at all in an incredibly expensive autonomous system, but that’s a separate discussion.

Work will be performed in Hollywood, MD (33.5%); Bethpage, NY (25.8%); Rancho Bernardo, CA (15.6%); San Diego, CA (12.7%); Salt Lake City, UT (9.8%); Stillwater, OK (1.10%); Melbourne, FL (1.0%) and Van Nuys, CA (.05%), and is expected to be complete in April 2014. Funds will be committed as needed by US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD (N00019-08-C-0023).

May 16/13: Australia. Australia’s government announces that they’re sending a formal Letter of Request to the USA for the MQ-4C Triton UAV. The letter will become a Foreign Military Sales Technical Services Case with the United States Navy to obtain detailed cost, capability and availability information. They emphasize that they haven’t picked the MQ-4C yet for AIR 7000 Phase 1B, but they didn’t announce letters of request for any other platforms that might compete with the Triton, like General Atomics’ MQ-9. Which may have separate opportunities of its own:

“As also outlined in the 2013 Defence White Paper, Defence will analyse the value of further investment in unmanned aircraft for focused area, overland intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, including for use in border security operations. This will include the potential expansion of the role of these assets in the ADF to include interdiction and close air support, subject to policy development and Government consideration.”

See: Australia DoD | US NAVAIR.

May 14/13: Euro Hawk falls. Germany has decided to end the Euro Hawk UAV project, after spending EUR 562 million on system development and test flights. Not only would it cost hundreds of millions more euros to attempt EASA/ICAO flight certification, but German authorities reportedly lacked confidence that they would receive a certification at the end of the process. Rather than pay another EUR 600 – 700 million for additional UAVs and equipment, and an equivalent amount to attempt EASA certification, Germany will attempt to find another path.

The remaining questions fall instead on Sigonella, Italy, where NATO and the USA plan to base MQ-4C Tritons, and RQ-4B AGS Global Hawk Block 40s. German lawmakers are raising those questions, and some are advocating pulling out of NATO’s AGS as well.

March 4/13: Australia. Aviation Week reports that Australia may want more P-8As, at the possible expense of its MQ-4C companion UAVs:

“The RAAF is quietly making a case for 12 Poseidons, arguing that eight would not be enough to cover the vast oceans surrounding the continent. And the unmanned requirement is now described as “up to” seven high-altitude, long-endurance aircraft, potentially reducing Northrop Grumman’s opportunity. At the same time the air force sees an argument for a supplementary drone, possibly the Predator, to take on some of the electronic-intelligence missions that would otherwise fall to the Poseidons and Tritons.”

This is a bit of a head-scratcher. The stated purpose of sustained ocean coverage would be better served by adding another orbit of 3-4 MQ-4Cs (to 10-11), using the P-8s as more of a fleet overwatch and contact response force. Likewise, it makes little sense to use a different UAV for ELINT/SIGINT collection, especially the slow and shorter-range MQ-9. Rather, one would use the MQ-9s in nearer-shore maritime and EEZ patrols, along the lines of the 2006 Northwest Shelf experiments, in order to free up MQ-4Cs for longer-range expeditions over strategic corridors, and the ELINT/SIGINT mission they will be equipped for as of Increment 3.

Feb 22/13: Australia. Australia may have officially dropped out of the BAMS development phase (vid. March 2/09 entry), but News Corp. reports that Defence Minister Stephen will sign a formal export letter of request for the MQ-4C at the 2013 Australian International Airshow. Australia has remained part of the P-8A program for a manned sea control jet, so the MQ-4C is a natural pairing.

The purchase budget is expected to be $A 2-3 billion, but it may be overshadowed by Australia’s expected announcement that they will buy another 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets. News Corp.

Feb 7/13: India. Northrop Grumman’s MQ-4C business development lead Greg Miller tells Shephard’s UV Online that India’s RFI for a High Altitude, Long Endurance maritime surveillance platform holds promise:

“They want to follow the US model; P-8 and Triton…. The Indian Navy agrees with the US’ requirements, which exactly fits our sweet spot.”

Their problem is the same problem facing South Korea: the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), which bans the export of cruise missiles or unmanned vehicles with certain range and payload limits. India hasn’t signed MTCR, but the issue needs to be resolved at a government-to-government level. UV Online.

March 28/13: GAO Report. The US GAO tables its “Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs“. Which is actually a review for 2012, plus time to compile and publish. With respect to BAMS, they say the design is stable, with 99% of drawings releasable to manufacturing. Software code is a challenge, as are the UAV’s new-design wings. Disruptions to the USAF’s Global Hawk programs aren’t expected to affect schedule, but fewer UAVs produced does drive up the cost per UAV. Excerpts:

“The second development aircraft, the first aircraft with a full sensor suite and the air-to-air radar subsystem, is nearing completion and is expected to begin testing in 2013…. However, the program poses a significant software development challenge, utilizing nearly 8 million lines of code, more than 20 percent of which will be new. Much of the remaining software is derived from Global Hawk; however, officials noted that integration and testing of this code is taking longer than expected. Officials also noted that delays in the manufacturing of the aircraft wing as well as corrections to software during integration of subsystems are the primary reasons for a delay in the program’s operational assessment and production decision….”

Jan 17/13: DOT&E testing. The Pentagon releases the FY 2012 Annual Report from its Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E). The MQ-4C Triton is included, and the program is falling behind. The plan was to conduct an Operational Assessment in June 2013, leading to a Milestone C decision in October 2013.

Unfortunately, a combination of UAV mission computer software stability problems, and radar performance issues identified in tests with Northrop Grumman’s radar-equipped Gulfstream-II jet, delayed flight testing from May 2012 to “at least” January 2013. The program has also “deferred development and testing of [unspecified] air vehicle and sensor capabilities until after Milestone C in order to reduce current test schedule pressures.”

The plan to reach Milestone C by October seems less and less likely, especially given additional “ground test delays encountered in [fall 2012].” Northrop Grumman will also need to resolve issues with software stability for both the mission computer and ZPY-3 MFAS radar, radar detection and tracking consistency, and radar image quality.

Jan 8/13: Company bird. Northrop Grumman is spending its own money to build and equip its own MQ-4C UAV, complete with the same sensor set the Navy will get. The UAV is under construction, and just had its wings and fuselage joined.

It isn’t the first time Northrop Grumman has done this; indeed, in many ways it’s just a further extension of the company Gulfstream-III business jet test bed, which has been flying since before the development contract was awarded. Initial missions for the company’s UAV will involve supplementing Navy tests, in order to help the team reach their goal of operational UAVs by late 2015. Eventually it will become a platform for demonstrations, integration of different sensors that the US Navy or other customers are interested in, and system performance improvement testing.

1 MQ-4C for Northrop Grumman

September 2012: Testing. A 2nd MQ-4C is added to ground test efforts, with a focus on control software and subsystems. NGC.

Aug 10/12: Sense-And-Avoid. ITT Exelis exhibits their BAMS airborne sense-and-avoid (ABSAA) radar for the first time, at the Unmanned Systems North America conference in Las Vegas. It’s the 1st U.S. Department of Defense ABSAA/ ICAO “due regard” radar program of record, with flight testing expected to start in Q1 2013.

Aug 10/12: Sense-And-Avoid. ITT Exelis exhibits their BAMS airborne sense-and-avoid (ABSAA) radar for the first time, at the Unmanned Systems North America conference in Las Vegas, NV. It’s the 1st US Department of Defense ABSAA/ ICAO “due regard” UAV radar program of record, with flight testing expected to start in Q1 2013.

Their “SkySense 2020H” can be adapted for other UAVs, but the self-contained, 50 pound MQ-4C configuration involves 3 thin-tile AESA array panels mounted at the front of the UAV. It operates in the Ku-band with an 8-10 nmi range, and a 110 degree wide x 30 degree high field of view. AESA radars are flexible if the right software is installed, and Exelis is also looking at using SkySense for weather radar and communications functions. AIN Online.

July 2012: Testing. 1st MQ-4C Triton begins ground tests. NGC.

July 30/12: Sense-And-Avoid. The USAF Research Laboratory (AFRL) has been working on a sense-and-avoid system called Multiple Intruder Autonomous Avoidance (MIAA) since 2008, and is about to conduct the final test phases using a Calspan-operated Learjet as an RQ-4 surrogate. Co-operative commercial aircraft are dealt with using standard methods: a traffic collision avoidance system and ADS-B. Aviation Week says that for non-cooperative aircraft:

“The flights will evaluate collision-avoidance algorithms and a new electronically scanned sense-and-avoid radar, as well as a new technique to perform passive target ranging from the two-dimensional imagery provided by electro-optical sensors.”

Once they’re done, MIAA will become move to EMD system development as part of the USAF’s Global Hawk program. The Navy and Army are both interested, however, and are partners in this effort. A Global Hawk flight is planned in 2015, with Initial Operating Capability planned in 2017. Aviation Week, via NPS.EDU: “Sense-And-Avoid System To Transition To Global Hawk”.

June 14/12: Triton unveiled. Northrop Grumman and US NAVAIR unveil the 1st MQ-4C at Northrop Grumman’s Palmdale, CA plant, and announce its operational moniker: “Triton.” In mythology, Triton was Poseidon’s son, the messenger of the sea. US NAVAIR | Northrop Grumman.

MQ-4C “Triton”

BAMS-D Crash
click for video

June 11/12: BAMS-D Crash. An RQ-4A BAMS-Demonstrator Global Hawk crashes into a marshy tributary of Maryland’s Nanticoke River, during a routine training flight from Naval Air Station Patuxent River. There were no injuries to civilians and no property damage, but the crash site has been blocked to recreational boat traffic while the agency investigates. The crash leaves 4 UAVs in the program: 3 for testing, tactics, and doctrine development in the USA, and 1 deployed abroad with the 5th fleet. CNN | Wired Danger Room | WBOC.

May 30/12: Canada. Northrop Grumman Corporation and Canada’s L-3 MAS announce plans to offer Canada a “Polar Hawk” UAV for surveillance of Canada’s arctic land and seas.

As one might guess, it will need to share a number of structural features like strengthened wings and improved de-icing with the MQ-4C Triton. Improved satellite communications, with specialized receivers for polar-orbit satellites, will also be necessary. Sensors aren’t discussed, but the accompanying picture shows a conventional Global Hawk shape, without the AN/ZPY-3 MFAS. NGC.

May 29/12: More SDD. Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems in Bethpage, NY receives a $32.8 million cost-plus-award-fee contract modification, for BAMS system development and demonstration. This modification funds a maintenance concept change that will develop a logistics management I.T. system, and improve the transition from contractor logistics support to organic military maintenance by the Navy. Funding will be committed as needs arise.

Work will be performed in Bethpage, NY, (74.54%), Rancho Bernardo, CA (20.82%), Melbourne, FL (4.59%), and Palmdale, CA (0.05%); and is expected to be complete in September 2015 (N00019-08-C-0023).

January 2012: Testing. The Pentagon approves the MQ-4C Triton Broad Area Maritime Surveillance Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP), which will guide efforts to bring the UAV to a successful Milestone C decision, and into low-rate initial production. DOT&E.

Test plan approved

FY 2010 – 2011

Designation shifting to MQ-4C; Sub-systems in development.

RQ-4
Global Hawk
(click to view full)

April 25/11: ZPY-3. Northrop Grumman announces the start of system tests for the BAMS UAV’s Multi-Function Active Sensor (MFAS) maritime surveillance radar. MFAS will use a 2-dimensional radar with both electronic and mechanical scanning.

Northrop Grumman’s Aerospace Systems sector facility in San Diego, CA is expected to take delivery of the 1st MFAS in June 2011, following ongoing radar software mode development and hardware synchronization and integration activities. A 2nd radar is slated for delivery in September 2011, and risk reduction flight tests on board the company’s Gulfstream II test-bed expected before year end.

March 16/11: Northrop Grumman Corporation completes the 1st of 3 BAMS fuselages under the SDD phase. The MQ-4C fuselage will undergo final assembly and system checkout at the company’s Palmdale, CA facility, ahead of its first flight in 2012. NGC.

March 7/11: CDR. Northrop Grumman announces that the BAMS program completed its system-level Critical Design Review (CDR) with the U.S. Navy in February 2011 – but it is not fully closed yet. The government and Northrop Grumman teams will be working to close out issues raised during the CDR, before it can be officially over.

The system-level full CDR sets the initial product baseline for the MQ-4C system, and was preceded by 10 subsystem and segment CDRs. Northrop Grumman VP and BAMS program manager Steve Enewold says that the SDD phase’s first 2 UAV fuselages are being built at Moss Point, MS, and the first will ship in April 2011 to Palmdale, CA for final assembly. The next major milestone is Test Readiness Review, planned for fall 2011. First flight is expected in 2012, and Enewold says the program continues to meet its acquisition baseline cost, schedule and performance requirements.

Feb 18/11: Sense & Avoid. Northrop Grumman Aerospace Sector’s Battle Management & Engagement Systems Division in Bethpage, NY receives a $25.6 million cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order to develop an “airborne sense and avoid capability for the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) unmanned aircraft system in support of the Navy and Air Force.” The goal is a TRL 7 system, i.e. a prototype tested in operationally-relevant conditions.

The wording is interesting, as it implies that USAF RQ-4A/B Global Hawks will also be fitted with this capability. As they should be. Sense and avoid technologies are used in commercial aircraft, in order to prevent mid-air collisions. While flying at 60,000 feet will go a long way toward zero collisions, the UAVs do not begin at that altitude, and BAMS in particular will not spend all of its mission time at that level. Throw in funded experiments like aerial refueling between 2 Global Hawk UAVs, and expectations that the stratosphere is likely to be more crowded in future, and the necessity of sense & avoid technologies becomes clearer. To this point, however, the US Navy and USAF have pursued different technology approaches: an ITT-supplied air-to-air radar and ADS-B cooperative surveillance for the Navy, and a multi-sensor “multi-intruder autonomous avoidance (MIAA)” USAF project that uses 3 electro-optical cameras, a low-power radar, and the civil TCAS traffic collision avoidance system.

Work to reconcile those approaches into a common prototype will be performed in Bethpage, NY (50%) and San Diego, CA (50%), and is expected to be complete in November 2012. $7,368,022 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11 (N00019-10-G-0004). See also: Aviation Week.

Feb 9/11: Northrop Grumman announces a $3.3 million contract to participate in the Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Control Segment (UCS) Architecture Working Group (UCSWG), sponsored by the Office Secretary of Defense’s (OSD) Unmanned Warfare Office.

The UCSWG is an open technical standards committee consisting of industry and government representatives from each UAS program of record, several emerging UAS programs and small businesses. The objective of the UCSWG effort is to define a common UAS control station architecture based on standard data models and service interface definitions to enable interoperability, scalability and adaptability of UAS ground stations.

Sept 1/10: New designation. A ceremony at Northrop Grumman’s Moss Point, MS manufacturing facility marks the beginning of RQ-4N BAMS UAV construction.

It is also the first official mention of the platform’s MQ-4C designation. Northrop Grumman spokesman Jim Stratford explains that “M” stands for “Multi-mission,” referring to planned expansion to communications relay and SIGINT missions. The “C” is because there are significant differences from the USAF’s RQ-4B Block 20/30/40, such as anti-icing and sense/avoid capabilities. The “RQ-4N” was Northrop Grumman’s designation during the BAMS competition, but it was never official. Northrop Grumman.

March 3/10: Sub-contractors. Curtiss-Wright Corporation announces a $25 million contract from Northrop Grumman Corporation to provide BAMS’ Advanced Mission Management System (AMMS). Curtiss-Wright will design, develop and manufacture BAMS UAV AMMS units at the company’s Motion Control facility in Santa Clarita, CA Hardware deliveries will start at the end of 2010 and continue through 2011.

FY 2008 – 2009

BAMS System Development & Demonstration contract; Australia steps back from BAMS program.

BAMS Australia
Australian RQ-4N? No.
(click to view full)

Aug 13/09: USAF getting ideas? The Shepard Group reports that The United States Air Force is exploring a potential communications suite re-architecture for its RQ-4 Global Hawk fleet, based on the Navy’s RQ-4 BAMS set. The BAMS de-icing system has also attracted interest.

April 27/09: Northrop Grumman Integrated Systems in Bethpage, NY received a $22.4 million modification to a previously awarded cost plus award fee BAMS System Development and Demonstration (SDD) contract (N00019-08-C-0023). This modification will add wing static and load testing for the BAMS RQ-4N UAS.

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA (90%) and Bethpage, NY (10%), and is expected to be complete in December 2012.

March 2/09: Australia out. Defense minister Joel Fitzgibbon announces that Australia will not be exercising its option to continue as a member of the BAMS program. The country is shelving the “AIR 7000 Phase 1B” project, in order to concentrate on the introduction of the 737-based P-8A Poseidon instead. Despite the minister’s focus on operational difficulties and schedule slips, Northrop Grumman’s statements cite fiscal pressures as one of the key reasons behind the decision.

Australia will probably want and need maritime patrol UAVs at some point, and its public-private CoastWatch program already has a provision for introducing some to the mix over the next decade. The question around BAMS is what price Australia might pay in penalty fees, if any, should the country decide to rejoin the BAMS program at a later date. Australian DoD | The Australian | Canberra Times.

Australia out

Feb 4/09: Delays. Aviation Week reports that the BAMS schedule has slipped, owing in part to delays created by Lockheed Martin’s protest. The first RQ-4N BAMS will begin testing in FY 2012 instead of FY 2011, with low-rate production beginning in FY 2013, and initial operational capability declared by FY 2016 instead of 2015. Full delivery is now expected by FY 2019.

Feb 4/09: Reports indicate that one of the Gobal Hawk Maritime Demonstration UAVs has deployed to CENTCOM’s theater of operations by the US Navy. Information Dissemination believes that its future will include pirate tracking off of Africa’s eastern coast. GHMD is a limited program that is both a predecessor to BAMS, and a way to experiment and learn how an advanced maritime patrol UAV can be used in real world operations (CONOPS).

Dec 23/08: Northrop Grumman announces that U.S. Navy’s Air Test and Evaluation Squadron (VX-20) gave the RQ-4 Global Hawk Maritime Demonstration (GHMD) team its Q2 2008 Test Team of the Quarter award. To date, the 2 GHMD demonstrator aircraft have flown more than 1,350 hours.

The team’s accomplishments included performing more than 1,000 hours of flight operations over an 18-month period, troubleshooting issues with the communications system, integrating the automatic identification system into the aircraft so it can be used in civilian air space, conducting tests with the ocean surveillance initiative, and developing tactics and guidelines for unmanned patrol systems. From January to June 2008, the team also supported various operational activities, including the Southeastern Anti-Submarine Warfare Initiative 08-2, the USS Iwo Jima Group Sail, and the Commander Carrier Strike Group 8. The team’s successes during this period culminated with the Trident Warrior exercise in June 2008, when the team flew more than 113 hours over a 5-week period, including an unplanned 23-hour humanitarian mission in which a GHMD was re-tasked to assist in the Northern California wildfires. July saw the UAVs participate in the Rim of the Pacific 2008 fleet exercise, which saw the team finish 4 missions totaling more than 92 hours.

Sept 29/08: Rolls Royce puts out a release confirming that Northrop Grumman has selected their AE 3700H engine to power the RQ-4N BAMS UAV. This is hardly a surprise, as Rolls Royce was part of the bid team and those same engines power non-naval Global Hawks. Rolls Royce release.

Aug 8/08: The Congressional Government Accountability Office (GAO) denies a protest from the Lockheed Martin MS2/ General Atomics team, which offered its MQ-9 Reaper derived Mariner UAV for BAMS. The grounds of that denial were interesting, and included improvement in Northrop Grumman’s contractor performance in comparable programs like the USAF’s MQ-9 systems. An improvement that was not matched by similar corrective successes at General Atomics.

The BAMS program had been frozen while the appeal went forward, but it is now free to begin in earnest. US Navy NAVAIR announced on Aug 11/08 that the program would resume. See: GAO decisions #400135.1/2.

GAO denies protest, contract continues

April 22/08: Northrop Grumman Corp. Integrated Systems in Bethpage, NY won a cost-plus-award-fee contract with an estimated value of $1.16 billion for the BAMS System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase. This phase includes the design, fabrication, and delivery, of 2 unmanned RQ-4N Global Hawk variant aircraft with mission payloads and communications suites; one Forward Operating Base Mission Control System; one Systems Integration Laboratory; and one Main Operating Base Mission Control System.

Work will be performed in Bethpage, NY (30%); San Diego, CA (25%); various locations throughout the United States (13%); W. Salt Lake City, UT (9%); Rolling Meadows, Ill., (7%); Falls Church, VA (6%); Baltimore, MD (5%); and Norwalk, CT (5%), and is expected to be complete in September 2014. This contract was competitively procured through a request for proposals; 3 firms were solicited and 3 proposals were received, as the RQ-4N beat out the General Atomics Mariner and Boeing’s “optionally manned” G550 for the contract (N00019-08-C-0023). See also US DoD release | Northrop Grumman release.

BAMS SDD

Jan 31/08: An 18-month, $15 million cooperative agreement between the United States and Australia becomes part of the pre-system development and demonstration processes for the US Navy’s Broad Area Maritime Surveillance Unmanned Aircraft System program. DC Military.

FY 2007 and Earlier

BAMS competition and contenders; Australia joins the program.

BAMS Gulfstream-II Test Bed
NGC’s Gulfstream II
(click to view full)

Sept 4/07: General Atomics talks about their BAMS efforts, which they are undertaking in conjunction with Lockheed Martin. The firm announces successfully completion of wind tunnel testing at the San Diego Air & Space Technology Center on a 1/10 scale model of its Mariner, which “exceeded our expectations… Preliminary evaluations validated key competitive capabilities of the aircraft and suggest that Mariner’s design is even more efficient than originally assumed.”

Basically, the testing enabled a specific set of configuration changes to be evaluated at a lower cost and faster pace, while generating important data regarding performance and statistical sensitivities.

Aug 6/07: Northrop Grumman promotes its “sense and avoid” approach, which is intended to meet the BAMS requirement of safely operating alongside manned military and civilian aircraft.

Though they rely in part on high-end capabilities like the Global Hawk’s radar, UAV deconfliction is a major industry issue and the underlying algorithms used are likely to be significant beyond BAMS – in its X-47B UCAS-D unmanned naval fighters, for instance.

June 18/07: Boeing enters the fray. The BAMS 550 would create a manned/unmanned version of the Gulfstream G550 business jet (already in service with the Navy) with fully integrated sensor and communications suites and an advanced mission control system. The Boeing BAMS 550 industry team consists of Boeing, Gulfstream, Raytheon, Rolls-Royce and Honeywell, and touts “an offering that significantly improves upon the historically low reliability, limited payload and extensive support requirements of legacy unmanned aircraft systems.” The Register | Boeing handout [PDF]

May 24/07: Northrop Grumman Corporation discusses its BAMS offer and proposed approach. Their offer is based on an RQ-4N maritime-configured RQ-4B Global Hawk, that will meet “all of the threshold and more than 90% of the Navy’s objective requirements.” The RQ-4N will benefit from the GHMD contracts and efforts already undertaken with the US Navy.

Northrop Grumman’s approach is called Head Start, and is organized around step by step risk assessment that concentrates on system elements, sensor effectiveness, and demonstrating a ForceNet-compliant communications system. Head start will also use a specially modified Gulfstream II business jet as a flying test bed, equipped with the radar sensor that Northrop Grumman is offering as part of its BAMS system. Bill Beck, BAMS Head Start program manager, says: “The test-bed will be used to perform end-to-end communication functionality testing using the Advanced Mission Management System for network, bandwidth and sensor control. It will be tied to a company-built prototype of the Mission Control System (MCS), located at our Hollywood, Md., facility.” The prototype MCS contains off-the-shelf commercial software and hardware components, in keeping with the US Navy’s drive toward upgradeable open architecture approaches.

Carl Johnson, NGC’s vice president of the BAMS program, claims that. “This approach creates a significant program schedule margin which ensures an initial operation capability well ahead of threshold requirements.”

The Northrop Grumman RQ-4N BAMS team includes Northrop Grumman as prime contractor and team leader, unmanned aerial vehicle supplier and developer of the Multi-Function Active Sensor active electronically scanned array radar and the Night Hunter II electro-optical infrared sensor; L-3 Communications providing communications integration; Raytheon supporting the Mission Control System segment; and Rolls-Royce providing the jet engine.

May 8/07: Lockheed Martin discusses its BAMS proposal, which involves the modified Mariner version of General Atomics MQ-9/Predator B. The firm has partnered with EDO, FLIR Systems, Honeywell, LSI, and Sierra Nevada Corp., and its entry will offer an Electro Optical Infrared (EOIR) high definition camera, Automatic Identification System (AIS) to identify ships at sea, a communications relay capability, and Link 16 among its systems.

The Mariner shares its avionics, fuselage, flight controls, and engine (Honeywell TPE-331-1OT turboprop) with the MQ-9/Predator B, but adds enhanced wings (88 foot wingspan) and tails to support the increased takeoff weight, plus 2,000 pounds of additional fuel, 34 antennas for communications, anti-icing and deicing capability, and a retractable EO/IR surveillance turret as part of its 1,350 pound internal payload. The design has an extra 800 pounds of internal payload to offer, plus 4,000 pounds of external payload, which can be carried up to 50,000 feet. Maximum range would be 7,100 nautical miles, albeit at a rather slower speed than the jet-powered RQ-4. The flip side is that the Mariner would be able to cruise for long periods at low altitudes, and do so efficiently. Defense Daily.

NAVAIR logo

May 3/07: The Broad Area Maritime Surveillance Unmanned Aircraft System source selection process formally begins, with receipt of proposals from aerospace manufacturers. A winner is expected to be announced this fall following BAMS Milestone B approval, with a System Design and Development (SDD) contract award following soon after.

Cdr. Bob Dishman, the BAMS Integrated Product team lead, is quoted in a NAVAIR release as saying that “This is a full and open competition and we are satisfied with the number, breadth and technical maturity of the proposals we have received.” See full NAVAIR release.

Jan 29/07: Flight International reports that the US NAVAIR is delaying the release of tenders for its broad area maritime surveillance (BAMS) unmanned air system requirement until mid-February, in order to enable modification of bid documents to meet unique Australian requirements for the system.

Jan 13/07: Aussies in. Australia formally signs a project agreement to participate in the BAMS system development and demonstration phase.

July 28/06: The Australian government has given first pass approval to AIR 7000 Phase 1, under which Australia will spend A$ 1.0-1.5 billion to develop a “multi-mission unmanned aerial system.” Formal negotiations can now begin with the USA on a cooperative development program linked to BAMS, and a final participation decision is expected by late 2007. Australian industry participation will be a key factor, especially with respect to the Integrated Ground Environment for UAV control and fusion of sensor information.

Australia

Additional Readings & Sources

Background: BAMS/ Triton and Key Ancillaries

Export Opportunities

News & Views

South Korea’s F-X Fighter Buys: F-35As and F-15Ks

$
0
0
F-15K Past, Now, Future
F-15K Poster: apropos?
(click to view full)

The Republic of Korea Air Force (ROKAF) originally planned to buy 120 advanced, high-end fighters as its next-generation platform, in order to replace its existing fleet of F-4 Phantom IIs and other aircraft. So far, it has bought 60 fighters in 2 phases. Back in 2002, the South Koreans picked the advanced F-15K derivative of the F-15E Strike Eagle for its F-X Next Generation Fighter Program, and bought 40. In 2008, a 2nd F-X Phase II contract was signed for 20 more F-15ks, with slight modifications.

As the 3rd phase loomed, the question was whether it will be a variant of their existing fleet, or something new. While the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) dreamed of developing their own “5th generation” aircraft for Phase 3, reality eventually had its say. Now, foreign manufacturers are offering the ROKAF a number of off-the-shelf options. But throughout 2013 DAPA couldn’t seem to be able to reconcile the air force’s desire for advanced technology with its budget constraints. Boeing seemed on the edge of winning with its F15-SEs as the sole contender within budget, only to be rejected by the end of September 2013. This reopened the tender with Lockheed Martin’s F-35 as the likely favorite, a choice which was confirmed as 2014 unfolded.

F-X to KF-X: The Best-Laid Plans…

F-4D ROKAF
ROKAF F-4D Phantom II
(click to view full)

South Korea’s relationship with Boeing’s F-15 began in 2002, with a $3.6 billion contract to deliver 40 aircraft to the ROKAF, beginning in 2006 and ending in August 2008.

Their 2-seat F-15K Slam Eagles were the first F-15s produced with an updated version of the GE F110 engine common on many US F-16C/D aircraft, and on the ROKAF’s first 40 F-16 Block 30s, making South Korea the world’s first F-15 customer to fly that engine. They will also carry the SLAM-ER missile as their medium-range precision strike weapon.

F-15Ks have not been equipped with the AESA radars found on some US F-15Cs and Singapore’s forthcoming F-15SGs, however, relying instead on the AN/APG-63v1 radar upgrade, whose back-end can accommodate an AESA array in future, if one is added.

The ROKAF’s F-X-2

SLAM-ER on F-15 Strike Eagle
Strike Eagle
with SLAM-ERs
(click to view full)

In May 2006, the Korean Overseas Information Service said that the ROKAF would purchase another 20 multi-role aircraft, with delivery planned to begin in 2009. This 2nd phase of the F-X next-generation warplane procurement project didn’t quite go as planned. The ROKAF had reportedly hoped to order another 40 planes for F-X-2, but had to settle for just 20 more instead. Then their open competition fell apart. The F-35 was excluded for having incompatible timelines, Dassault and Sukhoi didn’t attend the DAPA presentation after being named as candidates, then Eurofighter pulled out, leaving Boeing’s F-15K as the only submission. DAPA put out a second request for tenders in response, and Boeing was, again, the only respondent.

The actual Phase 2 deal was signed in April 2008. It covered 21 more F-15Ks, to be powered by the Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-229-EEP extended life engine, instead of the GE F110-129 that equipped its previous 40 planes.

An earlier F100 variant powers its 140 “KF-16” Block 52s, and these arrangements ensure that troubles with either engine type will still leave South Korea with a substantial fighter force.

F-X-3 and KF-X

F-35A
F-35A Lightning II
(click to view full)

The 5-year process of getting to a Phase 3 RFP has seen its share of twists and turns, along with some confusion in terminology.

The F-35 Lightning II was initially seen as the only F-X-3 contender, but F-35 program delays began to make its participation questionable, and South Korea’s politics are pushing them to build up their own defense industry as a prime supplier.

The multinational F-35 program has no space for that kind of lead role, so Korean discussions for Phase 3 quickly shifted to some kind of indigenous “5th generation” KF-X design, possibly in concert with a major foreign defense firm. That approach carries immense cost and risk, and eventually the reality of cost, development, and technology transfer risks became impossible to ignore. South Korea’s indigenous fighter efforts beyond the FA-50 will either be shelved entirely, or focus on a different KF-X program that aims to develop a post-2020 fighter in the F/A-18 Super Hornet’s class. Read “KF-X Fighter: Pushing Paper, or Peer Program?” for full coverage.

For its top-tier F-X Phase 3 fighters, South Korea has reverted to the sensible choice of buying an off-the-shelf or late-development foreign platform. According to a ROKAF report submitted to the National Assembly in 2007, DAPA initially planned to open bidding in 2011 for 60 “5th-generation” jets under a 5.4 trillion won/ $5.4 billion program, aiming to deploy the planes between 2014 – 2019. By the end of 2014 DAPA settled on a 40 fighter order worth WON 7.3 trillion ($7B), with a 2018 – 2021 time frame.

However, despite Lockheed Martin’s promises, the US GAO isn’t at all confident that the F-35 Block 3F software iteration, which is the first fully combat-capable set, will be ready by the 2018 delivery date.

Stealth, and the F-X-3 competitors

J-20
J-20 Prototype
(click to view full)

At the ROKAF’s high end, stealth has been mentioned as an important characteristic for F-X-3, and neighboring China’s unveiling of its J-20 stealth fighter has added force to the ROKAF’s desires. So, too, has Japan’s decision to buy F-35A Lightning II stealth fighters. South Korea’s 2012 RFP was initially written to require certain stealth levels and an internal weapons bay, which would have removed all contenders except the F-15SE and F-35. Those requirements were removed before the RFP’s release, but DAPA’s Oh Tae-shik had said that they would “evaluate stealth capability as one of the key aspects, giving an advantage to an aircraft with a lower [radar] observability.”

Those choices affected each of the competitors, but the key is that they widened the field. The finalists were:

  • Boeing: F-15SE Silent Eagle
  • EADS: Eurofighter Typhoon
  • Lockheed Martin: F-35A Lightning II

Unfortunately, all 3 contenders submitted bids for the fighters, industrial giveaways, etc. that were above South Korea’s budget. The competition was briefly suspended, as the government tried to figure out what to do. Bids then resumed, and Boeing was the sole contender for a few weeks, before being rejected for not being a 5th generation offering. The competition was taken away from DAPA, and the military forced stealth requirements that excluded all competitors but the F-35.

F-35B Hover
F-35B Hovers
(click to view full)

Lockheed Martin’s (picked). China’s unveiling of their J-20, and Japan’s purchase of F-35s, added pressure to keep up with the neighbors. F-35s are the only option as an off-the-shelf stealth strike fighter, so they became the ROKAF’s sole-source buy.

That happened after the F-35 had dealt itself out of DAPA’s competition. DAPA’s relaxation of stealth and internal weapon carriage requirements let others compete, and the F-35 was hampered by issues in meeting speed, external weapons carriage, evaluation flight, and cost requirements. The F-35A will also have the smallest set of qualified weapons to 2020, and may take several years after that before it reaches even the limited breadth of the Eurofighter’s array. In the end, however, cost was the biggest issue. Japan’s base cost per fighter has already risen past $120 million, and the F-35 couldn’t meet the ROKAF’s budget for 60 planes.

The F-35B STOVL’s combination of vertical landing capability, USMC compatibility, and stealth could have made it a compelling choice for the ROKAF, but the ROK’s April 2013 DSCA request involved conventional long-runway F-35As that can carry 2,000 pound bombs internally.

F-15SEs concept
F-15 Silent Eagles
Boeing concept
(click to view full)

Boeing (lost). Boeing had an interesting card up its sleeve: the South Korean government’s dream of participating in the development of a new, stealthy fighter platform could survive, albeit in a toned-down form. They would have made Korea the launch partner for its most advanced F-15 fighter yet: the F-15SE Silent Eagle. It doesn’t offer the same radar signature reduction as an F-35, and is only optimized for air-to-air combat stealth. In addition, the canted tails that improve lift and reduce side radar signature are only an option within their bid, rather than a standard feature.

What the F-15SE does offer is improved radar stealth over the F-15K, internal weapon bays, and major advances in controls (fly-by-wire), onboard radar, electronic countermeasures, and sensors. In short, Boeing had to win on advantages like range, carriage capacity, low risk, fleet commonality, and the broadest array of weapon capabilities within South Korea’s budget.

The F-15SE would have given the ROKAF a platform that’s compatible with many of its existing fighters, while boasting advanced capabilities that Korean firms could help manufacture for other F-15 customers. It also offered the singular promise of a 90%+ common high-end fleet, if the ROKAF moved to refit its existing F-15Ks and create a uniform high-end F-15 force of Silent Eagles. Fly-by-wire would probably be too expensive for the upgrades, and canted vertical tails are an unlikely retrofit option, but all other components could be added.

Eurofighter
Eurofighter Typhoon
(click to view full)

EADS (lost). The Eurofighter Typhoon was a Phase 3 competitor throughout, unlike its pullout from F-X-2. EADS proposed to phase in Korean assembly for Phase III, and in 2013 they improved that offer to involve 12 planes made in Europe, and the last 48 assembled at KAI. It wasn’t entirely clear whether KAI would also be performing structural manufacturing, and if so how much. The Eurofighter’s challenge was that technology transfer and local manufacturing adds cost. That hurt them in Japan, despite being rated as the best industrial offer. They hoped that pledges to assist South Korea with development of its proposed K-FX fighter would help tip the balance.

Eurofighter’s Typhoon has more RCS (Radar Cross-Section) shaping features than most people realize, but it has no conformal weapons bay. Instead, its design philosophy was built around the concept that full stealth adds too much expense, and will be compromised by future technology developments. EADS’ design focused on agility, long-range sensors, and long-range weapons instead. The Typhoon does extremely well in those fields, though its range of weapon options is far narrower than the F-15’s. In the end, it wasn’t enough. The bid was eliminated from DAPA’s selection on a questionable technicality, then precluded from the relaunched competition by stealth requirements it can’t meet.

JAS-39D
Gripen: no bid.
(click to view full)

Saab (declined). The Swedish firm indicated a preliminary interest, and made themselves eligible to bid with the JAS-39 Gripen NG. Saab would have been able to offer South Korea a position as a full platform co-development partner, but chose not to bid in the end.

Their Gripen Demo prototype is finishing testing, but the operational Gripen E/F is still in development between Sweden & Switzerland. The Gripen is a smaller fighter than the other competitors, and lacks the stealth enhancements found on the F-15SE or F-35, but its combination of RCS shaping and smaller size have made it difficult to find during NATO exercises like Spring Flag 2007. Overall, it’s a versatile and very agile fighter with a good weapons array, short-takeoff and landing capabilities, and a proven record of low purchase, operations, and maintenance costs. On the flip side, the Gripen’s size creates limits as well as advantages.

Contracts & Key Events

2014-2015

JSF Order confirmed.

F-35A landing
Landing the F-35A
(click to view full)

November 24/15: A deal has been signed between between Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) and the Indonesian government as part of South Korea’s KF-X fighter program. The agreement includes details of shared costs of the joint engineering and development phase of the fighter. Indonesian contributions to the costs amount to $1.5 billion, about 20% of the costs. KAI was announced as preferred in March by the South Korean Defence Acquisition Production Administration (DAPA) and will collaborate with Indonesia with design and some part production. Planned production of the indigenous fighter will commence in 2025 with Indonesia as one of the first customers as export. Indonesia hopes the collaboration will help their own indigenous development capabilities in future.

October 5/15: The South Korean government has opened an investigation into a senior security official over his role in the decision to procure the F-35 in March 2014, with this finalized in September 2014. Kim Kwan-jin headed the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) committee responsible for the selection of the Lockheed Martin jet, despite an earlier DAPA recommendation of the Boeing design on technology transfer grounds in September 2013. The failure to see four core technologies transferred to the country from the F-35 program, confirmed in September, has hit the country’s KF-X indigenous fighter competition hard, with it now thought that the transfer of these technologies was never likely. The probe is now assessing whether Kim lied about the contract’s terms in order to set Lockheed Martin up for the win.

F-35 deal

Sept 24/14: F-35A. DAPA confirms the terms of its order for 40 F-35As, for a total of WON 7.3 trillion ($7.04 billion), about 120 billion won ($115 million) per fighter plus support, spares, and training costs. The actual Letter of Offer and Acceptance (LOA) will be signed within days, under a Foreign Military Sale (FMS) process. Lockheed Martin agreed to transfer flight control and fire-extinguishing technologies. Deployment is planned between 2018 and 2021.

Subsequent reports indicate that Lockheed Martin has limited its proposed help with KF-X to just 300 man-years, rather than the 800 desired. In exchange, they offered a very unusual offset: they would buy a military communications satellite for South Korea, and launch it by 2017. Lockheed Martin isn’t saying anything, but Thales is favored as the source, as they provided the payload for South Korea’s Kopmsat-5 radar observation satellite, and have played a major role in KT Sat’s Koreasat commercial telecommunications satellites. Why wouldn’t Lockheed Martin, which makes these satellites itself, just built one? Because this way, it doesn’t have to deal with any American weapon export approval processes and restrictions, which would have delayed overall negotiations and might have endangered them. Source: Yonhap, “Seoul to buy 40 F-35A fighters from Lockheed Martin in 7.3 tln won deal” | Defense News, “F-16 Upgrade: Problems With S. Korea-BAE Deal Could Open Door to Lockheed” | Reuters, “Exclusive: Lockheed to buy European satellite for South Korea in F-35 deal”.

May 11/14: Diehl & Saab’s Taurus Systems joint venture is opening an office in South Korea, its first outside of Germany. The Seoul office will support South Korea’s November 2013 contract, while overseeing technology transfer and joint development of the next version. Sources: Korea Times, “Taurus Systems to open Seoul office this week”.

March 27/14: Oy! of the Tiger. The F-15K fleet’s Tiger Eye pods combine advanced all-weather and terrain-following navigation with an electro-optical day/night sensor suite that includes Infrared Search and Track (IRST). Yonhap places the number bought at just 10, and adds that the ROKAF has had trouble maintaining them. Perhaps that’s what led to allegations of disassembly and industrial espionage (q.v. Nov 18/11)?

Now the pods are coming home to bite a second time, via a 6x hike in support costs. Yonhap reports that the ROKAF is the system’s only customer, and quotes American sources as saying that the rarity of parts is driving the problem, though Singapore’s F-15SGs were were displayed with Tiger Eyes on rollout. The Koreans are responding by trying to buy key components for lifetime support, before those components disappear.

The ROKAF has 40 Sniper Advanced Targeting Pods with good optics, but they’re often deployed along with Tiger Eyes. If Sniper ATPs are used alone, the ROKAF would have to add LANTIRN pods to gain the same radar-evading low-level flight advantages, and they’d lose the IRST. Sources: Yonhap, “U.S. demands sharp rise in price of F-15K’s sensor parts”.

March 24/14: South Korea’s government officially ratifies its decision (q.v. Nov 22/13) to sole-source 40 F-35As as their next fighter jet, instead of accepting 60 F-15SEs from Boeing’s $7.2 billion bid. Sources quoted by Reuters place South Korea’s revised budget at WON 7.34 trillion (about $6.79 billion), but negotiations on the actual price aren’t expected to finish until late 2014.

Lockheed VP Gary North says that the planes will have “fully operable” Block 3F software when they’re delivered, and other sources give a 2018 – 2022 delivery period. Lockheed Martin is breezily confident that it can meet those requirements, but official GAO and DOT&E reports cast grave doubt on software development and testing in particular. Block 3F seems very unlikely to finish by its target date in 2017, and a lot of things would have to change very soon in order to make even 2018 a likely bet. Contract language around “fully operable” could become very important.

Lockheed’s Randy Howard, the VP who directs the F-35 Korea sale, touted the program’s recent assessment that “the F-35 is on a downward path that will lead to a Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) cost for an F-35A of between $80-85 million,” as his firm seeks an up-front contract for all 40 planes. On the other hand, ROK DAPA sources point to the fact that the program’s estimate based on doubtful sales estimates, and note previous gaps between touted costs and actual prices.

Lockheed Martin’s desire to avoid smaller annual contracts that minimize customer commitment makes sense. With American orders facing cuts, and projected orders from key program members like Canada and the Netherlands coming in at about half of initial estimates, they need to add guaranteed orders. Otherwise, early buyer prices will stay very high and hurt sales. On the other hand, Japan’s recent experiences suggest that the smart money bet lies with DAPA’s dubiousness. South Korea has already locked itself in the negotiating room, and Lockheed could benefit from a smaller Political Cross-Section by not leading with its chin in this way, but it seems to be a persistent pattern. The Sources: Lockheed Martin, “Republic of Korea Selects Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II” | Yonhap, “S. Korea confirms US$6.8 mln deal for 40 F-35s in Q3” and “Lockheed Martin says F-35 will get cheaper in next five years” | Reuters, “South Korea boosts air defenses with about $6.8 billion budget for F-35s”.

F-35A sole-source is official

2013

ROK removes DAPA from the equation and picks the F-35 without competition; Export cases for F-35A, F-15SE, and accompanying weapons; EADS offers to support KF-X if Eurofighter is picked for F-X-3; ROKAF picks KEPD 350 as its long-range cruise missile; F100 engine support deal.

F-15K firing KEPD-350 concept
F-15K: engines lit
(click to view full)

November 2013: Cruise Missiles. South Korea’s DAPA reportedly signs the contract for KEPD 350 cruise missiles with Taurus Systems, a joint venture between LFK (MBDA Deutschland) and Saab. Previous reports indicated that the contract would involve about 170 missiles, at a cost of about $360 million equivalent (q.v. April 25/08, May 18/11, April 4/13, June 19/13, July 5/13). Sources: Korea Times, “Taurus Systems to open Seoul office this week”.

KEPD-350 cruise missiles

Nov 27/13: Dissension. Ruling Saenuri Party members are demanding that South Korea’s government renegotiate the proposed buy of 40 F-35As. Influential Rep. Rhee In-je echoes the Chosun Ilbo newspaper:

“The government made the right decision in choosing the F-35A for its stealth capabilities, but compared to Japan, the conditions (for the purchase) are strikingly unfair…. This isn’t an issue that can be glossed over. We have to try to (buy the jets) on the condition of technology transfer and with the same terms as Japan [q.v.: local assembly for most and some local parts production], even if that means more negotiations…”

Other senior party members want “an open bid for core technology transfer,” and the opposition is blasting the government for weakening its negotiating position by abandoning the competition. On that score, it’s simply too late. There is no competition now, and everyone knows there’s no real competition. Which means it isn’t possible to get the benefits of competition. Even as China’s recent aggressive moves in the East China Sea/ Mer de Coree are turning the fighter buy into a high priority for the ROKAF.

The deal on the table has technology transfer provisions that focus on South Korea’s KF-X fighter, and other projects. If the entire deal revolves around the F-35, it takes these items off of the table. Does the ROK want that? Rep. Rhee In-je is right that the ROK has painted itself into a bit of a corner, but he’s wrong to believe it can just walk out of that corner without paying a steep price. Sources: The Korea Observer, “Ruling party members urge better conditions in fighter jet contract” | Chosun Ilbo op-ed, “Korea Must Keep Edge in Fighter Jet Negotiations”.

Nov 22/13: F-35 Only. South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff announce that there will be no competition for F-X Phase III. They’ve set the stealth requirements so that only the F-35 can meet them, and DAPA plans to sign a 2014 contract for 40 F-35A block 3 jets, to be delivered from 2018 – 2022. That’s a drop from the original requirement for 60 planes, though the ROK JCS will consider a later buy of another 20 jets, type unspecified, for deployment in 2023 – 2024. JCS spokesman Eom Hyo-sik:

“The F-35A will be used as a strategic weapon to gain a competitive edge and defeat the enemy in the early stage of war…. The South Korean military will also use the aircraft to effectively deal with provocations.”

He’s referring to the ROK’s counterstrike doctrine, which intends to actively seek out artillery and missile launchers in early stages of a full war, and strike heavily-defended North Korean targets in response to lesser armed provocations. DAPA’s immediate challenge will be setting a budget for its purchase. Senior DAPA official Oh Tae-shik says that “We expect to firm up the total budget size after discussions with the related ministry.” The ROKAF’s intermediate-term challenge is the fact that American GAO auditors don’t have a lot of confidence in the 2018 deadline for Block 3 jets, given how far behind the fighter’s software development has fallen.

As a side effect, the JCS has moved proposed development of the local KF-X fighter as an intermediate-term project for development by 2020, rather than a long-term project. Lockheed Martin is expected to lend its expertise to KAI, as part of an F-35 industrial offsets program that will also include a new military communications satellite and a cyber-warfare training center. ROK’s Yonhap, “(LEAD) S. Korea decides to buy 40 Lockheed F-35s from 2018” | E&T, “South Korea confirms F-35 fighter jet deal” | China’s Xinhua, “S. Korea picks Lockheed Martin’s F-35 as main fighter jet”.

Oct 11/13: Boeing. Boeing is reportedly shifting its strategy in Korea to promotion of a split-buy. South Korea will take over primary command responsibility for forces on the Korean peninsula in 2015, and wants fighters by 2016, but the F-35B isn’t going to be ready for combat by then. Experiences with other F-35 buyers are also demonstrating much higher purchase costs, resulting in order cuts of 50% or more in partner nations.

Boeing is hoping this will lead to a situation like Australia’s, where the government ended up buying F/A-18F and EA-18G fighters as an interim bridge, and a way to improve fighter force size. The bad news is that South Korea’s perceived need for in-country infrastructure to handle most maintenance operations means that a notable chunk of their F-35 costs won’t change if they switch from 40 F-35s to 24 F-35s + 30 F-15SEs.

Boeing’s F-15SE technologies remain available as upgrades for South Korea and for other customers. Sources: Aviation Week, “Boeing Sees Possible Split Fighter Buy For Korea”.

Sept 24/13: F-15SE out. DAPA yields to pressure from the air force to pursue a 5th generation acquisition. Defense minister Kim Min-seok:

“A majority of the committee members agreed to reject (F-15 SE) and restart the project, taking into consideration the recent security situation including North Korea’s third nuclear test and latest aerospace technology development. They agreed that South Korean Air Force needs fifth-generation combat jets to keep pace with the latest trend and to deter provocations by North Korea.”

This puts Lockheed Martin in a strong position, if the money is there and stealth ends up being the defining “5th gen” requirement. Note that the money will have to encompass more than just the planes, as the nearest major maintenance hub for the F-35s will be in Japan. South Korea already has that infrastructure for its F-15s, but it would have to build and stock a new system for the F-35. Sources: Yonhap, “S. Korea decides against picking Boeing’s F-15 SE as next fighter jet” | CS Monitor, “F-15 Silent Eagle: Why South Korea rejected this jet” | The Diplomat, “South Korea Rejects Boeing’s F-15SE Fighter, Will Restart FX-III”.

F-X-III called off

Aug 28/13: F-15SE radar. Aviation Week reports that Boeing offered South Korea the APG-82(V)1 AESA radar for its F-15SEs, which is a step up from the APG-63(V)3 AESA in Singapore’s F-15SGs and Saudi Arabia’s forthcoming F-15SAs. The APG-82v1 will be the USAF’s Strike Eagle radar under a refit program. Compared to the APG-63(V)3, the APG-82 offers a new wideband radome, an improved cooling system, new Radio Frequency Tunable Filters (RFTF) that let the radar and Electronic Warfare System function at the same time, and an architecture of LRM “blades” that can be swapped out in the field based on internal diagnostics. That improves readiness compared with the APG-63’s large LRU “black box” units, which must be sent to a maintenance depot for diagnosis and service. Sources: Aviation Week, “Boeing Mulling F-15 Plans Beyond Silent Eagle”.

Aug 19-20/13: Contradictory reports. Conflicting messaging from DAPA and contractors give a somewhat muddled picture, apparently leaving the F-15SE as the de facto winner.

DAPA announced that Eurofighter was out because of procedural flaws, which EADS reportedly denies. The core problem is that the ROKAF wanted 45 single-seat and 15 2-seat aircraft, for whatever reason. All F-15SEs are 2-seat, and all F-35s are single-seat, so it was an arbitrary figure for EADS. The 2-seat planes cost a bit more, and EADS says that operational experience shows a need for fewer trainer-capable planes due to advanced simulators, etc. So they proposed a 54/ 6 split, to stay within the budget. EADS Chief Sales Officer Christian Scherer offers a way forward, if politicians want to pressure DAPA into reconsidering:

“I would like to stress that Eurofighter’s intention has been to provide DAPA, to consider within its discretion, fully within the boundaries of the Request for Proposal (RFP), a bid package that would meet the declared essential budget…. We do not see any promises made but only different scenarios with preferences which have been discussed respectfully by the parties all along the negotiation process…. We are open for any constructive discussion with DAPA. We have shown different paths, and we are ready to discuss the applicability of any or parts thereof to help DAPA come to the most cost-effective choice for the F-X Program.”

Meanwhile Lockheed Martin is not admitting defeat just yet, though that’s standard procedure in jet competitions, where it’s not over till it’s over. The truth is, their best hope is for DAPA to reject the F-15SE, or have the competition derailed some other way, giving them time to be able to offer more cost certainty and meet the budget – if they can. Sources: Yonhap, “Interview – EADS denies procedural breach to Korean fighter jet project” | The Hankyoreh, “Eurofighter eliminated from next-generation fighter project” | Reuters, “Lockheed says S. Korea jet fighter contest not over” | Korea Times op-ed, ” Fighter project in limbo” Government needs to reexamine plan from square one”.

Aug 16/13: F-35 Out. South Korea’s new negotiating strategy pays off, as the F-15 Silent Eagle and EADS Eurofighter reportedly meet the bid limit and become the 2 finalists. The DAPA procurement agency will only confirm that at least 1 bidder was within the budget, but Yonhap News Agency confirms that the F-35 disqualified itself by bidding over budget. The Korea Times cites an unnamed “industry source” who says that Eurofighter and Boeing both bid within the limits, which sets up an interesting duel.

DAPA could run the evaluation and decide not to buy any fighters right now, but that’s a good way to simply lose your budget. Reports say that a request to raise the budget has already been refused, in order to increase voter entitlement payouts. The Eurofighter is a better air superiority fighter, but the F-15s have a much wider array of weapons they can use. That versatility, coupled with the prospect of eventually upgrading the F-15 fleet to a mostly-common F-15SE configuration (albeit without fly-by-wire or canted vertical tails on older F-15Ks), is expected to give Boeing an edge. Sources: Yonhap, “S. Korea’s fighter jet project becomes two-way race” | Korea Times, “F-15, Eurofighter vie for F-X project.”

July 29/13: New bids. A Korea Times article makes DAPA’s near-term negotiating strategy crystal-clear. DAPA Spokesman Baek Youn-hyeong says that once any of the bidders meet the KRW 8.3 trillion/ $7.45 billion budget, all candidates will be evaluated, and any not meeting the budget will be disqualified regardless of their evaluations.

The paper reports that Boeing’s bid was within 3% of DAPA’s budget, which means we could have a winner very soon. Sources: Korea Times, “F-35 to be first to bow out”.

July 25/13: New bids. DAPA spokesman Baek Youn-hyeong says that DAPA will begin a 3rd round of F-X-3 bidding in the 3rd week of August. Then he says that:

“If there is no entry with price within the project budget after the resumption of bidding, we will pursue the project again through reviews or increase in overall budget…”

It’s hard to say what this means. Telling companies that “if you don’t bid within our budget, we’ll increase it and try again” is a poor negotiating strategy. Unless the reviews and budget increase are simply applied to the already-submitted bids, and a winner is picked with no further bidding. This would be a reasonable strategy if technical compromise is seen as out of the question, but the people controlling the budget need to be assured that the winning offer is the best possible deal. Sources: Reuters, “South Korea reopens bidding for stalled fighter jet competition”.

July 11/13: Say what? South Korea’s government needs to decide what do do about its fighter competition. One DAPA official tells Reuters that:

“If the auction falls apart, we will consider all possible options, possibly including splitting the purchase…”

If all 3 bidders are over slot, we fail to see how splitting the purchase will help. The only way it would help is if DAPA changed the buy to include lower and higher performance fighter tiers, which would add less expensive competitors to the mix. That would leave EADS in a bind, however, and increase the pressure for fleet compatibility in at least one of the tiers. The F-16V would be a very strong contender in that scenario, as it would fit with the ROKAF’s planned F-16 upgrades. Sources: Reuters, “South Korea to review bids on $7.3 billion fighter jet deal”.

July 5/13: Suspended. The new round of bidding extended until July 5th, but it didn’t help. None of the entries could meet South Korea’s industrial demands, and performance specifications, and budget limits. DAPA responded by suspending further bidding on the competition.

Something clearly has to be rethought, if South Korea wants those fighters. If they don’t drop the number bought, then either the budget must be increased, or cost-adding elements like industrial offsets need to be revised, or the performance specifications need to be relaxed and new competitors contemplated. Sources: Yonhap, “S. Korea temporarily suspends bidding for next-generation fighter jet program” | Yonhap, “S. Korean fighter jet project stuck over pricing”.

F-X-3 suspended

July 5/13: Cruise missiles. A budget analysis report by the National Assembly’s Budget Office notes potential budget problems with the proposed buy of Taurus long-range cruise missiles. South Korea began with a KRW 221.3 billion/ $194 million budget, and has since raised it to 411.9 billion won/ $360 million.

The bad news? The bid for the Taurus missile package was KRW 568.8 billion/ $496.4 billion in 2011. The Budget Office report wants DAPA to report the results of their negotiations with Taurus/MBDA, before the office conducts budget deliberations for 2014. Sources: Yonhap, “Parliament advises review of Taurus, Global Hawk acquisition plan”.

June 28/13: Try again. DAPA official Baek Youn-hyeong said another round of bidding would start on Tuesday July 2, since the 2nd round of bidding ended with none of the bidders meeting the 8.3 trillion won ($7.3 billion) budget set for 60 aircraft. Sources: AP, “S. Korea extends $7.3 billion fighter jet bidding” | Yonhap, “Second round of bidding for Korean jet project fails over price”.

June 19/13: Cruise Missiles. DAPA has approved a plan to purchase Taurus Missiles (q.v. April 4/13 entry) in the absence of American clearance for JASSM. Yonhap reports that the deal will be over $300 million, for about 170 missiles. Note that approval isn’t a contract yet, but at least we’re zeroing in on prices and quantities. Sources: Agence France Presse, “S.Korea to buy European missiles”.

May 23/13: Eurofighter. EADS Cassidian reportedly announces that they would invest $2 billion in the K-FX fighter development project, and help market the plane internationally, if the Eurofighter is chosen for F-X-3. Investments would include a maintenance repair and overhaul (MRO) facility that could extend to the KF-X, and an aerospace software center.

It isn’t a bad idea for EADS. Barring multiple orders from new sources, it’s very unlikely that the Eurofighter will still be in production by 2022. Upgrades and maintenance will continue for some time, but the C-203 KF-X design could offer EADS a new option to sell, with a fundamental design that can improve toward stealth fighter status. The question is whether South Korea wants to go forward. Sources: Yonhap News, “EADS offers US$2 bln investment on Korean fighter jet project”.

May 22/13: Weapons. The US DSCA forwards South Korea’s official weapons export request for up to $823 million worth of weapons to equip F-15SE Silent Eagles [PDF], or up to $793 million in weapons for F-35As [PDF], if either plane is picked as the F-X-3 winner. There’s a lot of commonality, with some differences. The commonalities:

  • 274 AIM-120C-7 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM). This is the most advanced export version, and the ROK already uses AMRAAMs on its F-15s and F-16s.
  • 6 AIM-120C-7 AMRAAM Guidance Sections.
  • 154 AIM-9X Block II Tactical Missiles w/DSU-41. This is the most advanced Sidewinder short-range air-to-air missile. The F-35A and F-15SE The ROKAF would need to do additional work, if they wanted to add it to their KF-16s as well.
  • 14 AIM-9X Block II Tactical Guidance Unit. Spares are good.
  • 33 AIM-9X Block II CATM (Captive Air Training Missiles). Used for exercises.
  • 7 AIM-9X Block II CATM Guidance Units
  • 1,312 FMU-152A/B Fuzes (FZU-63 Initiator)
  • 6 MK-82 Filled, Inert Bombs. Operational Mk-82s weigh about 500 pounds.
  • 4 BLU-109 Inert Bombs. The BLU-109 is a penetrator section for 2,000 pound bombs.
  • 542 GBU-39/B Small Diameter Bombs. These 250 pound GPS-guided glide bombs replace existing bombs on a 4 to 1 basis, and pack the same penetration punch as a 2,000 pound weapon against some hardened targets.

Plus containers, missile support and test equipment, provisioning, spare and repair parts, support equipment, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical documentation, and other US government and contractor support.

The F-15SE and F-35A requests have different distributions and types of bombs. The $823 million F-15SE request includes 1,312 bombs:

  • 780 JDAM Tail Kits, MK-82/BLU-111 KMU572C/B (GBU-38) w/SAASM/AJ. In English: 500 pound version with jam-resistant GPS guidance.
  • 170 BLU-117 2,000 pound General Purpose Bombs.
  • 170 JDAM Tail Kits, MK-84/BLU-117 KMU-556C/B (GBU-31) w/SAASM/AJ. 2,000 pound version with jam-resistant GPS guidance.
  • 362 BLU-109 2,000 pound Penetrator bombs, for use against hardened targets. It adds up to 532 2,000 pound bombs in this request.
  • 362 Joint Directed Attack Munition (JDAM) Tail Kits, BLU-109/KMU-557C/B (GBU-31) w/SAASM/AJ. 2,000 pound penetrator version with jam-resistant GPS guidance.

The $793 million F-35A request includes 1,310 bombs:

  • 780 GBU-12 Paveway II 500 pound laser-guided bombs. Instead of the GPS-guided JDAMs.
  • 4 GBU-12 Dummy Trainers.
  • 530 BLU-109 2,000 pound Penetrator bombs, for use against hardened targets. The F-35A can carry a 2,000 pound bomb and an AMRAAM missile in each of its 2 weapon bays. Maximum impact is best against the kind of tough targets they’d attack.
  • 530 Joint Directed Attack Munition (JDAM) Tail Kits, BLU-109/KMU-557C/B (GBU-31) w/SAASM/AJ. 2,000 pound penetrator version with jam-resistant GPS guidance. The F-35A request orders more of these JDAM kits, but none of the other types.
  • 4 JDAM BLU-109 Load Build Trainers.

The principal contractors are listed as Raytheon Missile Systems Company in Tucson, AZ (AIM-9X, AIM-120); The Boeing Corporation in St Louis, MO (all JDAM kits); Lockheed Martin Missile and Space in Bethesda, MD (GBU-12); and Kaman Precision Products in Middletown, CT (fuzes). General Dynamics OTS makes the base bombs, but aren’t mentioned. If permission leads to negotiated contracts, implementation will require multiple trips to Korea involving U.S. Government and contractor representatives for technical reviews/support, program management, and training over a period of 8 years.

US DSCA: Weapon export requests for F-15SE, F-35A

April 5/13: Eurofighter. With initial F-X-3 negotiations underway, and price negotiations expected to begin on April 18/13, an un-named military official tells the government’s Yonhap News Agency that EADS has changed their industrial offer. Instead of having the first 10 made in Europe, the next 24 made using Korean components, and the last 26 assembled in Korea, EADS has offered to build just 12 in Europe, and the other 48 Tranche 3 planes at KAI in South Korea.

The news report is imprecise, leaving the question of structural manufacturing vs. kit assembly unaddressed. It also fails to address how EADS can promote the idea of 20,000 South Korean aerospace jobs for a 5-year period, when the company also says that building the Typhoon for the much larger orders of the core country participants created just 10,000 jobs in Europe. On its face, the statement seems less than plausible, but it does point to the likelihood of significant structural manufacturing in Korea. Sources: Yonhap, “EADS offers to manufacture 48 Eurofighters in S. Korea” | Fly To Barcelona, “Cassidian Spain presents the Eurofighter offer for South Korea” | New Pacific Institute, “EADS’s ‘Eurofighter Typhoon’ Localized Production Deal with South Korea in Jeopardy”.

F-15K
F-15/KEPD 350 concept
(click to view full)

April 4/13: Cruise missiles. The ROKAF has taken about 5 years (q.v. May 18/11, April 25/08 entries), but they appear to have picked their long-range cruise missile: Taurus’ KEPD 350, with an expected order of 200 weapons. Negotiations are expected to begin quickly. A ROKAF officer is quoted as saying that they “urgently need more long-range air-to-surface missiles due to the mounting nuclear threat and the increasing possibility of provocations from North Korea.”

It was clear from the outset that the ROKAF was looking beyond the 40 or so Boeing AGM-84K SDLAM-ER missiles in its arsenal, with particular interest in Lockheed Martin’s AGM-158 JASSM/JASSM-ER. Unfortunately, the current administration has made it difficult for South Korea to join Australia as a JASSM export customer, and hew to the past pattern of buying American. Parliamentary defence committee member Kim Kwan-jin is quoted as saying that:

“U.S. missiles were one of the options we were considering, but because it is difficult for them to be sold to Korea, the only option we have is the Taurus.”

Chalk up another “own goal” for American weapons export processes and administration – though JASSM reportedly had some carriage issues with the F-15SE and F-15K (vid. Nov 5/12 entry). The KEPD 350 uses a combination of terrain matching, GPS, and Imaging Infrared guidance. It’s currently integrated with the Tornado and F/A-18 Hornet, is partially integrated with Saab’s JAS-39 Gripen, and is expected to be integrated with the Eurofighter by 2015 or so. The ROKAF will have to fund additional integration and testing on its own, in order to use the new missile with its F-15Ks and F-16s.

Technically, the ROKAF could have ordered MBDA’s Storm Shadow and paid for its integration instead. The thing is, it’s more expensive to buy, thanks to an added level of stealth that isn’t really helpful against North Korea. Storm Shadow also lacks the KEPD 350’s void sensing fuze, which is especially useful against the multi-level bunkers so beloved of North Korea’s tyranny. The KEPD 350’s 500 km/ 310 mile range matches or exceeds the Storm Shadow’s, and almost doubles the existing SLAM-ER’s 278 km reach. Sources: Chosun Ilbo, “S.Korea to Buy Bunker-Buster Missiles from Europe” | Reuters, “S.Korea to buy bunker busting missiles from Europe” (different article).

Cruise missile picked: Taurus’ KEPD 350

April 2/13: The South Korean government has a pair of DSCA export requests tabled. If they aren’t actively blocked – and they won’t be – then either Boeing or Lockheed Martin will be able to negotiate a contract IF either fighter wins the ROKAF’s F-XIII competition. If the Eurofighter Typhoon wins, of course, they’re both out of luck. As the winning F-XIII fighter enters service, the ROKAF is expected to retire its F-4 Phantoms.

The respective requests make comparison very difficult, because the F-35A is a full Foreign Military Sale, whereas the F-15SEs involve a Direct Commercial Sale of the core F-15SE fighter that doesn’t appear in the offered totals. Implementation of either sale would require multiple unspecified trips to Korea involving US Government and contractor representatives for technical reviews and support, program management, and training over a period of 15 years. If either proposal is accepted, industrial offset agreements will also be part of the negotiations.

F-35A. The US DSCA announces a full FMS case for 60 fully-equipped F-35A fighters, and another 9 spare Pratt & Whitney F-135 engines. The order would also come with Autonomic Logistics Global Support System (ALGS); the Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS); Full Mission Trainer; “Weapons Employment Capability,” and other Subsystems, Features, and Capabilities; F-35 unique infrared flares; Reprogramming center services and software development/integration; Aircraft ferry and tanker support; Spares and repair parts; Personnel training and training equipment, and other forms of US Government and contractor support.

Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney will be the prime contractors if the F-35A wins. The estimated cost is up to $10.8 billion, which is $180 million per fighter, but all of those “the order would also come with” items do add up. Sources: US DSCA [PDF].

F-15SE. The US DSCA announces a possible hybrid case in support of 60 F-15 Silent Eagle aircraft and their engines being procured via Direct Commercial Sales (DCS), and other items that must be sold under the FMS procedure. Boeing in St. Louis, MO would be the prime contractor. FMS items are estimated to cost up to $2.408 billion, and include:

  • 60 Active Electronically Scanned Array Radar sets (type undisclosed – APG-63v3 or APG-82v1)
  • 60 AN/AAQ-33 Sniper surveillance and targeting pods
  • 60 AN/AAS-42 Infrared Search and Track (IRST) pods
  • 69 Link-16 Terminals and spares
  • Advanced Display Core Processor II
  • Joint Mission Planning System
  • 132 Ultra High Frequency/Very High Frequency (UHF/VHF) secure radios with HAVE QUICK II
  • GEM-V GPS airborne receiver module
  • 60 Digital Electronic Warfare Systems (DEWS)
  • Plus various support equipment items, and communication security; software development/integration, spares and repair parts, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical documents, and US Government and contractor support.

The F-15SE’s new stealth-enhancing features, fly-by-wire, etc. make estimation difficult. Based on sales of less advanced F-15K/SG Strike Eagles to South Korea and Singapore, however, those 60 planes can be expected to add around $6.6 – 7.8 billion. That’s still below the F-35A, and the question is how far below. Another advantage the F-15 has is that most of the training, spares, engine spares, and support infrastructure is already present from F-15K sales. Source: US DSCA [PDF].

F-15SE & F-35A export requests

Jan 8/13: United Technologies Corp. subsidiary Pratt & Whitney announces a 5-year, $300 million Performance Based Logistics (PBL) contract to support over 230 ROKAF F100 turbofans in intermediate engine shops, and at the depot level.

All of South Korea’s 180 or so F-16C/D fighters, and some of its F-15K Strike Eagles, use the F100 engine. With the exception of the earliest F-16 Block 32s, the vast majority use variants of the F100-PW-229. The other exception involves 39 / 60 F-15Ks, which fly with GE’s F110-GE-129. That way, problems with the F100 engine can’t ground the ROKAF’s entire top-end fighter fleet.

Multiyear F100 engine support

2012

F-X-3 stealth criteria lowered, but other criteria adjusted to keep F-35A viable; F-X-3 bids make it F-15SE vs. F-35 vs. Eurofighter; Are JASSM missiles a problem for F-15K/SE?

F-15K
F-15K, Kunsan AB
(click to view full)

Nov 5/12: Cruise missiles. South Korea’s Yonhap News Service reports that a design inconsistency involving the F-15K Slam Eagle will make it impossible to load 2 JASSM medium-range stealthy cruise missiles on the aircraft, without modifying either the pylons or the plane’s upper wing:

“…JASSM) with a 370-kilometer range has been considered a favorite, as the U.S. firm offered a cheaper price than its German competitor Taurus… recent test showed, however, that Lockheed’s JASSM doesn’t fit the F-15K, as the missile’s upper wing folds only to the left side. The Defense Acquisition and Procurement Administration (DAPA) has asked Boeing, the F-15K maker, and Lockheed Martin about ways to install the missile on the F-15K, but both have not responded… “To install the JASSMs in both wings of the F-15K, either F-15K’s pylon or the JASSM’s upper wing should be modified, but it would cost a lot,” the official said.”

That’s odd, because the AGM-158 JASSM lists as already integrated on US F-15E Strike Eagles. If Yonhap is correct, Taurus has a price problem, and JASSM an integration problem. By extension, MBDA’s high end Storm Shadow would also create price issues for South Korea. Time will tell. Meanwhile, the F-15Ks remain capable of firing Boeing’s AGM-84K SLAM-ER cruise missiles. Yonhap.

Sept 14/13: Downgraded F-15SE. Defense Update reports that Boeing is turning canted tail fins into an option for Korea’s F-15SE bid, rather than a core feature. The canted tail fins were supposed to improve side stealth while improving lift, and reducing weight. Wind tunnel tests appear to have shown less flight performance improvement than Boeing was hoping for, and the redesign would have added to the fighter’s cost. Sources: Defense Update, “Boeing Cuts F-15SE Design Feature in Korean Fighter Bid”.

July 3/12: All 3 competitors have re-submitted their bids. DAPA says that flight tests will begin in late July 2012, but some will be based on simulators “because core parts of all three jets are still under development.” Note that if the final decision is put off until 2013, it may well fall under a new government. Korea Herald.

June 20/12: F-X-3 Re-submit. South Korea’s DAPA reopens bidding, “citing what it called errors in the relevant documents.” The re-submission date is July 5/12, which means the same 3 candidates are the only realistic possibility.

DAPA commissioner Noh Dae-Rae also told Yonhap News Agency that an October 2012 decision was their goal, not their deadline, and could delay that decision if they felt it was in “the national interest.” A delay could wind up being important to the F-35, and Lockheed Martin will respond to South Korean demands for more involvement in F-35 testing by June 22nd. Otherwise, Noh says that the F-35 could deal itself out of the competition:

“If the U.S. side rejects our request, we will have no choice but to give [the F-35] a zero point in the criteria of flight-testing.”

That’s a good initial negotiating position, anyway. Defense News | Yonhap.

F-X-3 RFP re-do

June 18/12: F-X-3 Responses. A DAPA official confirms the 3 bidders for the Phase 3 buy: Boeing’s F-15SE, EADS’ Eurofighter, and Lockheed Martin’s F-35. They’ve submitted their boxes of documentation, and DAPA plans to announce a winner by October 2012, then sign a contract by the end of 2012.

The main opposition Democratic United Party is opposed to the fighter buy, and is demanding that the next government deal with it. They won’t get their way, but technical developments have added weight to their case.

Of the 3 jets, only EADS’ Eurofighter will be fully available for flight tests. The F-35 is single-seat only, and has fielded only a handful of test aircraft so far. Training a ROKAF pilot to the required level would be both time-consuming, and damaging to the F-35 development program. South Korea will have to rely on simulator flights, which are questionably useful for a plane that’s still in its development & testing phase. Boeing’s F-15SE is available as a 2-seat test aircraft, and has 80% commonality with existing F-15Ks. On the other hand, the test aircraft lacks important features like fly-by-wire, which will be present in the final F-15SE, and in Saudi Arabia’s more conventional F-15SAs. Korea Times | Yonhap | Bloomberg | Flight International.

April 2/12: F-X-2. Boeing delivers the final 2 F-15K Slam Eagles to the Republic of Korea Air Force at Daegu Air Base, ROK. All ROKAF F-15Ks were delivered on cost and on schedule. Boeing.

F-X-2 all delivered

Feb 23/12: F-15K support, 2012-2017. Boeing announces a 5-year, $300 million Performance Based Logistics (PBL) contract to support the ROKAF’s F-15K fleets. The PBL model offers agreed-upon bonuses and penalties around specific outcomes, like mission readiness rates. In some cases, the contract will simply require the outcome and offer a fixed-fee payment.

The exact terms of such deals are everything, but Boeing isn’t discussing them. They do note that their responsibilities under the new contract will involve chain forecasting; coordinated procurement of production and spare parts to benefit from economies of scale; rigorous supplier contracting, quality and risk-management practices; and more efficient delivery processes, as well as collaboration with customer maintenance depots and local industry. Their partner Hyundai Glovis will provide in-country logistics handling, and supply chain distribution activities.

“Boeing is pleased to continue supporting the ROKAF F-15 fleet, which already has achieved some of the best mission-capability rates of any air force operating the F-15, and those rates have continuously improved since the aircraft’s introduction to the ROKAF,” said Jim O’Neill, vice president and general manager, Boeing Integrated Logistics.”

F-15K support

Feb 7/12: F-35 finagling. An exclusive Korea Times report notes that the F-35A will likely fail to meet 2 of the ROKAF’s key requirements. it also explains how this failure will be circumvented, to keep the F-35A in the competition.

The problem is that F-35A is designed for a maximum speed of Mach 1.6, and almost certainly cannot achieve that speed while carrying drag-inducing external weapons. Which is a ROKAF requirement. Indeed, by the time the ROKAF wants the planes, the F-35A won’t even be certified to carry and use external pylons, because that isn’t a priority for the USAF.

The way to keep the F-35A in the competition anyway is for the US government to essentially lie, and say that these attributes will be present by the time it’s delivered to South Korea. They won’t, and everyone knows it, but DAPA has already made compromises to widen the competition (vid. Jan 12/12), and is expected to play along. If the F-35A wins, they’ll be able to assess comparatively minor contract penalties at the end, for non-compliance.

Jan 30/12: South Korea releases its FX-III RFP, for 60 aircraft. Source.

Jan 29/12: No PAK-FA. The Korea Times quotes a DAPA spokesman, who confirms the potential F-X-III competitors:

“No Russian firm submitted an application to attend the program’s explanatory session, which was a prerequisite to participate, by the Friday registration deadline,” a spokesman of DAPA said. He noted that a representative from Swedish company Saab, which has been searching for additional export orders for its Gripen multirole fighters, successfully filed an application for the mandatory session along with Boeing, Lockheed Martine [sic] and EADS.”

This means that the Indo-Russian PAK-FA will not be part of the competition, just as Russian disinterest kept the SU-35 out of F-X-2, despite reports (vid. July 20/11) that Sukhoi was intending to participate this time. The report adds that DAPA doesn’t see the Gripen as likely to meet its competition’s requirements. Then again, that’s what explanatory sessions are for. Saab itself told the newspaper that it hadn’t decided whether or not it would bid.

Jan 12/12: F-X-3. South Korea will change some of its F-X-3 fighter requirements, in order to ensure that interested bidders can submit for its competition. The Korea Times reports that:

“Kim Dae-sik, the head of DAPA’s contract management agency, confirmed that… “DAPA plans to issue the RFP by the end of the month without the requirement of the conformal weapons bay… Oh Tae-shik, head of DAPA’s program management agency, confirmed that any major players in the market will be able to enter the FX-race without having to fulfill a specific RCS (Radar Cross Section, i.e. stealth) value previously set by the Air Force… “Non-stealth fighters will be able to enter the bid as we will lift the two early requirements,” he said. “However, DAPA will evaluate stealth capability as one of the key aspects, giving an advantage to an aircraft with a lower observability.”

2011

ROKAF still wants long-range cruise missiles; DAPA tries to solicit Sukhoi’s PAK-FA stealth fighter for F-X-3; How much does stealth matter for F-X-3? Korea tries industrial espionage on F-15K pods.

F-15K-II
F-15K F-X-II
(click to view full)

Nov 18/11: Industrial espionage? South Korea’s left-wing Hankyoreh newspaper reports that a combination of unauthorized examination of an F-15K’s “Tiger Eyes” IRST (InfraRed Search and Track) sensor, and concerns that a number of South Korean products contain copied technologies, has halted “strategic weapons exports” from the USA to South Korea. That reportedly includes the proposed RQ-4B Global Hawk deal.

The allegations are single-source, and written by Hankyoreh, but they are also quite detailed – and further investigation by DID indicates that they may have some substance. If the problem expands, or the current rift is not repaired, it could certainly change the F-X-3 competition. Read “US-South Korea Rift? Of Tiger Eyes & Industrial Spies” for more.

F-15K espionage

Oct 21/11: JHMCS-II. VSI unveils the upgraded JHMCS-II helmet mounted display, which would equip the stealth-enhanced F-15SE they’re offering in South Korea’s FX-III fighter competition. HMDs are tactical game-changers in aerial combat, and JHMCS-II is later revealed to be based on Elbit systems’ new Targo helmet, though it uses existing JHMCS systems inside the F-15 to ease integration. It offers a lighter and simpler, night-vision capable, all-digital HMD, with color LCD for the daytime display. Flight International | Aviation Week

Aug 20/11: #51-53. Boeing delivers 3 more F-15K-2 Slam Eagles to the Republic of Korea Air Force (ROKAF) at Daegu Air Base: aircraft 51, 52 and 53. The remaining 8 aircraft on the contract will be delivered through April 2012.

July 20/11: PAK-FA in F-X-3? As South Korea’s DAPA eases the criteria to try and foster more competition, DAPA’s Col. Wi Jong-seong says that “Russian aircraft manufacturer Sukhoi expressed its intent to compete in the fighter jet procurement project early this year.” The report quotes him as saying that Sukhoi’s T-50 PAK-FA will be up against Boeing’s stealth-enhanced F-15SE Silent Eagle, Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Lightning II, and EADS’ Eurofighter Typhoon. Assuming we don’t have an F-X-2 repeat, where all competitors but one drop out.

At this point, FX-III is being touted as a 60 jet buy of high-end fighters, with a budget of 8.29 trillion won ($7.86 billion). Eurofighter reportedly offered a better deal than the F-15K in F-X-2, but lost. The firm recently proposed to phase in Korean assembly for Phase III, with the 1st 10 made in Europe, the next 24 using Korean components, and the last 26 assembled in Korea. Korean Herald | Korea Times.

June 2/11: #49-50. F-15K-2s number 49 & 50 land at Daegu AB, ROK. Note that the ROKAF has fewer aircraft than that, due to an accident (vid. Jan 2/08 entry). After F-X-2 is finished, they’ll have 39 F110-powered F-15Ks from F-X-1, and 21 F100-powered F-15Ks from F-X-2. Boeing.

May 18/11: Cruise missile (still) wanted. South Korea is looking for advanced cruise missiles to equip its aircraft. They have been thinking about this for some time (vid. April 25/08 entry), but are now preparing an RFP.

South Korea’s F-15K Slam Eagles are so known because they can carry the AGM-84K Standoff Land Attack Missile – Expanded Response (SLAM-ER), a Harpoon derivative with extra range and dual GPS/IIR guidance. South Korea has previously expressed interest in Lockheed Martin’s stealthy AGM-158 JASSM cruise missile for its fleet of F-15Ks, and presumably for its KF-16s as well. That would give them a way of striking even North Korea’s most heavily defended targets if necessary, while remaining out of range of the North’s air defenses. Indeed, the ROK recently prosecuted an ex-ROKAF Colonel who leaked information about its JASSM plans.

JASSM’s long history of technical difficulties have reportedly given South Korea’s DAPA procurement agency pause, however, and an anonymous DAPA official now says that a broader RFP will go out in June 2011. Likely contenders include Lockheed Martin’s JASSM and JASSM-ER, Boeing’s SLAM-ER, MBDA’s Storm Shadow, the MBDA/Saab Taurus KEPD-350, and Raytheon’s JSOW-ER. Of these contenders, Boeing, Lockheed, and Raytheon have the advantage of owning platforms that have already been integrated for use on the F-16 and the F-15 Strike Eagle. MBDA’s products would incur integration costs, but it’s possible that their Storm Shadow’s combat-proven high-end capabilities, or KEPD-350’s combination of reliable capability and lower cost, could still make them attractive buys. Yonhap News | Flight International.

April 18/11: Eagle Snipers. Lockheed Martin announces that the ROKAF has received their AN/AAQ-33 Sniper surveillance and targeting at Daegu Air Base, South Korea, and immediately deployed them into full flight operations with the ROKAF’s F-15K fleet.

Subsequent inquiries with Lockheed Martin and Boeing reveal that South Korea ordered 17 Sniper pods in the FX Phase 2 contract, which included aircraft, radars, pods, etc. While the contract received formal government approval in April 2008, the actual signing date was in December 2007. In 2009, Lockheed Martin demonstrated the benefits of Sniper pod’s capability for ROKAF by successfully flying Sniper on Korean F-15K and the KF-16s, using a common Sniper pod software load. That common load allows operators to deploy the pod on various aircraft types, extending the pods’ flexibility and significantly reducing life cycle costs for mixed fleets.

March 15/11: #47-48. Boeing delivers F-15Ks 47 and 48 to the ROKAF at Daegu Air Base. The remaining 13 aircraft will be delivered through April 2012, but some will remain stateside for a brief interlude: 6 of the new F-15Ks are scheduled to participate in a 2012 international Red Flag exercise, held at Nellis Air Force Base, NV. Boeing April 5/11 release.

March 9/11: F-X-3. Defense Minister Kim Kwan-jin tells reporters that the ministry will push for a stealth fighter in F-X-3. The ROKAF s still pushing to get the program started in 2011, despite political delays. Recent announcements by China (J-20 unveiling) and Japan (F-35 negotiations) are adding urgency to the process, and may tip the scales in the ROKAF’s favor.

These trends seem to be pushing away from the Eurofighter, and may even handicap Boeing’s F-15SE Silent Eagle against Lockheed Martin’s F-35A Lightning II. The F-35’s biggest issue is likely to be its delivery dates, though cuts by other customers could open production slots. Chosun Ilbo | Korea Times.

2010

1st F-X-2 F-15K flies, and deliveries begin; ROKAF retired all F-4Ds, but still has other F-4s; KAI gets F-15SE sub-contract.

F-15SE CWB
F-15SE CWB
(click to view full)

Nov 8/10: +3 delivered. Boeing delivers 3 F-15K “Slam Eagles” from the 2nd contract to the Republic of Korea Air Force (ROKAF) at Daegu Air Base, South Korea. Aircraft deliveries under that contract will continue through 2012. Boeing.

Nov 3/10: F-15SE sub-contract. Boeing announces a Memorandum of Agreement with Korea Aerospace Industries Ltd. (KAI) for KAI to design, develop and manufacture the Conformal Weapons Bay (CWB). The agreement is an important step toward a broader F-15SE partnership that would make the ROKAF the type’s launch customer, and it also has implications for KAI beyond any F-X-3 program. These combination fuel tanks and weapon bays can be installed on either new-build or existing F-15 series aircraft, making it a potential upgrade for any existing F-15 customer.

KAI has experience working with Boeing. The firm builds the F-15K’s wings and forward fuselage, and works with Boeing on programs including the ROKAF’s pending E-737 AWACS planes, the A-10 Wing Replacement Program, and all Boeing commercial airplane programs.

April 28/10: F100 engine. Pratt & Whitney announces that:

“Last week, two Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-229 Engine Enhancement Package (EEP) engines powered the first flight of a F-15K aircraft planned for delivery to the Republic of Korea Air Force (ROKAF) later this year.”

Phase 1 F-15Ks are powered by GE’s F110 engines instead. The split buy leaves South Korea with flyable F-16 and F-15 fleets, even if problems with one engine type or the other ground equipped aircraft.

April 22/10: F-15K-2. Boeing conducts the first flight of F-15K41, the first of 21 F-15K Slam Eagles produced under F-X Phase 2. Boeing.

July 8/10: F-15SE. Boeing flies its stealth-enhanced F-15SE “Silent Eagle,” for the first time, demonstrating the weapon bay’s operation in flight. The next stage will involve firing an AIM-120 air to air missile from the recessed weapon bay, which is part of the plane’s conformal fuel tank.

Boeing executives are also quoted as saying that they expect export approval for the F-15SE, and have received interest for Korea. A Jerusalem Post report adds Israel to this list, citing several conversations between Israeli defense officials and Boeing about F-15SE capabilities, and possible interest in a cheaper Silent Eagle bridge buy that allows full Israeli customization, while the F-35A achieves greater cost certainty and lower production costs. The F-15SE could also fit South Korea’s interest in a KFX-3 development program, which would involve both Korean research and equipment, but use a foreign fighter as the base. Both South Korea (F-15K) and Israel (F-15I) already fly Strike Eagle variants, and the 2 countries have begun to cooperate in a number of advanced defense programs. This raises interesting speculation about the possibility of tripartite cooperation on the F-15SE. Boeing | Defense News | Jerusalem Post.

June 16/10: F-4Ds retired. The ROKAF flies the F-4D Phantom II for the last time. It still has F-4E/F fighters in inventory. ROK’s Ariang TV.

F-4Ds retired

2009

Stealth-enhanced F-15SE Silent Eagle unveiled; Issues with F-15K readiness rates; DAPA still dreaming of a local 5th generation fighter.

F-15SE
F-15SE unveiled
(click to view full)

Oct 19/09: F-15K. The Chosun Ilbo reports that the F-15K’s “concurrent spare parts” availability rate was just 16% in 2008, compared to 70-80% for other ROKAF fighters. As a result, cannibalization of flying planes for spare parts skyrocketed from 39 cases in 2006 to 203 in 2007, and 350 in 2008. While the ROKAF has maintained the target 80% availability rate for the fighters, it means that 5-6 of the aircraft are unavailable at any given time. The figures come from documents the ROKAF submitted to Grand National Party lawmaker Kim Jang-soo, who heads the National Assembly’s Defense Committee. Chosen Ibo:

“Cannibalization is prohibited, but authorization can be given by the top echelon when there is no other option… The Air Force cites a lack of forecasts of “components needs” because it claims to be in the early stages of deploying F-15Ks, and blames manufacturer Boeing for failing to hand over the relevant information.”

F-15K availability issues

July 9/10: F-15SE. Daily Tech reports that South Korea has formally asked for information on Boeing’s F-15SE, and the company is in the process of getting an export license so it can talk to them about the jet. Brad Jones, Boeing F-15SE program manager, said South Korea:

“…has asked for information on Silent Eagle so now we’ve applied for the [license] and we hope to get that before the end of the month… As soon as the export license is provided, then I can provide [marketing] information to a country.”

July 23/09: KF-X. Defense News reports that “South Korea Drops 5th-Generation Fighter Plan.” That title is actually misleading. The Weapon Systems Concept Development and Application Research Center of Konkuk University is leading the study, and the center asked Boeing, Eurofighter, Lockheed Martin and Saab about their views on the per-plane cost estimate of $50 million, as well as budget-sharing ideas and technology transfer.

Their specifications, however, most closely mirror the ($150-180 million) F-22 Raptor, indicating that some reconciliation with reality is still necessary. The center will wrap up the feasibility study by October 2009, and DAPA is supposed to issue a decision on the KF-X initiative by year’s end. That will determine whether KF-X competes with/ supplants F-X-3, or proceeds as a separate program.

DID: In the end, it became a separate program with far more reasonable requirements, and a joint venture with Indonesia. Read “KF-X Fighter: Pushing Paper, or Peer Program?” for full coverage.

March 17/09: F-15 Silent Eagle. Boeing unveils the F-15SE “Silent Eagle” variant. The aircraft has slightly canted vertical tails to improve aerodynamics and reduce weight, some minor radar shaping work, the addition of coatings to improve radar signature further, and a pair of conformal fuel tanks with cut-in chambers for 2 air-to-air missiles each, or air-to-ground weapons like the 500 pound JDAM and 250 pound GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb. The tanks would be swappable for traditional conformal tanks if desired, and weapons could also be carried externally. BAE’s DEWS electronic self-protection system would be fitted, along with Raytheon’s AN/APG-63v3 AESA radar.

The intent appears to be to offer a “budget Raptor” in the $120 million range, with a basic radar signature that’s competitive with newer fighters like the similarly-priced Eurofighter Typhoon. Advantages over the F-15K would include better radar signature when internal carriage is used for long combat air patrols or limited precision strikes, a superior and proven AESA radar, longer range, and more total carriage capacity if necessary. On the flip side, it would not provide the same maneuverability options as canard equipped contenders like EADS’ Eurofighter or Dassault’s Rafale. The total package would come closer to parity with the SU-30MKI/M and subsequent versions of Sukhoi’s offerings, but may or may not measure up against longer-term opponents like Sukhoi’s PAK-FA or China’s J-XX. From Boeing’s release:

“Boeing has completed a conceptual prototype of the CFT internal-carriage concept, and plans to flight-test a prototype by the first quarter of 2010, including a live missile launch. The design, development, and test of this internal carriage system are available as a collaborative project with an international aerospace partner.”

2008

F-X-2 contract for 21 F100-powered F-15Ks; Weapon request; All 40 F-X F110-powered F-15Ks delivered; ROKAF looking for long-range cruise missiles.

F-15K
F-15K, Red Flag 08-4
(click to view full)

Oct 8/08: F-X. The Korea Times reports that Boeing has delivered the 40th and last F110-powered F-15K from the F-X Phase 1 order.

All F-X planes delivered

July 28/08: F-15K ECM. Electronic warfare is an integral part of the modern combat environment, and aircraft that lack this protection can find themselves blind and defeated in very short order. Strike aircraft also need offensive jamming systems, in hopes of disabling enemy radars and missiles.

Which is why Northrop Grumman Corporation has received a $74.6 million contract to provide 21 ALQ-135M electronic combat systems for the Republic of Korea Air Force’s F-15Ks. This is not a surprise, since NGC’s AN/ALQ-135 is the default system for F-15 variants around the world. AN/ALQ-135 offers a set of fully automatic, internally-mounted electronic combat system that can prioritize, manage, and defeat several enemy electronic systems at once. The latest configuration improves on earlier versions by replacing multiple processors with a system that adds memory and faster PowerPC chips, while using microwave power module (MPM) transmitter technology to reduce weight and boost performance. Deliveries will start in February 2010 and be completed by October 2011. NGC release.

June 20/08: Weapons. The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency announces [PDF] South Korea’s official request to buy a variety of weapons to equip its air force, in conjunction with the planned Direct Commercial Sale 21 more F-15K Slam Eagle fighters. The total value is up to $200 million, but will depend on specific contracts. The proposed order includes:

  • 125 AIM-120C-7 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM). This is the most advanced AMRAAM in large-scale production. A more advanced AIM-120D version is currently in testing.
  • 14 AIM-120C Captive Air Training Missiles, with seekers but no rocket motors.
  • 2 AIM-120C Dummy Air Training Missiles.
  • 35 AGM-65G MAVERICK Missiles. They are especially designed for use against hardened tactical targets, and use imaging infrared (IIR) guidance to make them fire-and-forget.
  • 6 TGM-65G MAVERICK Training Missiles.
  • 280 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) tail kits, which convert Mk80 family bombs to GPS/INS guided smart bombs.
  • 2 JDAM Load Build Trainers.
  • 2 GBU-24 Laser Guided Bomb Units (2,000 pound PAVEWAY III), offering dual laser-GPS guidance. An order of this size for a new weapon usually suggests testing.
  • 32 GBU-12 PAVEWAY II 500 pound laser-guided bombs.
  • 2 GBU-10 PAVEWAY II 2,000 pound laser-guided bombs. Comes in both general purpose and hardened target penetrating version.
  • 12,700 RR-170 Radar Jamming Chaff, used as a defensive system.

Plus containers, bomb components, spare/repair parts, publications, documentation, personnel training, training equipment, contractor technical and logistics personnel services, and other related support elements. The principal contractor is Raytheon in Tucson, AZ. South Korea should have no problem integrating these weapons, and there are currently 4 U.S. Air Force pilots and 5 maintenance Extended Training Service Specialists in the Republic of Korea. They are expected to remain for the next 5 years.

F-15K weapons request

April 25/08: F-X-2 contract. A South Korean government panel approves a 2.3 trillion won ($2.3 billion) contract to buy 21 F-15K fighter jets from Boeing for the country’s F-X-2 program. The new aircraft will be delivered between 2010 and 2012. See Jan 21/08 entry for more re: 21 aircraft instead of 20.

The 21 F-X-2 F-15Ks will feature one key difference from the ROKAF’s first 40: they will use the Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-229-EEP extended life engine, instead of GE’s F110. Compared to the F100-PW-229, the new EEP variant adds design improvements, HUMS prognostics and monitoring equipment, and a slight boost to 29,100 pounds of thrust. The selection of different engines for the same aircraft type is unusual, but Aviation Week reports that Pratt & Whitney offered better pricing, part production sharing, and warranty options. Korea’s Samsung Techwin and P&W will be partnered to produce the 46 engines, under a under a $220 million contract. F100s also equip the ROKAF’s F-16 force, and having similar engines in the F-15Ks offers both maintenance commonalities, and insurance that problems with either engine will not ground the entire F-15K fleet. On the flip side, maintenance arrangements will be more complex for the F-15 fleet, and certain F100 related problems could now ground a larger portion of the ROKAF’s tactical air power.

The other difference F-X-2 offers is a different approach to the contract. Negotiations reportedly reduced the required industrial offsets from 85% in F-X to 33%, in exchange for better pricing, more spare parts, and more responsibility to the contractor. Pratt & Whitney release | DAPA re: standard offsets practices | Korea Times | AFP report | St. Louis Today | Aviation Week | Armed Forces International | Flight International.

F-X Phase 2: 21 F-15Ks with F100 engines

April 25/08: New cruise missiles? Reports surface that Korea intends to arm its F-15Ks with new, longer-range cruise missiles. The ROKAF already uses Boeing’s Harpoon-derived SLAM missile, but is reportedly looking to buy another 400 missiles with a longer 400 km/ 250 mile range. Armed Forces International reports that no decision has been made, but The Korean Herald states that Korea has a very specific interest in Lockheed’s AGM-158 JASSM stealth missile. JASSM has been selected by the USA and Australia, and an even longer-range variant is under development. On the other hand, the program has been plagued with reliability issues; should the missile fail, other options in its class would include EADS’ KEPD 350 Taurus, Kongsberg and MBDA’s stealthy Storm Shadow.

Jan 28/08: KF-X reality check. The current program was scheduled to be followed by a KF-X program to develop and indigenous 5th generation/ stealth fighter to replace all F-5E Tiger IIs and F-4E Phantom IIs. After a feasibility study in 2008, the project would aim to produce the next-generation jets by 2020, with the goal of building 120 planes in a bid to secure proprietary technology and strengthen the country’s medium level fighter jet capacity. The goal is reportedly a single-seat, twin-engine plane with about 40,000 pounds of thrust from its engines, with more stealth than the Eurofighter Typhoon or Dassault Rafale, but less stealth than the F-35.

Now the Korea Development Institute has delivered a report concluding that the economic and industrial returns would be weak in proportion to its cost: about 3 trillion won/ $3 billion in returns, on a 10 trillion won investment. Papers quote foreign experts who estimate development costs of up to $12 billion. Korea’s DAPA said the KDI report was for reference only, and the project decision would include other factors such as export prospects and technological capacity.

Options like partnering with EADS on a stealthier version of the Eurofighter, for instance, might lower development costs and offer an additional option. Nevertheless, the comparable cost of buying, for example, 120 F-35 Lightning II fighters in 2020 is likely to be half this sum, and the difference would be very noticeable within South Korea’s defense budgets. With F-X-3 likely to select the F-35 as a platform, a merger with the K-FX program and negotiation of an industrial deal seems more likely. Especially given South Korea’s demographic crunch, which will begin to bite by 2020. Chosun Ilbo | Korea Times.

Jan 20/08: F-15K. The Korean Overseas Information Service reports word from a military source that Boeing may be moving the close the F-X2 deal by offering to deliver 21 F-15Ks for the contracted price, in order to replace the aircraft that crashed on Aug 6/06 due to pilot error. KOIS adds that:

“Korea has so far bought 30 F-15 fighters from Boeing under the contract for purchase of 40 F-15 fighter jets by the end of 2008. Seoul is currently negotiating with the U.S. airplane manufacturer to buy 20 more fighters.”Boeing might have made the proposal to express their thanks to the Korean government for its decision to purchase 20 more F-15 fighters,” a source said. “The Korean government may make a decision on the proposal late this month when the negotiations for the purchase of engines are to be concluded…The proposal by Boeing came as Korea revealed last year its plan to purchase from 2014 to 2019 about 60 fifth-generation stealth fighter jets such as the F-22 and F-35 of Lockheed Martin.”

At present, the F-35 Lightning II seems to be a far more likely future purchase than the F-22.

2007 and Earlier

F-X-2 approved, but Boeing is the only bidder… twice; F-15K maintenance deal; F-15K crash; F-22s – dream on.

F-15K
F-15K
(click to view full)

May 10/07: F-X-2. “Boeing is the only company that has submitted a bid proposal as of 3 p.m. today, the deadline for the re-invitation to the open bidding,” a spokesman for DAPA said. KOIS report.

April 30/07: F-X maintenance deal. KOIS reports that Korean Air Co. has clinched a preliminary deal with U.S. aircraft manufacturer Boeing Co. to provide a wide range of maintenance and services, including training of military maintenance personnel, for Boeing-made F-15K fighters in the Republic Of Korean Air Force.

While this is the first time a private company has performed this kind of work for the ROKAF, they do have a solid base of experience. Over the last 25 years, the firm has overhauled about 500 USAF F-15s at its maintenance unit in Gimhae just south of Seoul.

April 27/07: Dreaming of F-22s. South Korea’s Yonhap news agency: “Seoul eyes advanced jets beyond F-15K.” In which ROK ministers discuss their ambition to procure fifth-generation fighter jets such as F-22 and F-35, made by Lockheed Martin of the United States, to keep up with Japan and China. An excerpt:

“The U.S. Congress has yet to make a decision on whether to lift the ban,” Defense Minister Kim Jang-soo told reporters here. “We will have to look at its decision.” He said South Korea needs to stop falling behind Japan and build up comparable air force firepower… In an interview with Yonhap News Agency earlier this week in Beijing, Kim admitted that the F-15 model is outdated in comparison with the F-22 and F-35. His comments were construed as hinting at the possibility that South Korea may delay the purchase of additional fighter jets.”

While F-35 procurement would be welcomed and might be a good timetable fit for a 3rd phase F-X around 2013-2015, F-22 exports would be a very different bowl of bulgogi. South Korea’s triangulation between North Korea and the USA has harmed ROK-US relations, and the country may now be considered a security risk in some quarters of the US defense establishment. Contrast this situation with Japan, whose larger sea lanes make a stronger prima facie case for a long-range, stealthy defensive interceptor force. Japan also worked to improve its diplomatic and military relations with the USA, stressing its reliability as an ally and collaborating on sensitive technologies like missile defense. Hence the current situation, in which F-22 or F-35 exports to Japan can be discussed with some expectation of success.

April 23/07: F-X-2 RFP re-issue. DAPA issues a public notice, once again inviting foreign bids again on its plan to procure 20 advanced combat aircraft by 2012. Boeing Co. of the United States turned out to be the only company that bid on the $2.4 billion contract, in response to the first request. The formal explanation session for the project will be held on April 30/07 at DAPA’s office in Seoul, ROK. Interested firms will have to submit bid proposals by 3 p.m. on May 10, 2007. KOIS report.

2nd F-X-2 RFP

April 20/07: Weapons. The US DSCA notifies Congress of South Korea’s request for 102 AIM-9X Sidewinder Missiles; Organizational and Intermediate-Level Maintenance AIM-9X spares; 26 Section-Level Shipping containers; Organizational and Intermediate-Level training; and AIM-9X missile and support equipment; and publications. The contract would be worth $55 million to Raytheon in Tucson, AZ. See DSCA release [PDF], which says that:

“The sale of the Sidewinder AIM-9X missile system is being addressed in conjunction with the planned sale of additional F-15K fighter aircraft.”

AIM-9X missile request

April 18/07: Eurofighter no-bid. A KOIS article quotes a defense ministry source to the effect that Eurofighter has informed the government that it will not participate in the project. “If Boeing submits a bid proposal by itself by today’s deadline, the Defense Acquisition Program Administration will invite bidders once again.” The source added that a second sole-source bid by Boeing would result in a contract award for 20 more F-15Ks.

March 11/07: F-X-2. KOIS reports that officials from the Boeing and Eurofighter attended a presentation meeting organized by DAPA on March 9th. It covered an outline of the second F-X project and operational requirements for candidate aircraft.

The 2 bidders who attended have said that they plan to submit their proposals to the agency by April 18/07, and the successful candidate will supposedly be chosen after test flights in February 2008. Dassault’s and Sukhoi’s non-attendance, on the other hand, may well be a sign that they will not be bidding. The KOIS report certainly treats the Phase 2 competition as a Boeing vs. Eurofighter competition from here on in.

Feb 9/07: F-15K. Korea Overseas Information Service (KOIS) confirms that Boeing will bid its F-15Ks again for F-X-2.

January 2007: F-X-2. Maj. Gen. Kim Deuk-hwan, director-general for aircraft acquisition programs at DAPA, offers a more detailed briefing on Phase 2 of the F-X program: 20 fighters, and DAPA aims to seal the deal by February 2008, after 6 months of evaluations and price negotiations between June and December 2007.

“We’ll draw up a detailed plan for the procurement program next month and open the bid in March [2007] by identifying the Air Force’s operational requirements to foreign competitors concerned…”

June 7/06: F-15K crash. A ROKAF F-15K crashes after its pilots black out. Flight International report:

“The South Korean air force, which plans to enhance its biological training structure and introduce G-LOC (g-force induced loss of consciousness) training equipment… A rash of G-LOC incidents which followed the US Air Force’s introduction of the F-15 and Lockheed Martin F-16 led to aeromedical studies that concluded the best prevention was training, particularly for pilots new to the aircraft… The air force says the F-15K left Daegu airbase at 19:42. The aircraft discharged simulated air-to-air weapons at 20:11 but, while manoeuvring to respond to an opponent’s attack, the crew sent a “knock it off” signal at an altitude of 11,000ft (3,350m) – the aircraft crashing 16s later, at 20:12:19.”

South Korea resumed flights with its Boeing F-15Ks on Aug 21/06, following the investigation. See also Chosun Ibo story | Dong-A-Ilbo story.

Crash

May 2006: F-X-2 approved. KOIS reports that the $2+ billion plan for F-X’s 2nd phase was approved during a defense ministry meeting as part of its mid-term arms acquisition project between 2007 and 2011. President Roh Moo-hyun endorsed the plan.

F-X-2 approved

March 27/06: F-15K SLAM test. An F-15K becomes the first F-15 to release a Standoff Land Attack Missile-Expanded Response (SLAM-ER) weapon, during certification testing at Point Mugu, CA, USA. For the test, the F-15K released the Boeing-built SLAM-ER at 25,000 feet at Mach 0.8 approximately 100 nautical miles from its target. The SLAM-ER maneuvered to its target and scored a direct hit.

Korea is the first international customer for the SLAM-ER, and the ROKAF has received the first 4 of 40 F-15Ks under the F-X program. The first 2 aircraft were delivered in October 2005, during the Seoul Air Show. The remainder will be delivered by August 2008. Boeing.

Appendix A: Original F-X-2 Candidates

F-35A JSF Head-On
F-35A head-on
(click to view full)

Back in November 2006, “South Korea to Buy Another 20 F-15K Fighters?” offered an analysis of the F-35 option being bandied about in various newspapers, and came to this conclusion:

“These factors make a Phase 2 ROKAF buy of F-35A Lightning II aircraft almost inconceivable for the 2007-2011 time frame; rather than opening the issue up for consideration, Lt. Gen. Kim Eun-Ki appears to have been saying “no” in an innocuous way…”

Fast forward to a Jan 17/07 Korea Times article, which quoted Maj. Gen. Kim Deuk-hwan as saying:

“Possible candidate fighters for the latest F-X project are Boeing’s F-15K, the Rafale of France’s Dassault Aviation, the Eurofighter Typhoon built by a consortium of European aerospace manufactures and the SU-35 of the Russian Aviation.”

The article adds:

“Kim, however, said the F-35 Lightening II of the U.S. Lockheed Martin would not be a competitor because the fifth-generation fighter does not meet the basic requirements of the Air Force regarding the number of engines, weapons-carrying capacity and combat radius.”

Not to mention delivery time. The F-35‘s armament capacity and combat radius has been questioned in other strategic contexts, most notably by defense critics in Australia. Its single-engine status has also been raised as an issue in Australia; and may become an issue elsewhere as well.

Given North Korea’s close overland proximity, South Korea could justify a set of requirements that would remove the two-engine and extended range qualifications. It could also justify weapons load requirements that would match up to the F-35’s mid-range capacity. It chose not to do any of these things, and so F-X-2 proceeded without the F-35 Lightning II as a contender.

Rafale Le Bourget 2005
Dassault Rafale
(click to view full)

The F-15K won the original F-X competition, and remained the incumbent favorite for F-X-2. It’s capable of air-to-ground, air-to-air and air-to-sea missions in day or night, under any weather conditions. It can carry 23,000 pounds of payload and has a combat radius of 1,800 km. A single aircraft costs about $100 million. A follow-on F-15K win would extend the F-15’s production line until mid-2011, giving Singapore up to two more years to go ahead with its contract option for 8 more F-15SGs. The production extension would also keep the possibility of orders from other US allies alive.

Boeing was the only contender to submit a bid by the F-X-2 deadline. Whereupon DAPA once again called for international bids. Meanwhile, Korean Air received a contract to service the ROKAF’s F-15K fleet, deepening Boeing’s local partnerships and advantages. In the end, Boeing was the only qualified bidder, and won a contract for 21 planes.

There were other potential competitors.

Despite Boeing’s advantages, a Nov 1/06 KOIS article discusses a growing sentiment within Korea to diversify their defense sources. Dassault’s Rafale was the most obvious candidate – it reportedly beat the F-15K by narrow margins in the F-X’s Phase 1 technical evaluation, and a Korean export order would have been a major boon to the program as it looked for its 1st export order. The aircraft is a contender and known quantity, but Rafale’s narrow range of integrated weapons to date and complete lack of export orders (most recent loss: Norway) create an uncertain future for upgrades and additional investments. This is a major issue given the Korean F-X-2 fleet’s likely 20-30 year service life. Revealed corruption scandals, a CEO’s promise never to do business in South Korea again, and corporate legal action against the government haven’t removed the Rafale from consideration, but they did underline the dim nature of Dassault’s future prospects.

Dassault held to its promise, and did not attend the mandatory DAPA information session on March 9/07. Nor did they bid on Phase 2, when the competition was re-opened.

Eurofighter Typhoon
Eurofighter

EADS/BAE’s Eurofighter is acquiring more multi-role capabilities, and despite export setbacks, its overall production and investment picture is good. Over 100 aircraft are now in service with various European air forces, and at the time of the F-X-2 competition, the plane was competing for additional orders in Norway, Denmark, and India.

Eurofighter offers a very strong air superiority choice that is widely believed to be superior to the F-15K or current SU-30 variants, along with growing secondary attack capabilities. According to KOIS, the Eurofighter lists its combat radius as 1,389 km/ 869 miles. It also offers a large and growing set of weapons options from American and European sources, and a crowded but proven national work-sharing structure.

Eurofighter GmbH was initially part of the F-X-2 bid process, but pulled out at a later date and did not submit a bid. Nor did they elect to incur further participation costs, after the ROK DAPA re-issued its solicitation.

SU-30 F-15 Mirage-2000 Formation
COPE India 2004: SU-30K,
F-15C, Mirage 2000
(click to view full)

During F-X-2, the Russian SU-35 also got attention, as an aircraft the South Koreans expressed public interest in considering. These aircraft have good range, large weapon loads, and performance that exceeds the ROKAF’s F-15Ks in a number of areas. At the time, however, only 14 had been produced as testbeds. The Sukhoi’s avionics set will create significant difficulties for weapons integration with Korea’s overwhelmingly US weapons, but Sukhoi will choose its own entry if it participates, and may decide to go with a variant of India’s SU-30MKI instead. This is arguably a more advanced aircraft than the SU-35, with thrust-vectoring capabilities and a mix of French/Israeli/indigenous avionics that could make integration of non-Russian weapons easier.

The SU-30 family has other potential attraction as well. Russia’s production agreement with HAL already offers a proven model for partial industrial offsets, and India’s indigenous avionics work creates a parallel set of opportunities for South Korea to insert its own locally-developed equipment. Geopolitically, Siberia’s treasure-trove of resources need foreign investment; warmer relations with Russia could offer opportunities in this area, and also create another diplomatic lever to use against North Korea.

These selling points, and the SU-30 family’s growing presence in a number of Asian countries, might make a Sukhoi bid more competitive than one might at first believe. Sukhoi did not attend the DAPA’s mandatory March 9/07 F-X-2 information session, however, and didn’t change their mind after DAPA has re-issued its solicitation.

Appendix B: Which SU-35?

SU-35?
SU-35?
(click to view full)

As one of our readers noted, DID’s articles seem to describe two different SU-35s. One is a mid-life modernized SU-27 Flanker, but we have also covered a much more re-engineered “SU-35” variant with canards, thrust vectoring, etc. that has been confused with (and possibly redesignated between) the SU-37. So… what do we mean by “SU-35”? By SU-27M, did DID mean the canard-equipped, ultra-modernized version?

DID explains the natural confusion regarding this fighter, and offers clarity and program news in “Russia’s SU-35: Mystery Fighter No More

Additional Readings

Background: Chosen Fighters & Key Equipment

Background: F-X-3 Contenders

News & Views

  • East Asia Forum, via WayBack (Aug 3/13) – South Korean missile acquisition boosts strike capability. The MBDA/LFK KEPD 350 missile, and what it means in East Asia. Plus, why DID the USA stall the ROK on JASSM?
  • Aviation Week, via WayBack (June 3/13) – South Korea Nears F-X Phase 3 Decision. Explains some of the considerations at work, in their view.
  • The Korea Times (Jan 17/07) – South Korea to Buy 20 More Advanced Fighters by 2012
  • Korea Overseas Information Service (Nov 1/06) – Korea Mulls Purchasing F-35 Fighter Jets for Next-Generation Project
  • The Korea Times (Oct 31/06) – Seoul Mulls Buying F-35 Fighter Jets [dead link]
  • Flight International (Aug 6/06) – F-15K crashed after pilots blacked out South Korea resumed flights with its Boeing F-15Ks on August 21 following the investigation. “The South Korean air force, which plans to enhance its biological training structure and introduce G-LOC (g-force induced loss of consciousness) training equipment… A rash of G-LOC incidents which followed the US Air Force’s introduction of the F-15 and Lockheed Martin F-16 led to aeromedical studies that concluded the best prevention was training, particularly for pilots new to the aircraft… The air force says the F-15K left Daegu airbase at 19:42. The aircraft discharged simulated air-to-air weapons at 20:11 but, while manoeuvring to respond to an opponent’s attack, the crew sent a “knock it off” signal at an altitude of 11,000ft (3,350m) – the aircraft crashing 16s later, at 20:12:19.”
  • Flight International, via WayBack (March 18/05) – South Korea’s defence ministry approves 20 Boeing F-15K fighters to keep line alive until 2011
  • Flight International, via WayBack (April 13/04) – South Korea urged to join JSF team to meet next fighter requirement
  • Flight International, via WayBack (June 11/02) – Dassault slams South Korean ‘favouritism” “Dassault says it will boycott future South Korean defence competitions in protest at what it claims is Seoul’s predisposition towards buying US equipment…” It also launched legal action against south Korea’s government.
  • Flight International, via WayBack (March 19/02) – Dassault drops South Koreans over F-X scandal. “The French manufacturer says it has broken ties with local trading company Comet International, which had been one of its agents in the campaign. The move follows the arrest by military police of South Korean air force Col Cho Joo-hyong on suspicion of receiving an unauthorised 11 million won ($8,400) payment from Comet. A second air force officer, who worked with Cho on the F-X evaluation team, has also been arrested…”
  • Military.com Forums, via WayBack – F-15K/RoKAF Updates. An interesting and extensive collection of press releases (good) and republished articles (not good), covering F-15K program developments and Korean fighter program developments from March 2005 – end 2007.

KF-X


LCS: The USA’s Littoral Combat Ships

$
0
0
Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)
Austal Team
Trimaran LCS Design
(click to enlarge)

Exploit simplicity, numbers, the pace of technology development in electronics and robotics, and fast reconfiguration. That was the US Navy’s idea for the low-end backbone of its future surface combatant fleet. Inspired by successful experiments like Denmark’s Standard Flex ships, the US Navy’s $35+ billion “Littoral Combat Ship” program was intended to create a new generation of affordable surface combatants that could operate in dangerous shallow and near-shore environments, while remaining affordable and capable throughout their lifetimes.

It hasn’t worked that way. In practice, the Navy hasn’t been able to reconcile what they wanted with the capabilities needed to perform primary naval missions, or with what could be delivered for the sums available. The LCS program has changed its fundamental acquisition plan 4 times since 2005, and canceled contracts with both competing teams during this period, without escaping any of its fundamental issues. Now, the program looks set to end early. This public-access FOCUS article offer a wealth of research material, alongside looks at the LCS program’s designs, industry teams procurement plans, military controversies, budgets and contracts.

LCS: Concept & Needs

LCS-Israel Missions
LCS-I missions
(click to view full)

Ultimately, the US Navy is trying to replace 56 vessels: 30 FFG-7 Oliver Hazard Perry Class frigates, 14 MCM Avenger Class mine countermeasures vessels, and 12 MHC-51 Osprey Class coastal mine hunters.

The LCS requirement has been identified as part of a broader surface combatant force transformation strategy, which recognizes that many future threats are spawning in regions with shallow seas, where the ability to operate near-shore and even in rivers will be vital for mission success.

That requires the ability to counter growing “asymmetric” threats like coastal mines, quiet diesel submarines, global piracy, and terrorists on small fast attack boats. It also requires intelligence gathering and scouting, some ground combat support capabilities, and the ability to act as a local command node, sharing tactical information with other Navy aircraft, ships, submarines, and joint units.

At the same time, however, the US Navy needs ships that can act as low-end fillers in other traditional fleet roles, and operate in the presence of missile-armed enemy vessels and/or aerial threats.

Given the diversity of possible missions in the shallow-water and near-shore littoral zones, and the potential threats from forces on land, any ship designed for these tasks must be both versatile and stealthy. History also suggests that they need to be able to take a punch. Meanwhile, the reality of ships that are expected to remain in service for over 30 years gives rise to a need for electronic longevity. As the saga of the USA’s cost-effective but short-lived FFG-7 frigates proved, “future-proofing” and upgradeability for key systems, electronics, and weapons will be critical if these small surface combatants are to remain useful throughout their mechanical lives.

While a ship’s hull and design makes a number of its performance parameters difficult to change, the Americans believed they may have a solution that lets them upgrade sensors and key systems. Denmark’s Standard Flex 300 corvettes pioneered a revolutionary approach of swappable mission modules, based on ISO containers. In contrast to the traditional approach, which is to cram a wide-ranging set of bolted-in compromise equipment into fixed installations, “flex ships” can radically changes the ships’ capabilities, by swapping in a full breadth of equipment focused on a particular need.

Swappable modules also give the Navy new options over time. One option is technology-based, via spiral development that focuses on rapid insertions of new equipment. This creates a long series of slight improvements in the mission modules, and hence the ship’s capabilities. Over time, the cumulative effect can be very significant. The 2nd benefit is cost-related, since upgrades require far less work and cost to install when mission technologies evolve. The 3rd benefit is risk-related. The ability to do low-cost, spiral upgrades encourages frequent “refreshes” that remain within the existing state of the art, rather than periodic upgrade programs that must stretch what’s possible, in order to handle expected developments over the next 25 years.

LCS: Designs & Teams

2 LCS Designs: Specifications

There are currently 2 different LCS designs being produced and procured as part of the competition.

LCS-1 Freedom Class Monohull

Team LM

Team Lockheed Martin’s LCS-1 Freedom Class offers a proven high-speed semi-planing monohull, based on Fincantieri designs that have set trans-Atlantic speed records. The design will use the firm’s COMBATSS-21 combat system as the fighting electronic heart of the ship, has shock-hardened the engine systems, and uses a combination of a steel hull and aluminum superstructure. USS Freedom has faced persistent reports of weight and stability issues, however, which required additional bolt-on buoyancy fittings at its stern.

LCS: Team Lockheed concept
Team Lockheed LCS
(click to view full)

The ships have a smaller flight deck than the Independence Class at 5,200 square feet, but a larger 4,680 square foot helicopter hangar. The Freedom Class’ LCS mission bay is the biggest difference – it’s under half the size, at 6,500 square feet. On the other hand, its RAM missile launcher is the 21-round Mk.49, and if the ships need weapon upgrades, export designs stemming from the Freedom Class mount full strike-length Mk.41 vertical launch cells. These can handle any vertically-launched system in the fleet, including SM-3 anti-ballistic missile interceptors, and Tomahawk long-range precision attack missiles.

Lockheed’s core team includes various Lockheed divisions, plus naval architects Gibbs & Cox of Arlington, VA; shipbuilder Bollinger Shipyards of Lockport, LA; and shipbuilder Marinette Marine of Marinette, WI. Niche providers and related partnerships include:

  • Angle Incorporated
  • Argon ST (threat detection systems)
  • Blohm + Voss
  • Data Links Solutions
  • DRS Technologies
  • EADS (TRS-3D radar)
  • Fairbanks Morse (Colt-Pielstick PA6B-STC diesel engines)
  • Fincantieri (diesel generators)
  • Izar (now Navantia)
  • L-3 Communications
  • MAAG Gear AG
  • MacTaggart Scott
  • Raytheon
  • Rolls Royce (MT30 gas turbines, shaftlines, bearings, software, Kamewa waterjets)
  • Sensytech
  • Sperry
  • Terma
  • Unidynamics
  • United Defense, now BAE Systems

LCS-2 Independence Class Trimaran

LCS Independence Class naval trimaran
USS Independence
(click to view full)

The LCS-2 Independence Class offers a futuristic but practical high-speed trimaran, based on Austal designs and experience with vessels like the US Marines’ Westpac Express high-speed transport, and the Army and Navy’s TSV/HSV ships. It offers an especially large flight deck (7,300 square feet) and internal mission volume (15,200 square feet mission bay) for its size, with a 3,500 square foot helicopter hangar. The hull is aluminum, but the trimaran design offers additional stability options, and may help the ship survive side hits.

The Independence Class will carry a General Dynamics designed combat system, and standard LCS weapon fittings. The RAM defensive missile launcher sacrifices some size, but the 11-round SeaRAM is a self-contained unit with its own radar. If the LCS should require a full suite of naval weapons in future, export designs based on the this class tout “tactical-length” vertical launch cells that are limited to shorter weapons like RIM-162 ESSM and SM-2 air defense missiles, and VL-ASROC anti-submarine missiles.

GD-Austal
Not anymore…

The initial teaming arrangement was led by General Dynamics Bath Iron Works shipbuilder as prime integrator, with Austal of Mobile, AL (a subsidiary of Austal Ships of Australia) as the main design partner and ship-building site. That alliance was broken by the requirements of the 2010 RFP, which demanded a 2nd builder for the designs that was unaffiliated with the first.

Austal is now the sole prime contractor for the LCS-2 Independence Class design. GD subsidiaries remain heavily involved, including General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products Division in Burlington, VT; General Dynamics Electric Boat Division in Groton, CT; General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems in Fairfax, VA; and General Dynamics Canada in Ottawa, Ontario. Other key participants include:

  • Boeing in Seattle, WA
  • BAE Systems in Rockville, MD
  • L3 Communications Marine Systems in Leesburg, VA
  • Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems in Baltimore, MD
  • Maritime Applied Physics Corporation in Baltimore, MD
  • GE (LM 2500 gas turbines)
  • MTU (8000 Series diesel engines)
  • Saab (AN/SPS-77v1 Sea Giraffe AMB radar)
  • Wartsila (water jets)

LCS = Standard Equipment + Mission Packages…

LCS Flight 0 Core Capabilities
LCS Flight 0 Basics
(click to view full)

At 115 – 127 meters in length and 2,800 – 3,100 tons of displacement, the USA’s competing LCS ship designs are almost the size of Britain’s Type 23 frigates. They might well be classified as frigates, were it not for their shallow water design and employment. For whatever reason, high speed has also been identified as an important ship characteristic. As such, both the GD/Austal trimaran and Lockheed’s racing-derived monohull offer potential top speeds of 40-50 knots over short distances.

No matter which mission modules are loaded, the ship will carry a BAE Systems Mk.110 57mm naval gun with a firing rate of up to 220 rounds/minute, and Mk.295 ammunition that works against aerial, surface or ground threats. The ship will also carry .50 caliber (12.7mm) machine guns, plus defensive systems including automated chaff/flare dispensers and a launcher for Raytheon’s RIM-116 RAM Rolling Airframe Missile. RAM is designed to handle anti-ship missiles, aircraft, UAVs, helicopters, and even small boats, but its range of just 9 km/ 5 nm will only protect its own ship. Unlike larger missiles such as the RIM-162 ESSM, RAM systems cannot perform fleet defense.

LCS Combat Equipment & Mission Modules

LCS ships will also rely on their onboard MH-60 helicopters and/or MQ-8B Fire Scout helicopter UAVs, plus other robotic vehicles including a variety of Unmanned Underwater Vessels (UUV) and Unmanned Surface Vessels (USV). The terms have changed over time, but the US Navy has downgraded the term “mission modules” to mean individual components plus their support equipment. Integrated packages of weapons, sensors, robotic vehicles, and manned platforms that can be switched in and out depending on the ship’s mission are now called “mission packages.” They include all task-related mission modules, onboard aircraft, and their corresponding crew detachments.

The ships’ first and most important mission package is not officially listed. It consists of a small but very cross-trained crew. LCSs were intended to operate with a core crew of 40 (now 50) sailors, plus a mission module detachment of 15 and an aviation detachment of 25. Each ship has a Blue crew and a Gold crew, which will shift to 3 crews over time that can deploy in 4-month rotations.

There are concerns that this is a design weakness, leaving the LCS crew at the edge of its capabilities to just run the ship, with insufficient on-board maintenance capabilities, and too little left over for contingencies such as boarding and search, damage control, illnesses, etc. USS Freedom’s addition of 10 more bunks before her 1st Asian deployment indicates that the US Navy may be about to concede this point, but even with 50, performance wasn’t great.

Beyond the human element, the LCS program will initially draw upon packages for Mine Warfare (MCM: 24 planned), Anti-submarine Warfare (ASW: 16 planned) and Surface Warfare (SUW: 24 planned). The LCS Mission Modules Program Office (PMS 420) packages a variety of technologies to these ends, many of which are produced by other program offices and delivered as elements of a particular mission module. Costs per module have gone down over time, but that hasn’t been from any genius in planning and fielding. Rather, it results from a high program failure rate of individual components, and their replacement in the program by less expensive items:

LCS Mission Packages dashboard

The following DID articles offer in-depth coverage of current and proposed Mission Packages:

LCS: Controversies & Cautions

GD-Austal LCS Diorama
Into battle
(click to view full)

The cost and size of LCS ships are now comparable to other countries’ high-end naval frigates. As the US Navy’s primary low-end vessels in the future fleet, they will be expected to perform many of the same roles. The cargo hold’s size has created some challenges in fitting all of the required equipment into the mission modules, without compromising high-end performance at the modules’ particular tasks. Even so, LCS ships can be expected to perform the mine countermeasures role very well, and the frigates’ traditional anti-submarine role reasonably well, thanks to their helicopters, array of robots, and rapidly upgradeable systems.

Other traditional roles for frigate-sized vessels are more controversial. The biggest controversy surrounds the ships’ one severe inflexibility: their weapons fit.

Present LCS designs don’t even carry torpedo tubes, or vertical-launch systems (VLS) that could accommodate present and future attack and/or defensive missiles. Even with the Surface Warfare module installed, LCS ships will carry a very light armament set for a major naval vessel: a 57-mm Mk 110 naval gun system; RIM-116 SeaRAM short range defensive missiles; 30mm cannons that would replace very short range Griffin missile launchers if installed; 12.7mm machine guns; plus any missiles or 70mm rockets carried by its accompanying helicopters (up to 2 H-60 slots or up to 4 MQ-8B Fire Scout UAV slots).

That armament is closer to a support vessel than a naval surface combatant, and larger high-speed support designs like the JHSV would offer far more mission module space for reconfigurable specialty support ships. Naval analyst Raymond Pritchett has pithily described the current compromise as:

“…3000 ton speedboat chasers with the endurance of a Swedish corvette, the weapon payload of a German logistics ship, and the cargo hold of a small North Korean arms smuggler.”

LCS Israel Industry Participation
LCS-I components
(click to view full)

The LCS weapons array also compares unfavorably with comparable-sized frigates that can perform the full array of anti-submarine, fleet air defense, and naval combat roles. The new Franco-Italian FREMM Class, or even Britain’s much older Type 23/Duke Class, outclass it considerably as multi-role ships. So do smaller corvettes like Israel’s US-built, $260 million Sa’ar 5 Eilat Class, and Sweden’s ultra-stealthy Visby Class. Even the tiny Danish Flyvefisken Class, whose swappable “flex ship” modules helped pave the way for the LCS idea, has a Mk 48 vertical launch system that can handle medium-range air defense missiles, and mounts launchers for Harpoon anti-ship missiles.

LCS’ lack of weaponry may not matter against small boats like the “Boghammers,” fielded by the Iranians during their late-1980s guerrilla warfare at sea against the US Navy in the Persian Gulf. Unfortunately, many nations field 90’+ Fast Attack Craft equipped with anti-ship missiles. Despite being 1/3 the LCS’ length and 1/5 of its displacement or less, their employment would create a threat that could attack an LCS from beyond its range of reasonable retaliation, with weapons that the LCS’ may not be able to stop or survive.

It’s telling that brochures for the International LCS versions offered by each team feature a major radar capability boost via the small SPY-1F AEGIS system or other radar upgrade, and are armed with torpedo tubes, anti-ship missiles and vertical-launch system (VLS) cells.

USS Stark, listing
USS Stark, 1987
(click to view full)

Meanwhile, survivability has become an issue on 3 fronts. One is the slim margins created by a very small crew, leaving little margin for tasks like damage control if automated systems are damaged or fail. The other issues involve questions of shock/survivability testing, and of aluminum structures. The original concept for LCS was a ship whose damage resistance could save the crew, but not the ship, in the event if a significant strike. That was upgraded slightly to potentially saving the crew and the ship, but not continuing to fight while doing so. As the Exocet missile strikes on the HMS Sheffield (sank) and USS Stark (survived, barely) proved, even steel warships designed to keep fighting after a strike may find it challenging to meet their design specifications. Navy revelations that the LCS ships would not meet even Level I standards, let alone the OPNAVINST 9070.1 Level II standard of the frigates they’ll replace, has caused some consternation.

So, too, has the use of aluminum in ships exposed to hostile fire. The LCS-1 Freedom Class uses an aluminum superstructure, while the LCS-2 Independence Class is primarily an aluminum design. While both ships have had to certify to the same fire-proofing standards asked of other ships, aluminum conducts heat very well, and melts or deforms easily. If the ancillary fire-fighting systems, resistant coatings, etc. fail, or cannot handle a given situation at sea, structural integrity problems and secondary fires could become fatal concerns very quickly.

The emerging scenario in the USA is a cost for the base ships that continues to hover around $400-500 million each, plus weapons, electronics, and mission modules that bring the price per fully-equipped ship to $450-600 million, even under the proposed new fixed-price contract. That’s no longer a cheap $220 million corvette class price tag. Instead, it’s a price tag that places the USA’s LCS at the mid-to-upper end of the international market for full multi-role frigate designs. Even as overall American procurement trends make LCS ships the most common form of US naval power.

In that environment, unfavorable comparisons are inevitable. A versatile surveillance and special forces insertion ship whose flexibility doesn’t extend to the light armament that’s its weakest point, and isn’t able to deal with anything beyond token naval or air opposition, won’t meet expectations. Worse, it could cause the collapse of the Navy’s envisaged “high-low” force structure if the DDG-1000 destroyers and CG (X) cruisers are priced out of the water, and built in small numbers.

That domino has already fallen, as DDG-1000/ DD (X), production has been capped at just 3 ships, and CG (X) was canceled entirely in the FY 2011 budget. As Vice-Admiral Mustin (ret.) and Vice-Admiral Katz (ret.) put it in a 2003 USNI Proceedings article:

“Because the Navy has invested heavily in land-attack capabilities such as the Advanced Gun System and land-attack missiles in DD (X), there is no requirement for [the Littoral Combat Ship] to have this capability. Similarly, LCS does not require an antiair capability beyond self-defense because DD (X) and CG (X) will provide area air defense. Thus, if either DD (X) or CG (X) does not occur in the numbers required and on time, the Navy will face two options: leave LCS as is, and accept the risk inherent in employment of this ship in a threat environment beyond what it can handle (which is what it did with the FFG-7); or “grow” LCS to give it the necessary capabilities that originally were intended to reside off board in DD (X) and CG (X). Neither option is acceptable.”

Especially if the low end has grown to a cost level that makes it equivalent to other countries’ major surface combatants, while falling short on key capabilities that will be required in the absence of higher-end ships.

The LCS Program

LCS Program Dashboard

In 2009, the CBO estimated LCS shipbuilding costs at around $30.2 billion, with a fleet average of 1.2 mission modules per ship (TL. 66) bought separately at about $100 million per module. As of 2012, the split had changed a bit, but the overall total was around $39 billion. This contrasts with the original hope of $22 billion total costs for 55 ships and 165 mission modules, at $400 million per ship ($220M construction + (3 x $60M) mission module options).

The US Navy’s current shipbuilding plan envisions building 32 littoral combat ships and 64 mission modules until about 2040. Technically, only 45 LCS ships would count toward Navy fleet totals. Because these ships are assumed to have a service life of 25 years, the 10 or fewer ships bought from 2036 – 2040 would be replacements for the original ships of class. Even so, that number of LCS ships is likely to make up 20% of the Navy or more. The US Navy has already sagged to under 300 ships, and unless major changes in course lie ahead for its budget or its chosen designs, the total number of ships will sink farther.

Acquisition Structure

PEO LCS

In July 2011, the Navy created PEO LCS to oversee the program, headed by Rear Adm. James A. Murdoch. Ship construction supervision was removed from PEO Ships, while mission module supervision was removed from PEO Littoral and Mine Warfare (PEO LMW), which was dissolved. It wasn’t the first big change in the program – and may not be the last.

It’s normal for programs to change elements like numbers ordered, but not to change the entire buy strategy. The Littoral Combat Ship program has shifted its entire buy strategy several times during its short lifetime – a sorry sequence of orders, budgets not spent, contract cancellations, etc. documented in Appendix A.

The last buy strategy has lasted long enough for a multi-ship contract. After buying 4 ships and taking bids under their 2009 revised strategy, the US Navy went to Congress and asked for permission to accept both 10-ship bids, buying 20 ships for a total advertised price that was about the same as the estimates for the 15 ships they had wanted. The GAO and CBO both have doubts about those estimates, in part because the Navy is still changing the designs; but the contracts were issued at the end of December 2010. Each contractor would get 1 initial ship order, then 9 more options, with the ship purchases spread across FY 2010-2011 (1 per year for each contractor); then FY 2012-2015 inclusive (2 per year for each contractor). Cost overruns will be shared 50/50 between the government and contractor, up to a set cost cap.

Budgets

LCS Budgets Graph: 2007-2018
LCS Budget Numbers: 2007-2018

By the end of FY 2013, the program is expected to be at about a quarter of total procurement, in units ordered and dollars spent.

LCS: Ship Roster

Team Lockheed, Freedom Class

  • LCS 1, USS Freedom. Commissioned Nov 8/08.
  • LCS 3, USS Fort Worth. Commissioned Sept 22/12.
  • LCS 5, Milwaukee
  • LCS 7, Detroit
  • LCS 9, Little Rock
  • LCS 11, Sioux City
  • LCS 13, Wichita
  • LCS 15, Billings

Team Austal, Independence Class

  • LCS 2, USS Independence. Commissioned Jan 16/10.
  • LCS 4, USS Coronado. Commissioned April 5/14.
  • LCS 6, Jackson
  • LCS 8, Montgomery
  • LCS 10, Gabrielle Giffords
  • LCS 12, Omaha
  • LCS 14, Machester
  • LCS 16, Tulsa

LCS: Export Potential

Lockheed MMCS: OPV, Corvette, Frigate
MMCS
(click to view full)

Once one steps beyond small patrol craft, growing capabilities have made frigate-sized vessels the most common naval export around the globe. With many nations confronting challenges in the world’s littorals, which include the globe’s most important shipping choke points, one would expect some interest in the Littoral Combat Ship beyond the USA. A Dec 11/06 Austal release claimed 26 potential buyers worldwide for the ship and its companion equipment, “with two near-term contenders and four others that have expressed active interest.”

There are 2 interesting aspects to LCS export bids. One is their equipment, which is radically different from the US Navy’s set.

Lockheed Martin’s international Multi-Mission Combat Ship (MMCS) version, which attracted some interest from Israel before cost issues intervened, has a variety of configurations from OPV/corvette to large frigate size. Upgraded radars range from CEAFAR active-array radars on smaller ships, to the option of Lockheed’s SPY-1F for the largest variant. Fixed weapons include torpedo tubes and 8 Harpoon missiles, though some exhibit models have used 12 Kongsberg NSMs. Concept diagrams also show between 4-48 VLS cells, some of which are full strike-length size.

General Dynamics’ trimaran adds an upgraded radar (SPY-1F in diagrams), torpedo tubes, and 16 tactical-length vertical launch (VLS) cells.Among other payloads, those cells could hold VL-ASROC anti-submarine missiles to extend anti-submarine reach, or quad-packed RIM-162 ESSM anti-air missiles for area air defense. Exhibited models have also displayed up to 16 NSM anti-ship missiles.

MEKO 200TN
Turkish MEKO 200
(click to view full)

The other aspect worth noting is the Littoral Combat Ship’s failure to close any export sales over 7+ years. At present, both LCS designs have received preliminary export inquiries, but Israel and Thailand are the only cases where it has gone farther than that.

Israel did step up in July 2008, and confirmed its request for an LCS-I based on Team Lockheed’s design. Israel’s variant was very different from LCS 1 Freedom, however; it featured a fixed set of weaponry rather than full mission module spaces, and its proposed SPY-1 AEGIS or MF-STAR radar and weapons array and made it far more capable in critical roles like air defense and ship to ship warfare. As noted above, similar changes have been a common theme among international LCS offerings, but an estimated ship cost of over $700 million eventually pushed Israel to rethink its plans. That country is now pursuing cheaper options based on Blohm + Voss’ MEKO family of corvettes and frigates, or South Korean designs. The Freedom Class also lost the Thai competition.

Saudi Arabia has reportedly expressed interest in a fixed armament version of the General Dynamics/Austal design. That interest was reiterated in 2010, but they’re also evaluating Lockheed Martin’s design for the Arabian/Persian Gulf fleet. In 2011, it emerged that the Saudis might skip an LCS buy altogether, in exchange for a much more heavily-armed, versatile, and expensive option: the USA’s DDG-51 Arleigh Burke Class multi-role destroyers, with ballistic missile defense capability.

Meanwhile, designs like the German MEKO family, the multi-role Franco-Italian FREMM, the modular-construction Dutch Sigma class, and even refurbished 1980s-era NATO frigates continue to find buyers around the world.

LCS: Ship Contracts & Key Events

This section covers the core LCS program. Mission Packages are discussed in-depth in “It’s All in the Package: the Littoral Combat Ship’s Mission Modules“; and the complex mine countermeasures package gets its own in-depth treatment in “LCS & MH-60S Mine Counter-Measures Continue Development“.

Unless otherwise noted, all contracts are issued by the USA’s Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC.

FY 2016

 

USS Coronado [LCS 4] & USNS Millinocket [JHSV 3]
LCS 4 & JHSV

November 24/15: The US Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship Class (LCS) program is picking up speed as two more of the ships were launched over the last few days. November 20 saw the USS Omaha enter the water in Mobile, Alabama and the USS Milwawkee was commissioned the following day by the Mayor of Milwawkee. There are now five LCS class ships operational and they are being completed at an average of four per year. It is hoped that by 2018, 38 of the ships will have undergone construction in only 13 years and will be operating in shallow and coastal waters throughout the world.

October 27/15: The Navy’s Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) will reportedly be equipped with over-the-horizon missiles for their next deployment, with the specific model not yet determined. With the Brookings Institution rightly pointing out that the LCS do not currently possess the power-projection capabilities recently demonstrated by Russia’s Caspian Sea fleet, the USN is likely looking to bolt-on additional muscle to the fleet following the cancellation of the Non-Line-of-Sight (NLOS) missile in April 2010. With the USS Coronado and USS Freedom scheduled for deployment next year, a Request for Proposals is expected by the end of this year.

October 21/15: The US State Department has approved the sale of up to four Littoral Combat Ship-based Multi Mission Surface Combatant Ships to Saudi Arabia, with these based on the Lockheed Martin Freedom-class LCS, as opposed to the Austal Independence-class. If lawmakers agree to the sale, a Foreign Military Sales contract can be drafted, with this likely to be signed early next year. The deal – potentially worth $11.25 billion – forms part of the Kingdom’s Eastern Fleet Modernization program.

October 20/15: The Navy has accepted delivery of the sixth Littoral Combat Ship (LCS 5), the future USS Milwaukee. The Freedom-class vessel is the third of eight to be manufactured by Lockheed Martin, with the ship now scheduled for commissioning on 21 November. The USS Milwaukee will be homeported in San Diego with the rest of the LCS fleet.

FY 2015

LCS 7 & 8 christened; New TRS-4D radar for Freedom Class after LCS 15.

September 17/15: The Saudis are reportedly set to choose Lockheed Martin’s Littoral Combat Ship for the country’s Arabian Gulf-based frigate modernisation program, with a deal thought to be announced by the end of the year. The company is one of two teams constructing LCS for the US Navy. The Saudis have previously requested the ability for their LCS vessels to launch Standard Missile-2 (SM-2) air defense missiles but are thought to have dropped previous plans to procure the Aegis combat system owing to cost.

August 27/15: Austal is enjoying the start of the sweet spot of its $3.5 LCS contract, showing record profits and anticipating additional efficiencies as it starts to knock out the remaining 9 LCS ships.

August 18/15: The Littoral Combat Ship USS Coronado (LCS-4) has successfully conducted live-fire testing using the ship’s surface warfare mission module, firing the ship’s Mark 46 30mm cannon and Mark 110 57 mm gun, hitting surface targets off the West Coast. The BAE Systems Mk 110 gun equips the Navy’s LCS fleet as standard, with the Mark 46 forming part of the surface warfare (SuW) module.

July 21/15: Lockheed Martin has launched the ninth Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), the Freedom-class USS Little Rock (LCS 9). Austal christened LCS 8 (the USS Montgomery) in November 2014, with LCS 9 the fifth of eight LCS timetabled for construction by Lockheed Martin. The ship will now undergo testing and equipment fitting before being delivered to the Navy later this year.

Sources: US Navy Moving Forward With LCS | USNI News.

July 9/15: Littoral Combat Ship 6 (USS Jackson) has completed acceptance trials with the US Navy in the Gulf of Mexico. LCS 6 is the third Independence-class to be built by Austal, which shares the construction of the LCS program with Lockheed Martin under a $3.5 billion ten-ship block buy awarded in December 2010. The company laid the keel for the fourteenth LCS (USS Manchester) in late June this year, having already delivered two Independence-class vessels.

July 1/15: Austal has laid the keel of the fourteenth Littoral Combat Ship in Alabama, with the future ship destined to become the USS Manchester. Austal shares the construction of the LCS program with Lockheed Martin under a $3.5 billion ten-ship block buy awarded in December 2010.

Feb 23/15: USS Omaha keel laid, sixth in Independence class.
Austal USA laid the keel for the USS Omaha (LCS 12), the latest and sixth littoral combat ship in the Independence class.

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel appears to have shied away from making any drastic dedision with the future of the LCS, by choosing to base 20 future Small Surface Combatants… based on “modified LCS hull designs.” The use of the plural form implies that there is no down-select to just one of the 2 LCS designs. By omission, mine warfare seems out, since modular requirements are maintained solely for capabilities against surface ships and submarines.

Predictably the SSCs will have to be both more survivable and better armed, since these points are among the weaknesses most often pointed out by LCS detractors. The list of goodies to achieve that:

  • over-the-horizon surface-to-surface missiles
  • air defense sensor and weapon upgrades
  • 1 advanced electronic warfare system
  • advanced decoys
  • 1 towed array system for submarine detection and torpedo defense
  • 2 25mm guns
  • 1 armed helicopter equipped with Hellfire missiles and MK-54 torpedoes
  • 1 unmanned FireScout helicopter for surveillance, reconnaissance, and targeting

The armed helicopter and rotorcraft are not new, and 25mm guns are not going to make much of a difference except against the smallest threats. The rest is getting SSCs closer to how LCS has been pitched to export prospects, and to what even smaller ships pack in foreign fleets. Beyond that, the Navy still has to pin down many specifics, discuss crew size, or explain how they will contain costs.

Nov 17/14: CSBA Paper. The non-partisan CSBA releases “Commanding the Seas: A Plan to Reinvigorate U.S. Navy Surface Warfare.” Their recommendations are wide ranging, including a major shift in US Navy weapons configurations toward higher capacity medium-range air defenses. That would take place in order to free up VLS cells for long-range offensive surface attack, anti-submarine, and air-denial weapons.

The paper believes that LCS ships should be forward based abroad, given their limited range and low ability to maintain themselves at sea. Their mission packages should also be disentangled from the LCS platform, creating “independent, stand-alone capability sets that could be carried on a wide range of ships in the National Fleet.” Beyond that, the SSC/ LCS could take advantage of LCS’ higher power generation to mount anti-aircraft rail guns and/or lasers, hosting RIM-162 ESSM air defense missiles, and distributing offensive attack capabilities via their VLS cells.

The paper recommends that the Navy pick 1 existing LCS design to convert to the SSC, adding a vertical launch system and retrofitting VLS to some of the Flight 0 ships as well. The problems come down to capability and cost. At minimum, an SSC derived from the LCS would need to carry the ASW mission package full-time, and incorporate longer-range missile capabilities via a vertical launch system. The reality is that the cost is inevitably higher than the $515 million for an LCS with the ASW package, but the Navy isn’t planning for any increase as it plans for 20 SSC ships. This is so even though the FFG-7 Oliver Hazard Perry Class, which was developed in the 1980s as a similar sort of budget frigate platform, would cost $774 million in adjusted modern dollars. Conclusion? The Navy won’t get 20 SSCs, which is one more reason to retrofit VLS cells on Flight 0 LCS ships. Sources: CSBA, “Commanding the Seas: A Plan to Reinvigorate U.S. Navy Surface Warfare” (incl. full PDF) | USNI, “CSBA Recommends New Course for U.S. Navy Surface Forces”.

Nov 8/14: LCS 8 christened. The US Navy christens the Independence Class LCS 8 Montgomery, in a ceremony at Austal USA’s Mobile, AL shipyard. The ship was launched in August 2014, and is making preparations for trials and delivery in late summer 2015. Austal adds that:

“Jackson (LCS 6) is preparing for sea trials in early 2015. Final assembly is well underway Austal USA’s Bay 5 on Gabrielle Giffords (LCS 10) and in Bay 4 on Omaha (LCS 12). Modules for Manchester (LCS 14) and Tulsa (LCS 16) are under construction in Austal USA’s Module Manufacturing Facility.”

Sources: Austal, “USS Montgomery (LCS 8) Christened: Second Independence-variant LCS christened this year”.

Oct 28/14: LCS-1 sensors. Airbus North America announces that Freedom Class ships will have a new and improved radar, beginning with LCS 17. Instead of the current TRS-3D, they’ll be equipped with the more powerful and flexible TRS-4D naval radar, a rotating version of the Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) fixed panel GaN radar that equips Germany’s forthcoming F125 Class expeditionary frigates.

AESA radars offers a 2x-3x range or resolution boost compared to PESA technologies, and GaN circuits offer further improvements to a radar’s power to performance ratio. Flexibility comes from programming that can segment and shift all of its individual T/R modules in order to steer beams, offer near-simultaneous modes, actively illuminate multiple targets, etc. What it doesn’t offer yet, is the Saab Sea Giraffe AMB’s ability to backtrack incoming artillery and rocket fire to its origin point.

There’s talk of moving to a single LCS radar, and maybe even a single combat system for the entire class. The TRS-3D was seen as being a step behind the LCS-2 Independence Class’ Sea Giraffe AMB, which can also backtrack incoming artillery to its origin point. The TRS-4D counters with superior overall performance, and strengthens EADS as a contender against the USMC’s TPS-80 G/ATOR, Saab’s Sea Giraffe 4A AESA, etc. It also improves Team Lockheed’s overall radar/ combat system position, which is already strong because of its interface commonalities with Aegis. Sources: Airbus North America, “New Radars Provided by Airbus Defense and Space, Inc., to Support Improved Survivability for the Freedom Variant Littoral Combat Ships”.

Oct 18/14: LCS 7 christened. The US Navy christens and side-launches trhe Freedom Class LCS 7 Detroit, in a ceremony at Marinette Marine Shipyard, WI. We’re trying to resist the temptation to make a crack about ceremonially burning down the mission module area, but we can’t resist. On the other hand, the city of Detroit hasn’t given up. A ship could do worse.

Detroit will continue to undergo outfitting and testing at Marinette until her expected delivery to the Navy in late 2015. Sources: US Navy, “Navy Christens, Launches Future USS Detroit” | LMCO, “Lockheed Martin-Led Team Launches Future USS Detroit”.

Oct 14/14: LCS-2 Support. Austal USA, LLC in Mobile, AL receives an $8.4 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract modification to a previously awarded contract to exercise an option for Core LCS-2 Independence Class Services. They’ll assess engineering and production challenges, evaluate costs and schedule risks for engineering change proposals, and keep up class baseline documentation. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2014 US Navy shipbuilding budgets.

Work will be performed in Mobile, AL (60%), and Pittsfield, MA (40%), and work is expected to be complete in October 2015 (N00024-11-C-2301).

Oct 12/14: 57mm gun. The US Navy has removed BAE’s Mk.110 57mm naval gun from their DDG-1000 Zumwalt Class ships. The reported reason was that the 30mm Mk.46 RWS did better against key target types like small boats than the Mk.110 or notional 76mm guns. That’s more than slightly surprising to some observers, who note that a 30mm cannon is only lethal within about a mile – but the Navy is saying that they were equally surprised. Program Manager Capt. Jim Downey is quoted saying that:

“They were significantly over-modeled on the lethality…. The results of the actual live test-fire data was that the round was not as effective as modeled…. it gets into the range of the threat – the approach of the threat, what the make-up of the threat is and how it would maneuver, how it would fire against our ship. There is a whole series of parameters that are very specific on what the threat is and how you take it out through a layer of defenses…. not what we expected to see.”

Downey categorically denies that the Mk.110’s 10+ ton weight difference was an issue, and also confirmed that his program’s findings haven’t been shared with other NAVSEA entities like PEO LCS, let alone the Coast Guard who uses the gun on some cutters. The Navy is working on creating those mechanisms, but they don’t exist yet. Defense News, “Experts Question US Navy’s Decision To Swap Out DDG 1000’s Secondary Gun”.

Oct 9/14: LCS 7. Lockheed Martin Corp. in Baltimore, MD receives a $10.9 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract modification, exercising an option for LCS 7 Detroit’s post-delivery support. This is normal, and involves deferred design changes that have been identified during the construction period, before the post-delivery test and trials. $500,000 in (FY 2011?) US Navy shipbuilding budgets is committed immediately.

Work will be performed in Marinette, WI (57%); Hampton, VA (14%); Moorestown, NJ (11%); San Diego, CA (11%); and Washington, DC (7%), and is expected to be complete by October 2016 (N00024-11-C-2300).

Oct 9/14: LCS 8. Austal USA in Mobile, AL receives a $10.9 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract modification, exercising an option for LCS 8 Montgomery’s post-delivery support. This is normal, and involves deferred design changes that have been identified during the construction period, before the post-delivery test and trials. $500,000 in FY 2011 US Navy shipbuilding budgets is committed immediately.

Work will be performed in Mobile, AL (70%); Pittsfield, MA (20%); and San Diego, CA (10%), and is expected to be complete by October 2016 (N00024-11-C-2301).

FY 2014

Orders for ships 17-20; Congress wimps out on oversight, but then USN wants to stop at 32 ships; USN finally wakes up to the importance of “combat” with the SSC frigate idea, but is it too late? BIW wins multi-year support contract for both types; LCS 5 & 6 launched; Mayport, FL to host 6 Freedom Class ships; Poor performance on LCS 1 deployment to Singapore; Naval Strike Missile test from LCS 4; Could rail guns and lasers save the day?; LCS lifecycle costs are high; Weight margins are a huge problem for LCS, and so is under-manning.

GAO: LCS design changes
Ch-ch-changes…

Sept 25/14: GAO on lead ships. The GAO issues a report saying that the Navy technically stayed within acquisition regulations in its acceptance of the 2 lead ships, thanks to cost-reimbursement contractual clauses. But extensive use of waivers to expedite LCS 1 and LCS 2 trials and acceptance, and for a variety of short-term concerns, led to a lot of additional time and money spent later on. That discussion may seem somewhat moot a decade after the initial contract awards, but consequences are felt to this day:

“Even as of August 2014, the combat management system continued to face significant limitations, which has restricted its use during fleet operations.”

Separately, the April 17 SAR report, obtained 2 months later through the Freedom of Information Act, shows the Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) for LCS 2 is now set for August 2015, followed by Initial Operational Capability (IOC) 1 month later. According to the Navy, that delay trickled down from delayed completion of the Mine Countermeasures Mission Package’s (MCM MP) own IOT&E. Despite all of the delays, the first 2 ships in the class still don’t look very capable. Sources: GAO-14-827, “Navy Complied with Regulations in Accepting Two Lead Ships, but Quality Problems Persisted after Delivery” | CRS, “Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program: Background and Issues for Congress” [Aug 4/14 update, PDF] | SAR [PDF].

LCS + NSM

Sept 23/14: Weapons. The US Navy confirms a successful live fire test of Kongsberg’s Naval Strike Missile from USS Coronado [LCS 4], via a launcher mounted on the flight deck.

NSM is a full-range, stealthy sub-sonic missile that delivers both anti-ship and land attack capability. Its presence would instantly turn the SuW module into something other than a joke, but the Navy is noncommittal about issuing a requirement that would lead to NSM integration with the existing LCS fleet. What is certain, is that a missile of this nature will be required as part of any SSC frigate derivatives. Sources: US Navy, “Navy Successfully Tests Norwegian Missile from LCS 4” | Kongsberg, “Successful test firing of KONGSBERG’S Naval Strike Missile from US Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship” | USNI, “Norwegian Missile Test On Littoral Combat Ship Successful.”

Sept 9/14: SSeCret. A classified briefing for the House Armed Services Committee about the findings of the small surface combatant task force is postponed at the last minute, with a new date yet to be rescheduled. A Navy spokesperson tells USNI that all they’re willing to talk about at this point is their thought process. The report itself was submitted internally on July 31, but the Navy does not want to talk about its content before budget negotiations with the Pentagon. If the past is any indication, the Navy will keep Congress in the dark as long as possible. Ronald O’Rourke notes in his CRS report, about the aborted 2009-10 downselect:

“…this was the third time in the history of the LCS program that the Navy presented Congress with an important choice about the future of the LCS program late in the congressional budget-review cycle, after Congress had completed its spring budget-review hearings and some of its committee markups.”

If the Navy wants ships in this category before the end of the decade, some sort of LCS 2.0 seems a much more realistic option rather than a brand new design – short of buying an off-the-shelf design abroad. So much for Secretary Hagel’s call that “all options are on the table” – and the core reason is the US Navy’s history of added costs and slow execution for ship designs that they haven’t fielded before. Source: USNI, “HASC Cancels LCS Replacement Briefing Over Lack of Information.”

Aug 22/14: Support. General Dynamics Bath Iron Works in Bath, ME receives an initial $9.8 million cost-plus-award-fee contract to provide planning yard services in support of both variants of in-service Littoral Combat Ships. Bath Iron Works will be the single planning yard, providing engineering, planning, ship configuration, material and logistics support to maintain and modernize both variants of the LCS class, managing the scheduling of all planned, continuous, and emergent maintenance, and associated maintenance periods that involve multiple private and public organizations. $6.2 million in FY 2014 US Navy O&M budgets are committed immediately, and options could bring the contract’s cumulative value to $100.4 million.

Work will be performed in Bath, ME and is expected to be complete by August 2015. This contract was competitively procured via FBO.gov with 3 offers received. US NAVSEA in Washington, DC manages the contract (N00024-14-C-4313).

Dual-class Planning Yard services

Aug 22/14: Support. CACI Technologies, Inc. in Chantilly, VA is being awarded a $25.1 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for professional support services in support of Program Executive Office LCS. Services include professional services in the areas of: program management and acquisition support, technical and engineering support, business and financial management support and logistics support. $15 million is committed immediately from various budgets, and this contract includes options which could bring its cumulative value to $44 million.

Work will be performed in Washington, DC (90%); Norfolk, VA (4%); San Diego, CA (2%); Panama City, FL (2%); Newport, RI (1%); and Monterey, CA (1%), and is expected to be complete by February 2015. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1) as implemented in FAR 6.302-1. US NAVSEA in Washington, DC manages the contract (N00024-14-C-6307).

Aug 7/14: Basing. Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announces that Naval Station Mayport, FL, will be receiving 6 Freedom Class Littoral Combat Ships: LCS 9 Little Rock, LCS 11 Sioux City, LCS 13 Wichita, LCS Billings, LCS 17 Indianapolis, and LCS 19. NS Mayport, which recently lost its frigates, will pick up about 900 Sailors and support personnel. Sources: Maritime Executive, “Six Navy LCS’ Find Homeport”.

July 31/14: LCS-1 Support. Rolls Royce Marine North America in Walpole, MA receives a $9 million firm-fixed-price repair order for the repair of 1 MT-30 gas turbine engine for the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Freedom variant, including re-assembly into the LCS configuration, and pass-off testing to validate performance. All funding is committed immediately, using FY 2014 US Navy O&M budgets.

Work will be performed in Bristol, UK and is expected to be complete by February 2016. The order was not competitively procured in accordance with 10 USC. 2304(c)(1), by US NAVSEA in Washington, DC (N00104-09-G-A755).

GAO: LCS testing plan
LCS testing plan
(click to view full)

July 30/14: GAO Report. The US GAO releases another LCS-related report, which looks at the program as a whole but has a greater emphasis on the class’ weight issues. Both initial ships have inadequate weight margins, and the LCS-2 Independence Class will stay that way even after the design is stabilized for LCS 6, with just 31.3 tons to spare (3,156.7 tons of 3,188.0 Naval Architectural Limit) instead of 50. The LCS-1 Freedom Class does better, with 67.3 tons to spare by LCS 5 (3,482.7 tons of 3,550.0 NAL). GAO recommends changes to contractor weight reporting, whose lack of centralized tracking has contributed to surprise weight problems.

Low margins are problematic, because they harden the 105-ton limit for mission packages, and limit or inflate the cost of weapon upgrades, extra crew, or other changes needed to make the ship relevant throughout its life. Accepting the penalty of going overweight, on the other hand, would hurt ship speed, handling, range, and service life. USS Freedom is itself overweight, and she illustrated this problem during the Singapore deployment. Her gas turbines had to remain switched off most of the time to conserve fuel, giving this “fast” ship such slow transit speeds that it was “hard for LCS to easily or efficiently get around the [7th fleet’s large Pacific] theater”.

To make matters worse, there’s already a call for extra weight. It will take another 10-20 tons, and a pervasive ship redesign, to address the under-crewed fatigue demonstrated during LCS 1’s Singapore deployment. That was present even though the crew recruited contractor technical representatives for routine ship tasks, during a peacetime operation. The Navy’s response is that they don’t intend to change the number of people on board, and they’re also compromising the ship’s mission capability in other ways:

“Navy weight estimates for increment 4 of the MCM mission package, however, do not reflect all the systems being acquired for that package. Space and weight constraints have required the Navy to modify how it intends to outfit increment 4 of the MCM mission package. Although the Navy plans to acquire all the systems planned for that increment, space and weight limitations will not allow LCS seaframes to carry all of these systems at one time. According to LCS program officials, MCM mission commanders will have either (1) the Unmanned Influence Sweep System and the unmanned surface vehicle that tows it, or (2) the minehunting Surface Mine Countermeasures Unmanned Undersea Vehicle—called Knifefish—available—but not both systems. As a result, LCS seaframes outfitted with the increment 4 MCM package may have decreased minesweeping or mine detection capability.”

The final argument has to do with the RFP to continue production after LCS 24. GAO recommends no approval for additional ships or even an RFP until both seaframes have deployed to “a forward overseas location” like Singapore (not scheduled for the Independence Class until 2017); completed rough water, ship shock, and total ship survivability testing; and completed initial operational test and evaluation of the SUW mission package on the Freedom variant and the MCM mission package on the Independence variant. The Navy, as usual, wants to keep production going regardless, setting continued production and savings now vs. the risk of major RFP amendments and delays, expensive refits later, or flawed ships on the front lines. Sources: GAO-14-749, “Littoral Combat Ship: Additional Testing and Improved Weight Management Needed Prior to Further Investments.”

July 26/14: Force structure. The US Navy has a problem. Its 11 remaining FFG-7 Oliver Hazard Perry Class frigates have largely been disarmed, but they’re still underway on missions more often than many other fleet ships. When the frigates are all retired by FY 2015, the US Navy will only have 8 LCS ships, with no real anti-submarine capability beyond a helicopter, and an unproven ability to sustain existing missions like longer-term counter-drug operations or carrier escort.

CSBA analyst Cmdr. Bryan Clark (ret.) sees the US Navy falling back on cargo vessels, the Mobile Landing Platform ship, and JHSV transport catamarans to pick up some of the slack. Even so, anti-submarine work will devolve to its high-end destroyer fleet, and recent issues with sustained operations during LCS-1 Freedom’s initial trials are not encouraging. Sources: Gannett’s Navy Times, “Retiring frigates may leave some missions unfilled”.

July 24/14: Weapons. The US Navy confirms that USS Coronado [LCS-4] is scheduled to test-launch Kongsberg’s stealthy, 13-foot Naval Strike Missile (NSM) at the Point Mugu, CA test range. NAVSEA says this isn’t about any specific requirement, it’s just a one-off event to test the Independence Class’ ability to handle more advanced weapons, and “provide insights into the weapon’s stated capabilities of increased range, survivability and lethality.”

It’s possible that NSM could fit into the LCS SuW mission module at some future date, with the LCS using UAVs etc. to close the kill chain at range. Amazingly, the US Navy is still wondering whether it should confine itself to weapons that work only within the ship’s unaided detection range, despite the fact that 500-ton Fast Attack Craft fielded by other countries carry full-range anti-ship missiles.

The Independence Class’ too-small weight margin may seem to be a problem for heavy weapons, but the “Surface Warfare” module is so vestigal that there’s plenty of weight margin in the mission package’s 105-ton weight limit. The anti-submarine module is also pretty basic, and it will be interesting to see if the class can handle an ASW/SuW fleet scout loadout.

On a related note, the NSM is a candidate to eventually replace the sea-skimming, radar-guided RGM-84 Harpoon missiles abord US Navy ships, and a full range anti-ship and surface attack missile will be critical to the USA’s Small Surface combatant frigate program (q.v. April 7-8/14). Since the Navy’s approach makes it hard for anything other than an adapted LCS to succeed, this test has significant long-term implications for the Independence Class. Sources: Gannett’s Navy Times, “LCS to conduct test of Norwegian missile”.

July 17/14: SAC Budget. The Senate Appropriations Committee approves a $489.6 billion base FY 2015 budget, plus $59.7 billion in supplemental funding. It includes the LCS, but they aren’t pleased in the shift from 4 ships to 3, and the planned extension of block-buy pricing into FY 2016. They also note the program cut to 32 and the untested performance of the mission modules:

“Given the testing concerns raised by GAO and the Department’s current strategic pause on the LCS program, the Committee finds it prudent to also slow the procurement of LCS mission modules. Therefore, the Committee recommends a total reduction of $71,314,000 to the fiscal year 2015 budget request for LCS mission modules and related components.”

See also DID, “FY15 US Defense Budget Finally Complete with War Funding”.

LCS Lifecycle Costs Comparison
Life-cycle costs
(click to view full)

July 8/14: GAO Report. After USS Freedom returned to San Diego from its mission in Asia, nearly every LCS stakeholder – including the operational commander of the ship in Singapore (Commander, Destroyer Squadron Seven) and each of the USS Freedom crews – produced lessons-learned summaries. Mostly, we’ve learned that the Freedom Class has some critical problems in real-world 7th Fleet operations, and that its operating costs will approach destroyers with 3x its tonnage.

Bluntly, the ship’s crew of 50 still couldn’t cope, even in peacetime, testing nothing of substance beyond RHIB boats, and with onboard defense contractor support reps drafted into jobs they weren’t supposed to be doing. Crews averaged 6 hours sleep while underway, instead of the Navy’s recommended 8.

The “good” news is that USS Freedom spent 58% of its time in port, vs. a 20% average for other fleet ships. Mechanical issues were part of that, with 55 total mission days lost that cut short 2 exercises and removed 2 planned operations. It might have been worse, but failure-prone medium-pressure air compressors were constantly monitored by sensors and replaced before they could fail.

On the costs front, the number of shore personnel to support the ship has more than tripled from 271 in the 2011 estimate to 862. An updated life-cycle cost estimate is expected in fall 2014, but GAO estimates place them at $79 million ($64M ships + $15M mission modules) per ship per year, vs. $24M for a minehunter, $54M for a frigate, and $88M for a DDG-51 Ballistic Missile Defense destroyer. Additional overseas deployment-related cost data is likely to raise LCS costs, but deployment schedules mean that we probably won’t have good data for both variants until well after 2017. Sources: GAO-14-447, “Deployment of USS Freedom Revealed Risks in Implementing Operational Concepts and Uncertain Costs” | USNI, “Document: GAO Report on USS Freedom Deployment”.

June 13/14: LCS 4. General Dynamics Bath Iron Works in Bath, ME receives $11.7 million cost-plus-award-fee modification to the previously awarded order to provide engineering and management efforts in support of USS Coronado’s [LCS 4] post-shakedown availability work, to fix the last set of things from INSURV testing. The ship was commissioned on April 5/14.

$5 million in FY 2014 ship conversion budgets is committed immediately. Work will be performed in San Diego, CA, and is expected to be complete by December 2014. The US Navy’s Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion, and Repair in Bath, Maine manages the contract (N00024-13-G-2316, #0001).

May 12/14: MQ-8 MUT. USS Freedom [LCS 1] operates an MH-60R Seahawk helicopter and MQ-8B Fire Scout VTUAV together off the coast of San Diego, CA for VBSS (visit, board, search & seizure) exercises. Flying them together doesn’t seem like much, but operating safely in the same space as a manned helicopter is something that needs to be worked out very thoroughly before it can be used operationally.

June 13/14: LCS 4. General Dynamics Bath Iron Works in Bath, ME receives $11.7 million cost-plus-award-fee modification to the previously awarded order to provide engineering and management efforts in support of USS Coronado’s [LCS 4] post-shakedown availability work, to fix the last set of things from INSURV testing. The ship was commissioned on April 5/14.

$5 million in FY 2014 ship conversion budgets is committed immediately. Work will be performed in San Diego, CA, and is expected to be complete by December 2014. The US Navy’s Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion, and Repair in Bath, Maine manages the contract (N00024-13-G-2316, #0001).

May 12/14: MQ-8 MUT. USS Freedom [LCS 1] operates an MH-60R Seahawk helicopter and MQ-8B Fire Scout VTUAV together off the coast of San Diego, CA for VBSS (visit, board, search & seizure) exercises. Flying them together doesn’t seem like much, but operating safely in the same space as a manned helicopter is something that needs to be worked out very thoroughly before it can be used operationally.

Fire Scouts can maintain longer surveillance over a target or area of interest, but these helicopter UAVs lack the total firepower and/or troop capacity of an MH-60R or MH-60S. Sources: NGC, “Northrop Grumman, US Navy Conduct Successful Simultaneous Manned, Unmanned Helicopter Flight Tests Aboard the Littoral Combat Ship”.

May 6/14: Cyber-security. US Fleet Cyber Command head Vice Admiral Jan Tighe says that the Navy is working to close the cyber-security gaps identified in the 2013 DOT&E report (q.v. Jan 28/14). The Navy has teams considering “what do they need to do to change, and/or replace” on Freedom Class (and presumably Independence Class) ships, in order to close gaps and create the communications systems needed to transmit critical data to the shore-based support facilities LCS ships are so dependent upon. Sources: Bloomberg, “Cyberdefenses for Littoral Combat Ship Getting Retooled”.

April 30/14: Politics. It looks like LCS support is well and truly slipping. The House Seapower subcommittee version of the FY 2015 defense spending bill would cut planned Navy buys from 3 ships to 2, plus advance procurement funding for 2 in FY 2016, while prioritizing submarines and aircraft carriers. Worse:

“A source familiar with the subcommittee’s deliberations noted there had been a “real effort to zero out the LCS request,” based on perceptions of a flawed program and the need to eliminate some spending.”

20+ ships into a program is a bit late for such realizations, but the reality of not enough money is beginning to force choices that Congress didn’t really have to face before. Sources: Defense News, “House markup cuts one LCS, supports 11 carriers” | Subcommittee markup [PDF] | Full committee NDAA.

April 22/14: Support. General Dynamics Bath Iron Works in Bath, ME receives an unfinalized $28.7 million contract for Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) class design services. This includes class baseline design services, class documentation services, class engineering studies and interim support services.

All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2013 shipbuilding and FY 2014 RDT&E budgets. Work will be performed in Bath, ME (54%); Pittsfield, MA (45%); and Mobile, AL (1%), and is expected to be complete by May 2015. US NAVSEA in Washington, DC manages the contract (N00024-09-C-2302).

April 17/14: SAR. The Pentagon finally releases its Dec 31/13 Selected Acquisitions Report, which includes LCS.

“Program costs decreased $11,332.1 million (-33.4%) from $33,955.5 million to $22,623.4 million, due primarily to a quantity decrease of 20 ships from 52 to 32. The Department of Defense has determined that no new contract negotiations beyond 32 Flight 0+ LCS ships will go forward. The Navy has been directed to complete a study to support the future procurement of “a capable and lethal small surface combatant.” The Navy has also been directed to submit “alternative proposals to procure a capable and lethal small surface combatant,” and the study should consider options for “a completely new design, existing ship designs (including LCS), and a modified LCS.” This SAR reflects the initial estimate of a 32-ship LCS program. The results of the study, to be completed in time to inform the FY 2016 President’s Budget, will determine the configuration of the ships (future flight of LCS or different small surface combatant) that will fulfill the small surface combatant requirement.”

Program cut cuts costs

April 9/14: SSCTF RFI. The US Navy issues a very non-specific Request for Information #N00024-14-R-2306, in the hopes that responses will inform its SSCTF (Small Surface Combatant Task Force). Basically, they’re looking at specifications and cost drivers for existing designs, but they don’t specify what range they’re looking in:

“The Navy is interested in the shipbuilding industry perspective on mature ship designs and concept designs that have the capability and lethality generally consistent with a small surface combatant. Systems and sub-system information will be the subject of the second RFI. The Navy is also interested in market information on system and sub-system level approaches to providing small surface combatant combat capabilities including hull, mechanical and electrical systems; weapon and sensor systems; command, control, communications, computers and intelligence networks; electronic warfare systems; signature reduction technologies; and mission module concepts for consideration in future small surface combatants including modified LCSs.”

Sources: FBO.gov, “Intent to Issue Requests for Information (RFI) for Market Information Pertinent to the Navy’s Future Small Surface Combatant”.

RFI for frigate replacement

April 9/14: Weapons. The US Navy confirms that they have picked the AGM-114L Hellfire Longbow radar-guided missile as the SUW Package’s initial missile. Lockheed Martin’s Hellfire wouldn’t have any more range than Raytheon’s Griffin (~3.5 nmi), but the radar seeker allows the ship’s radar to perform targeting, while allowing salvos of multiple fire-and-forget missiles against incoming swarms. In contrast, the Griffin’s laser designation must target one boat at a time, from a position that’s almost certain to have a more restricted field of view than the ship’s main radar.

Lockheed Martin says that the missile has had 3 successful test firings in vertical launch mode, and there are plans to test-fire the missile from LCS itself in 2014, using a new vertical launcher. Navy AGM-114L missiles would be drawn from existing US Army stocks, which will have shelf life expiry issues anyway. That’s one reason the Army intends to begin buying JAGM laser/radar guided Hellfire derivatives around FY 2017. Sources: DoD Buzz, “Navy Adds Hellfire Missiles to LCS” | USNI News, “Navy Axes Griffin Missile In Favor of Longbow Hellfire for LCS”.

April 7-8/14: Weapons. With the USA considering its options for 20 frigates, Finmeccanica is proposing the OTO Melara 76mm Super Rapid gun as an upgrade to existing and future LCS/ASSC ships. Already in service with 56 navies, the water-cooled gun can maintain high rates of fire, while extending naval gun range. Specialty options include GPS-guided Vulcano super long-range shells for naval fire support out to 22 nmi, or the optional STRALES system that adds a radar to the gun mount, and uses DART radar-guided shells for surface warfare and air defense. The bad news is that the US Navy isn’t sure that it will fit on the LCS-2 Independence Class’ narrow hull (q.v. CRS report, Feb 25/14).

Meanwhile, Kongsberg is presenting scale models of armed Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) at the Sea-Air-Space 2014 Exposition, fitted with their stealthy new Naval Strike Missile. The Freedom Class gets 12 NSMs in 2 recessed modules above the helicopter hangar, while the trimaran Independence Class ends up with 18 missiles in 2 recessed launchers just behind the bridge, and another in the hull behind the naval gun.

Those loadouts would make the ships formidable surface combatants. If they control multiple UAVs for surveillance and targeting, their strike role actually starts to look like an aircraft carrier with 1-launch aircraft, and this configuration wouldn’t require ship radar upgrades. That could even position them for the post-2019 Surface Warfare Module upgrade within the existing fleet. On the other hand, a real frigate-type ship will need other weapons, which means 8 or more Mk.41 vertical launch cells that can carry VL-ASROC anti-submarine rockets, longer range air defense missiles like quad-packed RIM-162 ESSMs, etc. Unless the air defense missiles have independent guidance, like MBDA’s Sea Ceptor or Raytheon’s future ESSM Block 2, a frigate-class radar and combat system will also be necessary. Sources: DoD Buzz, “Finmeccanica Proposes 76mm Gun for LCS” | Naval Recognition, “Sea-Air-Space 2014 Show Daily News – Kongsberg NSM”.

April 5/14: LCS 4. USS Coronado is commissioned at North Island Naval Air Station, in Coronado, CA next to San Diego. This ship is 6 months late, but shows quality improvements over LCS 2. Which you’d certainly hope would be the case, compared to a first-in-class ship. Sources: UT San Diego, “USS Coronado commissioned”.

LCS 4 commissioned

April 4/14: Manning. Breaking Defense published the results of an unreleased study re: LCS 1’s Singapore deployment:

“[LCS sailors] averaged about six hours of sleep per day, 255 below the Navy’s eight-hour standard, and key personnel such as engineers got even less. That’s in spite of

  • extensive reliance on contractors both aboard and ashore, with a “rigid” schedule of monthly returns to Singapore that restricted how far from port the LCS could sail;
  • the decision to increase Freedom‘s core crew by 25 percent, from 40 to 50 — the maximum the ship can accommodate without a “significant” redesign; and
  • the 19-sailor “mission module” crew, who are supposed to operate LCS’s weapons, helicopters, and small boats, pitching in daily to help the core crew run the ship’s basic systems.

The core crew’s engineering department in particular told GAO they had no idea how they’d keep the ship going without help from the mission module’s engineers. But…. while the entire 19-sailor anti-surface module crew has skills useful in running the ship itself, the MCM crew has only four sailors who could help, and the ASW module only one. That means an LCS outfitted to hunt mines or subs would effectively be 15 to 18 sailors short – about 20 to 25 percent.”

The Navy says they’re testing engineering modifications and new approaches. But then, that’s what they’ve always said about this issue. Sources: Breaking Defense, “Sleepless In Singapore: LCS Is Undermanned & Overworked, Says GAO”.

Manning still a problem

April 2/14: Testing. Austal USA in Mobile, AL receives a $6.7 million contract modification to build a live fire test module in support of the Navy’s LCS-2 Independence variant LCS survivability testing program. It certainly took the Navy long enough to get this going.

All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2013 RDT&E budgets. Work will be performed in Mobile, AL, and is expected to be complete by March 2015. Fiscal 2013 research, development, test and evaluation funding in the amount of $6,726,406 will be obligated at the time of award and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The USN Supervisor of Shipbuilding Gulf Coast in Pascagoula, MS manages the contracts (N00024-11-C-2301). See also Austal, “Austal Awarded Contract For Survivability Testing On LCS”.

March 31/14: GAO Report. The US GAO tables its “Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs“. Which is actually a review for 2013, plus time to compile and publish. The LCS has 16/18 key technologies listed as mature, the 2 exceptions being LCS-1 mission bay overhead launch and retrieval system and the LCS-2 aluminum structure. Design changes include a stronger stern ramp for LCS-1 ships, and bridge wings and a 7m RHIB boat for LCS-2 ships. The report adds:

“LCS 1 completed a ten-month deployment to the western pacific in December 2013 where it operated out of Singapore. During this deployment it encountered two significant engineering issues that significantly curtailed its ability to get underway: the lubrication cooling system ruptured and the ship service diesel engine generator had reliability issues. In addition to these engineering issues, LCS 1 had a number of combat system and other material failures; including radar underperformance and the combat system unexpectedly rebooting during operations.”

March 4-11/14: FY15 Budget. The USAF and USN unveil their preliminary budget request briefings, and slowly release numbers over the next week. LCS procurement drops from 4 ships to 3 in FY15, but then it actually rises from 2 to 3 per year in FY16, FY17, and FY18, and overall budgets rise too. That would close out Hagel’s 32-ship limit. The Navy’s presentation also shows 2 LCS ships beyond that, however, in FY19. A note indicates that this is “Pending FY16 decision.”

The obvious resolution of the Navy presentation’s discrepant data would involve an initial advanced small surface combatant award. The Pentagon’s noises about “alternative proposals to procure a capable and lethal small surface combatant, consistent with the capabilities of a frigate” have dominated outside discussions ever since Hagel’s Feb 24/15 briefing. The extent of the required changes make it difficult to understand how they could move forward under current acquisition regulations, without creating a new program. On the other hand, detailed budget documents show a Navy that intends to continue LCS as a program beyond the 32 ships. Sources: USN, PB15 Press Briefing [PDF].

March 10/14: FY 2014. US NAVSEA in Washington, DC issues the FY14 orders for 4 Littoral Combat Ships. Ships 17-20 will cost a total of $1.383 billion:

Lockheed Martin in Baltimore, MD receives $698.9 million for LCS 17 & 19, including basic seaframe construction, selected ship systems integration and test, and some onboard systems like engines and radars that aren’t bought under independent contracts.

All funds are committed immediately, using Navy FY14 shipbuilding budgets. Work will be performed in Marinette, WI (56%), Walpole, MA (14%), Washington, DC (12%), Oldsmar, FL (4%), Beloit, WI (3%), Moorestown, NJ (2%), Minneapolis, MN (2%), and various locations of less than 1% each (7%), and is expected to be complete by June 2018 (N00024-11-C-2300).

Austal USA in Mobile, AL receives $683.7 million for LCS 18 & 20, including basic seaframe construction, selected ship systems integration and test, and some onboard systems like engines and radars that aren’t bought under independent contracts.

All funds are committed immediately, using Navy FY14 shipbuilding budgets. Work will be performed in Mobile, AL (51%), Pittsfield, MA (13%), Cincinnati, OH (4%), Baltimore, MD (2%), Burlington, VT (2%), New Orleans, LA (2%), and various locations of less than 2% each (26%), and is expected to be complete by June 2018 (N00024-11-C-2301).

FY15: 4 ships

March 10/14: LCS-FFG. Ever since Hagel’s late February announcement, his mention of a Small Surface Combatant/ frigate as a follow-on after LCS #32 has dominated discussion. Recall: “I’ve directed the Navy to consider a completely new design, existing ship designs, and a modified LCS.” His memo to Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus specifies that “These assessments should consider survivability, performance, sustainment cost, materiel readiness, lethality and growth potential…”

CNO Adm. Greenert now says he will disband the LCS Council, which still seems to have work to do in terms of getting the ships ready to deploy and work with the fleet, in favor of a group that will study the Navy’s Small Surface Combatant options.

Early indications are that it won’t be much of a study. SecNav Mabus has already compared the task to successive flight/block modifications of previous ship classes, while continuing a strained relationship with the truth by dismissing license-built foreign designs as: “Well, number one, I don’t think any foreign design is up to our — our standards.” That’s patently ridiculous, and indicates either a lack of the most basic grasp of this field, or willful dishonesty. Breaking Defense is quite correct in adding that many off-the-shelf foreign designs would be far superior – though they miss Navantia’s serving 5,300t Nansen Class ASW frigate, which already comes with Lockheed’s SPY-1F radar and AEGIS combat system, and uses the Mk-41 VLS. Norway paid Navantia $480 million per ship (NOK 21 billion for 5, on June 23/00).

Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute argues that the design has to be an LCS derivative for a different reason – the Navy doesn’t have a decade to hold the competition, design a new vessel, and get it produced. That kind of wait would push the future frigate’s funding right into the buzz-saw of SSBN-X and F-35B/C buys. Which is true.

On the other hand, neither LCS model has a fully-armed derivative in even detail design form, and both LCS contenders have potential issues that will require added testing if the ships’ size grows. Meanwhile, Northrop Grumman is proposing a frigate variant of the USCG’s Bertholf Class cutter. It would be interesting to compare development and certification times for a lengthened LCS with different weight distribution and new systems, vs. NGC’s model. Or vs. a close Nansen Class derivative built by Bath Iron Works. Sources: Breaking Defense, “LCS Lives! Mabus, Hamre Argue Littoral Combat Ship Will Survive Cuts” | Defense News, “CNO: Group Will Study New LCS Designs” | Forbes, “Navy Has Few Options If Littoral Combat Ship Falters”.

Feb 28/14: Support. US NAVSEA in Washington, DC exercises a pair of options to perform post-delivery planning, and implementation of deferred design changes, on the Freedom Class ship Milwaukee [LCS 5] and the Independence Class ship Jackson [LCS 6].

Lockheed Martin in Baltimore, MD receives $10.8 million for LCS 5. All funds are committed immediately, using USN FY10 shipbuilding budgets. Work will be performed in Marinette, WI (57%); Hampton, VA (14%); Moorestown, NJ (11%); San Diego, CA (11%); and Washington, DC (7%), and is expected to be complete by October 2015 (N00024-11-C-2300).

Austal USA in Mobile, A receives $7.1 million for LCS 6. All funds are committed immediately, using USN FY10 shipbuilding budgets. Work will be performed in Mobile, AL (70%); Pittsfield, MA (20%); and San Diego, CA (10%) and is expected to be complete by September 2015 (N00024-11-C-2301).

Feb 25/14: CRS Report. The US Congressional Research Service revises their Background and Issues for Congress report. While the report includes useful information about the program’s history, and details some of the current problems with both seaframes, its timing means that the basis for the Pentagon’s move to stop at 32 LCS ships is a focus. CRS raises the concern that the same ‘field first, analyze missions and design next, justify in retrospect’ philosophy may be applied to the follow-on frigate. Is a frigate the best option for meeting the described need? They do admit that:

“Countering improved Chinese maritime military forces will involve procuring ships (such as destroyers and attack submarines) that are oriented toward ballistic missile defense, anti-ship cruise missile defense, countering larger surface ships, and countering submarines that are operating far from shore as well as in littoral waters.48 The LCS is not optimized for most of these missions.”

The report’s pricing for mission packages is useful; according to an Aug 26/13 Navy document, the common equipment for all sets is $14.9 million, the MCM Package is $97.7 million (TL $112.6M), the “SUW” Package is $32.6 million (TL $47.4M), the future ASW Package is $20.9 million (TL $35.8M). Given that key mission packages like ASW aren’t even close to being fielded yet, and that some aspects like waterjet propulsion are ill-suited to the ASW mission, it’s hard to see the basis for saying:

“When assessed in terms of ability to perform the LCS program’s three primary missions [Mines, Small boats, and Submarines in shallow waters], the LCS fares well in terms of weaponry and other ship features in comparisons with frigate and corvette designs operated by other navies.”

Sources: US CRS, “Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program: Background and Issues for Congress”.

Mission Module costs

Feb 24/14: Backing away? The announcement isn’t a surprise (q.v. Jan 6/14), but there’s less to Chuck Hagel’s FY 2015 pre-budget briefing on the LCS than meets the eye:

“Regarding the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship, I am concerned that the Navy is relying too heavily on the LCS to achieve its long-term goals for ship numbers. Therefore, no new contract negotiations beyond 32 ships will go forward. With this decision, the LCS line will continue beyond our five-year budget plan with no interruptions.

The LCS was designed to perform certain missions – such as mine sweeping and anti-submarine warfare – in a relatively permissive environment. But we need to closely examine whether the LCS has the protection and firepower to survive against a more advanced military adversary and emerging new technologies, especially in the Asia Pacific. If we were to build out the LCS program to 52 ships, as previously planned, it would represent one-sixth of our future 300-ship Navy. Given continued fiscal constraints, we must direct shipbuilding resources toward platforms that can operate in every region and along the full spectrum of conflict.

Additionally, at my direction, the Navy will submit alternative proposals to procure a capable and lethal small surface combatant, consistent with the capabilities of a frigate. I’ve directed the Navy to consider a completely new design, existing ship designs, and a modified LCS. These proposals are due to me later this year in time to inform next year’s budget submission.”

Consideration of these questions is a decade overdue, but there’s only 1 takeaway here that really means anything: “the LCS line will continue beyond our five-year budget plan with no interruptions”. They haven’t actually terminated the program, and they can negotiate for up to 8 ships beyond the current block buy that ends in FY15, and follow-on comments from Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus show that he overwhelmingly favors modifying LCS for the Small Surface Combatant. This is so despite likely issues with effective anti-submarine warfare due to waterjet noise, low damage tolerance, and comparative cost vs. proven frigates once upgrades to the radar, combat system, and weapons are added. Sources: US DoD, “Remarks By Secretary Of Defense Chuck Hagel FY 2015 Budget Preview Pentagon Press Briefing Room Monday, February 24, 2014” | Bloomberg, “Hagel Expands on Reservations’ About Littoral Combat Ship”.

Semi-commitment to stop at 32, follow-on “capable small surface combatant” proposed

Feb 21/14: Support. Lockheed Martin in Baltimore, MD receives a $23.6 million contract modification for LCS fleet support.

All funds are committed immediately, using Navy FY14 O&M dollars. Work will be performed in San Diego, CA and is expected to be complete by September 2014. The USN’s Southwest Regional Maintenance Center in San Diego, CA manages the contract (N00024-12-G-4329).

Jan 23/14: Sub-contractors. L-3 Corp. Systems West, Salt Lake City, Utah, is being awarded a $17.6 million indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract modification for supplies and services associated with Littoral Combat Ship configurations of the Hawklink Tactical Common Data Link (TCDL) Surface Terminal Equipment, and with Vortex Mini-TCDL Shipset components. While Hawklink is most closely associated with the MH-60R Seahawk helicopter, these supplies and services are in support of the Fire Scout MQ-8B/8C.

Funds will be committed as needed. Work will be performed in Salt Lake City, UT (90%), Point Mugu, CA (5%), and the Patuxent River Naval Air Station, MD, (5%), and is expected to be complete in December 2014. US Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity (N00019-13-D-0001).

Jan 19/14: New deal? Defense News is reporting that the Navy and Pentagon have come to an uneasy compromise of sorts re: LCS. The program would be put on probation, but ship buys would continue to a total of 26-28, which would be until FY 2017 or so. Before any more ships could be bought, the ship would need to pass evaluation by the Pentagon’s independent DOT&E testing office, which has been critical of the ship.

This new proposal gives existing shipbuilders and supporters more time to prove that the ship can meet its base claims and specifications. It also gives them more time to lobby. A passed FY 2015 budget that stopped buys at 32 becomes hard to overturn, even though production would continue for several years, because the Navy would begin filling future budgets with other programs instead. An open-ended “we dare you to stop us later” agreement has a very different dynamic.

Note, too, that DOT&E’s mandate doesn’t include re-evaluating the ship concept, which is coming under more fire these days. All they can do is state whether the ship meets the Navy’s specifications and can perform its assigned missions, which is a different judgment than the one that Pentagon’s leadership was implicitly making. Sources: Defense News, “Navy, Pentagon battle over LCS future”.

Jan 13/14: Aviation Week looks at the LCS program, and reports that the crew size will rise to 50 core crew on both ships. That still wasn’t really enough during USS Freedom’s recent deployment (q.v. Nov 12/13). Beyond that, the article quotes Vice Adm. Thomas Copeman, commander of the Naval Surface Force and U.S. Pacific Naval Surface Force. Amazingly, the Navy has finally concluded that reducing crew sizes first, then hoping for technological innovation, is a bad approach.

Copeman adds that combat power is indeed one of LCS’ requirements, as he distinguishes between routine operations and combat operations. It may have “my complete attention,” but naval analyst Norman Polmar points out that the design process sacrificed the Navy’s flexibility regarding this defining characteristic of a warship. You can’t shoot attention at the enemy, though technological improvements may create new options in a decade or more (q.v. Jan 10/14). Polmar is also dismayed at the delays for mission modules that address long-standing naval challenges: “If the modules were something exotic, like nuclear lasers, I’d understand.” In fairness, they are trying to address standard challenges in non-standard ways.

We’ll add that combat options do exist for LCS, but retrofitting designed-out features is expensive. They’d need to cut into the decks to install a MK41 vertical launch system, then code and test major changes to the combat system so it could handle advanced weapons like the RIM-162 Evolved SeaSparrow. In practice, that means they’d either (a) stick to a narrow range of weapon improvements that are largely self-contained, and require minimal integration, at the possible cost of fleet commonality – vid. MBDA’s Sea Ceptor missile; (b) pick just one LCS class to have real combat capability, and make changes to it; or (c) spend more to implement radar and combat system commonality across both classes, as part of a full weapons upgrade. Sources: Aviation Week: NavWeek, “Skimming the Surface.”

Jan 6/14: To 32. A Pentagon memo from acting deputy defense secretary Christine Fox recommends that the LCS program slash total numbers by 20 ships, from 52 – 32. Looks like the Navy “won” the internal battle, which could have decided to terminate the program at just 24 (q.v. Sept 3/13). That would leave just 8 ships to be bought after the current multi-year buy contract ends in FY 2016, and options reportedly include speeding up production, or running a follow-on buy that might pick just 1 type.

Even at 32 ships, the program will have bought over 80% of its ships before the end of operational testing.

It’s important to note that this isn’t set in stone yet. The 2015 budget proposal will contain the final plan, but that document will be delayed to late February or March. Then it has to pass through Congress. Meanwhile, leaked copies of the Pentagon’s DOT&E test reports are expected to be critical of both LCS ship types, and of the Mine Counter-Measures package in particular. Sources: Bloomberg, “Pentagon Said to Order Cutting Littoral Ships by 20” | Bloomberg, “Navy Littoral Ship Reliability in Doubt, Tester Says” | ABC2 WBAY Wisconson, “Marinette Marine Monitors Pentagon Recommendations” | Alabama,com, “Navy will reportedly cut littoral combat ship order by 20” | U-T San Diego, “Navy’s littoral ships to be slashed?”.

Jan 16/14: The US Navy has come up with its own designation for the Sea Giraffe radar that equips LCS-2 Independence Class ships: AN/SPS-77(V)1. It’s adapted for US operations by Saab Defense and Security USA Sensor Systems in Syracuse, NY, who also handles installation, testing, and maintenance.

So far, the radar has been installed on 3 Independence Class ships, with 5 more radars in production. Sources: Saab, Jan 16/14 release.

Jan 10/14: LCS 1 & 3. Lockheed Martin in Baltimore, MD receives a maximum $13.2 million cost-plus award fee contracting modification, finalizing LCS 1 and 3 planning yard support efforts for Freedom Class LCS ships, esp. USS Freedom and USS Fort Worth. That means vendor training and crew familiarization; trainer support; availability advanced planning; long lead time material planning and procurement; material warehousing; logistics product updates; and class sustainment management.

One thing we’re noticing is that over the last couple of years, similar support contracts seem to cost more for the Freedom Class than they do for the Independence Class (q.v. Dec 23/13, March 15/13, Dec 20/12).

All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2014 O&M budgets. Work will be performed in Washington, DC, and is expected to be complete by September 2014. US NAVSEA in Washington, DC manages the contract (N00024-12-G-4329, 0017).

Naval laser trials

Jan 10/14: LCS EM Weapons module? The current US Navy program manager for DDG 51 acquisition, Capt. Mark Vandroff, says that the service has begun to look at the requirements for a “DDG-51 Flight IV” destroyer, which wouldn’t begin service until the 2030s. Rail guns and lasers are part of the early conversation, and it isn’t just because they’re cool:

“Some of the thinking involves senior leaders talking about getting on the other side of the cost curve. Right now if someone shoots a missile at us, we shoot a missile back at them. The missile we shoot at them cost about as much, if not more, than the missile that got shot at us. They are burning money and we are burning money to defend ourselves…. The down side is this kind of technology does not exist today and even if it does, you have to look at what kind of maritime platform could you put it on and what that would look like. When that technology starts to get close to mature, then you will see the Navy start to figure out what it has to do in order to field that technology.”

This could be the opportunity LCS has been looking for. Converting DDG 51 ships to hybrid-electric drive would be a minimum requirement to host these weapons, but the redesign could become very expensive, and even that may not be enough. HII is touting their LPD-17 Flight II amphibious assault hull as a future air and missile defense cruiser platform,. It has enough power generation capacity, but that’s a $2.5+ billion proposition. Looking downscale, Littoral Combat Ships have plenty of onboard power, plus accessible free space for capacitors etc. Switching the 57mm forward gun for a railgun, and adding laser weapons for air and surface defense, would give an LCS with the “EM weapons” package unique Naval Fire Support and air-defense roles within the fleet. LCS-2 ships might even have enough room remaining to add other mission package capabilities. As Vandroff says, we’ll know more as the technology becomes mature. Sources: Military.com, “Future Destroyers Likely to Fire Lasers, Rail Guns”.

Dec 23/13: Support. US NAVSEA issues a pair of options for LCS core class services. Those include engineering and design services, as well as efforts to reduce LCS acquisition and lifecycle costs.

Lockheed Martin Corp. in Baltimore, MD receives a $23.3 million contract modification, with $12.1 million in FY 2013 shipbuilding funds committed immediately. Work will be performed in Moorestown, NJ (36%), Hampton, VA (30%), Washington, DC (23%), and Marinette, WI (11%), and is expected to be complete by December 2014 (N00024-11-C-2300).

Austal USA LLC in Mobile, AL receives a $14.1 million contract modification, with $4 million in FY 2013 shipbuilding and R&D funds committed immediately. Work will be performed in Mobile, AL (72%) and Pittsfield, MA (28%), and is expected to be complete by December 2014 (N00024-11-C-2301).

Dec 23/13: LCS 2 & 4. General Dynamics Bath Iron Works in Bath, ME receives a $7.7 million cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order for LCS-2 and LCS-4 Planning Yard Services, as they prepare for in-service sustainment. These services will include: vendor training and crew familiarization; in-service engineering support; trainer support; availability advanced planning; long lead time material planning and procurement; material warehousing; logistics product updates; and class sustainment management.

$1 million is committed immediately, using FY 2014 O&M funds. Work will be performed in Bath, Maine, and is expected to be completed by Dec 21/14 (N00024-12-G-4330).

Dec 18/13: LCS 5 launch. Marinette Marine christens and launches LCS 5 Milwaukee from its Marinette, WI shipyard. This is the Lockheed Martin team’s 1st ship under the 2010 block buy. Unlike LCS 6, this one slides into the river in a traditional manner. Sources: USN, “Future USS Milwaukee (LCS 5) Christened and Launched, Marks Production Milestone” | Lockheed Martin, “Lockheed Martin-Led Team Launches Future USS Milwaukee”.

Dec 14/13: LCS 6 launch. Jackson is launched at Austal’s shipyard in Mobile, AL. This is Austal’s 1st ship under the 2010 block buy, and the 1st ship built in the shipyard’s new 59,000-square-foot Bay 5 assembly hall.

Launches have become more complex these days. Instead of just sliding down a ramp, the 1,600t assembly was lifted almost 3 feet in the air by Berard Transportation’s self-propelled modular transporters (SPMTs), and moved about 400 feet onto an adjacent moored deck barge. The barge was towed a half mile down river to BAE Systems’ Southeast Shipyard for transfer to BAE’s floating Drydock Alabama. Launch happens when Alabama submerges, floating Jackson free. The ship will undergo final outfitting and activation at Austal’s shipyard.

Dec 13/13: Demands, but no teeth. The House FY 2014 defense bill has some key provisions in Section 124 re: the LCS program, and the Senate is unlikely to mess with them. It doesn’t matter, since the there are no real penalties for non-compliance.

The bill demands a review from the Pentagon’s JROC saying that they’ve looked at existing and required capabilities; think the current capabilities development document remains valid given performance, and will produce an adequate ship; and confirm that capability production documents exist for each ship type, and will exist for each mission module before operational testing begins. The odds of the JROC saying “we were wrong to give our go-ahead, this is a complete mess, LCS fails” are basically zero.

Beyond that, the bill demands a report from the CNO, and also from the Pentagon’s far more skeptical Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, within 60 days of the FY 2014 defense budget becoming law. That report will looks at the LCS’ concept of operations, which the Navy admits is sketchy now. It will also look at the ships’ ability to meet the Navy’s core strategy; compare the combat capabilities of the mission modules against the FFG-7 frigate and Osprey Class minehunting ships LCS would replace; assess LCS’ expected survivability in combat, given threats in the near-shore environment; offer an overview of test progress and plans; and look at maintenance, manning and support issues for the class, with special attention paid to failures so far.

Fine. So, what if the reports aren’t produced, or the results are negative? The GAO Report (q.v. July 22/13) recommended dropping to minimum sustaining rate production for ships, and halting module buys. So, what did the House do? Nothing. They said that FY 2014 monies couldn’t be used to buy items for LCS 25-26, until the bill’s conditions were met. For reference, FY 2014 is about ships #17-20, and the entire multi-year contract ends at #24. Sources: House FY 2014 NDAA [PDF] | Breaking Defense, “Congress Targets Littoral Combat Ship Survivability In NDAA” | USNI News, “More Littoral Combat Ship Oversight Unlikely to Affect 2015 Block Buy”.

Dec 2/13: Support. Austal USA LLC in Mobile, AL receives an $8.3 million contract modification, exercising option for Independence Class core class services. They’ll assess engineering and production challenges, and evaluate the cost and schedule risks from new efforts to reduce LCS acquisition and lifecycle costs.

All funds are committed immediately from FY 2013 shipbuilding budgets. Work will be performed in Mobile, AL (60%), and Pittsfield, MA (40%), and is expected to be complete by November 2014 (N00024-11-C-2301).

Nov 20/13: Saudi Arabia. The Saudi Naval Expansion Program II will shape the Kingdom’s next set of buys, and discussions have ranged from American LCS frigates, to full-size DDG-51 Aegis destroyers capable of ballistic missile defense. They could turn to options like Spain’s Navantia (F100 family), if they wish to buy Aegis ships from a source other than the USA. The Saudis are also evaluating France’s new FREMM frigates, which could offer missile defense capabilities of their own, and share some commonalities with their existing Al-Riyadh Class.

October statements by Saudi intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan may have said that the kingdom was hoping to make a major shift away from the United States, but Lockheed Martin continues to pursue discussions. The Royal Saudi Navy’s core currently consists of French Al-Riyadh (Lafayette) and Al-Madinah Class frigates at the high end, and older US-built Badr Class corvettes and Al-Sadiq Class patrol boats at the low end. Sources: Reuters, “Lockheed sees more clarity on Saudi naval buy in next months” | UAE’s The National, “Challenges in the Middle East for US defence companies“.

Nov 16/13: LCS 1. USS Freedom leaves Singapore’s Changi Naval Base, which she had been using as a logistics and maintenance hub. Those kinds of bases are key to the LCS concept, because the crew design and load-out of the ship have most maintenance and almost all repairs performed in port, with very little capability on board ship. The Navy adds that:

“Prior to getting underway, Freedom accomplished repairs to the feedback cable in the port steerable waterjet which delayed her participation in exercise Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training (CARAT) Brunei. All wajerjets are now functioning normally, and Freedom still expects to conduct a brief port visit in Brunei as part of the exercise.”

Since arriving in Singapore April 18, Freedom has participated in the International Maritime Defence Exhibition (IMDEX), 2 CARAT exercises with Malaysia and Singapore, and the multinational SECAT exercise. CARAT Brunei will undoubtedly be counted in future USN releases, even though the ship was actually prevented from taking substantive part. Sources: “USS Freedom (LCS 1) Gets Underway From Singapore For Final Time”.

Nov 12/13: Shock and Awwww. The Wall Street Journal reports that LCS 1’s maintenance problems in Singapore were a shock to Navy leadership:

“When Navy leaders were given an expedited assessment on the ship’s performance last week, they found the scope of those problems to be “a little stunning,” says Rear Adm. Tom Rowden, the Navy’s director of surface warfare.”…. In war games last year, the Freedom seemed to struggle with multiple tasks and appeared overwhelmed, says Petty Officer Manuel Navarro, a combat leader aboard the USS Sampson, a 500-foot destroyer that took part in the exercises. “From a combat perspective, from what I can see, they did horribly,” he says.”

The ships’ heavy dependence on pierside maintenance is a new concept for the Navy, and the key question is whether this is the sort of normal teething problem associated with that newness, or an illustration of a flawed concept that hasn’t been used for good reasons. The same question arises re: ship manning, which may not have been enough even with 10 extra core sailors on board.

As the Navy ponders these issues, pressure is growing to cut the LCS buy from the original plan of 55 to 32 or even 24 ships (q.v. Sept 3/13). That would probably be achieved by taking GAO’s advice, and dropping orders to the minimum sustainable level. A 32-ship program would still end very early, with last orders in 2022 or so. Sources: Wall Street Journal, “Navy Ship Plan Faces Pentagon Budget Cutters” | Newsmax, “Navy’s Problem-Plagued Ship of Future Facing Cutbacks”.

Nov 11/13: LCS 1. More problems, just before a planned naval exercise in Brunei. USS Freedom had issues with feedback in the portside steerable waterjet, which needed additional repairs. This comes shortly after the starboard steerable water-jet hydraulic system had been contaminated with seawater and required extra maintenance. Sources: Russia Today, “Glitch-ridden US advanced warship pier-side ahead of Singapore drills”.

LCS 1: CARAT Brunei

FY 2013

$1.38 billion for LCS 13-16; Program cut to 50 ships; Undersecretary Robert Work’s overview of the program is followed by 2 negative Navy reports, as capability controversies continue; GAO program report; DOT&E report on LCS issues; Keel laying for LCS 8 & 9; USS Freedom deploys to Singapore, with difficulties; New Freedom Class waterjets solve a problem – and add to one?; Export loss in Thailand.

To Singapore
click for video

Sept 3/13: Ship cuts? With over $50 billion in cuts coming, the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s ALT POM reportedly proposed to end LCS buys with the current contract, at just 24 ships. The Navy is pushing to buy at least 32.

On the other hand, OSD is reportedly insisting that the Navy place a top priority on fielding the mine countermeasures (MCM) module, in light of challenges around the Strait of Hormuz and elsewhere. One would think this would have been obvious years ago. Sources: Defenseworld, “U.S. To Limit Littoral Combat Ship Purchase”.

Aug 12/13: Support. Small business qualifier Manufacturing Techniques Inc. in Kilmarnock, VA receives a $32.7 million indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract with cost-plus-fixed-fee completion and firm-fixed-price delivery orders. It’s a support contract involving battle management systems, Dragon Spear (SOCOM’s MC-130W aircraft), and Littoral Combat Ship programs. They’ll provide help with rapid prototype development, hardware fabrication, hardware and software for prototype or prototype pre-production units and kits.

Just $68,263 in FY 2012 funds are committed immediately. Work will be performed in Kilmarnock, VA, and is expected to be complete by August 2018. This was competitively procured via FBO.gov, with 2 offers received by the US Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division in Dahlgren, VA (N00178-13-D-1022).

Aug 12/13: LCS 2. General Dynamics Bath Iron Works in Bath, ME receives a $9 million cost-plus-award-fee order to provide material and labor for USS Independence’s post-shakedown availability (LCS 2 PSA Phase 2). Efforts will include program management, production supervision, temporary protection services and transportation services.

$6.9 million in FY 2012 – 2013 funding is committed immediately, and $2.3 million in FY 2013 funding will expire by Sept 30/13. Work will be performed in San Diego, CA and is expected to be complete by December 2013. The Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion, and Repair in Bath, ME manages the contract (N00024-13-G-2316).

LCS & Module buys, 2012-2019
LCS & Mission modules
2012-2019
(click to view full)

July 25/13: HASC Seapower hearing. The House Armed Services Committee’s Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces holds hearings in the wake of the GAO’s report. It makes for interesting viewing in places but that’s mostly in the prepared statements. GAO explains that they aren’t advocating cancellation, but unless Congress steps in now, they’ll find themselves unable to exercise any influence on the program. The Navy repeats the party line that everyone loves the LCS, and all problems will be fine.

The real takeaway is that the basic format for Congressional hearings is broken and next to useless if a program is in trouble. At 3-5 minutes per member present, it’s impossible to ask more than 1 substantive question, or offer the kind of consistent questioning and follow-up required to even establish key facts. That’s a perfect environment for evasive or meaningless answers, secure in the knowledge that they can’t be examined in any depth. Which is exactly what happens. Watch for yourself. Sources: HASC Seapower, Acquisition and Development Challenges Associated with the Littoral Combat Ship (Video Part 1 and Part 2) | GAO Testimony Transcript.

LCS construction times & delays

July 22/13: GAO Report. The US GAO releases GAO-13-530, “Significant Investments in the Littoral Combat Ship Continue Amid Substantial Unknowns about Capabilities, Use, and Cost”. The entire report is a long chronicle of the Littoral Combat Ship program’s history of falling short and of unresolved issues, side-by-side with warnings concerning a program that will have bought 24 ships, started a second multi-year contract in FY 2016, and bought 31 mission packages before full operational testing is done.

That “could lead to the Navy risking taxpayer investments of over $40 billion in 2010 dollars in systems that may not provide the expected – and yet to be fully defined – militarily useful capability.” This timing also strips outside bodies of meaningful oversight and influence, while buying equal numbers of ships even if a specific type is better for certain missions. As the GAO notes:

“…the former Under Secretary of the Navy and others have posited that the Freedom variant may be better suited to the Middle East region and the SUW mission given its maneuverability [DID: the TERN UAV’s restriction to LCS-2 would change even that advantage], while the Independence variant may be better suited to the western Pacific region and the ASW and MCM missions given its longer range and larger helicopter deck.”

This is just a small slice of the issues with the LCS program. One issue that was accepted in the original LCS vision is its need to stay close to a deployed group when in medium to high threat environments. That restriction isn’t shared by similarly-expensive ships, and creates an added burden on task groups. Nor is this the only issue:

“…since LCS has only a self-defense anti-air warfare capability, it will require protection from a [DID: likely missile defense capable] cruiser or destroyer in more advanced anti-air warfare environments, which reduces the LCS’s ability to operate independently and occupies the time of more capable surface combatants that might be better employed elsewhere”…. [There are] classified concerns with the capability or planned capability and employment of the SUW, MCM, and ASW mission packages…. Elements of the LCS business case, including its cost, the time needed to develop and field the system, and its anticipated capabilities have degraded over time. There are also significant unknowns related to key LCS operations and support concepts that could affect the cost of the program and soundness of the business case…. Some of these questions, discussed in table 5, are likely to have impacts on the ongoing LCS acquisition, including what seaframe variant should be purchased and how the ships will actually be operated and supported… .At the Milestone B decision for the seaframe program, the Navy estimated O&S costs to account for 62% of the program’s life-cycle cost estimate, or $87 billion of $124 billion in total ownership costs through fiscal year 2057.[20] The Navy’s point estimate for the LCS seaframe program total life-cycle cost estimate was at the 10% confidence level, meaning that there is a 90% chance that the costs could be different – and likely higher based on the data – than the point estimate [the spread is between $108 – 170 billion in then-year dollars].”

They recommend that Congress appropriate LCS funding under the existing contract, but with conditions attached to complete LCS technical and design studies, assess changes, and offer an analysis of what they want to change for greater commonality, before the money is freed. GAO also recommends shifting to minimum sustaining production for mission modules (now) and ships (LCS 25-), until and unless the Navy has produced a new independent cost estimate and a new validated capabilities document, and received a full rate production decision. Sources: GAO-13-530, || See also detailed report coverage re: sub-systems for LCS mission packages and the Mine Counter-Measures package in particular.

GAO study cites multiple program issues, recommends program slowdown & conditions

July 11/13: The US Navy offers its latest update on the LCS program, via its official blog. There are a number of specific details re: the doings of LCS 1-3, but overall, it boils down to: “All is well. Really.” Sources: USN Navy Live, “LCS: Latest Update”.

July 20/13: LCS 1. USS Freedom limps back into port in Singapore after an overheated diesel generator took out propulsion during a helicopter VERTREP with USNS Ceasar Chavez [T-AKE 14]. The ship’s overall power stayed on, and the supply run was completed, but it had to pull out of planned Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training (CARAT) exercises with the Singaporean Navy.

Exhaust leaks in the turbochargers on 2 generators will require turbocharger replacement, and the generators will require further troubleshooting in Singapore. The ship has had similar problems before on its trip – see March 19-29/13, May 21/13 entries. Just another successful deployment. Defense News | Reuters.

LCS 1: Shutdown off Singapore

July 19/13: LCS 2. General Dynamics Bath Iron Works in Bath, ME receives a sole-source $7.5 million cost-plus-award-fee contract modification, to provide engineering and management services in support of USS Independence’s post-shakedown availability. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2013 RDT&E budgets; $602,083 will expire on Sept 30/13.

Work will be performed in Bath, ME (55%), and San Diego, CA (45%), and is expected to be complete by March 2014. The USN Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion, and Repair in Bath, Maine manages the contract (N00024-09-G-2301, ER09).

June 27/13: LCS 9. The official keel-laying ceremony for the future USS Little Rock is held at Marinette Marine Corp. in Marinette, WI. Lockheed Martin.

June 26/13: LCS 8. The official keel-laying ceremony for the future USS Montgomery is held at Austal’s yard in Mobile, AL. Given modern ship-building methods, 36 of the 37 modules for the ship are already under construction. Austal.

June 6/13: Naming. The Secretary of the Navy names the next 2 LCS ships.

The Freedom Class LCS 15 Billings is named after the city in Montana. The Independence Class LCS 16 Tulsa is named after the city in Oklahoma. US DoD.

May 24/13: SAR. The Pentagon finally releases its Dec 31/12 Selected Acquisitions Report [PDF].

“Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) – Program costs decreased $3,485.0 million (-9.3%) from $37,440.5 million to $33,955.5 million, due primarily to the decision to purchase 3 fewer ships resulting in a quantity decrease from 53 to 50 ships (-$2,945.7 million) and associated schedule and estimating allocations (+$150.0 million). Additional decreases were attributable to the application of new outyear escalation indices ($-1,050.6 million), realignment of LCS in the 30-year shipbuilding plan in FY 2019 to FY 2034 (-$519.8 million), and adjustments to the seaframe requirements estimate in FY 2012 to FY 2018 (-$406.3 million). These decreases were partially offset by the application of revised escalation indices (+1,216.4 million) and pricing changes for trainer and battle spare requirements (+$90.6 million).”

So, let’s see if we have this straight. Cost escalation indices during the budgeting period add over $1.2 billion, which seems to be a common theme among many SAR reports this period. Then, as soon as we leave the budgeting period, something magically changes and the program will save over $1 billion due to the same indices. That seems preposterous, and doesn’t fit any trends we’re aware of, but we’re open to a convincing explanation. If someone out there has one, we’ll print it.

SAR – Fewer ships & implausible accounting

May 22/13: User Interfaces matter. Respected Navy blog Information Dissemination takes note of a FY 2014 markup in the budget, and explains why rationalization to a single radar and combat system will likely leave both Saab and GDC4S out in the cold. From “House FY14 Mark“:

“Saab North America has a problem. They supposedly have this really great radar…. the problem is the radar is tied to the combat system on the Austal variant of the LCS, and that combat system has a fatal flaw typical of software development in government. The UI is terrible…. The surface warfare community has a user interface into the combat system that is standard across the entire AEGIS line of warships. The Freedom class version has a combat system that uses a very similar interface…. Instead of making the combat system user interface look and feel like every other combat system in the fleet at the User Interface level, the LCS-2 combat system insists their user interface is better.

….AEGIS is government owned. These folks who complain about Lockheed Martin’s monopoly in the Navy on the combat system are given chance after chance to compete, but they fail every time because no matter how good the technology is under the covers – and sometimes it is really fantastic – they lose to Lockheed Martin because they refuse to imitate the user experience of AEGIS that every sailor in the Navy is comfortable with. As an IT guy who develops enterprise systems for government, I laugh when observing a classic mistake contractors do far too often, and all I can say is these companies get exactly what they deserve when they get nothing. It isn’t the Saab North American radar. That radar might be legitimately great, but it doesn’t matter at all. The real problem is the software folks who insist their way of doing user interfaces for the US Navy is better than the way everyone in the US Navy does it. That’s just stupid!”

User Interfaces matter!

May 21/13: LCS 1. More problems push the ship pierside again in Singapore, as ship’s force inspection reveals rust on 2 of the reduction gear casings. The suggestion is that the oil has formed emulsions and lost some of its lubricating quality, as a result of maintenance that wasn’t performed quickly enough after the late April reduction gear seawater cooler failure. Sources: Information Dissemination, “Camo Gray and Never Underway”.

LCS 1

May 7/13: USN Report. Bloomberg gets its hands on a March 9/12 confidential draft report prepared for CNO Adm. Greenert by Rear Adm. Samuel Perez. This document is separate from USN Commander of Surface Forces Vice-Adm. Copeman’s “Vision for a 2025 Surface Fleet”, which recommended a full set of weapon for LCS (q.v. March 18/13 entry). Perez’ report is broader, but his conclusions are similar: serious gaps between ship capabilities and the missions the Navy will need LCS to execute. Key areas of concern include:

Manning: “The minimal-manning level and subsequent fatigue result in significant operational and safety impacts, with notable degradation of crew readiness, performance levels and quality of life.” USS Freedom has since added 20 more berthings for its initial deployment, bringing total crew to 100 (40 core + 25 aviation + 15 mission package + 20).

Armament: Perez shares Copeman’s reservations about the LCS’ armament, and points out that Iran alone has 67 Fast Attack Craft that carry anti-ship missiles with a range of over 5 miles. Any one of them can strike LCS ships without direct retaliation, and deliver disabling hits.

CONOPS: He also cites the lack of a clear LCS concept of operations, and notes that getting all of the right people and equipment on station to swap a mission module can take several weeks, instead of the advertised 96 hours. As a result, the concept “no longer has the tactical utility envisioned by the original designers.”

Navigation: Finally, Perez points out that the Independence Class trimaran’s width “may be a navigational challenge in narrow waterways and tight harbors,” though Bloomberg’s account doesn’t quantify that in any way.

The disturbing thing about these reports isn’t their conclusions. It’s the fact that these conclusions have been obvious for years, and have been pointed out for years, while US Navy leadership pretended that everything was fine. That’s still the Navy’s M.O., and CNO Greenert dismissed questions by saying that “study is over a year old – we’ve done a lot since then”. Which doesn’t address what they’ve done to change the conclusions of the study. In a number of critical areas, the answer is “nothing” or “not much.” Perez Report Executive Summary [PDF] | Bloomberg | The Hill | Military.com | USNI, “Perez Report: Many in LCS Program Have Forgotten Key Fundamentals”.

Perez Report

May 2/13: New waterjets for LCS-1 class. LCS 5 Miwaukee will be the first Freedom Class ship to try out a set of 4 new waterjets. The technology was developed by Rolls-Royce Naval Marine in Walpole, MA, in collaboration with the Office of Naval Research (ONR) and the Naval Surface Warfare Center’s Carderock Division. The joint project under ONR’s Future Naval Capabilities program began in 2007, and the April delivery to Marinette Marine marked its successful completion. The waterjets will be made in the United States, with primary manufacturing at Rolls-Royce facilities in Walpole, MA and Pascagoula, MS.

The new 22MW Axial-Flow Waterjet Mk-1 can reportedly move nearly 500,00 gallons of seawater per minute, providing more thrust per unit than the current commercial waterjets. Researchers believe the smaller, more efficient waterjets will help the LCS avoid excessive maintenance costs and ship component damage associated with cavitation. On the other hand, Information Dissemination points out an issue:

“Waterjets are incredibly loud, as in they can be so loud that a ship with waterjets is probably going to significantly reduce the effectiveness of a bow sonar…. there is no bow mounted sonar [on LCS] and waterjets is why there never will be…. ONR is going to deliver super waterjets, which may increase the speed of LCS a knot or two, who knows. Here is the problem though – waterjets are still loud like a rock concert, and one of the primary missions of the LCS is to hunt littoral submarines.

When will this program start being about mission and stop being about features?”

Sources: USN, “New Waterjets Could Propel LCS to Greater Speeds” | Rolls Royce, Feb 21/12 release. | Information Dissemination, “More Speed!”

April 25/13: Support. CACI Technologies Inc. in Chantilly, VA receives a $20.1 million contract modification for professional support services in support of PEO LCS (Program Executive Office Littoral Combat Ships). They’ll help with program management and acquisition support, technical and engineering support, business and financial management support, and logistics support.

Work will be performed in Washington DC (89.9%); Norfolk, VA (4.2%); San Diego, CA (2.2%); Panama City, FL (1.8%); Newport, RI (1.3%); and Monterey, CA (0.6%), and is expected to be complete by October 2013. Just $362,308 are being committed immediately, and $181,334 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/13. US Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC manages the contract (N00024-13-C-6322).

April 21/13: Thailand. Lockheed Martin’s MMCS Freedom Class derivative loses the competition, as the Royal Thai Navy picks South Korea’s Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering. DSME won with their DW 3000H proposal, which builds on experience gained with ROKN projects like the FFX Incheon Class frigates. Bangkok Post.

Loss in Thailand

April 15/13: General Dynamics’ Bath Iron Works in Bath, ME receives a $12.6 million contract modification, exercising Independence Class Design Services for LCS 6 and following ships. Work includes baseline design services, class documentation services, class engineering studies, cost estimating support, LCS ship transition, and a liaison role for ship construction and post delivery.

Work will be performed in Bath, Maine (52%); Pittsfield, MA (47%); and Mobile, AL (1%), and is expected to be complete by June 2014. It’s completely funded by the FY 2012 Shipbuilding and Conversion budget (N00024-09-C-2302).

April 12/13: LCS 3. As Coronado was conducting a full-power demonstration and running at high speed when insulation on the starboard diesel exhaust first smoldered, then ignited. The fire was reportedly “extinguished immediately.” All fires at sea are serious, but this one was pretty minor. The question is whether it happens again during full-speed trials. KPBS.

Minor fire

April 12/13: Naming. 2 LCS ships are among the 7 named by Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus, who actually stuck to class naming conventions this time instead of veering into political partisanship.

The Freedom Class LCS 13 Wichita is named in honor of Kansas’ largest city, while the Independence Class LCS 14 Manchester is named for one of New Hampshire’s industrial centers. Pentagon.

April 8/13: Arming LCS. Austal VP Craig Hooper says it’s quite possible to arm the LCS-2 Independence Class with effective anti-ship weapons and vertical launch cells, which isn’t exactly a surprise since that has been in Austal brochures:

“You want Harpoon? I can give you eight to 16. You want VLS, 75mm gun? OK we can do it…. but is that the right path? If we hand over all the available margin on LCS to legacy weapons… do we risk losing the opportunity to exploit the changes that are coming in the war at sea?”

As with all things, there is a balance point. It isn’t at all obvious why a quad Harpoon launcher topside, or a 76mm gun with the ability to launch long-range shells, or an 8-cell VLS, must precludes mission module space in a class that has a lot of it. USN Director of Surface Warfare Rear Admiral Thomas Rowden doesn’t see an armament problem at all, even in the current undergunned state, saying “I’m the keeper of the keys for requirements. And I am here to tell you that LCS meets the requirements.”

A more thoughtful response comes from Bryan McGrath at ID, who notes that the last US Navy surface ship built to fire anti-ship missiles was USS Porter [DDG 78], the last Arleigh Burke Flight I destroyer. Every Flight II/IIA destroyer all the way up to DDG 116 has omitted those launchers, and every FFG-7 Oliver Hazard Perry Class frigate in USN service has removed theirs. Meanwhile, fleets like China’s have invested heavily in anti-ship missiles that work at longer and longer ranges, and routinely mount them on ships as small as corvettes. As DDG-51 Flight I destroyers have to retire due to age, the disparity will just get worse, and LCS is a contributor to the “out-sticked” problem rather than a solution. Military.com | Information Dissemination.

April 5/13: Review? Military.com reports that US Navy leaders plan to discuss the LCS and its fit in the future fleet at the Navy League’s Sea Air Space Symposium on April 8th. Word is that they’re considering a program review.

April 1/13: LCS 3. Lockheed Martin Mission System and Training in Baltimore, MD receives a $17 million cost-plus-award-fee order for USS Fort Worth’s post-shakedown work, including renewed post-repair trials. The ship was commissioned on Sept 22/12. This is in addition to the $12.7 million contract for post-shakedown planning (q.v. Oct 25/12).

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA, and is expected to be complete by July 2013. The full amount is committed immediately, using FY 2006, 2012, and 2013 Shipbuilding and Conversion funding. The USN Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion, and Repair in Bath, ME manages the contract (N00024-12-G-2317).

March 29/13: YGBKM. There’s a lot poor reporting out there on defense issues, and we don’t always call it out, but sometimes the standards are so poor that it’s necessary. Former ballet dancer Allison Barrie’s FOX News “reporting” on LCS’ Pacific arrival is in that category. Where to begin? MH-60 helicopters can’t carry heavyweight torpedoes, or key mine clearance equipment. The mine warfare module touted in the article isn’t ready, and the surface warfare mission module is only effective against motorboats. And what does “Should a battle erupt, Freedom can act as a hub to tie together sea, air and land assets” even mean?

The article paints a picture of a ship that can perform a number of specialized missions at a high level, right now – and almost none of it is true. A dash of skepticism and about 15 minutes of Google searching would have revealed the many and serious holes in this piece, especially given recent coverage in several major media outlets. Unfortunately, no-one at FOX seems to have put in the time or oversight. Falling below even the New York Times’ standards on defense issues should be a source of shame. FOX News | “Someone Help Allison Please“.

March 28/13: GAO Report. The US GAO tables its “Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs“. Which is actually a review for 2012, plus time to compile and publish. GAO designates 16/19 critical LCS technologies as mature, and the 3 omissions are either minor differences (Freedom Class retrieval system) or unsatisfiable any time soon. If a 30-year ABS certification somehow fails to satisfy the 20 year operational hull life requirement, the only solution seems to be “wait 20 years and ask us again in 2032.”

For the Freedom Class, GAO says that the cracking problem “occurred either in high stress areas or were due to poor workmanship.” They’ve been repaired. The ship has also had corrosion problems in the mission zone due to a poor stern door seal, and class design changes were made in response to both issues. They do seem to be finding quite a few issues in this design, but LCS 5 & 7 accomplished production readiness and integrated baseline reviews. LCS 5 is listed as 53% complete, and LCS 7 is listed as 37% complete.

Austal’s Independence Class, “will now [add] a corrosion protection system similar to [the Freedom Class] to mitigate the corrosion and will backfit it on existing hulls.” That’s an unusual item to casually omit from 1 LCS class, but whatever. LCS 4 has experienced construction delays to summer 2013, but the program office says that these issues are resolved now. LCS 6 & 8 accomplished production readiness and integrated baseline reviews: LCS 6 is listed as 49% complete, and LCS 8 is listed as 24% complete.

In October 2012, the Navy rescinded their requirement to conduct a Milestone C/ Low Rate Production LCS review. That means there will be 24 ships under contract before there’s a systematic review to support a production decision, in FY 2019.

March 19-29/13: LCS 1. USS Freedom has now had 3 power outages during the ship’s transit from Pearl Harbor, HI to Guam. This isn’t the 1st time, vid. April 23/12 entry.

On this trip, Aviation Week reports that the 10-12 minute March 16th outage may have been caused by water getting into an SSDG diesel generator’s exhaust system. March 20th saw an 11 minute outage that was also supposedly related to an SSDG problem, and March 21st was the 3rd outage. The ship eventually makes it to Guam on March 29th, and the crew was able to work through the issues themselves, but loss of power is a serious problem if it doesn’t happen at a convenient time. Aviation Week | Marianas Variety || US Navy | Guam PDN.

LCS 1 loses power

March 19/13: 30mm Mk46s. General Dynamics Land Systems Inc. in Woodbridge, VA receives a $25.7 million contract option for eight 30mm MK46 MOD 2 gun turrets, including associated spares and shore based parts. It covers 2 gun weapon systems for the LPD 17 class, and 6 more to equip LCS 5, 6, and 7. The guns are part of the “surface warfare” mission package.

Work will be performed in Woodbridge, VA (43%); Tallahassee, FL (20%); Lima, OH (14%); Westminster, MD (11%); Sterling Heights, MI (10%); Scranton, PA (2%), and is expected to be completed by November 2014. All funding is committed immediately (N00024-10-C-5438).

March 18/13: USN Memo – Up-gun LCS. USNI reports that USN Commander of Surface Forces Vice Adm. Tom Copeman has proposed changes to the Navy’s LCS strategy. In late 2012, he reportedly submitted the classified memo “Vision for the 2025 Surface Fleet,” which calls for an “up-gunned, multimission variant” of a single LCS class going forward. Some observers have interpreted this as halving the 55 ship LCS buy, but that doesn’t necessarily follow. It’s perfectly possible to buy the same number of ships, with just 1 go-forward design.

With respect to the multi-mission requirement, both LCS classes have been promoted abroad with proper weapon fit-outs and upgraded sensors. A number of radar fit-outs would be possible, but the ship designs would have 2 important differences. Lockheed Martin’s Freedom Class has less mission module space to give, but could host strike-length Mk.41 vertical launch cells that can launch Tomahawk cruise missiles and the largest SM-x family air and missile defense hardware. Austal’s Independence Class could retain much more mission module space after installing serious weapons, but would be restricted to tactical-length cells that would still be big enough for RIM-162 ESSM air defense missiles, and for VL-ASROC anti-submarine rockets.

There is some precedent. Undersecretary Bob Work’s draft assessment of the LCS program (vid Jan 29/13) explicitly cites the old Spruance Class destroyers. Later versions added a 61-cell VLS battery and 8 Harpoon anti-ship missiles, while subtracting a dedicated ASROC launcher and keeping its pair of 5-inch guns, 2 Mk15 Phalanx 20mm CIWS defenses, and RIM-7 Sea Sparrow air defense missiles. The likely radar and combat system changes would make LCS re-configuration more substantial, but even a tiny 8-cell VLS and provision for anti-ship missiles would significantly change the LCS’ tactical capabilities. USNI | Bloomberg | Defense News.

Copeman Report

March 15/13: Support. Lockheed Martin MS2 in Baltimore, MD received a $32.8 million contract modification for Freedom Class service efforts and special studies, analyses and reviews. “Lockheed Martin will assess engineering and production challenges and evaluate the cost and schedule risks from affordability efforts to reduce LCS acquisition and lifecycle costs.”

All funds will come from US Navy FY 2012 Shipbuilding and Conversion, and are committed immediately. Work will be performed in Hampton, VA (32%); Marinette, WI (27%); Moorestown, N.J. (22%), and Washington, DC (19%), and is expected to be complete by March 2014. US Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC manages the contract (N00024-11-C-2300).

March 15/13: Support. Austal USA LLC in Mobile, AL received a $20 million contract modification for Independence Class service efforts and special studies, analyses and reviews. “Austal USA… will assess engineering and production challenges and evaluate the cost and schedule risks from affordability efforts to reduce LCS acquisition and lifecycle costs.”

All funds will come from US Navy FY 2012 Shipbuilding and Conversion, and are committed immediately. Work will be performed in Mobile, AL (72%) and Pittsfield, MA (28%), and is expected to complete by March 2014. US Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC manages the contract (N00024-11-C-2301).

March 4/13: 2 Freedom Class. Lockheed Martin MS2 in Baltimore, MD receives $696.6 million to build 2 FY 2013 Littoral Combat Ships. Note that this doesn’t include the mission modules needed to make the ships useful, or weapons provided as government-furnished equipment.

Work will be performed in Marinette, WI (56%); Walpole, MA (14%); Washington, DC (12%); Oldsmar, FL (4%); Beloit, WI (3%); Moorestown, NJ (2%); Minneapolis, MI (2%) and various locations of less than 1% each totaling 7%, and is expected to be complete by July 2018 (N00024-11-C-2300). See also Lockheed Martin.

March 4/13: 2 Independence Class. Austal USA in Mobile, AL receives $681.7 million for 2 FY 2013 Littoral Combat Ships. Note that this doesn’t include the mission modules needed to make the ships useful, or weapons provided as government-furnished equipment.

Work will be performed in Mobile, AL (51%); Pittsfield, MA (13%); Cincinnati, Ohio (4%); Baltimore, MD (2%); Burlington, VT (2%); New Orleans, LA (2%) and various locations of less than 2% each totaling 26%. Work is expected to be complete by June 2018 (N00024-11-C-2301). See also GDLCS site.

4 LCS ships: 2 of each class

March 4/13: LCS 4. General Dynamics Bath Iron Works in Bath, ME receives a $12.3 million contract modification, exercising an option for post-delivery support of LCS 4, the Independence Class ship USS Coronado. Bath Iron Works will perform the planning and implementation of deferred design changes identified during the construction period, which are necessary to support Coronado’s sail-away and follow-on post-delivery test and trials.

Work will be performed in Mobile, AL (76%); Bath, ME (18%); and Pittsfield, MA (6%), and is expected to be complete by February 2014. The full amounts are committed immediately, using FY 2009 Shipbuilding and Conversion funds (N00024-09-C-2302).

March 1/13: Deployment. USS Freedom [LCS-1] leaves San Diego to deploy to Singapore and Southeast Asia for about 8 months. It’s the ship’s first regular deployment, though it has been sent on active missions in the Caribbean during its training and post-shakedown phases. USN All Hands, incl. video.

1st official operational deployment

Feb 8/13: LCS 2. General Dynamics Bath Iron Works in Bath, ME receives a $6.9 million cost-plus award fee contract modification. They’ll provide engineering, management, advance planning and design work to support post shakedown work on LCS 2, the first-of-class USS Independence. Efforts will include program management, advance planning, engineering, design, material kitting, liaison and scheduling (see also May 21/12’s $7 million entry).

Work will be performed in Bath, ME (90%) and Pittsfield, MA (10%), and is expected to be complete by April 2013. All funds are committed, using FY 2013 RDT&E funding. The US Navy’s Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion, and Repair in Bath, ME manages this contract (N00024-09-G-2301).

Jan 30/13: Thai competition. IHS Jane’s reports that Thailand is talking about buying 3 Chinese Type 054 Jiangkai-II frigates from Hudong-Zhonghua Shipbuilding, plus technology transfer to enable maintenance, repair, and overhaul and to locally produce unspecified components under licence. Thailand already operates some Chinese-built ships, and its 2 Nareusan Class frigates boast the very unusual feature of having American & European systems and weapons on board.

They see the Chinese ships as an option that could fit their total $1 billion budget, but Lockheed Martin has confirmed that they’re competing, too, with a variant of the Freedom Class LCS. Further competition can be expected from European manufacturers like TKMS (MEKO), Damen Schelde (SIGMA), and possibly DCNS (Gowind); and South Korea (FFX Incheon Class) adds a new international option in this category.

Jan 29/13: Work in progress. Undersecretary of the Navy, Robert O. Work offers a working paper draft of an in-depth report entitled “The Littoral Combat Ship: How We Got Here, and Why”. It’s soon withdrawn from the US Naval War College Site, as he works to incorporate feedback into the final edit. It is accurately characterized as

“…the most thorough, honest, and detailed forensic outline of how LCS came pierside…. one-stop-shopping for anyone who would like to know the significant decision points in the process.”

Work is an LCS supporter. His outline is honest, but his conclusions are debatable. A fuller recounting and analysis is deserving of its own separate piece. DID awaits the final report, but offers this link to this interim document in the meantime. Commander Salamander naval blog | Scribd copy of the draft.

Undersec Report draft

Jan 22/13: Industrial. Austal announces a strategic partnership with Sembcorp Marine subsidiary Sembawang Shipyard Pte. Ltd., in Singapore. “Austal and Sembawang Shipyard will together provide rapid, high quality support specifically tailored to the US Navy’s fleet of Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) and Joint High Speed Vessels (JHSV), both of which are expected to operate in the region.”

True, though the first example will be a Lockheed Martin ship.

Jan 17/13: DOT&E testing. The Pentagon releases the FY 2012 Annual Report from its Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E). The LCS is included, and so are its Mission Modules/ Pakages. It does not paint a hopeful picture, demonstrating very serious mission package deficiencies that could and should have been addressed years ago. With respect to the ships themselves:

Freedom Class: During sea trials following post-shakedown availability, the ship developed a shaft seal leak and took 6 weeks to repair, but was graded as fit for service during special INSURV trials in May 2012. LCS 3 has made some design changes, and isn’t reporting any of the serious hull cracks found on USS Freedom. Final design isn’t expected to sail until LCS 5 Milwaukee.

Independence Class: Getting a system to combat corrosion (see Aug 12/11 and earlier), and an Impressed Current Cathodic Protection system is planned for the water jet tunnels on LCS 4. The Navy also continues to work through problems associated with the Twin Boom Extensible Crane on LCS 2. Final design isn’t expected to sail until LCS 6 Jackson.

General: LCS has problems fighting while maneuvering. “Ship operations at high speeds cause vibrations that make accurate use of the 57 mm gun very difficult.” Overall, “LCS is not expected to be survivable in that it is not expected to maintain mission capability after taking a significant hit in a hostile combat environment.” Crewing levels continue to worsen this vulnerability, while impairing capability:

“Crew size can limit the mission capabilities of the ship. Core crew size provides little flexibility to support more than one operation at a time; unplanned manning losses and corrective maintenance further exacerbate the problem. The Navy is reviewing manning levels and installing 20 additional bunks in LCS 1 for flexibility during its deployment [DID: vid. July 2/12 entry], but is not changing the final manning levels.”

LCS has been given class-specific survivability designations, rather than using the Navy’s general Level 1, Level 2, etc. LCS LVL 1 is an orderly abandon ship. LCS LVL 2 allows the ship to limp out of the area, while operating communications and small caliber weapons. LCS LVL 3 includes some remaining mission capability. The USN will conduct Total Ship Survivability Trials on LCS 3 and 4, but won’t conduct shock trials until the final LCS 5 & 6 designs sail. DOT&E | WIRED.

DOT&E 2012 report

Jan 10/13: Program update. Rear Admiral Thomas Rowden offers an update covering the LCS program and its mission modules.

USS Freedom is preparing for her Asian deployment, and LCS 3 USS Fort Worth is preparing to undergo a Post Delivery Test and Trials period. USS Independence is testing the Mine Counter-Measure module, and LCS 4 Coronado is under construction and slated for summer 2013 delivery.

On the mission module front, they’re now referred to as “mission packages.” The vestigal Surface Warfare MP is scheduled for Initial Operating Capability (IOC) in FY 2014. USS Independence [LCS 2] has demonstrated successful launch and recovery of offboard vehicles for the Mine Counter Measures MP, which is also slated for IOC in 2014. The ASW MP is working on “[i]ntegration of the launch and recovery system into the hull, and won’t reach IOC until FY 2016. USN’s Navy Live blog.

Jan 10/13: PEO support. CACI Technologies Inc. in Chantilly, VA receives a $20.6 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to support PEO Littoral Combat Ships. All funds are committed immediately, but $4.4 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/13.

Work will be performed in Washington ,DC (89.9%); Norfolk, VA (4.2%); San Diego, CA (2.2%); Panama City, FL (1.8%); Newport, RI (1.3%); and Monterey, CA (0.6%), and is expected to be complete by April 2013. This contract was not competitively procured, per the sole-source allowances in 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1), as implemented in FAR 6.302-1 (N00024-13-C-6322).

Dec 26/12: LCS 1 fixes. Aviation Week reports that the US Navy has made a number of fixes to problems identified in their May report (q.v. April 23/12 entry), after vehemently denying that accounts of those problems were true.

Fixes include augmentation of the ship’s anti-corrosion system, complete repainting of the main machinery room and piping that had not been previously painted, non-destructive testing of piping that was then reviewed by the the American Bureau of Shipping, and changes to weld procedures and Non-Destructive Testing procedures on LCS-3 and subsequent Freedom Class ships. Fixes to the RIX air compressors don’t appear to have been effective, based on “ship sources.” They may be replaced with Sauer products. Program officials also supposedly redesigned the Isotta Fraschini ship’s service diesel engines (SSDGs) that have been causing power problems – but subsequent events indicate that it hasn’t fixed the problems. Maybe Finmeccanica shouldn’t have been given such carte blanche by Lockheed Martin to specify its own products.

Dec 26/12: Support. General Dynamics Bath Iron Works in Bath, ME receives $13.5 million for planning yard services to support LCS-2 and LCS-4, the first Independence Class ships. Services will include: vendor training and crew familiarization; in-service engineering support; trainer support; availability maintenance advanced planning; long lead time material planning and procurement; material warehousing; logistics product updates; and the class sustainment management.

Work will be performed in Bath, ME, and is expected to be complete by September 2013. $9.4 million is committed immediately, and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year on Sept 30/13 (N00024-12-G-4330).

Dec 20/12: Support. Lockheed Martin MS2 in Baltimore, MD receives a $12.1 million contract modification, exercising an option for Freedom Class Littoral Combat Ship core class services. All contract funds are committed immediately.

Work will be performed in Moorestown, NJ (36%), Hampton, VA (30%), Washington, DC (23%), and Marinette, WI (11%), and is expected to be complete by December 2013 (N00024-11-C-2300).

Dec 20/12: Support. Austal USA LLC in Mobile, AL receives an $8.1 million contract modification, exercising an option for Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) core class services. They’ll assess engineering and production challenges, and evaluate the cost and schedule risks of affordability changes to reduce LCS acquisition and lifecycle costs. All contract funds are committed immediately.

Work will be performed in Mobile, AL (51%) and Pittsfield, MA (49%), and is expected to be complete by December 2013 (N00024-11-C-2301).

Oct 25/12: LCS 3. Lockheed Martin MS2 in Baltimore, MD receives a $12.7 million cost-plus-award-fee order to provide engineering and management services for advance planning and design to support of LCS-3 Forth Worth’s post-shakedown availability.

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA, and is expected to be complete by July 2013. The USN supervisor of shipbuilding, conversion, and repair in Bath, ME manages the contract (N00024-12-G-2317).

Oct 5/12: Controversy. USMC Lt. Col. John Sayen pens an LCS article for TIME’s Battleland that minces few words, while comparing LCS to specific foreign ship classes:

“The Navy’s new Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) is not only staggeringly overpriced and chronically unreliable but – even if it were to work perfectly – cannot match the combat power of similar sized foreign warships costing only a fraction as much…. About the only threat the LCS might handle is the “swarms” of Iranian machinegun and RPG-carrying speedboats in the Persian Gulf…. When asked why the LCS has sacrificed so much for speed, Navy spokesmen tend to become vague.”

The US Navy fires back in short order, saying that:

“…the LCS was never designed to protect other ships or to support troops ashore. That’s not its job. Its job is to protect the sea base and high value naval units from swarming boats, hunt down and sink diesel submarines, and clear mines in littoral waters.”

Some of their other shots miss, but they’re right about a few things. In terms of major points, shipbuilding is to naval vessel standards, not commercial standards as Sayen claimed, a change that cost the Navy a good chunk of money on initial ships. That argument ducks the issue of lower survivability standards, however, which are a legitimate point of debate. The Navy’s contention re: superiority to 1980s-era FFG-7 frigates that have had all major weapons removed in a bit disingenuous, and it would be useful to understand the basis for their claims of superiority over much smaller and cheaper 1990s-era Osprey Class minesweepers. TIME Battleland | USN’s Navy Live blog | Military.com.

Sept 28/12: Support. Lockheed Martin MS2 in Washington, DC receives an $8.5 million contract modification, finalizing the contract for Freedom Class FY 2013 engineering support services. Work includes technical library services, logistics and technical data and documentation, quality management services in preparing of test and inspection requirements, quality assurance inspection, collecting and analyzing test data, and otherwise working to standardize the class’ follow-on availability periods.

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA, and is expected to be complete by September 2013. All funds expire on Sept 30/12, at the end of FY 2012. The USN’s Southwest Regional Maintenance Center in San Diego, CA manages the contract (N00024-12-G-4329).

FY 2012

$1.4 billion for LCS 9-12; Freedom Class breakdowns & questions – but program looks “unstoppable”; Navy establishes LCS Council to get it ready for deployment to Singapore; LCS 10-12 named; LCS 4 launched; LCS 5 keel laid; 20 New berths for Freedom Class; Cost is #1 now.

MT30
LCS 4 launch
(click to view full)

Sept 28/12: Support. Lockheed Martin MS2 in Washington, DC wins a $7.5 million modification, as part of finalizing the contract for Freedom Class FY 2013 engineering support services.

All funds expire on Sept 30/12, at the end of FY 2012. Work will be performed in San Diego, CA, and is expected to complete by September 2013. The USN’s Southwest Regional Maintenance Center in San Diego, CA manages the contract (N00024-12-G-4329).

Sept 28/12: Support. General Dynamics Bath Iron Works in Bath, ME receives a $7 million modification, finalizing the contract for LCS Independence Class FY 2013 engineering support services. Work includes technical library services, logistics and technical data and documentation, quality management services in preparing of test and inspection requirements, quality assurance inspection, collecting and analyzing test data, and otherwise working to standardize the class’ follow-on availability periods.

All funds expire on Sept 30/12, at the end of FY 2012. Work will be performed in San Diego, CA. The USN’s Southwest Regional Maintenance Center in San Diego, CA manages the contract (N00024-12-G-4330).

Sept 22/12: LCS 3. The Freedom Class ship USS Fort Worth is commissioned at the Port of Galveston, TX, and is officially placed in service. US Navy.

LCS 3 commissioned

Aug 22/12: LCS Council. The US Navy convenes an “LCS Council” of high-ranking officers, in order to ensure that the LCS is ready to deploy to Singapore in 2013, per its commitments, and that the USN is ready to support it properly. “Addressing the challenges identified by [preparatory USN] studies necessitates” this high-level group, in order to drive fixes in multiple places across the Navy.

It’s filled with brass: Vice Adm. Rick Hunt, director of the Navy Staff, as its chairman, and the following senior officers also on board: Vice Adm. Mark Skinner, Principal Military Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition; Vice Adm. Tom Copeman, commander, Naval Surface Forces; and Vice Adm. Kevin McCoy, commander, Naval Sea Systems Command. The Plan of Action and Milestones are due no later than Jan 31/13. USN Memo [PDF] | POGO.

Aug 16/12: “Directional instability”. POGO and Aviation Week find documents that detail problems keeping LCS 1 on a straight course. While ships do need some directional instability to maneuver well, but “a source close to the LCS program told POGO that the directional instability affected the crew’s ability to operate the Lockheed ship.”

Worse, the problem occurred just before the Navy went to Congress, asking for permission to buy both ship types. The documents show the Navy instructing people to either not talk about this problem, or minimize it. POGO.

June 1/12: LCS to Singapore. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta tells the 11th Annual Shangri-La Dialogue on security that “American littoral combat ships will be berthing in Singapore.” Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey goes on to detail the specifics a couple of days later, saying that there will be 4 LCS ships committed to Singapore for 6-10 month rotations, and will make port calls throughout the region. Pentagon | Pentagon follow-on.

Singapore chosen for deployments

May 31/12: Support. General Dynamics Bath Iron Works in Bath, ME receives a $12.5 million cost-plus-fixed fee contract modification for LCS Independence Class design services. They’ll provide class baseline design services, class documentation services, class engineering studies, cost estimating support, LCS ship transition work, interim support services, and liaison for ship construction and post delivery with the class design agent for even-numbered ships from LCS 6 Jackson onward. This modification includes an option, which could bring its cumulative value of this modification to $25.1 million.

Work will be performed in Bath, ME (54%), Pittsfield, MA (45%), and Mobile, AL (1%). Work is expected to be complete by June 2014 (N00024-09-C-2302).

May 31/12: LCS 2. General Dynamics Bath Iron Works, Bath, ME receives a $7 million cost-plus-award-fee contract modification to provide engineering and management services for advance planning and design in support of LCS-2 USS Independence’s post-shakedown availability. Efforts will include program management, advance planning, engineering, design, material kitting, liaison, and scheduling.

Work will be performed in Bath, ME, and is expected to be complete by February 2013. This contract was not competitively procured by the USN’s Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion, and Repair in Bath, ME (N00024-09-G-2301).

POGO Presentation
click for video

May 11/12: Push for GAO. House Armed Services Committee member Rep. Jackie Speier [D-CA] is leading a push to have the Congressional GAO audit office to review the LCS program. Rep. Duncan Hunter [R-CA] is also active in submitting LCS-related amendments that are critical of the Navy and its lack of disclosure. Speier says that:

“…serious flaws…. threaten the operational capabilities of the ship…. it’s disturbing that the Navy would accept a ship that fails to meet the basic requirements for a tugboat. The future of the fleet is corroding before our eyes.”

See: Maritime Executive | AOL Defense | The Hill.

April 23/12: POGO – cancel LCS-1 Class. The POGO NGO releases a series of Navy documents showing problems with the LCS-1 Freedom Class, which:

“…has been plagued by flawed designs and failed equipment since being commissioned, has at least 17 known cracks, and has repeatedly been beset by engine-related failures…. during those two outings: several vital components on the ship failed including, at some point in both trips, each of the four engines. In addition, there were shaft seal failures during the last trip,[22] which led to flooding. Additional new material… shows that the ship appears to have even more serious problems with critical ship-wide systems, including rampant corrosion and flooding….. The Navy has not been forthcoming with information about all of these problems.”

Aviation Week picks up on these allegations, and relates “extensive corrosion and manufacturing issues more recent and serious than anything the Pentagon or prime contractor Lockheed Martin has publicly acknowledged thus far,” including flaws in vital piping systems that are leaking. Their report is based on a guided tour of the ship in dry dock, as well as “sources intimately familiar with Freedom’s design, repairs and operations.” To make things worse, the ship has issues with underway speed. In moderate-severe Sea State 7 conditions, it’s no greater than 20 knots, with prohibitions against driving into head seas. Even in moderate Sea State 5 conditions, LCS 1 is restricted to 20 knots into head seas. POGO goes on to recommend that the USN adopt just 1 variant of the LCS, and further recommends canceling Lockheed Martin’s Freedom Class variant. POGO | Aviation Week | USNI Blog | Commander Salamander blog | U-T San Diego | POGO vs. the USN, side by side comparison.

Widespread issues with LCS 1

July 2/12: 20 more berths. Defense News reports that the Navy is acknowledging the obvious, and adding 20 more berths to USS Freedom. They’re not adding any more space, of course, but they will add 2 officer berths, 2 petty officer berths, and 16 enlisted berths. No decision has been made yet about USS Independence.

LCSs were intended to operate with a core crew of 40 sailors, plus a mission module detachment of 15 and an aviation detachment of 25. Each ship has a pair of 40-person crews (Blue and Gold), which will shift to 3 crews over time that can deploy in 4-month rotations. In order to use the additional berths, the manning plan also has to change.

Other LCS 1 Freedom Class upgrades will reportedly involve an Aqueous Film-Forming Foam system, improvements to stern ramp fender stanchions, removal of its retractable bitts; and more fire suppression sprinklers, tank level indicators, and pipe hangers. Those sorts of changes aren’t unusual for a ship at this stage.

May 22-24/12: Despite the PREINSURV report of May 7/12, The Special Trial takes place anyway with an overall good assessment. Because the Freedom was on the pier for repairs, its crew had spent too little time on it prior to the inspection, which explains some of the hiccups.

These repairs have addressed some problems like hull cracks (see April 11/11 entry) but other vexing issues remain unsolved since they have been spotted in 2008, such as water intrusion up the hawse pipe and through the aft stern doors. Navy Times.

May 7/12: A PRESINSURV report recommends not to proceed with a scheduled Special Trial, as they have found the crew unprepared with the inspection and unfamiliar with their ship. At least they had a positive attitude. It should be noted that a pre-inspection is supposed to find issues, in order to get all ducks in a row before the real deal. Gannett’s Navy Times | Information Dissemination has the verbatim memo.

April 8/12: Program unstoppable? The New York Times writes an article about the Littoral Combat Ship: “The Next War: Smaller Navy Ship Has a Rocky Past and Key Support.” The money paragraph:

“Analysts say an important factor driving the Navy and Congress is that the vessels the ships are meant to replace – frigates and minesweepers – are aging, and that there is little else in the pipeline. The combat ship is seen as too far along in production to be killed now. [Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-CA says] It’s one of those things that once the snowball goes down the hill, it just keeps rolling…. There’s no way I’m going to stop it.”

See: New York Times | DoD Buzz.

March 16/12: 4 x FY 2012 ships. The US Navy issues 2 major contracts for FY 2012 LCS ships. A $715 million contract modification to Lockheed Martin Corporation will build LCS 9 Little Rock and LCS 11 Sioux City at Marinette Marine Corporation in Marinette, WI. A $691.6 million contract modification to Austal USA will build LCS 10 Gabrielle Giffords and LCS 12 Omaha in Mobile, AL. Amounts are based on the competitive, LCS dual block buy contracts (vid. Dec 29/10), and factor in approved FY 2010-11 change orders to the designs. Note that these contracts cover just the base sea frames, and installation of separately-purchased “government furnished equipment” like weapons, etc. Mission modules in particular must be noted as an expensive “extra.”

At present, USS Freedom [LCS 1, Fr] is undergoing serious repairs at its homeport in San Diego, CA. USS Independence [LCS 2, In] is currently undergoing test and trials in Mayport, FL. Fort Worth [LCS 3, Fr] is under construction and planned to deliver in June 2012, and Coronado [LCS 4, In] is expected to deliver in early 2013. Milwaukee [LCS 5, Fr] and Jackson [LCS 6, In] are in the early stages of construction. Detroit [LCS 7, Fr] and Montgomery [LCS 8, In] are in pre-production stages. US Navy.

4 ships: 2 of each class

March 14/12: US NAVSEA issues a pair of contracts for a year of “special studies, analyses, review and Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) class services… [to] assess engineering and production challenges and evaluate the cost and schedule risks from affordability efforts to reduce LCS acquisition and lifecycle costs.” Work will last until March 2013.

The award disparity between the Freedom (Lockheed) and Independence (Austal) classes is interesting, and calls to mind the AvWeek report that suggested the need for a fundamental redesign (Jan 30/12). Maritime Memos’ Tim Colton wonders what the heck the government is thinking with the whole award. “…[T]hese are fixed-price contracts: the contractors should be doing everything they can to reduce costs and schedule at their own expense.” Which is true, but lifecycle costs are a bigger fraction, and are entirely the Navy’s problem unless there’s a contract to address them. Of course, not picking 40+ knot speeds as a key requirement would have done a lot to reduce operating costs and boost range – but it’s too late for the Navy to do that now.

Lockheed Martin Corp in Baltimore, MD receives a $33.6 million option (N00024-11-C-2300), with work to be performed in Hampton, VA (32%); Marinette, WI (27%); Moorestown, NJ (22%); and Washington, DC (19%).

Austal USA in Mobile, AL receives a $19.7 million option (N00024-11-C-2301), with work to be performed in Mobile, AL (72%) and Pittsfield, MA (28%).

March 1/12: LCS 1. Gannett’s Navy Times:

“Barely a month after leaving dockyard hands, the Freedom, first of the Navy’s new Littoral Combat Ships (LCS), is back [for a 6 week] dry dock in San Diego, this time to fix a broken shaft seal that caused minor flooding on board the ship [on Feb 1/12]… engineers from the Naval Sea Systems Command and Lockheed Martin… will pull the propeller shaft and examine the shaft and its seals to determine why and how the newly-installed seal broke. Repairs for the Freedom are covered under an Initial Support Plan contract with Lockheed-Martin…”

LCS 1 breakdown

Feb 15/12: LCS 11 & 12 named. US Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus names the next 2 Littoral Combat Ships. He keeps politics out of this naming set, naming the Freedom Class ship LCS 11 Sioux City, and the Independence Class ship LCS 12 Omaha. US Navy | Washington Times.

Feb 10/12: LCS 10 named. US Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus can’t seem to keep politics out of his ship names. He names LCS 10 after shot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords [D-AZ], even though the naming convention for LCS ships has been cities. He did the same for Rep. John Murtha [D-PA] in the San Antonio Class LPDs.

Mabus’ politicized ship naming choices have drawn fire, to the point of sponsored bills and amendments that would add congressional oversight to SecNav’s traditional prerogative. Traditionally, there has been some level of politics in the process, but it has generally involved choices that had acceptance on both sides of the aisle. The Giffords naming would qualify, but coming after Mabus’ other choices, it’s raising the heat rather than dissipating it. US DoD | Austal.

Jan 30/12: Freedom Class a lemon? Aviation Week reports that after being given copies of Aviation Week Intelligence Network (AWIN) briefings the findings of Navy and industry reports, the set of defense analysts it probed believe that the Freedom Class may need to be fundamentally redesigned.

“The analysts also call for an investigation into how the ship was accepted in such – in their view – questionable shape…”

Jan 27/12: PM removed. LCS program manager Capt. Jeffrey Riedel is reassigned out of the program by LCS Program Executive Officer Rear Adm. James Murdoch, pending an investigation into allegations of “improper conduct.” Edward Foster will serve as the acting program manager until the investigation is complete, but even if the allegations are proven false, the report says that Riedel won’t be returning. Gannett’s Navy Times.

LCS PM removed

Jan 14/12: LCS 4 launch. LCS 4 is christened Coronado, after the California city near San Diego. Note that she is not yet USS Coronado. US Navy.

Dec 19/11: Support. Lockheed Martin in Baltimore, MD receives an $11.9 million contract modification, exercising an option for core Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) class services until December 2012. They’ll assess engineering, and provide baseline and configuration management services during construction, post-delivery, test and trials for the Freedom Class.

Work will be performed in Hampton, VA (20%); Virginia Beach, VA (20%); Washington, DC (15%); Marinette, WI (13%); Moorestown, NJ (12%); Baltimore, MD (10%); Manassas, VA (7%); and Arlington, VA (3%). Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, DC, is the contracting activity (N00024-11-C-2300).

Dec 19/11: Support. Austal USA in Mobile, AL receives an $11.9 million contract modification, exercising an option for core Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) class services until December 2012. They’ll assess engineering, and provide baseline and configuration management services during construction, post-delivery, test and trials for the Independence Class.

Work will be performed in Mobile, AL (30%); Pittsfield, MA (30%); Malvern, PA (20%); Newport News, VA (13%); and various locations of less than 2% each, totaling 7% (N00024-11-C-2301).

Dec 19/11: LCS 3. Lockheed Martin in Baltimore, MD receives a $15.2 million contract modification, exercising an option for LCS 3 (future USS Fort Worth) post-delivery support. Lockheed Martin will perform the planning and implementation of deferred design changes that have been identified during the construction period, and are deemed necessary to support Fort Worth’s sailaway and follow-on post delivery test and trials.

Work will be performed in Moorestown, NJ (39%); Marinette, Wis. (34%); Hampton, VA (18%); and Washington, DC (9%). Work is expected to be completed by December 2012. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, DC, is the contracting activity (N00024-09-C-2303).

Dec 16/11: Philippines deployment? Discussions continue re: deployment of LCS ships to Singapore (vid. Dec 4/10), and reports suggest that the Philippines is also involved in discussions with the USA. The moves are said to be part of a broader US strategy to “pivot” its military focus toward the Pacific, and away from Europe. Reuters.

Nov 7/11: New LCS Office. Inside the Navy reports [subscription] that PEO-LCS has created an office dedicated to introducing the new ships to the fleet. It will be responsible for coordinating logistics, training, mission package support and ship sustainment. That sort of thing has been done before elsewhere in the Navy and US Military Sealift Command, but it’s new to the LCS following the July 11/11 merger of the ship and mission module PEOs.

Nov 2/11: LCS 5 keel. Team Lockheed Martin holds the official keel-laying ceremony for LCS 5 Milwaukee, their 3rd Freedom Class ship. Lockheed Martin.

LCS induction office

Oct 24/11: LCS 3. Lockheed Martin announces that LCS 3 Fort Worth has passed builder’s trials, and returned to Marinette Marine on Lake Michigan to prepare for Navy acceptance trials.

Oct 20/11: Cost is #1. LCS PEO Rear Adm. James Murdoch tells reporters that cost is now the overriding priority for the program, which means avoiding any changes unless there’s no choice. The flip side is that all of the 2 classes’ current weaknesses end up more or less frozen as is.

The mission modules will continue to evolve. He says that the Navy is still trying to reduce the Independence Class’ [LCS-2] preparation time to employ some of its mine-clearing mission package, so it can meet the Navy requirement to clear a (classified) area in a (classified) amount of time of a (classified) number of mines. They’re also taking steps to replace the anti-submarine USVs with simpler towed sonar arrays, which can be run at speed. Aviation Week.

FY 2011

Program shifts to dual-buy; Program SAR to $37.48 billion; LCS 5-8 bought; PEO LCS created; USS Independence corrosion issues; USS Freedom cracking issues; LCS 5-9 named; Marinette opens new facility; Saudi interest?; Official reports.

LCS-9 Little Rock Poster
Named.
(click for cutaway)

Sept 20/11: Sub-contractors. Saab and its American subsidiary Saab Sensis Corp. announce the official Sea Giraffe contract from General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems, who is the Independence Class’ platform system engineering agent. Saab’s Sea Giraffe has always been the planned radar for the LCS-2 Independence Class, and has been ordered for the first 2 ships; this just makes it official for all ships under the new contract.

The 3-D Sea Giraffe AMB is used for aerial scans, water surface scans, and weapon guidance. Land-based counterparts can even back-track incoming rockets and ballistic projectiles to their firing point, and Saab confirms reports that the naval radar can do so as well. Saab Sensis manages the US technical baseline for Sea Giraffe AMB. They will provide US based program management hardware and software adaptations, system integration, testing, and total life-cycle support to in support of the radars on Austal’s LCS design.

Sept 8/11: LCS 2. USS Independence [LCS-2] arrives in St. Petersburg, FL. The question is now how the Navy will use it. GAO reports contend that USS Freedom’s previous deployment may have set the whole program back, by removing the ship’s use as a test bed for LCS mission modules. DoD Buzz discusses what they think we know:

“We can presume the ship’s corrosion issues are resolved since it was given the green light to leave Naval Station Mayport, Fla., and that it’s seaworthy because it made the trip around the state, and that it’s handling flight operations now – the ship stood into Tampa Bay with an MH-60 helicopter on its flight deck…”

Aug 29/11: Exports? Aviation Week quotes Lockheed MS2 VP of littoral ship systems, Joe North, who says that over 21 countries have expressed interest in their LCS design. He’s the first to admit that interest does not always equate to a budget, and the article notes that Chinese frigate designs are becoming thinkable alternatives to buying a ship like the Freedom Class.

Aug 22/11: LCS 5 begins. Lockheed Martin announces the start of construction on LCS 5 Milwaukee, at Marinette Marine. The ship is due for delivery to the U.S. Navy in 2014, and is the 1st of 10 Freedom Class ships awarded to Lockheed Martin under the December 2010 Navy contract.

Meanwhile, LCS 3 Fort Worth remains on track for delivery in 2012.

Aug 5/11: Freedom Class changes. Aviation Week’s “U.S. Navy Studies And Improves LCS-1” describes the post-shakedown process, which includes design and procedure changes that are incorporated into the class. Previous hull cracking issues aren’t on USS Freedom’s PSA list, but magazine modifications and a mooring configuration change are.

Aug 2/11: Corrosion. Prospective Deputy SecDef Ashton Carter sends a written response to the bipartisan Senate letter of July 13/11. It says that USS Independence’s galvanic corrosion problem was a design flaw, which is being changed at a cost of $3.2 million, plus about $250,000 for each future ship of class. An Impressed Current Cathodic Protection System and “additional sacrificial protection design” will be applied to USS Independence during its Post Shakedown Availability, and on future ships of class prior to delivery. With respect to the damage:

“…the complex geometry of the water jet assemblies and tunnels made sufficient insulation of the aluminum hull from the steel water jet assembly difficult… corrosion on LCS 2 is concentrated in small areas in the water jet tunnels and water jet cone assemblies… transition area between the two.”

That doesn’t sound like “aggressive” corrosion, which raises questions. The original design approach apparently did include cathodic protection in the waterjets, alongside coatings and insulation, but it wasn’t enough, and some of the insulation wasn’t installed properly. The system was also designed to commercial principles, which emphasize regular repair of corrosion, but the Navy is looking for a more permanent fix.

With respect to the LCS program’s cost estimates, Carter says the Navy’s figures were based on actual offers received, so he decided that was the best program estimate to use. Full Carter letter [PDF] | Defense News. See also July 13/11, June 20-22/11, and June 17/11 entries.

Independence Class corrosion issue

Aug 1/11: LCS 6 begins. The Navy authorizes the first cutting of aluminum for the Independence Class ship LCS 6 Jackson at Austal’s Modular Manufacturing facility in Mobile, AL. US Navy.

July 27/11: Rep. Duncan D. Hunter [R-CA-52] and Rob Wittman [R-VA-1] ask the GAO to update its 2010 audit of the LCS program. Full Letter [PDF].

July 22/11: LCS 2. General Dynamics – Bath Iron Works in Bath, ME receives a $10 million cost-plus-award-fee contract modification to provide engineering and management services for advance planning and design in support of the post shakedown availability for USS Independence [LCS 2]. While Austal is the builder and contract owner, GD-BIW began the LCS competition as their bid partner, and would likely have served as the “2nd shipyard” for the trimaran design, if the Navy had pursued that requirement.

Work will be performed in Bath, ME (72%); Pittsfield, MA (20%); and Mobile, AL (8%). Work is expected to be completed by February 2013. The Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion, and Repair in Bath, Maine manages this contract (N00024-09-G-2301).

July 15/11: LCS 9 named. Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announces that the next Freedom Class ship, LCS 9, will be named USS Little Rock, in honor of Arkansas’ capital city.

The previous USS Little Rock began life as a Cleveland Class light cruiser after World War II [CL-92], and was one of 6 to be converted to a Galveston Class guided missile cruiser later on [CLG/CG-4]. She was decommissioned in 1976, and now sits in Buffalo, NY as a museum ship. US Navy.

July 13/11: Corrosion. A bipartisan group of 7 U.S. Senators sends a formal letter to the Pentagon’s Ashton Carter, asking for explanations about LCS certifications that had been waived by the Navy. Waived items included survivability-related certifications, an area that’s a known weakness for the type. Senators Webb [D-VA, former Secretary of the Navy], Begich [D-AK], McCaskill [D-MO], McCain [R-AZ], Brown [R-MA], Coburn [R-OK], and Portman [R-OH] question:

  • An April 7/11 Office of the Secretary of Defense certification to move the LCS to Milestone B, while waiving several requirements, with no explanation of why.
  • The use of Navy acquisition cost estimates, instead of those from the Pentagon’s Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) group.
  • A waiver of the need to certify program tradeoffs, granted late in the program
  • How the LCS program “will ensure reliability and minimize major cost growth in operations and sustainment costs” in light of LCS-2’s corrosion issue; they also want detailed information about the problem, and a response to the Austal CEO’s public statement.

See: Full text of letter | Gannett’s Navy Times.

July 11/11: PEO LCS Created. The US Navy formally establishes Program Executive Office, Littoral Combat Ships (PEO LCS), during a ceremony at Washington Navy Yard, in order to oversee the program. Ship construction supervision is removed fro PEO Ships, while mission module supervision is removed from PEO Littoral and Mine Warfare (PEO LMW), which is dissolved.

Per predictions made in May, Rear Adm. James A. Murdoch is placed in charge of the office, which is designed to bring all elements of the troubled program together under one roof. US Navy | Information Dissemination (May 2011) was not enthusiastic.

July 5/11: US Navy:

“The littoral combat ship USS Freedom (LCS 1) is undergoing $1.8 million in maintenance while in dry dock at BAE Systems San Diego Ship Repair. Freedom is scheduled to undock September 19, 2011.”

The accompanying picture clearly shows the single helicopter hangar, as well as the 2 boxy stern bustles, aka. “water wings,” which added at a late stage to address the type’s reserve buoyancy issues.

June 20-22/11: Corrosion. June 20-22/11: After USS Independence corrosion reports hit Austal’s share price, a company release addresses the issue. It notes the complete lack of such problems on all of Austal’s commercial and military ships to date, and suggests that the US Navy may have failed to follow basic procedures. Note that Westpac Express is a leased vessel, maintained by Austal:

“…having built over 220 aluminum vessels for defence forces and commercial clients around the world… galvanic corrosion has not been a factor on any Austal built and fully maintained vessel, and our technical experts are eager to support any request to identify root causes… The Westpac Express… has shuttled U.S. Marines throughout the Pacific Basin continuously for ten years, with a 99.7% availability over that period.

Austal has a well-developed methodology for the management of galvanic corrosion, which it has deployed globally… If selected to provide post-delivery support for the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Class Services program, it is a straight forward process for Austal engineers… deploy temporary sacrificial anodes every time the vessel is moored, and ensure that high-voltage maintenance equipment is properly grounded before use aboard ship.”

Reports that the US Navy’s temporary fix involves installing a cathodic protection system aboard USS Independence do tend to suggest several major lapses: in specifications and acceptance (US Navy), by the Design Agent (Austal), and by the contract prime (GD Bath Iron works). Information Dissemination has a different take, and thinks there are grounds for believing that Austal’s JHSV ships, which may not have a cathodic protection system either, could also be at risk:

“In the case of LCS-2, the problem was apparently accelerated by stray currents in the hull from the electrical distribution system problems the ship has been having since it was turned over to the Navy. LCS-4 doesn’t have [a cathodic protection system] either, but apparently CPS is part of the lessons learned process and was included in the fixed-price contracts for Austal versions of the LCS beginning with LCS-6. LCS-2 will have the CPS installed at the next drydock period, while Austal has said a CPS will be added to LCS-4 before the ship is turned over to the Navy. The question everyone seems to be asking is whether the JHSV could suffer the same issue… I’d be curious to know if Westpac Express has a CPS installed, or some other form of prevention is used at all.”

See: Austal release | Alabama Press-Register | Information Dissemination | WIRED Danger Room.

June 17/11: Corrosion. The US Navy has told Congressional appropriations committees that “aggressive” corrosion was found in the propulsion areas of USS Independence, which rely on Wartsila waterjets. The ship has been given temporary repairs, but permanent repairs will require dry-docking and removal of the water-jet propulsion system. The strong Australian dollar has hurt Austal’s commercial exports, so this blow to its defense business has added impetus. Bloomberg | Alabama Press-Register | Sydney Morning Herald.

Corrosion in new ships isn’t unheard of, though it’s never a good sign. Norway’s Fridtjof Nansen Class AEGIS frigates had this problem, for instance. The Independence Class runs some risks that are specific to its all-aluminum construction, however, as key subsystems with different metals create risks of galvanic corrosion. Interestingly, the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) NGO notes that:

“The Senate Armed Services Committee’s markup of the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, released today, gives the Pentagon $32.1 million to address “the DoD Corrosion Prevention and Control shortfall in funding requirements.” The Pentagon estimates that funding in this area yields an estimated 57:1 return on investment by reducing the costs for repairs and replacements of corroded systems and parts.”

June 16/11: WLD-1 launch testing. The US Navy Program Executive Office for Littoral and Mine Warfare (PEO LMW) announces the successful first time launch and recovery of the WLD-1 Remote Multi-Mission Vehicle (RMMV) semi-submerged USV from USS Independence [LCS 2], while underway near Panama, FL. The vehicle went through 5 successful cycles of deployment, towed operations and recovery, while also testing things like vehicle stability in the wake zone and remote operation.

In active use, the RMMV will tow the AN/AQS-20A sonar, and the entire Remote Minehunting System is scheduled for further testing in summer 2011 as part of the LCS MIW mine warfare module’s core AMCM system. This test matters to the LCS program for other reasons as well. The effectiveness of LCS rear launch and recovery systems has been a concern for both designs. US NAVSEA.

June 15/11: Saudi Arabia. Defense News reports that Saudi Arabia may be shifting their focus away from a fully armed variant of the Littoral Combat Ship, carrying the smaller AN/SPY-1F radar and AEGIS combat system. In its place, they received May 2011 briefings concerning DDG-51 Arleigh Burke Class destroyers displacing about 3 times the tonnage, with ballistic missile defense capability upgrades. The cost trade-off would be about 4-6 modified LCS ships, in exchange for about 2 DDG-51 Flight IIA BMD ships.

The unspoken threat here is, of course, Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs. The unspoken concern is the security of a top-level defense technology, which is critical to defending the USA and its allies, in Saudi hands.

To date, the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke class has never been exported per se, though their AEGIS combat system and accompanying AN/SPY-1D radars have. Another possible option for Saudi Arabia would be used US Navy DDG-51 Flight I ships, upgraded with AEGIS BMD. That would allow the Saudis to field more ships for the same money, if an agreement was reached. The costs would lie in questions about hull life and length of service, and the Flight Is’ lack of a helicopter hangar. Helicopters have been shown to be essential defenses against speedboat threats, of the kind that Iran fields in the Persian/Arabian Gulf. Defense News | Information Dissemination.

June 4/11: LCS to Singapore. In a speech made at this year’s Shangri-La Dialogue, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates disclosed US plans to deploy new littoral combat ships (LCS) to Singapore. US Navy ships routinely stop in Singapore, but these would be the first US Navy ships permanently deployed there. SecDef Gates speech transcript | East Asia Forum.

June 2/11: Sub-contractors. Taber Extrusions LLC announces contracts to supply extruded aluminum products for JHSV 3 Fortitude, and LCS 6 Jackson, from its facilities in Russellville, AR and Gulfport, MS. Some structural extrusions for both ships will also be manufactured by Taber and supplied to Austal through a contract with O’Neal Steel Corp.

Taber has an 8,600 ton extrusion press with a rectangular container and billet configuration. The firm says that compared with smaller presses and round containers, their tool gives superior metal flow patterns with much tighter tolerances for flatness, straightness and twist; and better assurance of critical thickness dimensions. The resulting wide multi-void extrusions are friction stir welded into panels, and tight tolerances improve productivity while reducing downstream scrap. When finished, they make up some of the ship’s decking, superstructure and bulkheads.

April 15/11: LCS SAR. The Pentagon’s Selected Acquisitions Report ending Dec 30/10 include the LCS program:

“Procurement and construction cost estimates for LCS have been incorporated into the SAR following approval of Milestone B (entry into Engineering and Manufacturing Development) on April 8, 2011. Previous reports were limited to development costs… Since the December 2009 SAR, development costs increased $1,080.4 million (+3.0 percent) from $36,358.4 million to $37,438.8 million, due primarily to fully funding the required planning and execution of the post-Milestone B program, to include the requirements for developmental/operational testing and live fire test and evaluation (+$822.0 million). There are also increases to complete shipboard trainers (+$189.3 million) and post delivery efforts for LCS-1 and LCS-2 (+$60.9 million).”

Costs rising

April 11/11: Cracking. DoD Buzz relays US Navy LCS program manager Capt. Jeff Riedel’s words, from a briefing at the US Navy League’s annual Sea, Air Space conference. He says it isn’t a design issue – or is it?:

“Both Lockheed and the Navy are going through their final review that should be available in the next couple of weeks… The design is adequate, how I build it is a different story… If I was able to weld it as it was designed to be welded, it wouldn’t have been an issue. The real issue was, getting access to that area to be able to do the weld… We modeled the superstructure and we found that we had areas that were high stress areas, so we would expect, potentially, a crack to occur in that high-stress area… So we instrumented the superstructure and we used that instrumentation to validate the model and in fact, we’re now using that to better the design… for LCS-3 and following we’ve gone back and changed the design so we can reduce those stress areas.”

Beginning with LCS-3, Riedel says that the spot on the ship where the crack occurred was made easier for welders to reach, allowing them to lay an extra thick weld.

March 25/11: LCS 6 & 8 named. US Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announces that the Freedom Class LCS 6 will be named the USS Jackson, after Mississippi’s state capitol, and LCS 8 will be named the USS Montgomery, after Alabama’s state capitol. US DoD

March 18/11: Freedom, cracked. US NAVSEA reveals that Team Lockheed’s LCS-1 Freedom has already experienced a 6-inch outside/ 3-inch inside horizontal hull crack, located below the waterline in the steel hull, during a heavy weather ocean trial. It leaked 5 gallons an hour, and originated in a weld seam between steel plates. The ship returned to port in San Diego at 8 knots, avoiding rough seas, and the crack was patched with a cofferdam by March 12/11. NAVSEA is reviewing the class’ design, construction drawings and welding procedures.

In response to questions, NAVSEA spokesman Christopher Johnson emailed Bloomberg to add that welding “defects” also showed up as smaller cracks in the welds of USS Freedom’s aluminum superstructure during 2010 sea trials. Changes apparently already have been made in the ship’s design to correct the superstructure stress.

Discussions with people who have been involved in shipbuilding produced a range of reactions, but the fact that the larger crack was found in the steel hull, not the aluminum superstructure, is significant. Aluminum is a tricky material for ships, precisely because of its tendency to crack. One sailor recalled being able to see daylight from inside a level 2 office in the USS Newport LST (now Mexico’s ARM Papaloapan), thanks to cracks at the welds in its aluminum superstructure. Steel is supposed to be less troublesome that way. The overall tenor was that cracks typically first appear near the areas that ‘want to move’ as the ship flexes, but are overly restrained from doing so. That is said to make cracks more of a design issue, and less of a welding issue, though poor welding or poor steel quality can cause problems. One question asked was about expansion joints, which allow the middle part of the ship that gets the most bending to be able to give up those forces in the rubber expansion joint. Many older frigates have an expansion joint at the middle of the ship, for instance, and if this was eliminated in the LCS design, that would more strongly suggest a design issue. Bloomberg (note that USS Independence, referenced as having better welds, is in fact Austal’s ship) | Defense News | Fort Worth Star Telegram | Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel Online.

LCS 1 cracks

March 18/11: LCS 5 & 7 named. US Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announces that the next 2 Freedom Class ships built by Lockheed Martin will be named the USS Milwaukee [LCS 5] and the USS Detroit [LCS 7]. LCS 3 Fort Worth is said to be about 85% complete at the moment, and on schedule for 2012 delivery. LCS 5 Milwaukee will begin construction in the summer of 2011, while LCS 7 Detroit isn’t expected to begin construction until May 2012.

The last ship named USS Detroit was a Sacramento Class fast support ship, T-AOE-4. It was decommissioned in 2005. The last ship named USS Milwaukee was T-AOR-2, a Wichita Class oiler that was decommissioned in 1994. US Navy | Alabama Press Register | Detroit Free Press | Australia’s Herald Sun (Victoria/ Melbourne) | Green Bay Press-Gazette | West Australia Business News.

March 17/11: 4 ships in FY 2011. The budget calls for 1 ship from each contractor. Note, however, that these awards don’t include the purchase of Government Furnished Equipment on board, or of the mission module needed to make the ships operational.

Lockheed Martin Corp. in Baltimore, MD receives a $376.6 million contract modification for 1 Freedom Class ship, LCS 7 Detroit. Work will be performed in Marinette, WI (56%); Walpole, MA (14%); Washington, DC (12%); Oldsmar, FL (4%); Beloit, WI (3%); Moorestown, NJ (2%); Minneapolis, MN (2%); and various locations of less than 1% each, totaling 7%. Work is expected to be complete by April 2016 (N00024-11-C-2300).

Marinette Marine Co.’s President, Richard McCreary, says the firm expects to recall all 110 laid off employees by the summer, and add about 40 employees per month in August & September 2011.

Austal USA in Mobile, AL receives a $368.6 million contract modification for 1 Independence Class ship, LCS 8. Work will be performed in Mobile, AL (51%); Pittsfield, MA (13%); Cincinnati, OH (4%); Baltimore, MD (2%); Burlington, VT (2%); New Orleans, LA (2%); and various locations of less than 2% each, totaling 26%. Work is expected to be complete by October 2015 (N00024-11-C-2301). See also Austal | Lockheed Martin | Aviation Week | defpro | Philadelphia Inquirer | Upper Michigan Source.

FY 2011 order: LCS-7 & LCS-8

March 15/11: Support. Contracts to the 2 shipbuilders for Littoral Combat Ship class services, funding efforts to “assess engineering and production challenges and evaluate the cost and schedule risks from affordability efforts to reduce LCS acquisition and lifecycle costs.”

Lockheed Martin Corp. in Baltimore, MD receives $34.1 million contract modification. Work will be performed in Hampton, VA (31%); Marinette, WI (25%); Washington, DC (24%); and Moorestown, NJ (20%); and is expected to be complete by March 2012 (N00024-11-C-2300).

Austal USA in Mobile, AL receives a $19.7 million contract modification. Work will be performed in Mobile, AL (83%), and Pittsfield, MA (17%); and is expected to be complete by March 2012 (N00024-11-C-2301).

March 8/11: Controversy. The Senate Armed Services Committee holds hearings regarding the Navy’s FY 2012 Navy budget and longer-term plan. SecNav Ray Mabus outlines the Navy’s view of the approved multi-year buy strategy.

“With an average cost of $440 million per ship, and with the cost reductions we have seen demonstrated on LCS 3 and 4, the Navy will save taxpayers approximately $1.9 billion in FY12-FY16. More importantly, the fact that prices were so dramatically reduced from the initial bids in 2009 will allow us to save an additional $1 billion – for a total of $2.9 billion – through the dual award of a ten-ship contract to each bidder.”

On the other hand, ranking member Sen. McCain continues to express concerns re: the LCS acquisition plan, though the multi-ship buy has been approved:

“As you probably know, I continue to think the Navy made a big mistake in going forward with a dual-source strategy on the LCS program. I believe that the true lifecycle costs of buying and sustaining both ships will be considerably more than what the Navy told us. I do not believe it is wise for Congress to authorize what amounts to a ‘bulk buy’ on a program without proving that its key aspects will work as intended and that its sustainability costs are reasonable. In the case of LCS, the Navy could not tell Congress what its plans are for the two different combat systems for the two designs; and, the combined capability of the mission packages with the sea-frames, which gives the ships combat power, remains unproven. I am concerned that the costs of operating and sustaining both variants will eventually require moving to a single combat system or going to a common propulsion and mechanical system. If that is where affordability concerns drive the Navy, why are we buying two versions of this ship?”

See: SASC Hearings record | Sen. Levin (chair) floor statement | Sen. McCain floor statement.

March 7/11: Industrial. Fincantieri subsidiary Marinette Marine Corporation breaks ground for a new panel-line fabrication building to support construction of the U.S. Navy’s Freedom-class LCS. It will use more automation, improve raw material storage, and cut the distance ship modules have to travel during construction. It’s part of a 5-year, $100 million modernization plan by the shipyard’s new parent company, and builds on 2009 improvements that included higher-capacity overhead cranes, plasma-cutting tables and pipe-bending machines.

In addition to this groundbreaking, Marinette Marine also marked the opening of its professional center and the completion of a project to expand its main indoor ship construction building. This expansion project nearly doubles the building’s size, creating enough space to house 2 complete LCS hulls and parts for 2 additional ships. The firm’s counterpart, Austal, has also been investing in major facility improvements at its Gulf Coast shipyard. Marinette Marine [PDF] | Lockheed Martin.

Feb 1/11: Sub-contractors. EADS North America announces a contract from Lockheed Martin to supply its TRS-3D radar for up to 10 Freedom Class Littoral Combat Ships through 2015. Under the terms of its contract, EADS North America will deliver the 1st radar unit to Lockheed Martin for installation in 2012.

Within the US armed forces, the TRS-3D also serves aboard the Coast Guard’s new frigate-sized National Security Cutters. Austal’s Independence Class trimarans use Saab’s Sea Giraffe AMB radar instead.

Jan 17/10: Sub-contractors. Fairbanks Morse announces a contract from Lockheed Martin for 2 of its 17,000 bhp Colt-Pielstick 16-cylinder PA6B STC diesel engines, to power the Freedom Class LCS 5 ordered in December 2010. The engines will be manufactured and tested at the company’s facility in Beloit, WI, in accordance with American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) Naval Vessel Rules.

Price is not disclosed. If the entire set of 10 ships is ordered, the firm would provide 20 diesel engines.

It may be presumed that Austal is busy working on contracts with its engine suppliers as well: GE (LM2500 turbines) and MTU (800 series diesel).

Jan 17/10: Sub-contractors. Rolls Royce Marine announces an immediate contract from Lockheed Martin for 2 more of its 36MW MT30 gas turbines, as part of a larger contract to equip up to 10 Freedom Class ships.

The MT30 is derived from the firm’s Trent engines that outfit large passenger jets. In the US Navy, the MT30 also serves on the forthcoming fleet of 3 DDG-1000 Zumwalt Class destroyers. Each LCS-1 Freedom Class ship takes 2 turbines, so the total order would be 20 if all 10 Freedom Class ships are ordered. Price is not disclosed, and the release adds that:

“In addition to gas turbines and waterjets, a significant range of Rolls-Royce equipment is specified in the Lockheed Martin design, including shaftlines, bearings and propulsion system software.”

They have not been trouble-free, however: see esp. Sept 29/10 entry.

LCS 1 & 2
Build ’em both!
(click to view full)

Dec 30/10: Dual Buy. Now that the provisional spending authority is approved along with the Navy’s revised dual-buy plan, the Navy issues 2010-2015 block buy contracts to Austal and to Lockheed Martin. The contract includes options for up to 9 additional vessels in the following 5 years, plus post delivery support, additional crew and shore support, special studies, class services, class standard equipment support, economic order quantity equipment. These contracts were competitively procured via the Federal Business Opportunities website, with 2 offers received.

Freedom class monohulls: Lockheed Martin Corp. in Baltimore, MD receives a fixed-price-incentive contract (vid. Dec 8/10 entry) for $491.6 million: $436.9 million for a Freedom class ship, and $54.7 million for technical data package, core class services, provisioned items orders, ordering, a not-to-exceed line item for non-recurring engineering, and data items. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year, except FY 2010 RDT&E funds.

Fincantieri’s Marinette Marine Corporation will build the ships, and naval architect Gibbs & Cox will provide engineering and design support. Work will be performed in Marinette, WI (56%); Walpole, MA (14%); Washington, DC (12%); Oldsmar, FL (4%); Beloit, WI (3%); Moorestown, NJ (2%); Minneapolis, MI (2%); and various locations of less than 1 percent (7%). Work is expected to be complete by August 2015.

If all 10 Freedom class ships are bought, the given cumulative value is $4.07 billion. If the Navy exercises options according to the previous procurement approach instead, and looks in 2012 for a 2nd source to build 5 more ships, the contract could rise to $4.571 billion, including selected ship systems equipment for a 2nd source builder and selected ship system integration and test for a 2nd source (N00024-11-C-2300).

Independence class trimarans: Austal USA, LLC in Mobile, AL receives a fixed-price-incentive contract (vid. Dec 8/10 entry) for $465.5 million: $432.1 million to build an Independence class LCS, plus $33.4 million for technical data package, core class services, provisioned items orders, ordering, a not-to-exceed line item for non-recurring engineering, and data items. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year, except FY 2010 RDT&E funds.

This brings Austal’s total order book to A$ 1.3 billion; the same shipyard is also building the US Navy’s JHSV fast-transport catamarans. Austal is beginning LCS-related preparation work beyond its investments to date, including a $140 million facility expansion and workforce development program over the next 12 months, which will more than double Austal’s workforce to 3,800 employees. Construction of the first LCS vessel will begin in early 2012, and it’s currently scheduled for delivery by June 2015. Work will be performed in Mobile, AL (50%); Pittsfield, MA (17%); Cincinnati, OH (3%); Baltimore, MD (2%); Burlington, VT (2%); New Orleans, LA (2%); and various locations of less than 2 percent each (24%).

If all 10 Independence class ships are bought, the given cumulative value is $3.786 billion. If the Navy exercises options according to the previous procurement approach instead, and looks in 2012 for a 2nd source to build 5 more ships, including selected ship systems equipment for a 2nd source and selected ship system integration and test for a 2nd source, the contract could rise to $4.386 billion (N00024-11-C-2301).

Note that these prices do not reflect the additional cost of Government Furnished Equipment, including all weapons, mission modules, etc. Those additional costs can be expected to be comfortably over $100 million per ship. See also US Navy | Austal | Lockheed Martin | Defense Tech.

Dual buy contract for up to 20 ships

Dec 22/10: Budgets. The US Senate passes H.R. 6523, the House’s Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011. Having passed in identical form in both the House and Senate, it was introduced to the President to be signed on Dec 29/10. US Senate [PDF]. See also Aviation Week debate coverage | Sen. McCain’s [R-AZ] floor statement, against inclusion of the LCS.

Dec 21/10: Budgets. The US house of Representatives’ “lame duck” session of outgoing Congresspeople passes a new continuing resolution proposed by Senate Democrats to keep the government running through early 2011. The only arms-program-specific language in the legislation says that: “Subject to the availability of appropriations, the Secretary of the Navy may award a contract or contracts for up to 20 Littoral Combat Ships”.

On the other hand, the funding will not extend through the end of the fiscal year on Sept 30/11, as the incoming House and Senate will have full opportunity to pass their own budget. Gannett’s Navy Times.

Dec 14/10: GAO Report. The US Senate Armed Services Committee holds hearings regarding the proposed LCS program change. Reuters | See esp. the US GAO testimony: “Defense Acquisitions: Realizing Savings under Different Littoral Combat Ship Acquisition Strategies Depends on Successful Management of Risks,” which generally echoes their Dec 8/10 report.

Dec 13/10: Competition. Lockheed Martin and Austal extend their bid price offers to Dec 30/11, to allow extra time to finalize contracts at current prices. That’s necessary for 2 reasons. One is the funding uncertainty and turmoil created by continuing resolutions, as the 112th Congress tries to clean up the budgetless mess left by the last Congress. The other, related issue is that the latest LCS acquisition plan hasn’t been approved by Congress yet. Ranking Senate Armed Services Committee member Sen. John McCain [R-AZ] continues to oppose approval of that new acquisition plan, pending clarity on combat effectiveness and long-term costs. Green Bay Press Gazette.

Dec 10/10: CBO Report. The US Congressional Budget Office releases its report on the proposed program change: “Cost Implications of the Navy’s Plans for Acquiring Littoral Combat Ships” [PDF]. The CBO often has different cost estimates than the US Navy – and CBO’s higher estimates have a history of being right. In this case, however, they acknowledge that they’re handicapped by not seeing the shipyard bids.

They see the central issues as twofold. One is future operating and maintenance costs, which the GAO has also flagged as a serious issue. Maintaining 2 types is both a plus and a minus. That could really help the fleet if one design performs better, and right bow, data is limited. n the other hand, it also means additional spares, maintenance and training infrastructure, which may have to be duplicated on both coasts depending on deployment plans.

The other issue is the hardwired central combat systems, which are said to cost about $70 million per ship. They’re a topic of special attention in the report, as they’re different for the 2 ship designs. On the other hand, aligning them to allow common upgrades and maintenance would result in high retrofit costs down the road. Some estimates place the cost between $910 million – $1.8 billion. See also subsequent coverage of the combat system issue by Aviation Week | Gannett’s Navy Times.

Dec 8/10: GAO report on buy strategy. The US GAO releases its report – “Navy’s Proposed Dual Award Acquisition Strategy for the Littoral Combat Ship Program.” They still see the program as risky, and the risks are inherent in the design, concept, and execution, not the procurement strategy. The Navy doesn’t really understand operating and maintenance costs for the designs yet, which creates a big budget risk, though building both ships may hedge against the risks that one design turns out to be poor in this or other areas. Most significantly, the GAO points to a chronic and serious problem that has destroyed cost estimates for previous ship classes:

“In an effort to address technical issues on the first two ships, the Navy has implemented design changes for… LCS 3 and LCS 4… [that are] not yet complete. These changes are significant and have affected the configuration of several major ship systems including propulsion, communications, electrical, and navigation. In addition, launch, handling, and recovery systems for both designs are still being refined… contract modifications will need to be negotiated and priced. According to the Navy, it estimates funding requirements for these change orders to total 5 percent for all future follow-on ships produced… In addition, Navy officials stated that the seaframe solicitation includes a provision that agreed to design changes are “not to exceed” $12 million – a feature that Navy officials state will bound government cost risk due to design changes. Pending full identification and resolution of deficiencies affecting the lead ships, the Navy’s ability to stay within its budgeted limits remains to be seen.”

While the US Navy says that designs for LCS 3 & 4 are stable as built, the GAO points out that this is because key changes have been deferred until post-delivery. As testing reveals other issues, the amount of deferred work for follow-on ships “can reasonably be expected to grow.” See also Bloomberg.

Dec 6/10: LCS-2. USS Independence (LCS 2) arrives at BAE Systems Ship Repair in Norfolk, VA to begin its first industrial post-delivery availability. During the availability, the ship will complete the installation of needed components not installed during construction. US Navy.

Dec 4/10: LCS 3 launched. The 2nd Freedom-class LCS, USS Fort Worth (LCS 3), is launched at the Marinette Marine shipyard, on the Menominee River. Lockheed Martin | Argon ST [PDF].

Nov 4/10: LCS Plan #5. The US Navy looks over the bids, and applies to Congress to change the procurement strategy one more time. The bids appear to be low enough that the Navy thinks it can order 20 ships total (10 from each builder), and bulk up the fleet sooner, for the amount it had budgeted to field 15 ships using a 10 + 5 split.

Congress must take action to authorize the proposed 2 block buys by mid-December 2010, or the Navy is likely to end up with its default approach of awarding one 10-ship contract. US Navy | Aviation Week | James Hasik | Reuters.

5th plan the charm?

Oct 26/10: Saudi Arabia. Lockheed Martin MS2 President Orlando Carvalho confirms that his company has supplied price and availability information on its version of the littoral combat ship (LCS) to Saudi Arabia, which is looking to buy 8 modern frigate-sized warships. Lockheed is proposing a very different LCS, configured as a frigate equipped with AN/SPY-1F radars, an AEGIS combat system, and set equipment instead of mission modules.

It remains understood the Saudi authorities are waiting to see which LCS version the U.S. Navy chooses, but the ship’s capabilities might be well suited to the Arabian/Persian Gulf’s shallow waters. At Euronaval 2010, a French official reportedly said that France is hoping to sell between 4-6 FREMM frigates for the Saudis’ western (Red Sea and Indian Ocean) fleet, while the LCS was seen as likely for the eastern (Gulf) fleet. Defense News | Shephard Group | Tactical Report.

Oct 14/10: CRS Report. The Congressional Research Service issues its updated report: “Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program: Background, Issues, and Options for Congress” [PDF]. It offers details concerning the program’s history and current plans. Key issues examined include:

  • Whether Congress had adequate time to review the latest procurement strategy in 2010
  • Whether the Navy’s new plan gives it enough time to really evaluate how the initial ships of class perform
  • Whether the price-focused RFP properly balances sticker price against life-cycle operation and support (O&S) costs and ship capability
  • What happens if the Navy picks a winner, and the winner can’t deliver to cost?
  • How does the Navy plan to evolve the winning ship’s combat system to a configuration that has greater commonality with one or more existing Navy surface ship combat systems?
  • What are the Navy’s longer-term plans regarding the 2 “orphan” ships from the LCS class that isn’t picked?
  • What potential alternatives are there to the Navy’s new acquisition strategy? CRS cites block buys of both types, Profit Related to Offer bidding, and having the Navy buy the combat system separately.
  • In light of the cost growth, is the LCS program still cost-effective? What is the LCS sea frame unit procurement cost above which the Navy would no longer consider the LCS program cost-effective?

Other concerns include survivability, and CRS quotes the December 2009 report from the Pentagon’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation:

“LCS was designated by the Navy as a Level I survivability combatant ship, but neither design is expected to achieve the degree of shock hardening as required by the CDD [Capabilities Development Document]… Only a few selected subsystems will be shock hardened… Accordingly, the full, traditional rigor of Navy-mandated ship shock trials is not achievable, due to the damage that would be sustained by the ship… The LCS LFT&E [Live Fire Test and Evaluation] program has been hampered by the Navy’s lack of credible modeling and simulation tools for assessing the vulnerabilities of ships constructed to primarily commercial standards (American Bureau of Shipping Naval Vessel Rules and High Speed Naval Craft Code), particularly aluminum and non-traditional hull forms. Legacy LFT&E models were not developed for these non-traditional factors, nor have they been accredited for such use. These knowledge gaps undermine the credibility of the modeling and simulation, and increase the amount of surrogate testing required for an adequate LFT&E program. The LCS is not expected to be survivable in a hostile combat environment as evidenced by the limited shock hardened design and results of full scale testing of representative hull structures completed in December 2006.”

See the US Naval Institute blog’s take on the report as well, with a particular focus on survivability and the lessons of littoral naval combat. One excerpt from the full report discusses an important procedural point:

“The Navy had earlier planned to make the down select decision and award the contract to build the 10 LCSs sometime this past summer, but the decision was delayed and reportedly will now occur within 90 days of September 15 – the date by which the two industry teams were told by the Navy to submit new proposal revisions. On this basis, it would appear that the decision could be announced as late as December 14. On October 12, 2010, it was reported that a Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) review meeting on the LCS program that was scheduled for October 29 has been postponed to a later date that has not been set. The Navy states that it cannot announce its down select decision and award a contract to the winner until after the DAB meeting occurs.”

FY 2010

RFP released, but decision delayed; Clarity on LCS 3-4 costs; LCS “not survivable in a hostile combat environment”; LCS concept fails in Persian Gulf war game; USS Freedom [LCS 1] deploys with US Coast Guard aboard; USS Independence [LCS 2] commissioned; LCS 1’s MT30 engine problems; Austal/GD team splits; Official reports.

MT30
MT30 turbine
(click to view full)

Sept 29/10: MT30 improvements. Rolls-Royce Naval Marine, Inc. in Walpole, MA received a $9.8 million cost-plus fixed-fee, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract for “engineering and technical services on the Rolls-Royce gas turbine engine product improvement program. This contract is being awarded to research potential improvements to Rolls Royce gas turbine engines. Delivery Order 0001 will be issued on the same day of contract award with initial contract funding in the amount of $800,000.”

Work will be performed in Walpole, MA (70%), and Indianapolis, IN (30%), and is expected to be complete by September 2015. $800,000 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, which is Sept 30/10. This contract was not competitively procured by the Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division, Ship Systems Engineering Station in Philadelphia, PA (N65540-09-D-0016).

DID has not tied this contract directly to the LCS program yet, but a search through US Navy ship types didn’t reveal any ships using Rolls Royce gas turbines, except LCS 1.

Sept 23/10: MT30 problems. Gannett’s Navy Times reports that USS Freedom [LCS 1] shut down its gas turbine engines on Sept 12/10, while operating off southern California. The Rolls-Royce MT30 gas turbines had “high vibration indications” in the starboard engine, and the ship returned to port using its diesel engines. Subsequent examination showed that turbine blading had broken off, damaging the turbine.

Lockheed Martin’s monohull design uses MT30 engines, instead of GE’s less powerful LM2500 which is used in the Austal trimarans, and in most current US Navy surface combatants. The US Navy will conduct USS Freedom’s engine changeout in Port Hueneme, CA, which is seen as being similar to the likely locations in which a deployed LCS would have to do this sort of operation. The Navy has scheduled a week’s time for the complete procedure.

LCS-1 engine issues

Sept 15/10: Bids in. Final bids for the latest incarnation of the Littoral Combat Ship contract are in from Lockheed Martin and Austal USA. Lockheed Martin | Defense News.

Sept 14/10: Politics. The Senate defense appropriations subcommittee votes to fund just 1 Littoral Combat Ship in FY 2011, instead of 2. That’s a long way from being the final word on the matter, but chairman Sen. Daniel Inouye [D-HI] reportedly says that:

“…two ships funded in 2010 have not yet been contracted. Under the new plan, the Navy would seek to award four ships to a single contractor in the coming year. There is virtually no way that the winning contractor would be able to begin construction of four ships in 2011.” Funding for one ship in 2011 “is more than adequate,” he said. And it saves $615 million.”

See: Gannett’s Navy Times | Information Dissemination.

Sept 14/10: Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia may be interested in the LCS as part of its rumored $60 billion weapons package. Despite previous focus on Austal’s trimaran design, a Washington Post report says that:

“The official said the Saudis continue to have internal discussions about those purchases and are watching to see the outcome of a competition to build a new Littoral Combat Ship.”

Sept 9/10: LCS a Lemon? In a piece called “Red Flags Everywhere,” influential naval blog Information Dissemination, which has generally been mildly supportive of the program, says:

“There isn’t just one thing wrong with the Littoral Combat Ship program – every thing is wrong with this program. There are so many red flags waiving frantically in the face of Congress, the Navy, and any casual observer in regards to the Littoral Combat Ship I feel like I am standing roadside in Beijing during a Party propaganda parade… The Littoral Combat Ship has traded survivability, armor, endurance, weapon payloads, cost efficiency, and reduced operational capabilities across the board for the advantage of speed. What is this advantage of speed that makes the trade off worth it? What is 40 knots giving the Navy’s new small combatant that 28 knots can’t?”

The piece comes in response to a generally supportive Lexington Institute piece:

“More recently, the Navy seemed to have the LCS program under control… Understanding the importance of the LCS, the Navy responded to initial problems with the basic ships or sea frames with the necessary attention, expertise and resources. The same effort must now be devoted to the development of working mission packages. This also includes developing the desired unmanned systems, particularly for subsurface operations.”

Sept 1/10: War Game Fail. Defense Tech reports:

“A recent Pentagon war game that ran the Navy’s new Littoral Combat Ship through simulated combat in the Gulf didn’t unfold quite as expected, according to participants… The war game featured the trouble-making Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps navy… Seeing their small boat swarm shot-up, the Iranians dispatched a bunch of small, air-breathing submarines to attack the LCS flotilla. The LCSs were forced to steam down to Diego Garcia to switch out the surface warfare modules with the anti-submarine warfare packages. That scenario repeated itself every time the Iranians changed up their attack and wrong-footed the LCS flotilla [due to the long change-out times].”

Designing the mission modules to be swappable by helicopter, and having medium-lift helicopters in the Navy with higher lift capacity then the planned H-60 models, might alleviate that problem. Neither approach has been taken.

LCS fails in war game

Aug 31/10: GAO Report. US GAO report #GAO-10-523 on the LCS program sees problems. “Defense Acquisitions: Navy’s Ability to Overcome Challenges Facing the Littoral Combat Ship Will Determine Eventual Capabilities.” Key excerpts:

“The Navy plans to invest over $25 billion through fiscal year 2035 to acquire LCS. However, recurring cost growth and schedule delays have jeopardized the Navy’s ability to deliver promised LCS capabilities… technical issues with the first two seaframes have yet to be fully resolved… Challenges developing mission packages have delayed the timely fielding of promised capabilities, limiting the ships’ utility to the fleet during initial deployments… Key mine countermeasures and surface warfare systems encountered problems in operational and other testing that delayed their fielding…”

With respect to the ships themselves:

“The Navy has required LCS seaframes to meet Level 1 survivability standards. Ships built to Level 1 are expected to operate in the least severe environment, away from the area where a carrier group is operating or the general war-at-sea region… Current ships in the fleet built to the Level 1 standard include material support ships, mine-warfare vessels, and patrol combatants.”

“…In our work on shipbuilding best practices, we found that achieving design stability before start of fabrication is a key step… Addressing [LCS 1 and 2] technical issues has required the Navy to implement design changes at the same time LCS 3 and LCS 4 are being built… Our analysis of the procurement section of the LCS total ownership cost baseline found the estimate lacks several characteristics essential to a high-quality cost estimate.”

See also the LCS Ancillaries: Mission Module & Weapon Contracts & Key Events section for additional excerpts related to those areas, and “MH-60S Airborne Mine Counter-Measures Continues Development” for in-depth reports on the mine warfare mission module components. See also: Aviation Week | Information Dissemination on the larger cultural issues this report speaks to.

Aug 29/10: LCS 3s. DoD Buzz reports that “Lockheed Martin, with just a five-week head start, has completed 60 percent of LCS 3, compared to Austal, whose LCS 4 is only 26 percent complete.” Why is that? It’s partly because Lockheed Martin reused work done on the original LCS 3 contract, which was canceled mid-stride. Lockheed Martin MS2 business development director Paul Lemmo:

“Lemmo also pointed out that Lockheed Martin has kept parts and materials left over from the previously terminated LCS-3. The Navy originally terminated Lockheed Martin’s second LCS in April 2007… [but] the company decided to continue manufacturing about 50 to 55 systems all the way to their completion… “Those systems have been in storage either at the manufacturer or at some of our facilities and they will be brought to bear on the ship,” [Lemmo] said. “The value of that material is about at least half of the total value of the material on the ship. Half the material needed for Fort Worth was already purchased. Generically a lot of it is long-lead propulsion machinery–the engine, the gas turbines, diesels, gears, water jets, shafting, those kinds of things…what was on order.”

See: DoD Buzz | Defense Daily.

Aug 23/10: Selection delayed. The US Navy delays its final selection for the new Littoral Combat Ship contract. The decision appears to have been pushed back to Dec 30/10, but the exact date in unclear. Defense News.

April 12/10: Competition. Lockheed Martin announces that its industry team has submitted its proposal for the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) fiscal year 2010-2014 contract to the U.S. Navy today. The Navy will award the winning team a fixed-price incentive fee contract to provide up to 10 ships with combat systems, as well as combat systems for 5 additional ships, to be built at a second shipyard.

April 1/10: LCS SAR. The Pentagon releases its April 2010 Selected Acquisitions Report, covering major program changes up to December 2009. One of the changes involves the Littoral Combat Ship, while another involves an ancillary system and is covered in that section. For the LCS “seaframe” itself:

“Program costs [DID: for the initial development effort] increased $883.9 million (+31.0%) from $2,848.6 million to $3,732.5 million, due to additional development and support for the mission package test program, seaframe testing, and crew training (+$241.5 million). There were also increases for the procurement of additional mission packages (+$183.6 million), a revised estimate for development, planning, and execution of Flight 0 and Flight 0+ (+$157.2 million), a revised estimate for seaframe pricing due to cost growth (+$131.5 million), changes to mission module development and phasing (+$77.8 million), additional funding for a technical data package (+$59.8 million), and the re-phasing of work due to a change in the schedule for Flight 0 (+$44.8 million).”

Cost increases

March 31/10: LCS 2. Aviation Week Ares describes the current state of USS Independence [LCS 2]. At this point, its captain says that she’s still in the pre-tactical risk mitigation stage. The crew is becoming familiar with the ship, and performing basic tasks like air defense testing, fast acceleration and deceleration, putting fast boats in the water while at sea, etc.

March 30/10: GAO Report. The US GAO issues report #GAO-10-388SP, its 2010 Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs.

With respect to the Littoral Combat Ship, the report places the program far below the desired level of technology and manufacturing knowledge for a program at this stage. Compared to its 2004 baseline, which was itself about 150% of original cost-per unit estimates, LCS R&D costs have increased by 169.2% of baseline. Procurement cost for the initial capability ships is up by a stunning 505.3%, total program cost for initial fielding has risen 285.9%, and acquisition cycle time rose 139% over the original baseline. The report also flags LCS weight increases that have led to LCS 1 stability issues due to a higher center of gravity, and mission modules that are only partially capable.

Mission Module findings are detailed in the Ancillaries section, but the key takeaway is that they’re not ready for effective service yet – and the ship’s chosen missile armament could become a serious problem.

March 22/10: Support. Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems & Sensors in Baltimore, MD receives a $14.1 million modification to a previously awarded contract (N00024-09-C-2303) to provide engineering, program, and technical support for LCS class ships. This includes class baseline design services, class configuration management services, class documentation services, ship interim support, ship systems development, and other technical and engineering analyses.

Work will be performed in Norfolk, VA (41%), Moorestown, NJ (16%), Baltimore, MD (15%), Marinette, WI (14%), Washington, DC (8%), Arlington, VA (6%), and is expected to be complete by December 2010.

March 20/10: Costs. Inside the Navy:

“The Navy does not ask competing Littoral Combat Ship builders Austal USA and Lockheed Martin to arrive at an exact dollar figure for how much each bidder’s ship will cost over its lifespan in the current request for proposals for what will be the winning LCS design, sources told Inside the Navy last week. Yet, the sea service wants the competitors to “qualitatively: explain how they will manage “total ownership costs” in the future…”

March 16/10: Cracking. Reuters reports on a recent US Navy SBIR research solicitation, aimed at more quickly and cheaply diagnosing cracking in aluminum ship structures. From US Navy SBIR N10A-T041: “Fracture Evaluation and Design Tool for Welded Aluminum Ship Structures Subjected to Impulsive Dynamic Loading” :

“A new analysis tool combined with an experimental validation protocol is needed to accurately characterize the dynamic response and fracture behavior of welded aluminum ship structures subjected to extreme loading events. The goal of this effort is to develop an explicit dynamic failure prediction toolkit for fracture assessment of welded thin-walled aluminum structures. To efficiently characterize a large size ship structure, innovative modeling techniques using fractured shell elements are needed along with a mesh independent crack insertion and propagation capability. In addition to innovative crack simulation in a shell structure, advanced constitutive models have to be implemented in the toolkit to capture the rate dependence and anisotropy in strength, plastic flow and ductility. Developing and demonstrating novel damage simulation and fracture prediction methods has significant potential impact on design and operation of current and future Navy welded aluminum, ship structural systems.”

US Navy Commander Victor Chen reiterated the Navy’s confidence in the JHSV and LCS ships; the JHSV catamaran is aluminum construction, as is the LCS-2 Independence Class, and the LCS-1 Freedom Class uses an aluminum superstructure on a steel hull. He adds that:

“We already have a level of confidence in how to work with aluminum. The Office of Naval Research is trying to expand the knowledge base and build on what we already know.”

March 16/10: Drug busts. On her initial deployment to the Caribbean, the US Navy highlights USS Freedom’s [LCS 1] conduct of drug busts. The fast boats were intercepted with help from Freedom’s embarked MH-60S helicopter – a capability that is not unique to the LCS, by any means. Aviation Week Ares.

March 13/10: Industrial. New Fincantieri subsidiary Marinette Marine Corporation in Marinette, WI breaks ground on an expansion that will nearly double the size of its main indoor ship construction building. The expansion will provide enough indoor space to simultaneously house 2 complete LCS hulls and parts for 2 additional ships. It will also allow greater use of more efficient modular construction processes. The expansion is part of parent company Fincantieri’s 5-year, $100 million plan to modernize its U.S. shipbuilding operations and support the LCS program. Green Bay Gazette | MarineLog.

March 4/10: Austal & GD break up. Defense News reports that shipbuilding partners Austal USA and General Dynamics have agreed to revoke their teaming arrangement on the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program: “We are now acting as prime going forward on the LCS program,” Austal president Joseph Rella told Defense News March 4.

The positions partner General Dynamics to bid on the 2nd set of 5 ships under the current procurement plan, if the LCS-2 Independence trimaran design wins. Competing with a rival prime bid is unrealistic for General Dynamics at this point, given the investments that would be required in aluminum-related manufacturing facilities and techniques. General Dynamics has confirmed that it does not intend to bid on the initial 10-ship competition, though the firms will continue their joint relationship when building the Coronado [LCS 4]. GD Advanced Information Systems will continue beyond that as an Austal team partner, and subcontractor for systems integration.

Austal & GD end partnership

LCS-1 & LHD-6, RIMPAC 2010
LCS 1 & LHD 6
(click to view full)

March 3/10: CSBA Report. The USA’s non-partisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment puts out a paper: “Littoral Combat Ship: An Examination of its Possible Concepts of Operation” [PDF]. While the report is generally positive about the LCS, and even offers several operational scenarios that use the ship’s capabilities, it does raise a few issues. Crew size is one, but the other relate to the standard trio of speed, armament, and sustainability:

“The disadvantage is that speed requires great power. By choosing speed the Navy has consciously chosen to accept lower carrying capacity and endurance. The impact on endurance is illustrated by the fact LCS’s cruising range of around 4,000 nautical miles (nm) at 20kts reduces to 1,500 nm at 45kts. This compares to an endurance of around 12,000 nm at 9kts for the US Coast Guard’s Legend- class National Security Cutter. Consequently, any mission that requires extensive use of speed will significantly limit the ship’s unrefueled time on station. Restrictions on payload and fuel capacity (including aviation fuel) mean that the LCS will require considerable logistical support for the provisioning of fuel, ammunition, perishable foods and other consumables. The Navy will almost certainly need to give greater thought to how the LCS can be supported when operating at distance from base areas.

…While taking due account of the fact that none of these nations operate carriers or long-range strike forces, the ability of the LCS to defend itself when compared to similar ships designed to undertake similar tasks appears to be limited, especially against air attack, regardless of which mission package is carried… The ship currently lacks a torpedo detection capability. The Navy is now taking urgent steps to rectify this worrisome omission… consideration needs to be given to providing a “mother ship” or tender in support able to resupply not only fuel but also other consumables, such as ammunition, perishables and spare parts, and provide medical treatment and workshop facilities. The LCS is designed to be self-sustaining for between fourteen and twenty-one days but in circumstances when it is operating at high speed this could conceivably drop to as little as four days. Workshop access may be particularly important because, as part of the drive to restrict crew size, much of the maintenance generally conducted by a ship’s crew has, in the case of the LCS, been transferred ashore.”

…NWDC laid equal stress on “frequently conducted” or “continuous” missions including SOF support, maritime interception operations/ SLOC(Sea Lines of Communication) patrol, and logistics. It pointed out that in the 29-year period prior to 1999, 60 percent of all naval missions were of this type… The implication of these statements is that the primary use of the LCS is increasingly considered to be as a naval constabulary vessel (which all naval vessels are to a degree) that is also able to undertake most naval diplomacy tasks and selected missions at the middle and lower ends of naval war fighting.”

Note that many of the scenarios to illustrate the ships’ usefulness depend on sustained high-speed operations, against the backdrop of a US Navy that is already short on oilers. Another involves escorts through the Persian Gulf, against fast attack craft armed with anti-ship missiles whose range the LCS cannot match, and whose strikes the LCS is ill-equipped to survive.

March 3/10: Fuel & Range. Inside the Navy publishes data about the relative fuel efficiency of the 2 LCS contenders (Source). There’s a significant difference, with implications for both operating costs and range, but the Navy proposes to treat them as equivalent, vid. Feb 25/10 entry:

“The General Dynamics variant of the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) uses less fuel per hour during higher rates of speed than the Lockheed Martin vessel, according to a Navy document. The one-page LCS Consumption Curves shows that both ships use about the same amount of fuel, or barrels, per hour between zero and 16 knots. At five knots, the General Dynamics aluminum trimaran uses 3.2 barrels per hour versus 3.9 for Lockheed Martin’s semi-planing monohull [DID: +21%]. At 14 knots, the General Dynamics ship uses 11.3 barrels per hour while the Lockheed Martin ship uses 12.7 [DID: +12.4%]. At 16 knots, the Lockheed Martin ship uses 18.4 barrels per hour while the General Dynamics ship uses 15.5 [DID: +18.7%], according to the document. At 30 knots, the General Dynamics trimaran burns through 62.7 barrels per hour, while the Lockheed Martin monohull uses 102.9 barrels per hour [DID: +64.1%] … At 40 knots, the Lockheed Martin ship burns through 138 barrels per hour while the General Dynamics ship uses 105.7 barrels per hour [DID: + 30.5%].”

The LCS-1 Freedom Class’ weight issues could change these figures, especially when fully loaded. The LCS-2 Independence Class also has greater fuel capacity.

Feb 25/10: Competition. US Sen. Sessions [R-AL] questions criteria for Littoral Combat Ship RFP, pointing out the RFP’s cost as sole determinant approach, despite capability differences. The Navy responds that they consider both ships to be equivalent, and says that the ships will spend a low percentage of their time at high speeds. AL.com | YouTube video | Gannett’s Navy Times article.

Feb 19/10: LCS 3. Lockheed Martin spokeswoman Kim Martinez says that the Fort Worth [LCS 3] “is being assessed to preclude the same tank design,” and may be modified to avoid the need for USS Freedom’s bolt-on rear “water wings.” Gannett’s Navy Times blog Scoop Deck adds:

“Neither LockMart nor the Navy will say the original LCS 1 design included too little reserve buoyancy, but Martinez stressed that Freedom “meets all the Navy’s requirements, including for reserve buoyancy.” So does that mean the Navy discovered problems with its own requirements after accepting delivery of the Freedom? “That’s a question best answered by the Navy,” Martinez said.”

Feb 16/10: Freedom Class change. Gannett’s Navy Times’ blog “Scoop Deck” notes an interesting change to USS Freedom [LCS 1]:

“There is one big change, however: In a yard period late last year, Freedom acquired two large oblong metal boxes on its transom, on either side of the stern gate its crew uses to launch and recover boats. The sailors call these “buoyancy tanks,” although they look almost like a baby’s water wings for the pool… Do water wings added after the fact mean the Freedom – and Lockheed Martin’s design for the LCS 1-class – suffered from too little reserve buoyancy? “I can’t really talk much more about that,” [Gold Crew skipper, Commander Randy] Garner said.”

Feb 2/10: GAO Report. The US Congress’ GAO submits official report GAO-10-257: “Littoral Combat Ship: Actions Needed to Improve Operating Cost Estimates and Mitigate Risks in Implementing New Concepts.” Key excerpts:

“GAO’s analysis of the Navy’s 2009 estimates showed that the [LCS] operating and support costs for seaframes and mission packages could total $84 billion (in constant fiscal year 2009 dollars) through about 2050 [divided $64.1B seaframes, $20.8B packages]. However, the Navy did not follow some best practices for developing an estimate… The costs to operate and support a weapon system can total 70 percent of a system’s costs… With a decision pending in 2010 on which seaframe to buy for the remainder of the program, decision makers could lack critical information to assess the full costs of the alternatives. The Navy has made progress in developing operational concepts for LCS, but faces risks in implementing its new concepts for personnel, training, and maintenance that are necessitated by the small crew size… an average of 484 days of training is required before reporting to a [LCS] crew, significantly more than for comparable positions on other surface ships. Moreover, the Navy’s maintenance concept relies heavily on distance support, with little maintenance performed on ship. The Navy acknowledges that there are risks in implementing its new concepts… If the Navy cannot implement its concepts as envisioned, it may face operational limitations, have to reengineer its operational concepts, or have to alter the ship design. Many of the concepts will remain unproven until 2013 or later, when the Navy will have committed to building almost half the class… Navy officials from two divisions within the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations – the Surface Warfare Division and the Assessments Division – said they were unaware of any analysis supporting the total planned quantities for either the surface warfare package or its maritime security module. Also, Navy officials said that the Navy has not performed a force structure analysis on the antisubmarine package because the contents are under development.”

GAO’s core recommendation, among several:

“To improve decision making, we are recommending that the Navy conduct a risk assessment and consider the results before committing to buy LCS ships in order to link procurement with evidence that the Navy is progressing in its ability to implement its new operational concepts.”

Jan 27/10: RFP. The US Navy releases the revised Littoral Combat Ship RFP. See Sept 16/09 and Jan 11/10 entries; the winner will receive contracts for 10 ships over the next 5 years, and another competition will be held in 2012 for a 2nd shipyard. The 2nd shipyard will build 5 ships of the same design over 3 years, but can’t be associated with the winning shipyard. FedBizOpps Solicitation #N0002410R2301:

“For the requirements synopsized herein, the LCS team members are the only sources, with the requisite knowledge of LCS design, construction, systems, and extensive knowledge of, and experience with, mission module interface requirements to efficiently and effectively construct these additional follow-on ships within the required construction period, and perform the associated services. The requirement contemplated is for up to ten (10) ships with two (2) ships in Fiscal Year 2010 and for two (2) ships per year in Fiscal Years 2011 through 2014; up to five (5) additional Select Ship Systems to be provide to a Second Source in FY12; integration of up to five (5) sets of Select Ship Systems for a Second Source in FY12. The contract will be awarded through a limited competition pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1), only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements. Companies interested in subcontracting opportunities should contact the LCS teams directly.”

The RfP lists 3 primary bid items (basic seaframe/ ship; combat & non-combat equipment; and the systems to handle the integration and testing. Technical and management factors in order of preference are: affordability and production approach; management; technical data package adequacy, and rights in technical data and computer software; design change impact; past performance; and life-cycle cost reduction initiatives. Navy statements strongly indicate, however, that this will almost exclusively be a cost-driven competition. Defense News | Gannett’s Navy Times.

Revised RFP issued

Jan 20/10: No LVL 1 Survivability. Reuters offers conclusions from the Pentagon’s director of Operational Test and Evaluation. They include the failure of either design to meet Level I survivability criteria except among some sub-sections, and that neither ship could be expected to “be survivable in a hostile combat environment.”

Lockheed Martin’s Freedom Class monohulls had problems in early air target tracking tests, which revealed deficiencies in the TRS-3D radar’s power supply and reliability, and serious problems with the combat system. The report added that the ship could face stability problems when fully loaded. Lockheed Martin spokeswoman Jen Allen claims that stability is no longer a problem for this class, and Reuters reports that the Navy plans to install external tanks to effectively lengthen the ship’s stern, and increase its buoyancy.

General Dynamics/ Austal’s Independence Class trimaran had its builders trials delayed due to reported leaks at the gas turbine shaft seals, and more testing identified deficiencies in the main propulsion diesel engines. Reuters

Jan 16/10: LCS 2. The trimaran USS Independence [LCS 2] is commissioned. Austal | Gannett’s Navy Times.

USS Independence

Jan 11/10: Partnership break-up? Defense News reports that General Dynamics and Austal are set to break up their LCS partnership, which has GD Bath Iron Works as the prime contractor but most of the structural shipbuilding work done by Austal in Mobile, AL. Under the new procurement rules, the US Navy will require a second-supplier shipyard for the winning design, that can’t be associated with the primary builder. Before they take any final actions, however, the GD/Austal team is waiting to see the Navy’s latest RFP, which is a bit behind schedule but is still expected in January 2010.

General Dynamics had reportedly seen Bath Iron Works as the logical shipbuilding facility to take on shipbuilding work if their team’s trimaran design won, but there is some speculation that this may shift to T-AKE shipbuilder GD NASSCO in California, instead.

LCS-2 in Mobile
LCS 2 christening
(click to view full)

Dec 18/09: LCS 2 delivered. The General Dynamics Littoral Combat Ship Team delivers Independence [LCS 2] to the US Navy. USN Commanding Officer Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion and Repair Captain Dean Krestos officially accepted custody of Independence in Mobile, AL, where the ship will remain before its commissioning as USS Independence on Jan 16/10. That date will mark the first time a US Navy ship has been commissioned in Mobile since 1945. The ship will then prepare for its next set of trials, in the summer of 2010. US Navy | GD release.

Dec 17/09: LCS 4 keel. A brief keel laying ceremony is held in Mobile at Austal USA’s Assembly Bay 4 to record completion of the first major construction milestone for Coronado [LCS 4]. As one might expect, the centerpiece of the ceremony was the ship’s keel module, a large outfitted section of the aluminum center hull. GD release.

Dec 12/09: Coast Guard on USS Freedom. Gannett’s Navy Times reports that USS Freedom [LCS 1] will have US Coast Guard VBSS teams on board when it ventures into the Caribbean:

“The littoral combat ship Freedom is to take aboard a Coast Guard law enforcement detachment for part of its trial deployment early next year, Navy officials said, with the Coasties substituting for part of the Navy boarding team added to the LCS crew. Freedom is taking 20 sailors in two visit, board, search and seizure teams…”

Dec 3/09: Order clarity. The US Navy finally releases the cost data for recent Littoral Combat Ship contracts. Note that the cost of a fully-outfitted ship would add about $100 million for the installed mission module, in addition to other “government furnished equipment”. As such, actual costs to field operational ships are likely to end up above $600 million:

“As a result of the Navy’s change in acquisition strategy for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program, the Navy can now release the pricing… The total value of the LCS 3 contract, awarded to Lockheed Martin Corporation on March 23, was $470,854,144 which includes ship construction, non-recurring construction and additional engineering effort, configuration management services, additional crew and shore support, special studies and post delivery support.

The total value of the LCS 4 contract, awarded to General Dynamics – Bath Iron Works on May 1, was $433,686,769 which includes ship construction, non-recurring construction and additional engineering effort, configuration management services, additional crew and shore support, special studies and post delivery support.

The contract values do not include government costs which include government furnished equipment, change orders, and program management support costs. The contract values do not include the cost of continuation work and material used from the terminated original contract options for LCS 3 and 4. The value of the continuation work and material from the terminated LCS 3 was $78 million for Lockheed Martin Corporation and $114 million from the terminated LCS 4 for General Dynamics/Bath Iron Works.”

FY 2009 costs

Nov 13-21/09: LCS 1. USS Freedom [LCS 1] also conducts independent ship deployment training and certification at sea, operating with ships from the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower [CVN 69] Carrier Strike Group during their Composite Training Unit Exercise (COMPTUEX). That was part of the Maritime Security Surge certification for the ship’s Gold Crew, which will deploy aboard Freedom in early 2010 to U.S. Southern Command.

Nov 19/09: Testing. The US Navy announces that LCS 2 Independence has successfully completed acceptance trials, after completing a series of graded in-port and underway demonstrations for the Navy’s Board of Inspection and Survey (INSURV).

Acceptance trials are the last significant milestone before delivery of the ship to the Navy. Ship delivery is expected to occur with the ship’s commissioning as USS Independence on Jan 16/09 in Mobile, AL.

Oct 18/09: Testing. LCS 2 Independence successfully completes builder’s trials in the Gulf of Mexico. The trials included more than 50 demonstration events in preparation for final inspection by the Navy, including stable flight deck performance and ship control in Beaufort Sea State 5 conditions, sustained speeds of 44 knots, tests of the ship’s open architecture OPEN CI electronic backbone, and detection and engagement of a simulated cruise missile fire by an small jet aircraft. Austal release | GD release | Gannett’s Navy Times.

Oct 14/09: USS Freedom to deploy. The Navy announces the decision to deploy the USS Freedom [LCS 1] in early 2010 to the Southern Command and Pacific Command areas ahead of her originally scheduled 2012 maiden deployment (see also June 9/09 entry). Military.com says that:

“In evaluating options for deploying the Freedom earlier than originally scheduled, the Navy took into consideration several key factors including combat systems testing, shakedown of the ship systems and overseas sustainment with a new concept of operations and crew training. To facilitate the early deployment, the Navy adjusted the Freedom testing schedule, prioritized testing events needed for deployment and deferred others not required for the missions envisioned during this deployment.”

FY 2009

Another program shift; LCS 3 & 4 ordered, again, but we won’t tell you how much; LCS 4 named; LCS 2 launched; Naval Fire Support module?

LCS-2 builders trials
LCS 2, builder’s trials
(click to view full)

Sept 16/09: LCS Plan #4. The Pentagon reiterates its commitment to 55 LCS ships, but changes the LCS program’s acquisition structure, again. There will be no Phase II for the FY 2009 buy. Instead, selection of the final design would occur in FY 2010, before operational trials of both ships could take place. Both industry teams would submit proposals under a new solicitation. The winner would receive a 10-ship contract running from FY 2010-2014, and provide the combat systems for their 10 ships, plus 5 more. They would also deliver a technical data package, allowing the Navy to open a “build to print” competition for a second builder of the chosen design, beginning in FY 2012. That “build to print” order would be for up to 5 more ships.

This timeline would not give the Navy enough time to fully evaluate the ships relative merits before it makes its selection, essentially removing the entire rationale for building 2 types of Flight 0 ships. It would also leave the ships’ overall operational utility an open question.

Colton Company’s Maritime Memos adds that the envisioned structure may face challenges, depending on which design wins. It sees Team Lockheed’s steel hull as biddable to Northrop Grumman Pascagoula, GD Bath Iron Works, and GD NASSCO, plus VT Halter Marine; and possibly Todd, Bollinger in a break-away bid, or anyone who buys Bender in liquidation. The GD Bath Iron Works/Austal aluminum-hull design requires a more specialized set of skills, however, and those ships are too wide to be built on the Great Lakes and shipped out through the seaway. Colton believes a shipbuilder would have to invest in a new yard, or partner with an established aluminum boatbuilder, such as Swiftships or megayacht builder, such as Trinity Yachts. Colton adds:

“In essence, there might not be any credible competition for a second-source contract. Since almost everyone now agrees that the Austal design is clearly superior to the Marinette design, this could give the Navy a new problem.”

It could certainly give the Austal/GD team a new problem. US DoD | The Hill magazine | Alabama Press-Register | Associated Press | Reuters | Information Dissemination op-ed: “The LCS is Still a Mess.”

Acquisition plan #4

July 30/09: Politics. At the House Armed Services Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee’s “Hearing on Efforts to Improve Shipbuilding Effectiveness,” Chair Gene Taylor [D-MS] states in his opening remarks that:

“The LCS program is still a disaster, there is no way to sugar coat it, the program is still a disaster. Those first vessels were constructed in the most inefficient manner possible, just like my house construction analogy, and now we are being told by both the contractors that the cost of these ships really is in excess of a half a billion dollars. I am not sure the Congress is willing to go forward with that program unless significant progress is made on cost control, and I do mean significant.

With the challenges being faced by all the Services in trying to reset from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan the Navy cannot count on additional funding for ship construction. We all need to figure how to rebuild our Fleet with the procurement dollars available. To do that all costs must come under control. Hard decisions need to be made. Soon.”

June 15/09: Inside the Navy, Vol. 22, No. 23:

“The House Armed Services seapower and expeditionary forces subcommittee has proposed to restructure the congressionally mandated $460 million cost cap for the Littoral Combat Ship to solely include the price of each vessel [DID: and not its weapons, radars, and “mission equipment”], but if shipbuilders cannot meet the cost cap, lawmakers would require the Navy to rebid the ship.”

June 10/09: Testing. Austal announces “light off” of LCS 2 Independence’s 4 propulsion engines: 2 GE LM2500 22,000kW gas turbines, and 2 MTU 20V 8000 M71 9,100kW diesels. The light off followed fuel loading and testing of all 4 generators.

Activation and testing of the combat and other systems onboard Independence is continuing at Austal’s US facility in Mobile, AL. The beginning of sea trials is expected within a few weeks.

June 9/09: The Military Officers’ Association of America’s “Inside the Headquarters” blog says that the US Navy is thinking of deploying the LCS early:

“According to a source at Lockheed Martin, the Navy wants the USS Freedom (LCS 1) to deploy soon and well ahead of schedule. Apparently the chief of naval operations himself, Adm. Gary Roughead, has called for the move. Currently, the Freedom is not scheduled to deploy until 2012.”

The Somali coast would be the most likely destination. Efforts to move endangered weapons programs to the front lines, in order to secure a program’s future, have a long history in the US military.

June 9/09: Support. Alion Science and Technology Corp. in Washington, DC received an $8.6 million modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-09-F-B008) for support to the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program office. This will include program planning and management, business and financial management planning and execution, systems engineering, test and evaluation engineering, life cycle engineering and support, logistics and operation support, configuration and data management engineering, and combat systems development.

Work will be performed in Washington, DC, and is expected to be complete by September 2009.

June 1/09: Costs. Gannett’s Navy Times reports that based on FY 2010 budget justification documents, the price to build, outfit and deliver Team Lockheed’s USS Freedom [LCS 1] now is $637 million, up from last year’s estimate of $631 million. The price tag for the GD/Austal ship Independence [LCS 2], however, rose from $636 million to $704 million. Most of the cost growth on the LCS 2 is listed under Basic Construction Cost.

LCS-1 builders trials
LCS 1, builder’s trials
(click to view full)

May 22/09: Testing. The USS Freedom wasn’t able to perform a number of key Navy acceptance tests on Lake Michigan, where she was built. A 2nd round of INSURV testing was required, and the US Navy PEO Ships release states that:

“There were no major safety issues or operational restrictions determined during the trial, although the ship must complete a number of scheduled system certifications before it can conduct unrestricted operations.”

INSURV inspectors noted that since the August 2008 lake trials, the ship has made improvements to its propulsion plant, machinery control system, communication systems, and information systems. The new salt water tests allowed inspectors to check the ship’s cathodic protection, degaussing, and reverse osmosis system. Ocean conditions let them test surveillance and identification systems at a sufficient distance from land without border issues. And stepping out of a lake used for drinking water let them demonstrate the ship’s fire suppression and waste discharge systems. Other major systems and features demonstrated for INSURV this time included aviation support, small boat launch handling and recovery, fin stabilizers, in addition to the full-power run.

May 15/09: LCS for NFS? Aviation Week reports that US Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway is working with his Navy counterpart, Adm. Gary Roughead, to expand the concept of using the LCS as a naval fire support option for Marine landings.

Conway is quoted as discussing “a box of rockets” as the Marnes’ preferred option, which would seem to indicate the LCS surface warfare module’s planned NLOS-LS/NETFIRES “missile in a box” system. On the other hand, the report adds that:

“The services are still examining storage and elevator capacity aboard LCS, and Conway said “we don’t have [the] box we need.”

May 1/09: LCS 4.US Navy Sinks LCS-4 Construction” chronicled the crash of the original program’s acquisition plan, and cancellation of the 2nd ships from each manufacturing team. Now, General Dynamics Bath Iron Works in Bath, ME has received a FY 2009 contract to build the USS Coronado [LCS 4]. The contract includes construction, class design services, configuration management services, additional crew and shore support, special studies and post delivery support. Phase II could involve up to 3 more LCS Flight 0+ Class ships.

What the US Navy will not do, is reveal those terms of Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics’ contracts, even though the original excuse that the Navy was in negotiations with General Dynamics for its part of the 2-phase buy no longer applies. The Navy simply says that “the award amount is considered source selection information (see FAR 2.101 and 3.104) and will not be made public at this time.” The LCS program’s cost overruns have been significant contributors to the program’s political troubles, and it certainly is convenient not to have to discuss that any more. One source of inference is that the award represents the 2nd half of the 2-vessel, $1.02 billion FY 2009 budget appropriation for the LCS program, but past LCS contracts and budgets have had little predictive value with respect to final outlays.

Austal had remained optimistic regarding the LCS program, but recently laid off 62 employees in Mobile, AL, due to slower work in the commercial ferry sector. There is no word yet on whether they will be rehired as a result of this contract. Work will be performed in Mobile, AL (50%); Bath, ME (17%); Pittsfield, MA (14%); California, MD (1%); Baltimore, MD (1%); Leesburg, VA (1%); Burlington, VT (1%); Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (2%); and various locations of less than 1% each totaling 13%. Work is expected to be complete by June 2012 (N00024-09-C-2302).

Meanwhile, sea trials of Austal’s first LCS, the 127m Independence [LCS 2], are scheduled for mid-2009, with delivery expected later in the year. Austal | General Dynamics | Mobile, AL Press-Register | Mobile, AL Press-Register re: layoffs.

LCS 4 ordered, again

April 6/09: Budgets. Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates announces his FY 2010 budget recommendations, which include 3 LCS ships. Despite issues with the program, and concern about the ship’s combat capabilities, Gates reiterates the goal of eventually buying 55 of these $500+ million specialty support ships. The announcement bolstered confidence at Austal, which had been watching the budget deliberations closely.

March 23/09: LCS 3. US NAVSEA awards Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems & Sensors in Baltimore, MD an undisclosed sum for “LCS FY09 Flight 0+ ship construction, class design services, configuration management services, additional crew and shore support, special studies and post delivery support.”

The Navy cancelled Lockheed Martin’s original LCS-3 contract in 2007, but new negotiations reportedly arrived at an acceptable arrangement for a fixed-price contract with incentives. The Fort Worth’s [LCS-3] price tag is reported to be in the $500 million range, which would represent a price drop relative to LCS-1.

NAVSEA is still negotiating with General Dynamics for LCS-4, so the award amount is classified source selection information under Federal Acquisition Regulations 2.101 and 3.104. Under the Navy’s FY 09/10 strategy (see Oct 17/08 entry), the Navy will attempt to buy 2 LCS ships in FY 2009, with option for up to 3 ships in 2010. Earlier acquisition strategies had focused on FY 2010 as the down-select date; that is still possible, but the Navy reportedly has the option of choosing another split for the FY 2010 buy.

Work will be performed in Marinette, WI (63%); Moorestown, NJ (12%); Washington, DC (11%); Clearwater, FL (4%); Baltimore, MD (4%); Arlington, VA (3%); Brunswick, GA (2%); and Eagan, MN (1%), and is expected to be complete by December 2012 (N00024-09-C-2303). See also: Reuters report.

LCS 3 ordered, again

March 12/09: LCS 4 named. US Secretary of the Navy Donald Winter announces that LCS 4 will be named USS Coronado. A 4th LCS ship had not been ordered yet when the announcement was made, though some funds had been allocated in the FY 2009 budget for 2 ships. The Navy’s release has a picture of the GD/Austal trimaran design next to the announcement, but the announcement does not confirm that type as LCS 4.

Coronado, near San Diego, CA is home to Naval Air Base North Island (NASNI) and Naval Amphibious Base (NAB), Coronado, and has been home to the Navy since 1917. Coronado hosts 2 aircraft carriers, the west coast’s major SEAL special forces facility, and over 120 tenant commands between the 2 bases. US Navy.

March 11/09: Politics. Bill Sweetman of Aviation Week reports that one logical corollary of a “build to [blue]print” approach is that foreign shipyards might become eligible to compete for LCS construction:

“[Taylor] also noted to the conference that he’s visited other shipyards – Hyundai in Korea, Maersk in Finland – and concluded that “our yards have to get up to their [DID: highly automated] standards.” So if LCS goes to open bidding, would those shipyards be eligible to bid? “Traditionally the House has preferred to build our weapons domestically,” Taylor said, “but we’ve had a hard time getting it past Senator McCain. If I had my way I’d limit it to American shipbuilders. But I often don’t get my way.”

That statement can fairly be described as cryptic. Sweetman’s conjecture re: foreign construction is unlikely, for a variety of political reasons. Government funding for shipyard improvements, meanwhile, did not appear in the “stimulus” bill, and would be most likely to be funneled to the larger military shipyards if it was granted.

March 10/09: Politics. MarineLog reports that the Littoral Combat Ship program receives another bi-partisan rough ride at the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces. Chairman Gene Taylor [D-MS]:

“When I look at the plan from just two years ago, we should by now have at least 4 ships delivered, 3 more nearing completion from a fiscal year 2008 authorization, 6 under contract from a fiscal year 2009 authorization, and today we should be discussing the authorization of 6 more ships for fiscal year 2010. That would be a total of 19 ships. So instead of having 13 delivered or under contract with another 6 in this year’s budget, we have one ship delivered that will likely tip the scales well above two and a half times the original estimate and one ship that might finish this summer, with similar if not higher cost growth… Everyone should understand that the current situation of these vessels costing in excess of a half billion dollars cannot continue… There are too many other needs and too little resources to pour money into the program that was designed to be affordable.”

With respect to Taylor’s desire for a “build to print” approach, the answer appears to be that the government owns the rights to the ship’s physical design, but integration of all the sub-systems like the radar, Mk110 naval gun etc. is another matter. Rep. Todd Akin [R-MO] was critical of the Navy’s acquisition strategy, from the repeated changes over the last 2 years to the current strategy’s sustainability:

“We cannot reasonably expect the industry teams to make the investments in facilities and designs for affordability we demand, if we cannot articulate what we want to buy. Further, we cannot reasonably expect the taxpayers to continue to fund ships that we cannot definitively say we want… We need to be very cautious about increasing capacity for which the Navy lacks the volume to support… We must ensure that we are not creating two additional shipyards that rely on a sole customer for support. The strategy for building LCS at mid-tier yards was explicitly to avoid this phenomenon, since these yards had commercial work. Now, we hear that these yards may have turned away commercial work and are considering capital investments with the intent of constructing LCS only.”

See: MarineLog | Information Dissemination.

March 6/09: New LCS 3 named. US Secretary of the Navy Donald C. Winter announces 6 that the LCS 3 will be named USS Fort Worth. A 3rd LCS ship had not been ordered yet when the announcement was made, though some funds had been allocated in the FY 2009 budget for 2 ships.

The Navy says that the announcement continues the practice of naming the agile LCS vessels after American midsized cities, small towns and communities. Fort Worth, TX, near Dallas, is an especially important hub of aerospace manufacturing, but a number of other defense-related activities go on there. US Navy.

March 2/09: Industrial. Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems & Sensors in Baltimore, MD received a modification to a previously awarded contract (N00024-03-C-2311) for “LCS program continuation efforts necessary to preserve production capability at its industry team shipyard facility.” Work is expected to be complete by April 2009, and will be performed in Marinette, WI (56%); Moorestown, NJ (13%); Clearwater, FL (11%); Brunswick, GA (10%); Washington, DC (8%) and Baltimore, MD (2%) under contract (N00024-03-C-2311).

Lockheed Martin has already delivered USS Freedom [LCS 1] to the Navy, and the Navy’s prior cancellation of LCS 3 has left that shipyard with a work gap. General Dynamics and Austal, meanwhile, continue to build LCS 2 Independence at their Gulf Coast shipyard. This award must be at least $5 million, or the Navy would not have announced it at all, but no figure was given. With respect to this award, the US Navy cites this justification for its lack of transparency:

“As this award represents efforts integrally related to Phase I of a competitive two-phased acquisition approach to procure FY09/FY10 LCS, with Phase II including potential award of up to three additional LCS Flight 0+ Class ships, the award amount is considered source selection information (see FAR 2.101 and 3.104) and will not be made public at this time.”

That translates as “we’re still negotiating with Lockheed Martin and with General Dynamics for fixed-price awards, and are appropriating these funds to buy advance materials and avoid layoffs at Marinette.”

Feb 24/09: Politics. Senators McCain and Levin, who have authored legislation to reform the US military’s procurement system, single out the LCS program in their comments. CNN:

“Levin said the ships are “way beyond” their projected construction time of two years, and the program has grown from a cost per ship of about $220 million to more than $500 million, according to a November report from the Congressional Research Service. “We can’t have a ship that’s a small ship that’s supposed to be built in two years run completely out of control to double or triple or quadruple its original cost estimates,” McCain said.”

Jan 28/09: LCS 2. General Dynamics Bath Iron Works in Bath, ME received a $37.75 million basic ordering agreement for Post-Shakedown Availability (PSA) of the USS Independence [LCS-2]. Work will include the ship’s PSA efforts, testing, and materials, from program management to advance planning, engineering, material kitting, liaison, scheduling and participation in PSA planning conferences and design reviews, preparation of documentation as required by the Contract Data Requirement List, and required fixes.

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA (53%); Norfolk, VA (24%); and Mobile, AL (23%), and is expected to be complete by December 2012. This contract was not competitively procured (N00024-09-G-2301).

Dec 29/08: NVR cert. The American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) in Houston, TX is a congressionally recognized agent of the government, and certification to set standards is one of their services. They receive a $55 million cost no fee, indefinite-delivery/ indefinitely-quantity contract to provide for ship classification and classification-related services using Naval Vessel Rules (NVR), which form the core of the certification process for surface ships bought by US NAVSEA.

New construction contracts require the ships to be designed and constructed in accordance with ABS Rules for Building and Classing Naval Vessels, and other referenced ABS Rules and Guides as necessary to comply with the designated class notations. Readers of this brief will recall that the switch to NVR rules during LCS construction was one of the key factors that inflated the costs of the first ships, and raised costs across the board for the class. On the other hand, ships built to NVR standards can be expected to survive damage better than comparable non-NVR ships.

Approximately 46% of ABS’ services will be performed in support of new DDG ships in Bath, ME (GD-BIW); Pascagoula, MS; and Gulf Port, MS (NG-SS) and approximately 46% in support of future LCS new construction ships in locations to be determined. The remaining 8% of services will be performed in Norfolk, VA; San Diego, CA; and various worldwide points as specified in task orders to be issued. Work is expected to be completed by December 2013. This contract was not competitively procured by the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) in Washington, DC (N00024-09-D-4208)

Dec 17/08: Weight. Information Dissemination relays an Inside the Navy report hat covers ongoing platform issues in “LCS Weight Issue Revisited“. From Inside the Navy:

“In October, Navy spokesman Lt. Clay Doss confirmed that initial tests by the Navy were showing the vessel to be six percent overweight, but maintained that it was not cause for concern… “There’s stuff on board that I don’t think we need,” Gabrielson said. “There’s some pretty big things on board that I think we could live without.”

Nov 8/08: LCS 1. LCS 1 Freedom is commissioned during a 10 a.m. EST ceremony at Veterans Park in Milwaukee, WI. Upon completion of the ceremony, she becomes USS Freedom. US Navy PEO Ships advance notice | USS Freedom Comissioning Committee.

USS Freedom

Oct 31/08: Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems & Sensors in Baltimore, MD received a $37.5 million Basic Ordering Agreement for Post-Shakedown Availability (PSA) on the Littoral Combat Ship, USS Freedom [LCS-1]. The orders to be issued will encompass services include, but are not limited to program management, advance planning, engineering, material kitting, liaison, scheduling and participation in PSA planning conferences and design reviews, and preparation of documentation as required by the Contract Data Requirement List. The orders will also encompass material and labor to perform the PSA for LCS 1, all testing, including post repair trials required to verify the accuracy and completion of all shipyard industrial work, non-standard equipment when approved, and technical manuals for non-standard equipment.

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA (53%) and Norfolk, VA (47%), and is expected to be completed by January 2011. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured by the Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, D.C. (N00024-09-G-2300).

Oct 24/08: The Freedom [LCS 1] sails away from the Marinette Marine Corp. shipyard in Marinette, WI, en route to Duluth, MN for a four-day port visit beginning Oct. 27. This will be the first leg in the ship’s voyage of commissioning and transit to Norfolk, VA, where she will undergo fleet testing and evaluation away from the Great Lakes’ ice buildups. Maritime Reporter and Engineering News.

Oct 17/08: LCS Plan #3. The NY Times’ International Herald Tribune reports that the U.S. Navy has canceled plans to buy a 3rd new combat ship in FY 2008 from either Lockheed Martin Corp. or General Dynamics Corp., citing budget shortfalls. The article adds that:

“The Navy now plans to award one ship to each contractor under the fiscal 2009 budget, and hold a competition for another three vessels with funding in fiscal 2010 to keep competitive pressure between the two companies. Each of the 2009 contracts will come with options for future ships. However, the Navy said it will evaluate pricing of the fiscal 2010 ships before making a decision, and envisions awarding two ships to a winning contractor and one ship to a losing bidder, the same as its original plan.”

Acquisition plan #3

Oct 4/08: LCS 2 christened. The Austal/General Dynamics ship LCS 2 Independence is christened in a ceremony at Austal’s Mobile, AL shipyard. US Navy PEO Ships release | Austal release.

FY 2008

No ships this year; LCS 2 launched; LCS-4 canceled; Cost growth continues; Israeli request.

GD-Austal concept
Team GD LCS Concept
(click to view full)

September 2008: The US Navy has the appropriated funds to build an additional LCS ship, but decides not to issue that contract. Source.

No FY 2008 ship

Sept 30/08: Infrastructure. R. A. Burch Construction Co., Inc. in Ramona, CA received $6.5 million for a firm-fixed-price task order under a previously award multiple award construction contract. They will be responsible for upgrading Building 57 for the new Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) squadron administrative headquarters at Naval Base San Diego. The task order also contains one option, which if exercised would increase cumulative task order value to $8.7 million.

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA, and is expected to be complete by April 2010. Contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, and 3 proposals were received for this task order by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest in San Diego, CA (N62473-08-D-8607, #0005).

Sept 18/08: LCS 1 delivered. The Lockheed Martin-led LCS team delivers LCS 1 Freedom to the U.S. Navy. The delivery milestone marks the Navy’s preliminary acceptance of LCS 1.

Sept 4/08: CSBA Cool to LCS Concept. WIRED Danger Room’s post “Navy Already Shifting Away from Shallow Waters?” forwards an analysis by Bob Work, naval analyst at the respected, nonpartisan CSBA think tank in Washington. He sees the same pressures that turned the Navy against the DDG-1000 Zumwalt Class destroyer program impinging on the future of the Littoral Combat Ship:

“The maritime area over which a strong coastal power can now influence with multidimensional, combined-arms naval reconnaissance-strike complexes is expanding. The combination of space-based sensors, over-the-horizon radars, maritime [Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance], patrol and strike aircraft, nuclear and [Air-Independent Propulsion] submarines armed with wake-homing torpedoes and anti-ship cruise missiles, and now anti-ship ballistic missiles, poses severe threats to any surface ship. Under these circumstances, the Navy has to improve its ability to fight from range, in the open ocean.”

July 31/08: CRS report. In testimony before the US House Armed Services Committee’s Seapower and Expeditionary Forces subcommittee, Dr. Eric Labs of the Congressional Budget Office discusses the LCS program to date [PDF]:

“The Navy’s 2009 shipbuilding plan envisions building 55 littoral combat ships between 2005 and 2019. Because those ships are assumed to have a service life of 25 years, the Navy would need to begin procuring their replacements in 2032… The Navy expects to buy 64 mission modules for the 55-ship program.

…Originally, each sea frame was expected to cost about $260 million (in 2009 dollars, or $220 million in 2005 dollars). The Navy’s 2009 budget would allow the purchase of 18 LCSs during the 2009-2013 period, at an average cost of about $450 million per sea frame. That is 11 fewer than the 2008 plan envisioned… In the 2009 budget, the Navy estimates the cost of LCS-1 at $631 million and LCS-2 at $636 million… using the lead ship of the FFG-7 Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate as an analogy… The first FFG-7 cost about $670 million to build (in 2009 dollars), or about $250 million per thousand tons, including combat systems. Applying that metric to the LCS program suggests that the lead ships would cost about $600 million apiece, including the cost of one mission module… CBO estimates that the first two LCSs could cost about $700 million each, including outfitting and postdelivery costs… As of April 27, 2008, LCS-1 was 87% complete and LCS-2 was 72% complete. So, additional cost growth is possible…”

July 30/08: What happened to LCS? Naval Technology’s article “Littoral Combat Ship Runs Aground” offers a look at the program workings and assumptions that have led the program to its current state. In brief, it states that:

“Distilling the story yields the following guide to botching development projects in five steps […];

1. Make the goal as difficult as possible
2. Impose a management style ideally suited for commoditised products
3. When sourcing, be penny-wise and pound-foolish
4. Design and build simultaneously
5. When you’re in a hole, keep digging

[…] Perhaps the moral of the LCS story is this: the US can produce better ships, or produce ships better – but it can’t do both at the same time.”

July 28/08: Testing. LCS 1 Freedom begins builder’s trials on Lake Michigan. US Navy release | Reuters Aug 12/08 follow-up.

July 15/08: Israel request. The contracts with Lockheed Martin et. al. could be worth up to $1.9 billion for 4 ships, and would be the first LCS export sale. The design will be very different from the American Freedom Class LCS, however; mission modules will be replaced with vertical launch systems and fixed weapons, and the ship will sport an AEGIS radar system.

The Israelis eventually decide that the costs are prohibitive, and begin looking elsewhere. As of 2013, they still don’t have a contract for new ships, though they are upgrading the Sa’ar 5 Eilat Class to a Sa’ar 5.5 configuration in the meantime. See “A Littoral Combat Frigate For Israel” for details.

Israel request

April 28/08: LCS 2 launched. Austal USA’s Mobile, AL shipyard launches LCS 2 Independence. The ship will be moored alongside the Austal USA facility for activation and testing of combat and other onboard systems is completed. Sea trials are expected to commence in late 2008. Austal release.

April 7/08: LCS SAR. Cost growth for the LCS program lands it on the Pentagon’s Selected Acquisition Reports for this period:

“Program costs increased $909.7 million (+46.9 percent) from $1,938.9 million to $2,848.6 million, due primarily to a revised estimate in Seaframe pricing that reflects substantial cost growth and post delivery work (+$496.1 million) and a revised estimate for Mission Module development and phasing due to maturation of the definition of the Mission Modules (+$271.2 million). Costs also increased due to a lengthening of the Flight 0 schedule to incorporate additional effort (+$71.3 million), a revised estimate for program development of Flight 0 and Flight 0+ planning and execution (+$42.3 million), and additional scope for Mission Module development (+$40.7 million).”

Costs rising

March 14/08: Controversy. The odds don’t look good for the US Navy’s FY 2009 request of 2 Littoral Combat Ships. The house Armed Services Committee’s Seapower & Expeditionary Forces subcommittee took testimony regarding that request, and the LCS request came under fire from both sides of the aisle. See “US Navy’s 313-Ship Plan Under Fire in Congress” for full links etc. Chairman Rep. Gene Taylor [D-MS], a strong proponent of more naval shipbuilding:

“So, instead of being asked to fund programs that are building ships on time and at projected cost, we are asked to fund programs which are not… [the LCS] will go into the textbooks to train future acquisition officials how not to run a program. The LCS will be at least twice as expensive as advertised, it has taken twice as long to build the lead ships, neither vessel has been underway on its own power, and the Navy cancelled two contract options last year, which were already funded, because of cost overruns.

Yet this year we are asked to authorize two more ships – why? What has changed between then and now that indicates that this program is in any way ready to build more ships? We have been told the answer to this question is that there is an ’emergent need’ for these ships in the fleet. If that is true why did the Navy cancel two of the ships? At some point we must stop throwing money at this program until the Navy can prove that at least one of the ships can get to sea and do its mission.”

Ranking minority member Roscoe Bartlett [R-MD] was equally skeptical:

“And how much risk are we buying down if we procure two more Littoral Combat Ships, the year after we cancelled two, and the year in which the Navy plans to conduct an operational evaluation and possible downselect of LCS-1 and 2? Even if there is no downselect, the Navy has stated that there will be design changes made to the Flight One ships. So the two we buy now will be different than the remaining 50. Is that worth it, if those funds could keep a stable program like LPD-17 alive?”

Feb 4/08: Costs. FY 2009 budget documents released by the Navy give the expected final cost for its LCS-1 and LCS-2 ships: $631 million and $636 million, respectively. First-of-class ships usually cost more – but recall that prescient July 24/07 estimate of $630 million from the Congressional Budget Office.

Nov 1/07: LCS-4. The US Navy cancels construction of LCS-4 by the General Dynamics/Austal team, leaving its LCS acquisition strategy adrift amidst deep proposed funding cuts from Congress in the FY 2008 budget. There was also the minor problem of a second contractor who refused to accept a “deal” that let the Navy make any number of design changes, while the contractor was solely responsible for costs, and would pay for overruns above the proposed fixed-price contract.

The Navy eventually decides to revise its entire approach, and use planned FY 2007-2008 procurement funds to get LCS 1 & 2 built, rather than buying additional ships.

LCS-4 order canceled

Oct 11/07: Israel. Jane’s Defence Weekly reports that the Israeli Navy “has launched a second study regarding the potential acquisition of the United States Navy’s (USN’s) Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) focused on Lockheed Martin’s semi-planing monohull design known as LCS-I (Israel). “That design appears to be the most suitable for our needs,” a senior IN source told Jane’s…”

See “An LCS For Israel?” for full coverage.

FY 2007

LCS-3 cancelled, LCS-4 ordered but iffy over cost growth; LCS Program Manager dismissed; LCS 2 inspection issues; ALCOA weight reduction work; Official reports.

LCS GD Air Platform Comparison
GD: Helicopter space
(click to view full)

Sept 27/07: Sub-contractors. Small business qualifier ALCOA Inc. in Alcoa Center, PA received an $8.3 million indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity, cost-plus-fixed-fee completion contract to provide engineering services in support of the re-design of existing aluminum structures to improve performance and survivability of the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) via weight reduction of selected assemblies or components. Work will be performed in Alcoa Center, PA (84%); Johnstown, PA (11%); Columbus, OH (3%); and various shipyards (2%), and is expected to be complete in September 2010. Contract funds in the amount of $3.7 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The contract was not competitively procured by the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division, West Bethesda, Md., is the contracting activity (N00167-07-D-0010).

This contract will fund the Alcoa Collaborative Design Approach (ACDA), a phased program approach in which the following tasks will be applied to the LCS: selection of candidate assemblies and components; development of conceptual designs and down selection of design concepts; evaluation of design concepts and final selection; development and evaluation of prototypes; and ship integration. The components for improvement may include hull sections, doors/hatches, load floors, foundations, large apertures or similar structures.

Alcoa has considerable expertise in this area, having worked closely with Lockheed Martin on a very similar effort re: the F-35B Lightning II STOVL fighter.

Still, one wonders why, exactly, this has become a priority for the LCS program? The Dec 17/08 entry suggests that weight reduction was the goal.

Sept 24/07: LCS 2 issues. Newhouse News Service reports that “Navy inspectors have documented numerous problems with construction of a next-generation vessel known as the littoral combat ship, or LCS, according to government records obtained under the federal Freedom of Information Act.” They are referring specifically to the General Dynamics/ Austal ships, and proceed to detail these issues in “Navy Inspectors Find Numerous Problems With Ship Project.”

Some of these items are “normal” issues that inspectors exist to catch, others are less so. Note, especially the time frames of the issues raised, as many date from 2006 and predate subsequent reports.

Sept 21/07: LCS 4? Gannett’s Navy Times reports that the US Navy and General Dynamics are expected to meet next week to discuss the LCS program:

“GD spokesman Kendall Pease confirmed the Navy had asked for the meeting but provided no further details, other than to say a specific date had not been set. Other sources, however, said the meeting was to discuss slowing construction on LCS 4, the second ship GD is building at its Austal USA shipyard in Mobile, Ala.”

The Navy was forced to reimburse Team Lockheed for a number of expenses after canceling LCS-3, and they are reportedly trying to restructure the deal with the GD/Austal team to avoid paying those costs in the event that LCS-4 is canceled. If the parties cannot agree, the Navy could always choose to cancel LCS-4 on those grounds, and pay the minor reimbursement fees that would be involved at this early stage. The downside is that a second cancellation decision would leave the entire LCS program in tatters, either turning it into a 1-ship each “sail off” competition, or throwing the entire program back to the drawing board.

Aug 8/07: Cost growth. US Navy acquisition chief Dolores Etter said in an interview with Reuters that General Dynamics is about 54% done with its first ship [LCS-2], which is due to be delivered in mid-2008. She also stated that “We … continue to see challenges with the program and with each platform, specifically with the propulsion system on LCS-1 and systems integration on LCS-2.”

With respect to the GD/Austal team’s effort to rein in costs, she said that “We do have points at which our concern will go up. You can’t predict what will happen, but things are moving forward in a good direction” in terms of the firm’s efforts to rein in costs.

Meanwhile, Reuters adds that US Navy officials have asked lawmakers to approve a 55% increase in a cost cap for the 5th and 6th LCS ships, to $460 million. They also said costs for the first Lockheed ship and GD’s LCS-2 could be up to 75% higher than expected. Reuters article: “US Navy sees progress on General Dynamics LCS ship.”

July 24/07: CBO Report. In a statement before the US House Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces, Congressional Budget Office representatives testify that [PDF format]:

“Experience had suggested that cost growth was likely to occur in the LCS program. In particular, historical cost-weight relationships – using the lead ship of the Oliver Hazard Perry class of frigates (FFG-7) as an analogy – indicated that the Navy’s original cost target for the LCS was optimistic. The first FFG-7, including its combat systems, cost a total of about $650 million (in 2008 dollars) to build, or about $235 million per thousand tons. Applying that per-ton estimate to the LCS program suggests that the lead ships would cost about $575 million apiece, including the cost of one mission module (to make them comparable to the FFG-7). In this case, looking at cost-weight relationships produced an estimate less than the apparent cost of the first two LCSs but substantially greater than the Navy’s original estimate.

As of this writing, the Navy has not publicly released an estimate for the LCS program that incorporates the most recent cost growth, other than its request to raise the cost caps for the fifth and sixth ships. CBO estimates that with that growth included, the first two LCSs would cost about $630 million each, excluding mission modules but including outfitting, postdelivery, and various nonrecurring costs associated with the first ships of the class. As the program advances, with a settled design and higher annual rates of production, the average cost per ship is likely to decline. Excluding mission modules, the 55 LCSs in the Navy’s plan would cost an average of $450 million each, CBO estimates.”

DID background: The FFG-7 frigates are still widely touted as a successful example of cost containment. The Oliver Hazard Perry Class met their budget and performance targets and served successfully. The USS Stark even survived a hit from an Iraqi Exocet missile while patrolling the Gulf during the Iran-Iraq war. The ships paid a price in lower capability and lack of space for capability growth, however, and many were sold to other countries or retired early because upgrading them was too difficult. That experience was one of the inspirations for the LCS’ open-architecture, mission modules approach.

Mach 14/07: LCS 3 canceled. Full DID coverage, as Navy Cancels Team Lockheed’s LCS 3, warns General Dynamics. The Navy explains that they couldn’t reach agreement on a new contract. Lockheed Martin expressed “disappointment,” and says: “We believe that our proposal was fully consistent with the Secretary’s stated desire to bring the benefits of increased competition to shipbuilding while holding the Navy’s industrial partners accountable for cost performance within their control”. Note especially those last 3 words, given the role played by Navy specification shifts in that cost growth.

LCS-3 contract canceled

Mach 14/07: LCS program plan #2. Based on a comprehensive two-month review of the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) acquisition program, Secretary of the Navy Donald C. Winter announced that he is prepared to lift a previously issued stop work order for construction of Lockheed Martin’s LCS 3 – under a renegotiated contract.

The new decision will also affect the General Dynamics/ Austal team. Under the restructured Littoral Combat Ship program plan, the Navy will recommend deferral of FY 2007 LCS procurement, and use those funds to complete the construction of LCS 1-4 by the Lockheed and General Dynamics teams. This effectively cancels an expected order for the 5th and 6th ships.

This is part of a wider package of efforts aimed at controlling program costs… before those costs raise comparisons, questions, and dilemmas that begin to control the program. For full coverage, see “Cost Growth Leads to Stop-Work on Team Lockheed LCS-3 Construction (updated)“.

Revised acquisition plan

Feb 28/07: Costs. Reports surface that the General Dynamics/ Austal LCS design is also expected to face cost overruns, although the scope of the increases is not yet clear. Navy acquisition chief Delores Etter had said the first General Dynamics LCS ship would cost $350 million or more, but Lt. Cmdr. John Schofield, Etter’s spokesman, said in an e-mail that:

“Etter mistakenly characterized the cost of LCS 2 to be $350 million or more. The estimated cost range of LCS 1 is $350 million-$375 million, as previously testified. That estimate is based on the best information to date. There is insufficient information to know precisely the final cost range of LCS 2… Although we anticipate some cost growth, it is premature to discuss specific numbers as they are unavailable at this time.”

Etter described Team Lockheed’s LCS-1 Freedom as 75-80% complete, and the GD/Austal team’s LCS-2 Independence as about 33% complete. Reuters report | Defense News report (March 20/07).

Jan 29/07: Personnel. Capt. Donald Babcock, the Navy’s LCS program manager, is relieved of his duties by Rear Adm. Charles Hamilton – who is also being reassigned.

LCS PM dismissed

Jan 12/07: Stop Work on LCS 3. “The Navy issued a stop work order Jan. 12 to Lockheed Martin Corp. Maritime Systems & Sensors unit, Moorestown, N.J., for the construction of the third Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). This stop work order will take effect immediately, and is for a period of 90 days. The stop work order was issued because of significant cost increases currently being experienced with the construction of LCS-1 and LCS-3, under construction by Lockheed Martin…”

The US Navy says they are “working closely with the contractor to identify the root cause of the costs growth… [and] reviewing the overall acquisition strategy for the LCS program…” At this point, the GD/Austal team’s trimaran design and build-out of LCS 2&4 are unaffected. See full DID coverage with all updates, not to mention the Lexington institute’s predictive December 2006 report “Modularity, the Littoral Combat Ship and the Future of The United States Navy.

Dec 8/06: LCS 4 order. General Dynamics Bath Iron Works in Bath, ME receives a $208.1 million cost-plus-incentive-fee/ award-fee modification under previously awarded contract N00024-03-C-2310, exercising an option for construction of the 4th Flight 0 Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) and the second by the GD-Austal team. Work will be performed in Mobile, AL (55%); Pittsfield, MA (24%); and Bath, ME (21%), and is expected to be complete by August 2009.

The associated General Dynamics release trumpets its trimaran design as having “one of the largest usable payload volumes per ton of ship displacement of any U.S. Navy surface combatant afloat,” and notes its ability to carry even the CH-53 medium-heavy transport helicopter if the mission requires it.

Austal’s associated release discusses potential US Navy plans that could include an extended buy of the Flight 0 version ships, and adds that its workforce in Mobile is slated to grow to 1,200 by the end of 2007.

LCS 4 ordered

Oct 17/06: The FY 2007 defense budget is signed. LCS funding is not cut, but remains at $520.67 million

FY 2002 – 2006

Preliminary work with Norway’s Skjold, Lockheed’s Sea SLICE; Preliminary design contracts to 3; Down-select to 2 contenders; LCS 1 ordered & launched; Freedom Class named; LCS 2 ordered & keel laid; Independence Class named.

LCS-1 Freedom christening launch
LCS 1 Freedom christening
(click to view full)

Sept 23/06: LCS 1 launch. The US Navy christens and launches LCS 1 Freedom, the nation’s first littoral combat ship, at the Marinette Marine shipyard in Wisconsin. The ship will continue to undergo outfitting and testing at Marinette Marine; it will be commissioned in 2007 and eventually homeported in San Diego, CA. The ship’s sponsor is Birgit Smith, wife of the late Medal of Honor recipient U.S. Army Sgt. 1st Class Paul Ray Smith.

July 26/06: CRS report. The US Congressional Research Service releases its report “Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS): Background and Issues for Congress.” Meanwhile, as negotiations in Congress go forward, The House-reported version of the FY2007 defense appropriations bill (H.R. 5631) recommends approval of this request. The Senate reported version recommends a 2-ship cut by funding just one LCS in FY 2007, and rescinding funding for 1 of the 3 LCSs procured in FY 2006.

June 26/06: LCS 3. Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems & Sensors in Moorestown, NJ receives a $197.6 million cost-plus-incentive-fee/ award-fee modification under a previously awarded contract, exercising an option for construction of one Flight 0 monohull Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). Work will be performed in Lockport, LA (63%); Moorestown, NJ (36%); and Arlington, VA (1%), and is expected to be complete by January 2009. See corporate release.

LCS 3 order

April 13/06: Israel. Israel is considering Lockheed’s Littoral Combat Ship design. Specifically, they’re considering Lockheed’s monohull design as a potential replacement for their Saar Class corvettes and missile boats. A funded initial study is underway to assess feasibility, and integration with Israeli systems and weapons is critical.

April 4/06: Independence Class. Secretary of the Navy Donald C. Winter has named LCS 2, the first Flight 0 ship of the General Dynamics/Austal trimaran design. She will be the USS Independence. This Navy release notes the backgrounds of other ships who have borne that name. It’s all part of a speech on the future of Navy shipbuilding.

LCS-2 Independence Class

Jan 19/06: LCS 2 keel. GD/Austal Lays Keel for LCS 2. Austal USA hosts a traditional US Navy keel-laying ceremony to signify the start of construction on the first Flight 0 General Dynamics/Austal LCS trimaran. The keel laying follows on the heels of the official November 17, 2005 opening of Austal USA’s ship construction facility in Mobile, AL. See also General Dynamics team lead press release.

Dec 2/05: The U.S. Navy announced that USS Freedom [LCS 1] will be homeported at Naval Station San Diego, CA when it enters service. The ship is expected to be delivered to the Navy in December 2006, and arrive in San Diego in early 2007. See US Navy release.

Oct 7/05: LCS 2. The 1st GD-Austal Flight 0 LCS gets the go-ahead, as General Dynamics Bath Iron Works in Bath, ME received a $223.3 million cost-plus-award-fee/ incentive-fee modification to exercise an option under contract N00024-03-C-2310 for detail design and construction of one Flight 0 Littoral Combat Ship (LCS).

Work will be performed in Mobile, AL (50%) – note that this represents Austal’s component, and is the company’s largest-ever individual contract. Work will also be performed in Pittsfield, MA (33%); Bath, ME (15%); and Baltimore, MD (2%), and is expected to be complete by October 2007. This award is one of the potential options described in the May 27/04 contract award.

LCS 2 order

Skjold Class
Skjold Class
(click to view larger)

June 2/05: LCS 1 keel. Lockheed Lays Keel for LCS 1, USS Freedom. This is the first Flight 0 ship of Team Lockheed’s design, and the ceremony was attended by numerous dignitaries. This event is related the Dec 15, 2004 shipbuilding contract, of course.

May 9/05: Freedom Class. Secretary of the Navy Gordon England has named LCS 1, the first Flight 0 ship of Team Lockheed’s design. She will be the USS Freedom. See DefenseLINK release.

LCS-1 Freedom Class

April 11/05: Bath Iron Works prepares for construction. Bath Iron Works in Bath, ME receives a $16 million cost-plus-fixed-fee option to previously awarded contract N00024-03-C-2310 for the advance procurement of required Long Lead Material for the first “Flight Zero” models of General Dynamics’ trimaran Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) design. The contract award for Long Lead Material includes a description of the items to be procured, the supplier, the required ordering date, supplier lead-time, in-yard need date and a breakout by month of the dollar amounts required. Work is expected to be complete in September 2005.

Dec 15/04: LCS 1 ordered. Lockheed Martin Corp. Maritime Systems & Sensors in Moorestown, NJ received a $188.2 million cost-plus award-fee/ incentive-fee option to contract N00024-03-C-2311 for detail design and construction of the first Flight 0 Littoral Combat Ship (LCS).

Work will be performed in Moorestown, NJ (38%); Marinette, WI (57%); and Arlington, VA (5%), and is expected to be complete by December 2006. This is one of the potential options described in the May 27, 2004 contract award. US Navy.

LCS 1 order

June 6/04: LCS 1 design. Lockheed unveils latest version of its LCS design.

May 27/04: Downselect and Initial Contracts. Lockheed Martin Corp. Maritime Systems & Sensors in Moorestown, NJ, and General Dynamics Bath Iron Works in Bath, ME received cost-plus-award-fee contract modifications to previously awarded contracts for final system design, with options for detail design and construction of up to 2 Flight 0 Littoral Combat Ships (LCS).

Lockheed Martin receives a $46.5 million contract modification for a 7-month final system design, which could go as high as $423.4 million if options for detail design and construction of up to two LCS Flight 0 ships are exercized. Work on the final system design is expected to be complete by December 2004. See corporate release for further details re: Team Lockheed’s design & objectives.

General Dynamics receives a $78.8 million cost-plus-award-fee contract modification to N00024-03-C-2310 for a 16-month final system design. The award could go as high as $536 million if options for detail design and construction of up to two LCS Flight 0 ships are exercised ($536,020,688 including all options). Work on the final system design is expected to be complete by September 2005. Corporate release for further information re: the GD team’s design goals.

Raytheon’s team is eliminated.

Final system design finalist contracts

Visby in Helsingborg
Visby Corvette
(click to view full)

July 17/03: Preliminary Designs. The following 3 companies out of 6 offers won firm-fixed-price contracts for Flight 0 Littoral Combat Ship Preliminary Design:

General Dynamics Bath Iron Works in Bath, ME (N00024-03-C-2310 – $8.9 million)

Lockheed Martin Naval Electronics & Surveillance Systems, Surface Systems in Washington, DC (N00024-03-C-2311 – $10 million)

Raytheon Company Integrated Defense Systems in Portsmouth, RI (N00024-03-C-2312 – $10 million).

Each contractor will perform a preliminary design effort to refine its proposed Littoral Combat Ship concept. Work is expected to be complete in February 2004. The 3 losing teams include Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Gibbs and Cox (who would join the Lockheed team), John J McMullen Associates, and Textron Systems Marine & Land Operations.

The biggest surprise is the absence of Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, who was working from an already-proven littoral corvette design by Sweden’s Kockums AB, and its German parent Howaldtswerke Deutsche Werft AG. Kockums designed and is building Sweden’s Visby Class littoral warfare corvettes, and Northrop Grumman planned to use the stealthy carbon fiber mono-hull as the baseline for its LCS program.

Preliminary design contracts

May 21/03: Lockheed Martin holds an Industry Day to solicit potential members for its LCS team. Its base design concept is then known as “Sea Blade.”

March 4/03: Lockheed lays foundation for LCS team. Lockheed Martin, naval architects Gibbs & Cox, Bollinger Shipyards and shipbuilders Marinette Marine formally partner on the LCS program. The Lockheed release contains details of their respective areas of responsibility and past work.

September 2002: Skjold. US Navy finishes studying Norway’s Skjold (“Shield”) Class air cushion catamaran littoral fast patrol boats. The ship completed a 13-month deployment in the USA, allowing the US Navy to study the Skjold class concept and shape thinking about the LCS idea. The ship participated in a series of naval exercises and a number of tests with US Navy research establishments NAVSEA and the Office of Naval Research.

March 25/02: Sea SLICE. Lockheed’s Sea SLICE X-vessel participates in naval exercise. The vessel participated as a littoral warfare combatant, and tested a number of weapons including the 35mm “Millenium Gun,” NETFIRES missiles, and a simulated torpedo strike. The Lockheed release contains more information about Sea SLICE and the tested weapons, as does this GlobalSecurity.org Sea SLICE profile.

Appendix A: LCS’ Yo-Yoing Budgets & Program Structures

LCS-1 under construction
LCS 1, final construction
(click to view full)

In July 2011, the Navy created PEO LCS to oversee the program, headed by Rear Adm. James A. Murdoch. Ship construction supervision was removed for PEO Ships, while mission module supervision was removed from PEO Littoral and Mine Warfare (PEO LMW), which was dissolved. It wasn’t the first big change in the program – and may not be the last. Indeed, in August 2012 the Chief of Naval Operations added a council tasked to come up with a plan.

It is normal for programs to change elements like numbers ordered, but not to change the entire buy strategy. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what the LCS program has done. Several times.

Early plans for much cheaper ships would have built them from 2005 – 2019, but the extent of the program’s timeline and budgetary issues can be inferred from the current production timeline: 2011-2040.

How the US Navy arrived at that plan is a very tangled, but very instructive, story of goals not met, budgets changed or not spent, and an acquisition plan that has now been changed several times.

The LCS program’s budget mess has reflected their yo-yoing underlying program structure. LCS budgets are not even suitable for inclusion as a table, because the program’s structure has changed repeatedly. For several of those years, program turmoil was so great that it prevented budgeted funds from being spent. As such, each year’s budget can only be understood in light of the program’s shifting plans.

Plan #1: 13 ships. Under the original vision, Team Lockheed and the General Dynamics/Austal consortium would each produce a number of fully operational, competing Flight 0 ships. The idea was that experience with these ships is the best teacher and evaluator, ensuring that the Navy selects the right winning team for the overall program. It would also begin an immediate expansion of the US Navy’s falling numbers, since all of the Flight 0 ships would be available after the testing phase was complete. The design approach for the winning team’s second generation Flight 1 LCS ships would be flexible, and was envisioned as changing somewhat in light of the experience gained with the Flight 0 designs. Initially, 4 Flight 0 ships and 9 Flight 1 ships were contemplated, along with a purchase of various mission modules.

In FY 2005, Congress approved the Navy’s plan to fund the construction of the first 2 competing LCS sea frames, funded LCS-1, required LCS-2 to be built to a different design when funded in FY 2006, and added other basic stipulations.

The FY 2006 budget was $1.054 billion ($470.3M procurement, $584.1M RDT&E). The Navy had initially asked for LCS-2, but shipbuilding supporters in Congress funded LCS 2-4. As the program progressed, however, new Navy shipbuilding standards, and other shifts in specifications, caused LCS ship prices to rise sharply. As ship costs doubled, and then continued to rise, political scrutiny grew. In response, legislators inserted an adjusted $220 million cost cap on LCS 5-6, and made that buy and any others contingent on Navy certification of a stable LCS design.

Plan #1a: The FY 2007 budget was $926.6 million ($597.2M for ships & mission modules, $329.4M RDT&E). Congress funded LCS-5 and LCS-6. Austal’s Dec 11/06 press release even implied that more early-build ships might enter US Navy plans:

“Recent Navy reports have speculated on an expanded acquisition strategy, from 4 to a possible 17, for the Flight 0 fleet of LCSs that also includes an alternate monohull ship design. Commenting in September, Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development, and Acquisition), Dr Delores Etter, told Reuters, ‘The U.S. Navy hopes to finalize its acquisition strategy for a new class of shore-hugging combat ships by mid-December [2006].’ “

Plan #2: Bailing out. In March 2007, however, the US Navy canceled Team Lockheed’s LCS-3 due to cost growth. In November 2007 (technically, FY 2008), the General Dynamics/ Austal LCS-4 joined it. A Navy policy of requesting fixed-price contracts, coupled with specifications and designs they could keep changing at will, created a gap too large for negotiations to bridge. Contracts for LCS 5 & 6 were never issued.

Under the Navy’s revised approach, planned FY 2007-2008 procurements would be channeled into getting LCS 1 & 2 built, rather than buying additional ships. Instead of buying 3 more LCS ships in 2008, and then ramping up to 6 ships per year in 2009 – 2012, amended procurement plans proposed to buy 1 ship in 2008 and 2 ships in 2009. Under that Plan B, the 2 consortia would compete for orders, with 2 ships contracted to the winning builder and 1 for the loser. A down-select to 1 design would take place in 2010.

The FY 2008 request was set at $1.208 billion ($990.8M for 3 ships + 2 mission modules, $217.5M RDT&E); but the Navy’s cancelations and revised procurement strategy led to $337.1 million in funding for a single LCS – a contract the Navy never issued. Meanwhile, Congress had raised the per-ship cost cap to $460 million, and required fixed-price-type contracts for LCS ships bought from here on.

Chart review
Where to now?
(click for cutaway)

Plan #3: Fog of war. The FY 2009 request was $920 million, for 2 LCS ships. The final 2009 defense bill increased that funding to $1 billion. Once again, however, the Navy’s LCS procurement plan changed. Now, it planned to buy 2 LCS ships in 2009, with an option for Phase II that could involve up to 3 more LCS Flight 0+ Class ships on the same terms in 2010. Those Phase II ships would likely be split between the contractors, but could be issued for just 1 design.

Congress added some relief by delaying the implementation of the LCS cost cap to FY2010, but contract negotiations must have been interesting. Neither manufacturing team had demonstrated the ability to deliver an LCS ship for $500 million, and the Navy was insisting on fixed-price contracts that transfer all risk to the shipbuilders. Both contracts (LCS-3 and LCS-4) were eventually signed in 2009, but the Navy decided that their terms needed to be kept secret.

That seems likely leave just 2 Flight 0 LCS ships in the water before the revised LCS program was supposed to pick one final design. Or not. Under terms that remained unclear.

Additional reports added even more uncertainty. First came reports that that final selection might even feature a design competition that would be separate from the build competition, which means the ship’s design team may not be the final builders. That kind of competition is called “build to print,” in which the government buys the blueprints and then contracts for construction separately. Of course, handing a new ship design to a firm that hasn’t built it before carries cost-inflation risks of its own. The question is whether the potential threat of switching suppliers creates enough added incentives to keep costs down, in order to justify the increased time, overhead, and added program risk inherent in running 2 serial competitions instead of 1.

The FY 2010 budget requested $1.877 billion ($1.38 billion for 3 more ships, $136.7M for mission modules, plus $360.5M RDT&E which includes $75.5 million to cover cost growth on LCS 1-2). The program ended up with $1.579 billion: $1,157 million for all procurement of 2 ships and mission modules, and $422.0 million for RDT&E.

Plan #4: 10 + 5. In September 2009, while the House and Senate were working on reconciling their FY 2010 defense bills, another major change to the program’s structure was announced. There would be no Phase II for the FY 2009 buy. Instead, selection of the final design would occur in FY 2010, before operational trials of both ships could take place. Both industry teams would submit proposals under a new solicitation. The winner would receive a 10-ship contract running from FY 2010-2014, and provide the combat systems for their 10 ships, plus 5 more. They would also deliver a technical data package, allowing the Navy to open a “build to print” competition for a second builder of the chosen design, beginning in FY 2012. That “build to print” order would be for up to 5 more ships.

Assuming that this program would remain intact, the FY 2011 request was for $1.819 billion with RDT&E would be $226.3 million, while $1.592 billion for procurement would fund 2 ships ($1.2 billion), advance orders for FY 2012-14 major hull and propulsion components ($280 million), and mission modules (remainder, about $112 million).

Plan #5: Dual-build 20. Naturally, the proposed procurement approach changed again. Upon examining the bids, the US Navy went to Congress and asked for permission to accept both 10-ship bids, buying 20 ships for an advertised price that was about the same as the estimates for the 15 they had wanted. The GAO and CBO both have doubts about those estimates, in part because the Navy is still changing the designs; but the contracts are underway. For better or for worse, the Navy finally has an approach that is actually buying ships.

The Navy’s FY 2011-15 plan called for 17 ships total in a 2, 3, 4, 4, and 4 sequence, though that may rise to 20 ships. The Navy’s longer-range shipbuilding plans would buy 3 LCS hulls per year from FY 2016-19, dropping to 2 per year from FY 2020-24, then dropping again to a 1-2-1-2 pattern for FY 2025-33. The program would finish up at 2 per year from FY 2034-40.

Because these ships are assumed to have a service life of 25 years, the 10 ships bought from 2036 – 2040 would be replacements for the original ships of class.

Unless, of course, the entire acquisition plan changes again. The graph below shows how estimates of the total program cost have fluctuated as the Navy changed its procurement structure, again and again:

LCS budget inflation
FY12 Forecast: US Navy Comptroller
No such data released in May 2009 document

The projected costs and cost/unit, include outfitting and post delivery costs, which explains why they’re above the widely-used Total Obligational Authority (TOA) numbers. At more than $1.3 billion over the life of the program, these extra costs are hardly pocket change

Additional Readings & Sources

Readers with corrections, comments, or information to contribute are encouraged to contact DID’s Founding Editor, Joe Katzman. We understand the industry – you will only be publicly recognized if you tell us that it’s OK to do so.

The Littoral Combat Ships: Basic Program & Ship Background

 

LCS 1 Freedom Class Monohull & Major Unique Items

 

LCS 2 Independence Class Trimaran & Major Unique Items

 

LCS Exports

  • GDLCS – Multi-Mission Combatant. See also their more detailed international variant brochure [PDF], dating from when they were teamed up with Austal.
  • Lockheed Martin – Multi-Mission Combat Ship. LCS for export, but with real weapons and an improved radar. Comes in varying sizes: 85m (corvette), 118m (light frigate, like LCS), and 150m (full frigate). See also their older LCS-Israel brochure [PDF, 4.27 MB], offering a design that removes the Mk110 gun while adding a 30mm gun system like the Typhoon, Harpoon missiles, Barak anti-air missiles, and strike-length Mk41 vertical launch cells.
  • DID Spotlight – A Littoral Combat Frigate for Israel? The Israelis wanted a very different approach. No mission modules. Full fleet defense capabilities, including vertical launch cells and a SPY-1F AEGIS radar. Anti-ship missiles, and torpedo tubes. Problem was, the ship was too expensive for them.
  • Aviation Week Ares (Oct 18/08) – Lockheed Martin Pushes Export LCS. With a long list of offered and potential changes to armament, layout, and even propulsion. Market demand in the rest of the world appears to be delivering some design verdicts.

 

Official Reports

 

LCS Program: Analysis

 

LCS Ancillaries & Auxilliaries

Related American and International Programs

News & Views

Tag: LCSFOCUS

India & Israel’s Barak-8 SAM Development Project(s)

$
0
0
Barak-8 Eilat Class launch concept
Barak-8 concept
(click to view full)

Over a development timeline measured in decades, India’s indigenous “Akash” and “Trishul” programs for surface to air missiles have failed to inspire full confidence. Trishul was eventually canceled entirely. Akash had a a long, difficult development period, but seems to have found customer acceptance and a solid niche in the rugged terrain of the northeast. India still needed longer-range advanced SAMs to equip its navy and army, however, and decided to try to duplicate the success of the partnership model that had fielded the excellent Indo-Russian PJ-10 BrahMos supersonic cruise missile.

In February 2006, therefore, Israel and India signed a joint development agreement to create a new Barak-NG medium shipborne air defense missile, as an evolution of the Barak-1 system in service with both navies. In July 2007 the counterpart MR-SAM project began moving forward, aiming to develop a medium range SAM for use with India’s land forces. Both missiles would now be called Barak-8. In between, “India to Buy Israeli “SPYDER” Mobile Air Defense System” covered India’s move to begin buying mobile, short-range surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems for its army, based on the Python and Derby air-to-air missiles in service with its air force and naval aircraft. These projects offer India a way forward to address its critical air defense weaknesses, and upgrade “protection of vital and strategic ground assets and area air defence.” This DID FOCUS article will cover the Barak-8 and closely related programs in India, Israel, and beyond.

The Barak, and Barak-8

Genesis: Barak-1

Barak Components
Barak Components
(click to view full)

Barak is a supersonic, vertically-launched short range air defense system, with an operational range of about 10 km/ 6 miles. That pushes it past the standard ranges of shoulder-launched options with naval counterparts, like the MBDA Mistral/SIMBAD or Saab Boofors’ RBS-70, but short of other small vertical launch options like the RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow. Its closest western competitors on the international market are probably Raytheon’s horizontally-fired Amero-German RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile, and MBDA’s flexible Crotale VT-1/NG. Key attributes include a compact 8-cell vertical launching system that weighs just 1,700 kg, coupled with an equally compact 1,300 kg fire control system. This makes it easier to install in small ships, and to retrofit into older vessels.

Barak-1 reportedly in service with at Israel, Chile, India, Singapore, and Venezuela.

Barak Launch
Barak launch
(click to view full)

India bought over $300 million worth of these missiles as a substitute for the indigenous but long-delayed Trishul (“Trident”) missile project, and Barak systems now equip India’s lone aircraft carrier INS Viraat, all 6 Project 16/16A Godavari/ Brahmaputra Class 3,850t frigates, 2 of 6 Rajput Class 4,974t destroyers, and the 3 new 6,200t Shivalik Class frigates. Current missile stocks aren’t adequate to cover that, and readiness requires regular training launches against live targets. Barak-1 missiles are also supposed to be part of upgrades to India’s 3 Delhi Class 6,200t destroyers, in order to remove the hole created by the Russian SA-N-7C ‘Gollum’ air defense missile system’s limited firing arc.

Barak-1 missiles are also supposed to be part of upgrades to India’s 3 Delhi Class 6,200t destroyers, in order to fix the SA-N-7C ‘Gollum’ air defense missile’s limited firing arc. The missile’s fast response time, effectiveness against missile threats, and compact size are considerable assets, but they are currently offset somewhat by its short range.

Next-Gen: Barak-8

Barak 8
Barak 8 display
(click to view full)

The Navy’s Barak-NG/ LR-SAM project aimed to give India’s naval defenses a much longer reach, with the intention of eventually making it India’s primary naval SAM. The project was later renamed Barak 8, and aims to deliver 60-70 km/ up to 42 mile range, thanks to a dual-pulse solid rocket motor whose second “pulse” fires as the missile approaches its target. This ensures that the missile isn’t just coasting in the final stages, giving it more than one chance at a fast, maneuvering target.

The missile’s most important feature may be its active seeker. Instead of forcing its ship or land-based radar to “paint”/illuminate its target at all times, the Barak 8 can be left alone once it is close to its target. This is an excellent approach for dealing with saturation attacks using older ship radars, which can track many targets but illuminate just a few. It’s also very useful for land-based systems, which will survive longer against enemy anti-radar missiles (ARMs) if they can turn themselves on and off to confuse enemy seekers, without worrying that they will lose all of their effectiveness.

That kind of performance vaults the Barak 8 past widespread options like the RIM-162 ESSM, or entries like VL-MICA on land. Though the Barak-8 may compete globally with those systems, a better comparison would be naval missiles like Raytheon’s SM-2 Block IIIA and MBDA’s Aster-15, or land-based options like the Patriot. The Barak 8’s active seeker would even give it a performance advantage over the SM-2, and corresponds more closely to the SM-6 currently in development.

The naval Barak-8 reportedly maintains its principle of using compact launchers and systems. Its ancillary capabilities will always depend on the radar and combat system aboard its ship.

One wild card is the Barak’s potential use in a point defense role against ballistic missiles, a role that can be played by some of its more advanced competitors on land or sea. This capability is implied in the land-based system’s name, but hasn’t been discussed publicly, or validated in publicly announced tests.

The land-based Barak 8 Air and Missile Defense (AMD) system includes several components:

  • RAFAEL supplies the Barak-8 interceptor missile, which remains vertically launched.
  • The battle management, command, control, communication and intelligence center (BMC4I) is produced by the MBT Division of IAI’s Missiles, Systems, and Space Group; it offers both stand alone operation for a single fire unit, and joint task force coordination (JTC).
  • IAI ELTA Systems Ltd. supplies the Land-Based Multi-Function Surveillance, Track & Guidance Radar (LB-MF-STAR), a rotating S-band digital Active Electronic Steering Array (AESA) Radar System that can deliver an accurate, high quality arena situation picture, and extract low radar cross section targets like stealthy cruise missiles, even in the toughest environmental conditions. The naval MF-STAR is expected to be part of Israel’s next-generation missile frigates.

In Israel, the Barak-8 is slated to equip its next-generation frigates, and may find its way to other roles. India expects to field the missiles on land and sea.

Beyond those 2 countries, export prospects beckon for a missile that may offer a value-priced naval alternative to Raytheon’s Standard-2 and MBDA’s Aster-15. According to Defense News, the Barak-8 project features funding from American military aid dollars, as well as Indian cooperation and private/governmental funding in Israel. An Israeli source, on the other hand, has told DID that the USA has no claim on the Barak-8’s intellectual property. DID has been unable to verify he exact situation; but if the USA has no IP or significant American-made components in the Barak AMD system, it would have implications for both procurement funding sources and export policy.

India’s Barak Programs

The Navy: LR-SAM

Barak Engagement Profile
Engagement profile
(click to view the rest)

India has 2 different programs that could use the new longer-range Barak missile. The naval Barak-NG, or LR-SAM deal, was the first. Signed in 2006, it’s worth INR 26.06 billion (about $591 million at then-conversion) as of December 2009.

India’s Navy has decided as a matter of policy that it will only mount medium-long range surface-to-air missile systems on future warships, as opposed to depending on short range systems that might protect a ship, but don’t offer layered defense for the rest of the fleet. This was an early sign of its transition to a more of a “blue water” navy that can reach into high-threat areas, and a logical complement to India’s establishment of a serious carrier force beginning with INS Vikramaditya (ex Admiral Gorshkov).

Hence the 2006 Barak-NG naval agreement, which gives India an upgraded version of a familiar system, extends India’s technological capabilities, fosters economic ties and integration at sub-component levels, and helps the Israelis build a new system that meets some of their own emerging requirements. The new system would reportedly have a range of 50-60 km.

Making that happen required some loosening of bureaucratic constraints on India’s defense industry. Based on projections of need and the high cost of air defense systems, India’s Ministry of Defence began initiatives under which Indian state-owned agencies can forge joint co-development and co-production ventures with foreign companies. The rationale is that under these partnerships, much of the underlying technology will remain in India. Israel has risen to become one of India’s largest defense industry partners, and may be on its way to surpassing Russia as India’s largest partner.

That rise, India’s previous positive experiences with Barak, and the opportunity to help develop new technologies instead of buying them, all led India toward Israel for its next-generation naval SAM partnership.

Israel Aerospace Industries will be the key partner, and will contribute most of the applicable technology, just as Russia did for the BrahMos by offering its SS-N-26 Oniks missile as the base platform. 2011 Barak-8 materials show Indian firms contributing the dual-pulse rocket motor, associated motor arming/safing mechanisms, and the pneumatic actuation system. On the other hand, India Defence reports that IAI and its Israeli partners have agreed to transfer all relevant technologies and manufacturing capabilities to India.

The LR-SAM project is now slated for completion by December 2015, which would be about a decade from its 2005 project approval to fielding. Israel will be ahead of that schedule, as they began steps to field Barak-8 in their navy in mid-2013.

Land-Based: MR-SAM

SAM_SA-3 Goa
SA-3
(click to view full)

The Barak-8’s follow-on project involves a land-based system, intended to replace old Russian systems. Most reports place MR-SAM’s desired capabilities at 70 km/ 42 mile range effective range, with 360 degree coverage, plus the ability to engage multiple targets simultaneously. As The Times of India put it, in 2007:

“The project is crucial because, as highlighted by TOI earlier, there are still “many gaping holes” in India’s radar network and the armed forces only have near-obsolete air defence units like Russian Pechora [DID: upgraded SA-3], OSA-AK [DID: SA-8B, scheduled for interim upgrades], and Igla [DID: SA-16 shoulder-fired] missile systems.

Sources peg the MR-SAM project as an extension of the ongoing DRDO-Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) project, launched in January 2006 at a cost of $480 million, to develop a supersonic 60-km Barak-NG (new-generation) missile defence system for Navy.”

India Defence and the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz also reported that MR-SAM would be an extension of work done on the Barak-NG deal, and this seems to be the general consensus.

SAM SA-8
SA-8
(click to view full)

The DRDO Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) will be the ‘prime developer’ for the MR-SAM project, which will reportedly have a Rs 2,300 crore (INR 23 billion, about $445 million at signing in 2009) indigenous component within an estimated Rs 10,075 crore (INR 100.75 billion, about $1.95 billion at signing) total. The 4-5 year project aims to provide India’s military with 9 advanced air defense squadrons, each with 2 MR-SAM firing units. Each MR-SAM unit, in turn, would consist of a command and control center, an acquisition radar, a guidance radar, and 3 launchers with 8 missiles each.

MR-SAM’s total would therefore be 10 C2 centers, 18 acquisition radars, 18 guidance radars, and 54 launchers, armed with 432 ready-to-fire missiles. Some reports have placed total missile orders as high as 2,000, which would add a significant reserve stockpile to replenish missiles in any conflict.

Indian sources estimated a 4-year, $300 million System Design & Development phase to develop unique system elements, and produce an initial tranche of the land-based missiles. As of its approval by the Cabinet Committee on Security in July 2007, MR-SAM surpassed the BrahMos project in size, and may be the largest joint defense development project ever undertaken between India and any other country.

The MR-SAM project reportedly has a “probable date of completion” by August 2016, which would be around 7 years from its 2009 approval.

Contracts & Key Events

2014 – 2015

In service in Israel; DRDO challenges; Successful intercept test.

INS Vikramaditya trials
Empty
(click to view full)

November 30/15: The Israeli Navy has announced the successful first test of the Barak-8 air defense system. The interceptor missile was launched from a Sa’ar-5 Corvette against a UAV target representing a threat against a ship at sea. The system has been jointly developed with India and aims to cater for the long range missile defence for both countries with India also planning to test the system before the end of the year. It is hoped that the system will have reached initial operational capability within the next two years.

November 16/15: India’s Barak-8 will be test-fired between now and the end of the year after it was announced that preparations are being made on board the INS Kolkata for the test which the Navy hope to have installed on all future warships and retrofitted on its current Kolkata class destroyers.

Mar 2/15: Indian interest renewed for MRSAM. Defense News reports that an Indian Defence Ministry official confirmed that the medium-range (MRSAM) variant is a go for joint development with Israel, with an initial expected order of $1.5 billion. Rafale and IAI would work with Indian firms Bharat Dynamics Tata Power SED and Larsen & Toubro.

Nov 10/14: Testing. A successful test of the Barak-8 “Air & Missile Defense System” acquires an incoming target drone using the system’s radar, fired the missile to an interception zone, and had the missile successfully acquire and kill the target using its own seeker. Indian officials were there, including DRDO chief Dr. Avinash Chander, and Israeli and Indian releases both pronounced their satisfaction with all aspects of test performance.

The Israelis already have the missile deployed, so they’re happy. What the releases didn’t say, is whether DRDO’s rocket booster was used in the test (Aug 14/14). It’s likely that they did, and the next step is warship trials for India. DRDO hopes to begin deliveries by the end of 2015. Sources: IAI, “IAI Successfully Tested the Barak-8 Air & Missile Defense System” | India MoD, “Successful Flight Testing of LR SAM Missile”.

Aug 14/14: INS Kolkata. Media reports indicate that India’s new 7,500t air defense destroyer INS Kolkata, which is set to be commissioned on Aug 16/14, will be armed with Barak-1 missiles until the Barak-8s arrive. The article doesn’t explain whether the vertical launchers are compatible, or whether the Barak-1 has been integrated yet with the IAI Elta MF-STAR active array radar that equips the new destroyer class. With respect to the Barak-8s:

“The missile is ready, but [DRDO’s] boosters to propel the missile [upon launch]… have failed.”

Hence the importance of the forthcoming tests, if DRDO can get its rocket boosters to Israel (q.v. Aug 11/14). Meanwhile, India is likely to have 3 Kolkata Class destroyers ready to go by the time they’re done testing the Indian LR-SAM. They’ll need to do something in the interim. Sources: oneindia News, “INS Kolkata, the Biggest Naval Destroyer, is the weakest link in Defence”.

Aug 11/14: Force majeure. India’s Business Standard explains how the recent battles in the Gaza Strip are affecting the LR-SAM program, which was already 2 years late:

“The DRDO confirms that the rockets, filled with highly combustible propellant, were despatched [sic] on a commercial airline, Korean Air, for trials in Israel. After the rocket motors reached Seoul – Korean Air’s global hub, from where they were to be routed onwards to Tel Aviv – the launch of Israeli airstrikes on Gaza on July 8 caused Korean Air to cancel all flights to Tel Aviv…. Consequently, a crucial and secret sub-system of the world’s most advanced anti-missile defence system has been languishing in a Korean Air warehouse in Seoul.”

Actually, the cancellation came on July 20/14, after Hamas rockets struck near the airport. Note that Iron Dome is programmed to ignore rockets that don’t threaten its priority areas, and many airlines have already reassessed the situation and resumed flights. Korean Air, on the other hand, won’t begin flights to Tel Aviv again until Aug 28/14. India’s DRDO is “monitoring the situation,” and could choose to request help from India’s Air Force, whose IL-76 heavy jet transports could pick up and deliver the missiles.

Once the Premier Explosives Ltd. rocket motors are delivered, they will be integrated with the IAI-built front section, and then undergo full homing trials at an Israeli range. After that, warship trials will begin, and DRDO hopes to begin deliveries by the end of 2015. By then, 3 new Project 15A Kolkata Class destroyers, and the aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya, will all be waiting to receive their primary air defense weapons. Sources: India’s Business Standard, “Indian missiles languish in South Korea due to Gaza conflict” | Israel’s Globes, “Korean Air cancels all Israel flights until August 28”.

May 13/14: Israel. A Sa’ar 5 Eilat Class corvette has already been outfitted with IAI Elta’s MF-STAR S-Band AESA radar, and Barak-8 air defense missiles. The other 2 are set to follow.

The MF-STAR, or “Adir,” has been bought by India for its new Project 15A Kolkata Class destroyers. They are also expected to employ the Barak-8. Sources: The Jerusalem Post, “The Israel Navy is quietly enhancing its capabilities for precision, long-range missiles”.

2010 – 2013

Barak-8 development & testing continues; Azerbaijan sale?; Akash missile expands Indian footprint; Indian RFI for immediate MR-SAM option.

Barak-8 concept
Barak-8 concept
(click to view full)

Dec 23/13: DAC OK. AK Antony and the Defence Acquisitions Council (DAC) clear the Indian Navy’s intent to buy 262 more Barak-1 missiles, in order to replenish their fast-dwindling stocks. The paper adds:

“The naval LR-SAM, approved in December 2005, is now slated for completion by December 2015. The MR-SAM project, sanctioned in February 2009, in turn, has a “probable date of completion” by August 2016.”

Read “Indian Naval Air Defenses: Another Avoidable Crisis” for full coverage.

Dec 17/13: Update. India’s Ministry of Defense provides updates regarding a number of DRDO projects, including LR-SAM. The development program’s original delivery target was May 2011, but the Probable Date of Completion is now December 2015: 4 1/2 years late, and well after it becomes fully operational in Israel. Sources: India MoD, “DRDO Projects”.

Nov 14/13: Stall. India’s LR-SAM and MR-SAM projects are stalled, even as Israel moves to deploy the Barak-8 at sea. The Barak-8 was supposed to be delivered for LR-SAM by 2012, and is supposed to go to the IAF as MR-SAM by 2017. Unfortunately, drawings for components aren’t enough to let Indian firms produce them properly, and:

“Frankly speaking, right now, not much is going on in the joint venture due to various issues between the two sides. Expecting Israel to share its technology with India is unfair. But such things should have been clarified before the joint venture was entered into,” said an official…. DRDO officials are also attributing the delay to a complicated and long procedure involving shuttling between India and Israel for various stages of development of a system etc… [DRDO] also reportedly found itself helpless on problems in propulsion system and other related issues while a significant number of parts or systems are yet to be tested following a delay in manufacturing.”

So, to sum up: contract terms that didn’t provide clear mechanisms to enable Indian production from the baseline they’re actually at, Indian DRDO bureaucracy sitting in the way of development and not delivering on key items, and manufacturing issues that have created Indian testing delays. While Israel fields the missile. DRDO Director General Avinash Chander wouldn’t comment on LR-SAM, which is already late, but he said MR-SAM remained on schedule for 2017. Sources: Times of India, “India-Israel joint venture to manufacture missiles fails to take off”.

July 31/13: Israeli installation. India may give the Barak-8 LR-SAM’s date of probable completion as 2015, but Israel intends to have the missile installed on its 3 Sa’ar 5 Eilat Class corvettes before the end of 2013.

The move is reportedly being made in response to Syria’s deployment of SS-N-26/ P-800 Yakhont supersonic anti-ship missiles, with a range of up to 180 miles. Some of the missiles reportedly survived a major Israeli strike, and Hezbollah’s leading role in the Syrian Civil War sharpens concerns about a transfer to Iran’s 21st-century Condor Legion. Incoming supersonic missiles will compress the Barak-8’s range, but its 60-70 km base range remains a large improvement over the Barak-1’s base 10-12 km. Arming the Eilat Class with the navy’s first wide-area air defense technology is a good backup move while Israel looks to determine the true state of Syria’s P-800 missiles, and if necessary, to target them for a final strike. Israel HaYom | UPI | China’s Xinhua.

Israel deploying Barak-8

March 18/13: An India MoD release offers a list of late DRDO projects, along with a voluminous list of excuses. Credit of some kind is due for not using “the dog ate our blueprints,” but every other issue one normally expects in projects of this nature can be found. LR-SAM is one of the listed projects, and its Probable Date of Completion has slipped from May 2011 to December 2015.

Dec 18/12: LR-SAM. India’s MoD offers quick year-end reviews for a number of key programs. With respect to LR-SAM, it says that:

“Control and Navigation Tests (CNT) for LRSAM, a joint development Programme between DRDO and Israel Aerospace Industry (IAI), to develop an Advanced Naval Air Defence System for Indian Navy) were conducted on 16th and 18th July 2012. All Planned mission objectives were fully met in both the tests. The missiles showed good navigation and control performance. DRDO is the Prime Development Agency and IAI the design authority for supply, installation and final acceptance.”

Development was pegged at 5 years under the original 2006 LR-SAM deal, so they’re late. MR-SAM isn’t mentioned, but LR-SAM missile tests are also effectively MR-SAM missile tests.

Dec 5/12: LR-SAM MoU. Israel Aerospace Industries and India’s state-owned Bharat Electronics Ltd. sign a memorandum of understanding (MoU), concerning their cooperation on future LR-SAM ship-defence system projects.

IAI already has a number of arrangements in place with Indian firms. Under this MoU, BEL will function as the Lead Integrator, ultimately taking over DRDO’s role once the missile is developed, and will produce major sub-systems. IAI will continue to act as the system’s Design Authority, and to produce sub-systems as a main sub-contractor of BEL. IAI.

Feb 26/12: Azerbaijan. Israel and Azerbaijan sign a government to government deal for a range of military equipment, including UAVs and “missile defense systems.”

The Caspian Sea’s gas and oil resources are increasing tensions in the region, and Russia’s recent hostility with Georgia has also roiled the waters. From 2008 to the present, SIRPI’s database confirms that Israel has become a significant supplier of military equipment to Azerbaijan, including artillery, UAVs, and anti-tank and anti-ship missiles. Russia and Ukraine are even more significant suppliers, transferring attack helicopters, artillery, missiles, armored vehicles – and long-range S-300 air defense missile systems.

Subsequent reports from SIRPI indicate that this $1.6 billion deal may contain up to 75 Barak-8 missiles, and an EL/M-2080 Green Pine long-range radar. That diversity of long-range systems would complicate planning for an attacker, and offers some insurance. Israel may even get more than just money from this. Depending on that Green Pine radar’s positioning, it should be able to see a long way into Iran’s airspace. Ha’aretz | News.Az.

Azeri deal?

NASAMS
SLAMRAAM test
(click to view full)

June 3/11: Industrial. Livefist shows an India DRDO presentation that helps break down technology responsibilities within the Barak-8. Indian firms will contribute the pneumatic actuator, dual-pulse rocket motor, and motor arming/safing technologies.

April 13/11: MR-SAM gap-filler RFI. IANS reports that India’s MoD has issued a request for information (RFI) from global and domestic missile manufacturers, asking them if they could supply the medium range air defense missile within a short time-frame to the Indian Air Force (IAF), for defense of vital installations. Submitted systems must be capable of all-weather, all-terrain, day/night operation with a 3.5 km altitude ceiling, and able to engage multiple targets that include a range of aerial enemies.

The RFI is ahead of a tender for the purchase of medium-range surface-to-air (MRSAM) missiles, and the emergency buy would reportedly be over and above the 18 MR-SAM units that India is buying from Israel in the 2009 deal. The near-term timeline would appear to disqualify the Barak-8, preventing tri-service acceptance. Obvious Air Force contenders would include India’s own Akash, and offerings from MBDA (VL-MICA), Kongsberg/Raytheon (SLAMRAAM/NASAMS, possibly Patriot PAC-3 as well), Russia (TOR-M2E, SA-20/S-300 PMU2 possible), and IAI/RAFAEL (Spyder MR-SAM variant, complementing the SR-SAM variant India has already ordered).

SAM Akash Exhibit
Akash SAM exhibit
(click to view full)

Aug 9/10: Defence Minister Shri AK Antony updates the status of various missile programs, in a Parliamentary reply to Shri SB Wankhede and Shri AP Shivaji. Trishul and Akash aren’t mentioned at all; the former presumably owing to its cancellation, the latter because it may no longer be a development program. LR-SAM’s ballistic flight trials was undertaken in May 2010. MR-SAM’s preliminary design has been carried out, along with “pre-tender briefing to all prospective vendors.”

Feb 2/10: Akash up, opportunity down. India increases its Akash SAM buy to 1,000, and will deploy them in the rugged terrain of the northeast as SA-3 replacements. The INR 42.79 billion (about $925 million) contract will buy 6 squadrons of Akash medium-range surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) from state-run Bharat Electronics Ltd (BEL). This 750 missile order follows an INR 12.21 billion (about $250 million) order for 2 initial squadrons with 250 missiles total, back in January 2009.

Delivery under this order is expected between 2012-2015, stabilizing Akash as a shorter-range complement to the MR-SAM and affirming the IAF’s confidence. That confidence doesn’t endanger the MR-SAM project, but it removes the expansion possibilities that would have been created by full cancellation, or a limited 2-squadron Akash program. The Hindu | Indian Express | Times of India | Times Now | Bloomberg | India’s Business Times.

2006 – 2009

LR-SAM and MR-SAM deals signed; Budgets; Competition by the back door?

VL-MICA
VL-MICA test
(click to view full)

Dec 14/09: Confirmed. Defence Minister Shri AK Antony offers a program update, in a written Parliamentary reply to Shri Asaduddin Owaisi:

“Defence Research Development Organization (DRDO) has undertaken joint development of missiles, Long Range Surface-to-Air Missile (LRSAM) for Indian navy and Medium Range Surface to Air Missile (MRSAM) for Indian Air Force with M/s Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI), Israel. The cost of project for LRSAM is Rs. 2606.02 crore and cost of project for MRSAM is Rs. 10075 crore. Both the missiles being developed are comparable in performance and cost to missiles available in their class in the world market.”

Given conversion rates at contract time, that means $1.95 billion for MR-SAM, and $560.8 million for LR-SAM.

Indian deals & budgets

Nov 9/09: MR-SAM. Reports surface again that Israel and India have signed a deal for the Barak-8 missile system, which appears to be the Army’s MR-SAM project. Indian reports quote an Israel official, who says that India signed a $1.1 billion contract in April 2009, with delivery expected by 2017.

Islamabad’s The Daily Mail claim that the deal is $1.4 billion, and involves 2,000 Barak-8 missiles for land and naval forces. India has significant industrial offset laws, and The Daily Mail reports that IAI will make offsetting purchases from Tata equal to 33% of the contract. These would almost certainly include Tata trucks for the land-based Barak-8 AMD, as well as purchases and partnerships involving Tata Advanced Systems Ltd. (TASL), whose collaboration may also include the development, licensed manufacture, or operation of UAVs, radars, electronic warfare systems and homeland security systems.

See also March 26/09 entry. Reuters | domain-b | PressTV | The Daily Mail, Pakistan.

Nov 8/09: Outlook India, from Jerusalem:

“As India and Israel move to deepen their military ties, Army Chief General Deepak Kapoor arrived here on a key visit where he is scheduled to hold talks with top military officials.

General Kapoor will hold discussions with senior defence officials as ‘part of regular ongoing exchanges’ to tighten bilateral defence ties. The three-day visit will also allay fears that the CBI enquiry into controversial [original naval Barak-1] missile deal may disrupt the robust defence ties between the two countries.”

See also: UPI report.

June 10/09: MR-SAM contract? Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) announces that it has recently signed a contract to “develop and supply the land-based Barak 8 Air and Missile Defense (AMD) System to a foreign customer.” The customer is not named. See also March 26/09 entry.

May 12/09: Barak-8. Israel Aerospace Industries unveils a full-scale mockup of the Barak 8 surface to air missile (SAM) for the first time at Singapore’s IMDEX 2009 maritime defense show. Barak 8 is co-developed for use by India, and also destined to equip Israel’s next missile frigates. It appears to be an active-homing missile, too, an ability that current American SM-2 missiles lack, but which the SM-6 under development will have. Aviation Week Ares:

“Key features of the 70 km-range Barak 8 missile are an active radar seeker and a dual-pulse solid rocket motor. The first motor pulse propels the weapon through most of its trajectory while the second fires as the missile approaches its target, giving it the energy necessary to defeat evasive action or random weaving. The active seeker means that the missile is autonomous in the endgame, leaving the ship’s radar free to track [DID: illuminate, actually – many passive radars can track hundreds of targets, but illuminate just a couple at a time for targeting] other targets. The missile launcher comprises an eight-round module, three or more of which could make up a typical system.”

Barak-8: early details

March 30/09: MR-SAM corruption? An Indian media story carried by DNA alleges that a senior Indian Air Force officer was instrumental in reducing India’s buy of the DRDO’s long Akash missile project from 8 squadrons to 2, and is now doing work related to MR-SAM for Israeli firms following his retirement from service:

“Without naming the officer, Defence Research & Development Organisation chief M Natarajan told a press conference in Bangalore during the Aero India show last month that the officer had slashed his predecessor’s commitment to induct eight squadrons of Akash missiles. The officer had brought the figure down to just two squadrons. Akash has a range of 27km, while MRSAM has a range of about 70km.

A source in the defence ministry confirmed that even for the induction of these two Akash squadrons, the IAF put a condition that the DRDO must first agree to the MRSAM project… “[He] killed Akash, blackmailed us to agree to MRSAM, and is now working for them openly.”

These arrangements could reflect corruption, as they did in the USAF’s Darleen Druyun/ Boeing scandal. Or, they could reflect a bureaucratic strong-arm tactic, executed by a customer that saw a large difference in key performance statistics, and accepted the inevitability of some Akash buys but sought to minimize them.

March 26/09: MR-SAM. Adnkronos International relays an Asian Age report that India has reached a $1.9 billion equivalent deal to develop MR-SAM. India’s Ministry of Defence has not confirmed the deal, but

“…sources in the department of defence research and development (DRDO) said it was likely to go ahead. The joint development of the 70-kilometre MR-SAM missile project would be carried out by India’s DRDO and the Israeli Aircraft Industries [sic].”

Subsequent reports lend considerable credence to the belief that MR-SAM was signed at this time, though the exact amounts vary. A December 2009 Parliamentary answer adds some clarity, and places the overall effort at INR 100.75 billion (about $1.95 billion), but contracts to Israeli companies within that effort probably aren’t the full budgeted amount. Reports also cite up to 2,000 missiles ordered, and offsetting purchases from Tata equal to 33% of the contract. These offsets would almost certainly include Tata trucks for the land-based Barak-8 AMD system, as well as purchases and partnerships involving Tata Advanced Systems Ltd. (TASL), whose collaboration may also include the development, licensed manufacture, or operation of UAVs, radars, electronic warfare systems and homeland security systems.

See also Nov 9/09, June 10/09 entries.

MR-SAM Deal (probable)

Feb 24/09: MR-SAM. A domain-b article quotes senior DRDO scientist Dr Prahlad, re: the MR-SAM project:

“We may take around 12 years but the requirement of the services is that they want it (MR-SAM) fast. The only way to make it four to five years is to partner with a country which has already developed some of the hardware. If they have got some hardware and we have got some knowledge, we can do it in 4-5 years…” Dr Prahalad added that [DRDO’s Akash] did not fit the bill for the MR-SAM project as its range was only 30 km, while the services had posited teh [sic] requirement for a missile system with a range of 70 km.”

Feb 10/09: Politics. Top Left Front leaders, Prakash Karat (General Secretary, Communist Party of India – Marxist) and A B Bardhan (General Secretary, Communist Party of India) send a letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh Opposing the MR-SAM contract to Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI), asking the government not to “subvert” india’s indigenous missile effort, which it characterizes as “superior.” The letter also cites the bribery allegations against IAI (see Oct 13/08 entry). Press Trust of India.

Jan 20/09: SR-SAM – Revenge of DRDO? India Defence reports that neither MBDA nor India’s state-run DRDO have given up on their “SR-SAM” short range air defense proposal. Rumors peg it as a combination of DRDO’s Trishul and MBDA’s VL-MICA system, though Trishul’s failure and VL-MICA’s technologies mean that claims regarding Trishul technology are likely to be about saving face as much as anything else.

The “Maitri” LLQRM proposal’s positioning would be directly competitive with RAFAEL’s SPYDER, and VL-MICA is deployable as a mobile system. That could affect SPYDER’s future expansion within the Indian military, and might even affect its prospects if program problems crop up. MICA’s capabilities mean that SR-SAM/Maitri would also be directly competitive with India’s indigenous Akash, and might even impinge on the proposed medium range MR-SAM deal.

Nov 9/08: MR-SAM Cleared. An India Times article clarifies, noting that the current UPA government has cleared the MR-SAM development project to go ahead, despite the political/legal storm around the navy’s original Barak missile deal.

Oct 13/08: Investigation. Reports from India indicate that the government has effectively downgraded IAI and RAFAEL’s status as vendors, suspending additional Barak missile purchases, and adding additional high-level approval steps for any new or existing deal involving either company. The moves are a response to ongoing CBI investigations, involving allegations that bribery was used to secure the original Barak ship defense missile deal in 1999-2000. Read “India Downgrades Vendor Status of IAI and RAFAEL” for more.

Aug 22/07: In a written Parliamentary response, Defence Minister Shri AK Antony offers a program update:

“The government has not decided on a joint venture with Israel for the production of missiles. The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has earlier entered into a contract with M/s. Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), Israel to jointly develop a Long Range Surface to Air Missile (LRSAM) system for the Indian and Israeli Navy in January 2006.”

July 13/07: MR-SAM. The MR-SAM project may be about to take the naval Barak-NG deal to a new level. If reports are correct, this Rs 10,000 crore (almost $2.5 billion) deal would see a longer range version of the Barak enter service as India’s medium-range land-based surface-air-missile system. Ha’aretz | Indian Express | The Times of India.

Jan 3/07: LR-SAM value. A report from the Israeli government places the Barak naval deal at $450 million.

Feb 2/06: LR-SAM. Reports surface that India and Israel have finalized their biggest defense development agreement: The state-owned Defence Research and Development Laboratory (DRDL) in Hyderabad, and Israeli Aircraft Industries (IAI) reportedly signed a pact on Jan 27/06 for the joint development and production of a long-range version of the Barak (Heb. “Lightning”) air defense system.

A senior scientist of India’s Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) reportedly said that the 50/50 shared program had an estimated cost of about $350 million over the next 5 years, but a December 2009 Parliamentary answer costed India’s contribution effort at INR 20.06 billion (about $591 million). The agreement does say that additional funding will be infused by both parties as needed.

Under this agreement, the DRDO and IAI will develop 6 long-range Barak systems for India’s new Russian warships There are also reports that Barak and the Barak-8 missiles will be used as phased replacements for the aging Russian OSA-M and Volna RZ-31 missiles still in operation with the Navy. Indian Navy personnel reportedly pointed to the inherent advantage of the Barak family’s digital systems over the analog computers that guide the Russian missiles.

Procurement by Israel’s navy could follow, and India’s Army and Air Force also have projected requirements for medium-long range air defense systems. Express India | The Tribune of India | Defense News.

LR-SAM Development

Additional Readings & Sources

Background: Barak Missile Family

Background: Related Equipment

  • DID – Indian Naval Air Defenses: Another Avoidable Crisis. Involves political issues and stalls that have driven India’s Barak-1 missile inventory to dangerously low levels, in the wake of unproven allegations of kickbacks in 2001. LR-SAM and MR-SAM were actively protected from any fallout, and the case was eventually dropped.
  • IAI Elta – ELM-2248 MF-STAR: MULTI-FUNCTION Surveillance and Threat Alert Radar. Accompanies the Barak-1 on some Indian ships, and likely upgrade/ new fit for Israeli ships. Up to 4 fixed active array S-band tiles, with each tile containing 16 GaN T/R modules, and multiple digital beamforming capability. A typical 3×3 m array weighs approximately 1,500 kg, and total weight below decks is about 900 kg for onboard equipment in 2 processing and 4 power supply cabinets. Liquid cooling is used.
  • Defense Update – EL/M-2248 MF-STAR Naval Multi-Mission Radar
  • Wikipedia – SA-3. The S-125 Pechora used by India is a variant. See also this DID Spotlight article, which explains how a Serbian SA-3 battery survived NATO’s aerial attacks and shot down an F-117 stealth fighter in 1999.
  • GlobalSecurity.org – SA-8 GECKO / 9K33 Osa. Short-range system, used by India. Will be replaced by Israel’s SPYDER system.
  • Bharat-Rakshak – Trishul SAM. Short-range naval and land SAM. Was eventually canceled, by which time the Barak-1 was in place as a substitute, and performing above Trishul’s potential.
  • GlobalSecurity – Trishul (Trident) air-defense missile. Clips a lot from Indian press releases, take with a grain of salt. Does describe some of the program’s difficulties, but only goes to about 2003.

News & Views

From Dolphins to Destroyers: The ScanEagle UAV

$
0
0
ScanEagle"
ScanEagle launch
(click to view full)

ScanEagle’s base Insight UAV platform was originally developed by Washington state’s Insitu, Inc. to track dolphins and tuna from fishing boats, in order to ensure that the fish you buy in supermarkets is “dolphin-safe”. It turns out that the same characteristics needed by fishing boats (able to handle salt water environments, low infrastructure launch and recovery, small size, 20-hour long endurance, automated flight patterns) are equally important for naval operations from larger vessels, and for battlefield surveillance. A partnership with Boeing took ScanEagle to market in those fields, and the USMC’s initial buy in 2004 was the beginning of a market-leading position in its niche.

This article covers recent developments with the ScanEagle UAV system, which is quickly evolving into a mainstay with the US Navy and its allies. Incumbency doesn’t last long in the fast-changing world of UAVs, though. Insitu’s own RQ-21 Integrator is looking to push the ScanEagle aside, and new multiple-award contracts in the USA are creating opportunities for other competitors. Can Insitu’s original stay strong?

The ScanEagle Family

ScanEagle BCAS
ScanEagle BCAS launch
(click for alternate view)

The ScanEagle is solidly based on Insitu’s original “Insight” platform, with different variants distinguished by their payloads and accompanying equipment rather than their aerodynamic design. The UAVs are launched by catapult, and autonomously recovered using a folding “skyhook” and catch-line. These UAVs fill a niche between hand-launched mini-UAVs like Aerovironment’s RQ-11 Raven or Elbit’s Skylark I, and runway-capable tactical UAVs like Textron’s RQ-7 Shadow, Aeronautics DS’ Aerostar, or IAI’s Searcher II. Its long endurance is actually superior to its tactical UAV competitors, but its payload weight limit is significantly smaller.

ScanEagle has been demonstrated or used from a wide variety of ship classes and types, and the family includes a number of specialty variants from sniper locator, to bio-warfare agent detection (BCAS). The base UAV has even been used successfully as a firefighting aid. A NightEagle conversion kit adds a different front end with thermal imaging sensors, and allows field conversion of ScanEagle aircraft in 2-3 hours. More drastic modifications are found in the ScanEagle Compressed Carriage (SECC), whose smaller fold-out wings allow it to be launched from an aircraft pylon, or a submarine.

Setup & use
click for video

In October 2014, Insitu introduced a new model, the ScanEagle 2. Compared to the original ScanEagle, v2.0’s most obvious physical difference is the payload holder at the front, which borrows from the larger NightEagle configuration and can combine day and night sensors with a laser marker. Wingspan is still about 10.2 feet, but the UAV is longer (5.1 feet to 5.6 feet) and heavier (base weight rises, payload beyond the sensor set rises from 7.5 to 7.7 pounds, max. takeoff weight rises from 48.5 to 51.8 pounds). Speed is unaffected (50-60 knot cruise, max. 80 knots), but endurance drops from 24 hours to just 16 hours for ScanEagle 2.

In Exchange, ScanEagle 2 features the first reciprocating internal combustion propulsion system designed and manufactured specifically for small UAVs, with real-time diagnostics built in. Inside, the UAV has an Ethernet-based architecture, a fully digital video system, upgraded navigation systems, and improvements that reduce electromagnetic interference to enable more sensitive payloads. Electric power available to those payloads rises from 60W to 100-150W.

ScanEagle 2 uses the same Mark 4 catapults, SyHook recovery system, and Insitu Common Open-mission Management Command and Control (ICOMC2) as the RQ-21 Integrator/ Blackjack.

ScanEagle employment
Versatility
(click for alternate view)

The ScanEagle family’s combination of versatility, long endurance, and small size appears to be succeeding in the global defense marketplace, without really impairing the market for tactical UAVs.

Boeing has had field representatives in theater for a few years now to support and operate the ScanEagle UAV from ships and ashore, receiving high battlefield praise and a fairly regular stream of contracts from the USA and Australia. Canada and Malaysia have also signed on for battlefield surveillance services, the Colombian, Iraqi, Tunisian, and UK Royal navies are using ScanEagle, and so are the Czech Republic, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Singapore, and Yemen. The Dutch are using ScanEagle as an interim UAV, Japan is testing it, and other customers wait in the wings. Reported interest includes France, Pakistan, Kuwait, and other Gulf States.

Competition from Without – and Within

Aerosonde & M80 Stiletto
Aerosonde 4.7
(click to view full)

The UAV field continues to change quickly. The latest US Navy ISR contract will have ScanEagle competing against the Aerosonde-G for naval buys of UAV services, and against both AAI’s Aerosonde G and Arcturus’ T-20 for land-based surveillance missions. SOCOM’s MEUAS contracts have also become a de facto competition with AAI’s Aersonde.

Insitu’s flagship product will also have to contend with an internal competitor. The firm has begun to offer a next-generation “Integrator” platform, which was picked as the US Navy and Marine Corps’ next-generation RQ-21A Blackjack Small Tactical Unmanned Aircraft System (STUAS-II). It’s also reported that service contracts with other countries will begin incorporating the RQ-21, either as a main UAV or as a switch-in option.

The RQ-21A Integrator boosts endurance to over 24 hours, and raises maximum payload to about 50 pounds / 23 kg. Wingspan rises to 15.8 feet/ 4.8m, and body length rises to 7 feet/ 2.1m. Its sensor package will be a bit more versatile, too, with TV zoom and mid-wave infrared cameras, plus an infrared marker and a laser rangefinder (but not, yet, a target designator), all in a single package instead of the original ScanEagle’s swap-in options. Launch and recovery methods are the same as the ScanEagle’s, and use the same Mark 4 and ICOMC2 equipment.

Integrator will not be covered in this article except for contracts that shift away from the ScanEagle to the new platform, and equally significant milestones that affect ScanEagle’s future.

Contracts and Key Events: 2008 – Present

Eye in the Sky

Unless otherwise noted, contracts are issued by the Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD. As of July 2008, Insitu Inc. is a Boeing subsidiary. Note that RQ-21A Integrator contracts won’t be covered here, unless they have a substantial impact on the ScanEagle’s future.

FY 2016

ScanEagle 2
ScanEagle 2
(click to view full)

November 30/15: Afghanistan has ordered eight sets of the Insitu ScanEagle UAS from Boeing worth $70 million. The sets contain 65 of the ScanEagle UAVs and work is expected to be completed by 2018. Initially developed to track dolphins and tuna from fishing boats, the ScanEagle is operational in several countries and provides a range of surveillance, tracking and mapping abilities. The purchase comes at a time of increased defense spending from Kabul who has spent $1.8 billion this year. It is expected defense spending will reach $3.4 billion by 2020.

FY 2015

ScanEagle 2 unveiled.

July 27/15: Also announced on Friday, the Navy awarded a $78 million contract modification for six low rate initial production RQ-21A Blackjack UAVs. Also known as the ScanEagle, the Boeing-owned manufacturer Insitu Inc. unveiled a new version of the UAV in October last year, the ScanEagle 2. The first version has seen significant export success, in countries as diverse as Colombia, Yemen, Japan and the Netherlands, with Iran producing an unlicensed version known as the Yasir.

Oct 29/14: ScanEagle 2. Insitu unveils the ScanEagle 2 at Euronaval 2014. It features the first reciprocating internal combustion propulsion system designed and manufactured specifically for small UAVs, with real-time diagnostics built in. Inside, the UAV has an Ethernet-based architecture, a fully digital video system, upgraded navigation systems, and improvements that reduce electromagnetic interference to enable more sensitive payloads. Electric power available to those payloads rises from 60W to 100-150W.

Compared to the original ScanEagle, v2.0’s most obvious physical difference is the payload holder at the front, which standardizes on the larger NightEagle configuration that can combine day/night sensors and a laser marker. Wingspan is still about 10.2 feet, but the UAV is longer (5.1 feet to 5.6 feet) and heavier (base weight rises, payload rises from 7.5 to 7.7 pounds, max. takeoff weight rises from 48.5 to 51.8 pounds). Speed is unaffected (50-60 knot cruise, max. 80 knots), but endurance drops from 24 hours to just 16 hours for ScanEagle 2.

ScanEagle 2 uses the same Mark 4 catapults, SyHook recovery system, and Insitu Common Open-mission Management Command and Control (ICOMC2) as the RQ-21 Integrator/ Blackjack. Sources: Insitu, “Insitu Announces ScanEagle 2 – the Next Generation of the ScanEagle Platform” | Defense News, “Insitu Launches New ScanEagle 2 UAS” (incl. existing customer list).

ScanEagle 2

FY 2014

Buyers: Yemen, Iraq; Opportunities: Japan, UAE partnership, USCG; Fielding in UK Royal Navy; New CEO.

Australian report
click for video

Sept 29/14: Yemen. Insitu Inc. in Bingen, WA receives an $11 million firm-fixed-price delivery order from Yemen for 9 ScanEagle Electro-Optics and 3 NightEagle UAVs. This order also provides for one 12-month/3,600 flight-hour sustainment package with acceptance testing, spares, technical manuals, and training; a site activation team; field service representative; and protection for the support team. All funds are committed immediately.

Work will be performed in Bingen, WA (50%), and Sanaa, Yemen (50%), and is expected to be complete in September 2015. The US Navy’s Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division in Lakehurst, NJ acts as Yemen’s contract agent (N68335-11-G-0009, DO 0007).

Yemen buys

Sept 29/14: Czech. Insitu, Inc. in Bingen, WA receives a $6.8 million firm-fixed-price delivery order from the Czech Republic for 7 ScanEagle electro-optics and 3 NightEagle UAVs, to be used by their troops in Afghanistan. All funds are committed immediately.

Work will be performed at Bingen, WA (50%), and Afghanistan (50%), and is expected to be complete in September 2015. The US Navy’s Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division in Lakehurst, NJ acts as the Czech Republic’s contract agent (N68335-11-G-0009, DO 0006).

Czech Republic buys

Aug 6/14: Leadership. Insitu CEO Steve Morrow (q.v. April 28/11) is retiring, so Boeing names SVP Insitu Programs Ryan Hartman as the new President and CEO, effective immediately. Sources: Insitu, “Boeing Names Ryan Hartman Insitu President and Chief Executive Officer”.

New CEO

June 22/14: UK. The Royal Navy is now using drones from its ships on operations:

“Just 7 months after the Ministry of Defence ordered the system from Boeing Defence UK, footage released today, 22 June, shows ScanEagle taking flight from [the Type 23 frigate] HMS Somerset in the [Persian] Gulf.”

Sources: UK MoD, “Royal Navy’s new eyes in the sky”.

June 2014: USCG. The ScanEagle’s performance with the US Coast Guard may yet make it the service’s 1st ship-borne UAV, after successful drug busts aboard one of the new frigate-sized National Security Cutters:

“At a joint House Transportation and Foreign Affairs Committee hearing looking at maritime drug interdiction efforts, Adm. Robert Papp, commandant of the Coast Guard prior to his retirement in May, said the service is continuing to test ScanEagles…. The Coast Guard will pursue an acquisition program, he confirmed.”

Sources: NDIA National Defense magazine, “Coast Guard Closer to Acquiring Ship-Based Drones”.

May 13/14: Firefighter. Insitu Pacific touts a successful ScanEagle demonstration for the Australian New South Wales Rural Fire Service over the Wollemi National Park, 150 km northwest of Sydney, where fires have burned more than 35,000 hectares of bushland since December 2013.

The trial was trial a collaborative effort between Insitu Pacific and General Dynamics Mediaware, whose D-VEX next-generation video exploitation system streamed full-motion video imagery alongside geo-location information in near real time. This combination was used to monitor and report on the movement of the fire front at night, which is generally done at low altitudes that are unsafe for manned aircraft. It’s also possible to do this job using more advanced sensors on full-size UAVs like the MQ-9 Reaper, but ScanEagle is a far more affordable option. Sources: Insitu, “Insitu Pacific Demonstrates Fire Management Assistance with ScanEagle Unmanned Aircraft”.

Jan 12/14: Japan. Japan’s Maritime Self-Defence Force is looking for ways to improve surveillance, in the wake of Chinese provocations and aggressive territorial claims. Their constitution bars aircraft carriers, but they’d like to try small UAVs that can be launched from destroyers. ScanEagle is already being trialed in Japan, which makes it the natural choice if Japan wants to trial live flights during the FY 2014 budget request’s YEN 2 million research (about $23,600) research phase.

If the JMSDF goes ahead, they’ll buy up to 19 systems. Textron’s Aerosonde can offer a competitor, Northrop and Raytheon have BAT UAVs, and even Boeing has a 2nd UAV up their sleeve in the RQ-21 Integrator. Sources: Japan Times: “MSDF looks to deploy drones on destroyers”.

Jan 7/14: Iraq. Now that Prime Minister Maliki’s sectarian approach to governing has produced predictable rebellion and insurgency in Sunni areas, the USA is shipping Iraq some weapons and equipment, even as heavier equipment finds itself blocked by Sen. Menendez [D-NJ], and many other senators are voicing concerns. Army Col. Steven Warren:

“We’re expediting delivery of 10 operational ScanEagles for part of the original purchase, as well as an additional four nonoperational ScanEagles, which will be sent to help facilitate maintenance of the original 10.”

They’ll act as Iraq’s high-end UAV, compared to the 48 Raven mini-UAVs slated for delivery in the spring. Sources: Pentagon, “DOD Speeds Delivery of Surveillance Assets to Iraq” | The Daily Beast, “Congress to Iraq’s Maliki: No Arms for a Civil War”.

Nov 19/13: UAE. Tawazun subsidiary Abu Dhabi Autonomous Systems Investments (ADASI) expands on a previous marketing and training teaming agreements with Boeing Insitu (q.v. Feb 18/13, Nov 15/11), and taken the next step: they’ll be able to operate and maintain Boeing’s ScanEagle and its larger Integrator UAVs as a service for the UAE military, and for “neighbouring allies.” That gives them complete service authority with the UAV, from marketing, to training, to operation.

ADASI aren’t newcomers to the UAV world. Under the UAE’s Al Sabr program, the firm performed final assembly of the country’s Schiebel S-100 Camcopter small helicopter UAVs, have been conducting R&D to expand the VTUAV’s range of carrying platforms, and service the UAE’s fleet. Sources: ADASI release, Nov 19/13.

FY 2013

SOCOM MEUAS contract; UK buys ScanEagle; Japan begins trial; Iran copies it from crashed UAVs; Kestrel agreement solidifies moving target detection; Sensor cueing from land robots; Launch & recovery improvements.

ScanEagle small craft recovery
Small boat pickup
(click to view full)

Sept 17/13: Poland. Insitu Inc. in Bingen, WA receives $7.3 million for a firm-fixed-price delivery order covering ScanEagle system hardware repairs and modifications for Poland. It includes spares, operations and maintenance training, and technical UAS publications.

Work will be performed in Bingen, WA and is expected to be complete in September 2014. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD acts as Poland’s agent within the FMS framework (N00019-12-G-0008, #0016).

Sept 16/13: SOCOM. A maximum $300 million, 3-year firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract for ScanEagle UAVs, operator services, and maintenance services in support of US SOCOM’s naval special warfare operators.

Work will be performed in Bingen, WA, and the contract will run until September 2016. $85 million in operational and supplemental/OCO funds are committed immediately, and will expire by Sept 30/13. Interestingly, the Pentagon says that the “contract was not competitively procured pursuant to FAR 6.302-1,” which is the “only 1 responsible provider” exemption. That significant language, because Textron subsidiary AAI’s Aerosonde 4.7G won the MEAUS-II competition (q.v. March 5/12). ScanEagle pushed back in with a $190 million, 25-month “unusual and compelling urgency” MEAUS contract in February 2013, and this award appears to firmly nail down its position as SOCOM’s go-to UAV (N00019-13-D-0016).

US SOCOM

July 26/13: FAA. The US Federal Aviation Administration issues its 1st UAV Restricted Category Type Certificates, which include the ScanEagle X200. A “major energy company” wants to fly ScanEagle in international waters off of the Alaska coast, surveying ocean ice floes and migrating whale patterns, in order to assess potential Arctic oil exploration areas.

Experimental Airworthiness Certificates have been used for non-government UAV operations in the past, but they don’t allow commercial use. The FAA says that US military acceptance of the ScanEagle and Puma designs was an important factor in granting the new Restricted Category certificates, which do allow commercial operations.

That’s going to be a hotter area for UAV manufacturers over the next few years, and for the FAA as well. The Federal Aviation Administration Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 mandated that the FAA integrate UAVs into domestic airspace by 2015, but a key deadline establishing 6 pilot sites by August 2012 wasn’t met. These type certificates are a small step forward, within a larger framework. Sources: US FAA | NDIA’s National Defense magazine | Seattle Times.

(Restricted) Commercial USA in USA

July 12/13: Industrial. Insitu breaks ground on a new 120,000-square-foot production facility near its headquarters in Bingen, WA. The building is expected to be done in August 2014. Sources: Insitu, July 12/13 release.

July 2/13: USCG. The Coast Guard has been pondering its UAS options and requirements for years (vid. Dec 1/09 entry). They recently completed the 2nd of 3 planned demonstration phases. They used a ScanEagle during a 2-week deployment aboard the Bertholf cutter. That led to 90+ hours of flight time, during which the UAV helped with a the interception of a cocaine-loaded vessel. That gave them the opportunity to test the daytime camera, the combination electro-optical/infrared camera, and auto detection software.

The 3rd phase will gather quantitative data aboard a National Security Cutter in early 2014. USCG.

June 20/13: Britain. The Royal Navy signs a GBP 30 million (about $46.9 million) contract to buy ScanEagle UAVs, for use from Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships like the Bay Class amphibious landing ships, as well as surface combatants like Britain’s frigates, destroyers, and helicopter carriers. This is the Royal Navy’s 1st sea-launched UAV, and it will be a big help to a fleet whose number of ships has dwindled, even as it abandoned maritime patrol aircraft.

ScanEagles can also serve as targeting assets for the Royal Marines, and for Navy ships if Britain buys naval weapons that use laser precision guidance. Raytheon’s new Excalibur laser/GPS guided shell is one such naval option. MBDA’s proposed maritime adaptation of the British Army’s Fire Shadow loitering missile is another. UK MoD.

Britain’s Royal Navy buys in

May 14/13: Japan. Insitu Pacific delivers a ScanEagle Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) to its partner Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) of Japan, for a 12-month operational evaluation by the Japanese Ground Self Defence Forces (JGSDF, see July 11/12 entry). Insitu.

April 24/13: OEF, etc. A $7.8 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to exercise an option for ScanEagle/ Nighteagle services until March 2014, in Afghanistan and around the world. $3.6 million is committed immediately.

Work will be performed in Bingen, WA, using FY 2013 Navy wartime supplemental operations and maintenance funds (N00019-11-C-0061).

April 24/13: NanoSAR next. ImSAR LLC in Springville, UT receives an $8.8 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract modification, for “research services in support of the ultra-small aperture radar” (q.v. May 29/12 entry). This brings the contract’s cumulative value to $32.8 million.

ImSAR are the makers of the NanoSAR and Leonardo radars. US Army Contracting Command in Natick, MA manages this contract (W911QY-12-D-0011, 0006).

March 8/13: OEF. Insitu, Inc. in Bingen, WA receives a $7.8 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, exercising an option for ScanEagle operational and maintenance services in Afghanistan, including both day and night operations.

Work will be performed in Bingen, WA, and is expected to be complete in January 2014. $3.6 million is committed immediately, all of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year on Sept 30/13 (N00019-11-C-0061).

Feb 18/13: UAE. Boeing broadens their ScanEagle support and sustainment agreement with the UAE’s ADASI (vid. Nov 15/11 entry), adding marketing services within the Middle East and North Africa, training services, and the new Integrator UAV. Boeing VP Debbie Rub reiterated to Gulfnews that this is:

“Not a contract but an agreement to work together. No particular value right now but the region needs this capability so they are working together so that we can grow this sort of business. There are intensions [sic] with Adasi to establish this as the centre in the Middle East for the ScanEagle and Intergrator contracts.”

See: Boeing | Arabian Aerospace | Gulfnews.

Feb 8/13: Iranian copies. The regime’s PressTV is now showing photos of a production line for ScanEagle UAV knock-offs.

Back on Dec 17/12, Commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Navy Rear Admiral Ali Fadavi had said that Iran was producing copies of the ScanEagle, based on drones it had captured. The Iranian regime says a lot of things about its military capabilities, most of which are fodder only for comedians and the credulous. This report, on the other hand, was plausible.

Iran has significant aerospace reverse engineering expertise, which it has built up to keep its fleet of American fighters and helicopters in the air. They also have some UAV expertise, and Iranian UAVs launched from Lebanon have been shot down over Israel. Iranian copies may not have the same performance and features as ScanEagle, but it’s reasonable to conclude that for once, Iran is making a military claim in line with its demonstrated capabilities. Iran’s PressTV.

Feb 6/13: MEUAS, Too. Insitu Inc. in Bingen, WA receives a 25-month Mid-Endurance Unmanned Aircraft System (MEUAS) indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract from US SOCOM, worth $1 million – $190 million. MEUAS involves contractor-owned and operated equipment on the front lines. Work will be performed in Bingen, WA, and “overseas.” US Special Operations Command at MacDill AFB, FL manages the contract (H92222-13-D-0005). FBO.gov justifications for the award shed some light on the contract, which is pursued under FAR 6.302-2, “Unusual and Compelling Urgency”:

“Due to unforeseen circumstances beyond the Government’s control, there is an immediate requirement to mitigate a critical ISR services gap. This proposed contract action is to ensure continued operational capability.”

The interesting question is whether this new contract also provides for RQ-21 Integrator services, to match the USMC’s new STUAS-II UAV buys. Insitu was asked, but said that they were unable to comment. Meanwhile, there has also been a steady expansion and extension of Insitu’s original H92222-09-D-0015 MEUAS ScanEagle contract, when it became clear that its $250 million would run out long before April 27/14. FBO.gov announced on Feb 7/13 that:

“Program efforts were initiated in October 2010 to establish the competitive follow-on MEUAS II contract. A Justification and Approval (J&A) document was approved on 10 June 2011 to increase the existing contract ceiling by $50,000,000 for a revised contract maximum of $300,000,000. This allowed for the continuation of mission essential operations during the source selection process of the MEUAS II follow-on requirement. A second J&A was approved and issued on 16 July 2012. This action increased the contract maximum by $35,000,000 for a revised contract maximum of $335,000,000. This was to assure continuous operational capability during the transition from the MEUAS contract to the MEUAS II [won by AAI’s Aerosonde UAV] …. [Now we’re announcing a raised] dollar ceiling of the MEUAS contract (H92222-09-D-0015) by $10,000,000 for a revised contract maximum of $345,000,000.”

Bottom line? MEUAS could end up being worth as much as $535 million to Insitu, more than double its original amount. From the government’s point of view, it now has 2 MEUAS vendors, with contracts that will both expire in March 2015. FBO.gov re: Revised Contract | FBO.gov re: revised contract maximum | Insitu.

US SOCOM MEUAS

Nov 16/12: OEF. Insitu Inc. in Bingen, WA receives a $12.1 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for pre and post deployment operations and services involving ScanEagle UAVs in Afghanistan. The contract mentions both electro-optical and mid-wave infrared imagery, and in 2013 the new MWIR/EO turret will let the company offer both of those options, without requiring the UAV to land and switch (q.v. Aug 7/12 entry).

Work will be performed in Bingen, WA, and is expected to be complete in August 2013. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/13 (N00019-11-C-0061).

Nov 16/12: AOL Defense calls attention to Insitu’s business model of providing turnkey services, as the US military prepares to cut in-theater deployments and surveillance, standardize its UAVs, and bring operations and maintenance in house.

Meanwhile, the civilian market isn’t ready yet. That’s partly because of issues around certification in civil air space, and partly because all Insitu UAVs must be sold as weapons through the USA’s ITAR process. As an example, oil companies who want to use ScanEagle are told that they can’t have any non-US citizens aboard the operating platform. Things are going well in Australia with government agencies and civil fight authorities, but that won’t be enough.

Insitu is trying to get a version of the ScanEagle designated as a commercial commodity, and they estimate that the RQ-21A Integrator program will be worth $500 million over 10 years. Even so, AOL Defense is probably right that the Boeing subsidiary is about to take a financial hit.

Oct 30/12: UAV + UGS. Insitu Pacific in Queensland, Australia announces that integration between ScanEagle and McQ’s iScout Unattended Ground Sensor (UGS)/ OmniWatch technologies is complete. McQ’s UGS is in widespread service with the U.S. Department of Defense, Department of Energy and “a range of international customers.”

The project enables UGS target detection alerts to be automatically displayed within ScanEagle’s Insitu I-MUSE multiple UAS controller software. The iScout sensor automatically sends a notification to I-MUSE, displaying the target location, detection type (seismic, magnetic, acoustic or infrared) and other relevant information. The operator is then able to automatically focus the ScanEagle’s sensors on the new contact to verify the data provided by iScout and OmniWatch, and to continue to track the target once it has moved beyond the OmniWatch camera range. Insitu.

Oct 23/12: Kestrel agreement. Insitu Inc. announces a long-term licensing agreement with Sentient in Melbourne, Australia, to integrate Kestrel land and maritime automated detection software into Insitu’s ScanEagle and Integrator systems.

Kestrel software is currently deployed as a separate add-on that specializes in detecting moving targets within the field of view of the UAV’s electro-optical (EO) and infrared (IR) sensors. There are land and maritime versions, which have been used by the U.S. and its allies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Insitu | Sentient.

Kestrel MTI agreement

Oct 10/12: Compact CLRE. The US Office of Naval Research is funding tests of the ScanEagle Compact Launch and Recovery System (CLRE), which combines the Skyhook recovery system with a compressed air launcher for the UAV. The end result is more compact than the traditional piston launcher/ skyhook combination, which is a big advantage for smaller boats and ships. ONR adds that:

“The system currently is trailer mounted for testing and ease of towing behind ground vehicles, but Insitu is exploring modifications of this version for rapid deployments. Its turntable base allows for mounting to a variety of integration structures.”

2012

New USN contract introduces competition, but assures ScanEagle’s future; Key US SOCOM loss; Wins in Singapore & Malaysia; Dutch buy ScanEagle services, but look to Integrator; Japanese evaluation; Integrator gets closer; Research into new tiny ground-scanning radar.

ScanEagle recovery
Skyhook recovery
(click to view full)

Sept 26/12: Upgrades. Boeing subsidiary Insitu, Inc. in Bingen, WA receives a $12.4 million delivery order for the hardware required to modernize the ScanEagle and its ancillary equipment. See Aug 7/12 for more details of what the upgrades entail; the hardware contract also includes replacements, using upgraded air vehicles and components.

Work will be performed in Bingen, WA, and is expected to be complete in May 2013. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, which is almost immediately. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity (N00019-12-G-0008).

Sept 17/12: OEF. Insitu Inc. in Bingen, WA receives a $7.7 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for pre and post deployment operations and services involving ScanEagle UAVs in Afghanistan. The contract mentions both electro-optical and mid-wave infrared imagery, and in 2013 the new MWIR/EO turret will let the company offer both of those options, without requiring the UAV to land and switch (q.v. Aug 7/12 entry).

Work will be performed in Bingen, WA, and is expected to be complete in August 2013. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12 (N00019-11-C-0061).

Aug 21/12: OEF. Insitu in Bingen, WA, is awarded a $23.4 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for additional ScanEagle operations and maintenance in Afghanistan, using both daytime EO and IR night sensors. Work will be performed in Bingen, WA and is expected to be complete in August 2013 (N00019-11-C-0061).

Aug 9/12: Netherlands. A Dutch ScanEagle is launched on its first anti-piracy operation in the Gulf of Aden, from the amphibious ship HNLMS Rotterdam. The LPD embarked the UAVs, catapult, and command station, plus a 19-soldier Army contingent. Dutch MvD [in Dutch].

Aug 8/12: Comms. relay. Boeing touts a smaller, lighter version of its Tactical Compact Communications Relay (TCCR). The 1.6-pound TCCR extends the range of line-of-sight military handheld radios from under 10 nautical miles to more than 150, and has been operating in Afghanistan. The new 1-pound version does the same, and will fit into a 5″ x 5″ x 1″ slot in the ScanEagle’s payload bay.

The new TCCR has been tested on several other UAVs, including the Schiebel Camcopter S-100, and Boeing plans to demonstrate a civilian set that could support emergency response or other commercial applications.

Aug 7/12: Netherlands. Insitu Inc. announces that the Dutch military can now fly the ScanEagle under a limited military aircraft type-classification certificate from the Military Aviation Authority (MAA) of the Netherlands.

The Dutch needed that, because they intend to operate the UAVs over their own country as well as abroad. Both sides were motivated, so the certification milestone was achieved in just 4 months. Note that this isn’t a full civilian certification, but it will definitely help. Insitu.

Aug 7/12: Sensors. Insitu Inc. announces that it’s conducting field evaluations of 2 new turrets for ScanEagle. Both turrets will be available in the first half of 2013, and better power draw will help make switch-ins easier.

The new Hood Technology Corp. Vision MWIR/EO turret means customers won’t have to choose any more between zoom cameras or mid-wave infrared thermal imaging on their ScanEagles. Insitu’s larger RQ-21A Integrator was already offering both modes, and competitive pressure makes it an important advance.

Hood’s SuperEO turret has already been in service for about a year, providing 5x better stabilization than its predecessor. The newest SuperEO Enhanced turret lets operators track, zoom and focus while maintaining positive identification, thanks to a sophisticated gimbal mechanism and a picture-in-picture display. Losing the target of interest when the camera moves has long been an annoying problem for many UAVs, especially small ones.

July 12/12: Australia. The Army’s contract for ScanEagle services has ended, but the Navy is interested. Insitu Pacific in Queensland, Australia is still using the Army’s contract, just extended and expanded to include trials with the Royal Australian Navy (RAN). ScanEagle will be installed on a number of RAN vessels, and a first-of-class flight trial from a Frigate is expected in September 2012.

The RAN’s endorsed Aviation vision, NA2020, is to have a UAS dedicated unit by 2020. That’s awfully slow, given the pace of change, but the embarked trials will begin moving them in that direction. As American experiences have shown, UAVs as a service can work as a shipboard offering. If the RAN decides to adopt ScanEagle as an “interim UAV” service, there would be almost no changes from the arrangement it has just signed. Insitu.

RAN extends Army deal

July 11/12: Japan. Insitu Pacific in Queensland, Australia announces a contract from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (MHI), to deliver ScanEagle systems for comprehensive operational evaluation by the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force (Army).

It’s more than just an evaluation, as the ScanEagles will be operated by the JGSDF during this period to assist in disaster recovery, as well as intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) missions. Having said all that, it isn’t a long-term win yet, either.

July 9/12: Singapore. Insitu Pacific in Queensland, Australia announces a contract from the Republic of Singapore Navy (RSN), to equip its 6 Formidable Class (Lafayette Class derivative) missile frigates with ScanEagle systems. Insitu Pacific will also provide training, logistics and ship installation, as well as specialist in-country maintenance support.

This decision has been a while in coming, vid. the March 2/09 entry detailing ship trials. Insitu.

Singapore

May 29/12: NanoSAR next. ImSAR LLC in Salem, UT receives a $24 million firm-fixed-price and cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to build, test, and assess a lightweight ultra wideband Synthetic Aperture Radar for use on small unmanned aerial vehicles. ImSAR makes the NAnoSAR, and this looks like the contract to develop its successor.

Work will be performed in Salem, UT with an estimated completion date of May 31/17. One bid was solicited, with one bid received by US Army Contracting Command in Natick, MA (W911QY-12-D-0011).

May 20/12: Iraq? Reuters confirms that Iraq will be using UAVs to protect its southern port and associated oil platforms. The logical candidate is Insitu’s ScanEagle, which is already operating in this role (vid. Feb 9/12 entry):

“Iraq’s navy has purchased US drones to protect the country’s oil platforms in the south, from where most of Iraq’s oil is shipped,” said an official from the Office of Security Cooperation in Iraq, which is part of the US embassy. The OSCI did not give further details of the number or type of unmanned aircraft. But Iraqi security officials confirmed plans to use drones to protect oil infrastructure.”

Iraq?

May 15/12: Insitu, Inc., Bingen, WA receives a $35.5 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for additional ScanEagle and NightEagle services in Afghanistan.

Work will be performed in Bingen, WA, and will run to December 2012. All Contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-11-C-0061).

May 4/12: Over in Australia. The ScanEagle has made its last flight for Australia, and its leased services are being replaced with Textron’s RQ-7B Shadow UAVs bought under Project JP129.

While Boeing contractors provided assistance and operational services, about 180 Australian Defence Force personnel deployed in support of the ScanEagle, mostly from 20th Surveillance and Target Acquisition Regiment, with elements from 16th Air Defence Regiment, Defence Imagery and Geospatial Organisation, 1st Topographic Survey Squadron and 16th Aviation Brigade. During its 5 years in operation in Afghanistan, ScanEagles flew about 32,000 hours in more than 6,200 missions. Australian Army | Ottawa Citizen.

April 17/12: Malaysia. Insitu Pacific and Composites Technology Research Malaysia (CTRM) announce a contract for Insitu Pacific to deliver its ScanEagle to CTRM, to be operated by CTRM’s subsidiary Unmanned Systems Technology (UST).

Insitu Pacific has confirmed to DID that “CTRM will utilise the ScanEagle system to augment UAS Services provided to the Malaysian Defence Forces under an existing contract.”

Malaysia

April 4/12: Hydrogen-powered. Boeing’s Insitu announces that the ScanEagle has completed a hydrogen-powered test flight, using a 1,500-watt fuel cell by United Technologies and a hydrogen fueling solution by the US Naval Research Laboratory. They add that this ScanEagle is lighter than the traditional model, which means more room for equipment. On the other hand, the release didn’t discuss the effects on range and endurance, which are more critical traits for this UAV. Earth Techling.

March 19/12: Dutch contract. Insitu announces a contract with the Dutch MvD to use its ScanEagle “both domestically and abroad.” Specifically, they’ll provide:

“…an ISR capability during the second half of 2012, replacing a program [DID: Sperwer UAVs] that ended in the middle of 2011. Looking forward, Netherlands MOD and Insitu plan to continue to explore the potential for multi-mission ISR capabilities using a next-generation Insitu UAS that carries multiple ISR sensors and enables rapid, robust payload integration.”

Which is to say, their RQ-21A Integrator platform. Both of the interim ScanEagle systems (3 UAVs each) are expected to achieve operational capability by late 2012, with 1 available for overseas deployment, and the other used for training and domestic tasks.

The permanent Sperwer replacement will involve 5 systems, by late 2014: 3 for deployment, 1 for missions within The Netherlands, and 1 for training. The RQ-21A has the required integration with ScanEagle ground systems, and has been chosen to enter service with 107 Aerial Systems Battery in 2014. Insitu | Dutch Defence Press.

Netherlands

March 5/12: MEUAS-II loss. Textron’s subsidiary AAI wins the 3-year, maximum $600 million follow-on to US Special Forces’ MEUAS contract, using its Aerosonde 4.7G UAV. Insitu’s MEUAS contract had been slated to expire in 2014, but the somewhat-imprecise wording of public statements and solicitations suggest that MEUAS-II will fully replace the old contract.

With its technology validated by 2 huge American contracts, AAI’s Aerosonde UAVs can be expected to be a much more visible competitor around the globe. Meanwhile, ScanEagle has gone from the sole-source solution in 2 major American contracts, to forced competition in UAS-ISR and an uncertain position in MEUAS. ScanEagle UAV still has important advantages in its array of specialized variants, and the larger RQ-21A Integrator UAV is on tap as a follow-on offering. Even so, the MEUAS-II setback may leave Boeing and Insitu pondering the need for further investment in, and upgrades to, their core ScanEagle platform. Textron’s AAI | UV Online.

US MEAUS-II

Feb 29/12: USN ISR. US NAVAIR issues their 5-year, $864 million UAS ISR contract, which can include services for US military allies, alongside the US Navy and Marines. Insitu submits the ScanEagle instead of the RQ-21A Integrator, and their selection as an eligible bidder for task orders would seem to protect ScanEagle’s near term future.

On the other hand, the umbrella contract introduces competition to an area that ScanEagle used to have to itself. Textron’s Aerosonde G will compete with Insitu’s ScanEagle for naval and land task orders, while Saab’s small Skeldar heli-UAV will become a 3rd competitor on land. Read “ScanEagle, Aerosonde & Skeldar: The USN’s UAS-ISR Contract, 2012-2017” for full coverage.

USN ISR

Feb 9/12: Exports. An AOL Defense report offers an expanded list of ScanEagle operators, as well as 3 more potential export clients:

“Navy leaders are considering foreign military sales of the Scan Eagle to Kuwait, Pakistan and the Netherlands, according to a presentation by Marine Corps Col. James Rector, head of the small tactical unmanned aerial systems division at Naval Air Systems Command. Aside from the U.S. Navy, the Scan Eagle is being flown by naval forces in Colombia, Tunisia, Poland and Iraq, according to PowerPoint slides from Rector’s speech at the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International’s annual program review in Washington yesterday.”

The Netherlands is already using ScanEagle as an interim UAV; presumably, Dutch discussions represent long-term lease or purchase options. Previous reports have suggested that Boeing is offering ScanEagle leases with provisions to switch part-way through, and use the larger and more advanced RQ-21 Integrator platform (vid. June 16/10 entry).

Jan 25/12: NightEagle. Insitu, Inc. in Bingen, WA receives an $20 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, exercising an option for ScanEagle operational and maintenance services. These services will provide electro-optical/infrared and mid-wave infrared (NightEagle) imagery in support of Marine Corps operations in Afghanistan. Work will be performed in Bingen, WA, and is expected to be complete in May 2012. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12 (N00019-11-C-0061).

Jan 22/12: Closing time approaches. First flight of an Early Operational Capability (EOC) RQ-21A STUAS Integrator UAV at the USMC’s Air Ground Combat Center in Twentynine Palms, CA, 16 months after the contract is awarded. USMC UAV Squadron VMU-3 will deploy the RQ-21A within the USA, while a government-contractor team works with the system, and develops tactics, techniques, and procedures on the way to formal Initial Operational Capability (IOC), and then Full Operational Capability (FOC).

As those milestones are reached, Insitu’s ScanEagle will fade from use. US NAVAIR: “RQ-21A will eventually replace the Navy and Marine ISR services contract in which current ISR missions are conducted in Iraq, Afghanistan and shipboard.”

2011

CEO shift; Dutch pick ScanEagle; Arctic & Libyan operations; Swarm flight; Comm relay test.

Aussie ScanEagle
Aussie ScanEagle
(click to view full)

Nov 28/11: Insitu, Inc. in Bingen, WA receives an $12 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, exercising an option for ScanEagle operational and maintenance services. These services will provide electro-optical/infrared and mid-wave infrared (NightEagle) imagery in support of Marine Corps operations in Afghanistan. Work will be performed in Bingen, WA, and is expected to be complete in January 2012. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12 (N00019-11-C-0061).

Nov 15/11: UAE. Insitu Inc. announces a partnership with Abu Dhabi Autonomous Systems Investments Company (ADASI), to perform joint support and sustainment activities on Insitu’s ScanEagle and Integrator UAS.

Oct 6/11: Canada. Insitu Inc. announces that its Canadian clients have successfully used ScanEagle UAVs during Operation Nanook in Canada’s Northwest Passage. The exercise focused around an Arctic major air disaster (MAJAID) simulation, and ScanEagle was deployed by Insitu and its partner ING Engineering to identify traversable ground routes, watch for polar bear threats, and monitor day-to-day iceberg movements. Insitu and ING UAS operators launched and retrieved the aircraft, then handed control over to the Canadian Forces and stood by to provide technical assistance as needed. Commanders in tactical operations centers (TOC) at 74 degrees north and troops on the ground received real-time video.

The exercise itself is not as significant as ScanEagle’s proof of use in polar environments. Insitu | Canada DND on Operation Nanook 11 | Canada DND Nanook 2011 photos.

Sept 30/11: Insitu, Inc. in Bingen, WA received a $7.6 million firm-fixed-price contract for major end items and parts to be used in the ScanEagle system. Work will be performed in Bingen, WA, and is expected to be complete by January 2012. This contract was not competitively procured by the US Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City Division in Panama City Beach, FL (N61331-11-C-0011).

August 15/11: Libyan operations. Insitu discusses ScanEagle’s performance over Libya, from the Arleigh Burke Flight II Class destroyer USS Mahan [DDG-72]. The operation began shortly after an Insitu team had been aboard Mahan to analyze the way ScanEagles were used, and made recommendation to expand its uses. Mahan put those suggestions into effect once Operation Unified Protector began, flying the ScanEagles in strong winds and forwarded secure imagery transmission to the task force used Boeing’s Secure Video Injection system:

“What happened over that period of time, no one expected,” said ScanEagle Detachment Officer in Charge Lt. Nick Townsend. “ScanEagle was locating contacts of interest that no one else could find. After the dust settled, ScanEagle was credited with locating a host of contacts of interest due to its ability to capture superior image quality and to operate covertly at relatively low altitudes.”… Later coordinating with an AWACS team, the USS Mahan ScanEagle team drew on ScanEagle’s 24-hour endurance to support additional phases of the mission, including battle damage assessment: ScanEagle delivered real-time, full-color imagery… “They (operational commanders) say ‘put the camera here’ and we put the camera there without going through layers of complex coordination. We get essential information directly to the decision makers fast,” said Insitu ScanEagle Site Lead Samuel Young.”

Libya experience

May – August 2011: Comm relay. Boeing announces successful May and August demonstrations of ScanEagle’s new narrowband communications relay, using an Insitu ScanEagle and AeroVironment’s Puma AE mini-UAV. During the multiservice demonstrations, held in California, the UAVs flew at a variety of altitudes while linking handheld military radios dispersed over mountainous regions, extending the radios’ range tenfold.

Larger RQ-7B Shadow UAVs have also been used in this role, but those are generally controlled at the battalion level or above. Narrowband relays small enough to work on mini-UAVs would represent an important step forward, especially for Special Operations forces.

July 7-10/11: UAV Swarm. Boeing conducts successful autonomous UAV swarm missions over the rugged terrain of eastern Oregon, using 2 ScanEagles and a Procerus Unicorn UAV from The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (JHU/APL). Boeing Advanced Autonomous Networks program director and team leader Gabriel Santander described it as “a milestone in UAV flight”; in this case, that’s a reasonable label.

The JHU/APL developed the UAVs’ Mobile Ad Hoc Network and swarm technology, which let them work together to search the test area through self-generating waypoints and terrain mapping, while simultaneously sending information to teams on the ground. A broader demonstration is planned for the end of September. Boeing.

Swarm flight

June 30/11: Netherlands. The Dutch will use ScanEagle UAVs as an interim front-line replacement for Sagem’s much larger Sperwer system, which has just been retired. Dutch MvD | Aviation Week

Dutch pick

May 31/11: Insitu, Inc. in Bingen, WA received a $46 million firm-fixed-price-contract to provide deployment services and flight hours, including electro-optical/infrared and mid-wave infrared imagery in support of Marine Corps operations in Afghanistan. In practice, this means both ScanEagle and NightEagle platforms; looks like the April 9/11 short-term contract went well.

Services will encompass both operation and maintenance of the ScanEagle UAS, to provide real-time imagery and data to USMC personnel. Work will be performed in Bingen, WA and in the field, and is expected to be complete in May 2012. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11. This contract was not competitively procured, pursuant to FAR 6.302-2 (N00019-11-C-0061).

June 2011: Insitu’s inception. The Smithsonian Institute’s magazine profiles the story behind Insitu and the ScanEagle, as part of a feature describing the evolution of UAVs toward civilian roles. Boeing bought the firm for about $400 million, in July 2008. Read “Drones are Ready for Takeoff“.

May 26/11: Insitu, Inc. in Bingen, WA received an $83.7 million indefinite-delivery/ indefinite- quantity contract for operations and maintenance services to support government-owned ScanEagle systems, including: multiple training courses ranging from system pilot training, maintenance and operations, to mission coordinator and payload operator; multiple kits for sustainment, payload and engine module kits; and multiple spare parts.

Work will be performed in Bingen, WA, and will run until May 2012. $62.7 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11. There’s only one ScanEagle manufacturer, and this contract was not competitively procured, pursuant to FAR 6.302-2 (N00019-11-C-0012).

April 28/11: CEO shift. Boeing executive Steve Morrow becomes Insitu’s new President and CEO, succeeding co-founder Steve Sliwa, who retired April 1/11. That’s always a big inflection point in a company’s history.

Morrow holds a B.Sc. (electrical) Engineering from the University of South Carolina, and an M.Sc. Aeronautical engineering from the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, CA. He most recently served as Director, Stand-off Strike, leading long-range weapons programs including

  • GM-84 Harpoon and SLAM-ER missiles, the USAF’s Tomahawk ALCM, the Next Generation Cruise Missile, and Boeing’s portion of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense program. He joined Boeing in 2002 following his retirement as Navy program manager for Tomahawk-related programs. His Navy aviation experience came in P-3 sea control aircraft. Insitu.

New CEO

April 14/11: Insitu awards small business qualifier ArgenTech Solutions a contract to provide field service representative (FSR) services, at locations worldwide. It’s an initial 1-year contract that includes options for 2 additional years.

April 9/11: Boeing receives a $12.3 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for “additional Mid-Wave Infrared Unmanned Aerial Systems, intelligence reconnaissance surveillance services in for the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force combat missions in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.” Sounds like an order for NightEagle services in Afghanistan.

Work will be performed in Bingen, WA (65%), and St. Louis, MO (35%), and is expected to be complete in May 2011. The US Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division in Lakehurst, NJ manages this contract (N00019-08-C-0050).

Feb 22/11: Boeing receives a $5.7 million firm-fixed-price indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract modification for “additional persistent unmanned aerial vehicle intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance services in support of naval maritime missions.” ScanEagles featured prominently in the April 2009 rescue of an American vessel from Somali pirates, for example.

Work will be performed in Bingen, WA (65%), and St. Louis, MO (35%), and is expected to be complete in November 2011. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11 (N00019-08-D-0013).

2010

Polish order; New Integrator UAV for USMC; Weapons for ScanEagle?; FAA test; Heavy fuel; NanoSAR ready; ScanEagle SECC variant.

ScanEagle CC
SECC test
(click to view full)

Dec 30/10: Boeing receives a $14.5 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for additional “persistent intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance unmanned aerial vehicle services in support of Marine Corps combat missions.”

Work will be performed in Bingen, WA (97%), and St. Louis, MO (3%), and is expected to be complete in February 2011. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11 (N00019-09-C-0050).

Dec 28/10: A $68.3 million firm-fixed-price contract for “full-motion video from commercial un-manned air intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance platforms across Iraq. Work will be completed in Baghdad, Iraq, with an estimated completion date of Dec 31/11. The bid was solicited through the Internet with 2 bids received by U.S. Central Command in Baghdad, Iraq (M67854-07-D-2052).

Dec 3/10: Weapons? Aviation Week reports that the US Navy is working on weapons that could give even the ScanEagle UAV hunter-killer capability. The 2 pound next-generation weapon management system (WMS GEN2) has been tested in the lab, and the development team is now looking at using the WMS GEN2 with the 5 pound NAWCAD Spike mini-missile, the Scan Eagle Guided Munition (SEGM), and a GPS-Guided Munition (G2M, likely the RCFC).

Sept 27/10: Boeing in St. Louis, MO receives a $5.7 million not-to-exceed indefinite-delivery /indefinite-quantity contract modification for 2,100 hours of persistent UAV intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance services in support of US Navy and USMC missions.

Work will be performed in Bingen, WA (94%, Insitu subsidiary) and St. Louis, MO (6%), and the contract will end in September 2011. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 20/10 (N00019-08-D-0013).

Sept 23/10: It took a while, but Boeing subsidiary Insitu, Inc. in Bingen, WA gets a $7.2 million modification to an American firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-09-C-0005), for Poland’s order of 10 ScanEagle systems. ScanEagle would join Aeronautics’ Orbiter mini-UAV and Aerostar tactical UAV, as UAVs available to Polish forces.

Work will be performed in Bingen, WA, and is expected to be complete in September 2011. $3.5 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract on Poland’s behalf. See “Polish Equipment Issues and Consequences” for more in-depth coverage of the issues and pressures behind Poland’s purchase.

Poland

Aug 24/10: NightEagle. Insitu announces that its NightEagle conversion kit is now fully integrated into combat operations after successfully completing fielding of an upgraded mid-wave infrared (MWIR) imager payload. Insitu responded to an urgent, mission-critical request, using its deployed operations representatives to beat the schedule. The new configuration consists of upgrades to ground support equipment, new software, and specialized in-field training.

NightEagle

Integrator
Integrator platform
(click to view full)

July 29/10: No ScanEagles for STUAS-II. Boeing subsidiary Insitu, Inc. in Bingen, WA wins a $43.7 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract to provide its new Integrator UAVs under the USMC’s the small tactical unmanned aircraft system/Tier II unmanned aircraft system III (STUAS-II) competition. But the UAV that beats competitors like Raytheon’s KillerBee 4 is not a ScanEagle. Instead, it’s Insitu’s new Integrator UAV – which may herald the beginning of the end for ScanEagle. Integrator also uses catapult launch, and is recovered using the same Skyhook recovery systems as ScanEagle.

We won’t be covering other Integrator contracts in this article, just milestones that are relevant to ScanEagle’s future.

Work will be performed in Bingen, WA (46.7%), Hood River, OR (45.6%), and Melbourne, FL (7.7%). Work is expected to be completed in September 2012, but $788,931 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/10. This contract was competitively procured via an electronic request for proposals, with 4 proposals received by the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division in Lakehurst, NJ (N68335-10-C-0054). Insitu.

June 16/10: Poland. Reports surface that Poland has joined the customer list for Boeing’s leased ScanEagle UAV services, but details are scarce. At 15-20 hours endurance, ScanEagle offers longer on station time than leased Aeronautics DS’ Aerostars’ 8-12 hours. On the other hand, the Aerostar offers 110 pounds of payload, while ScanEagle offers just 13 pounds.

Shepard Group adds that Insitu has qualified a Mk4 catapult launcher, which will be compatible with both ScanEagle and Integrator, and is “ready to ship the launcher to an undisclosed customer in Afghanistan.” The Insitu spokesperson told them that around 35 ScanEagle systems of 5-10 UAVs each were operational with Australian, Canadian, Polish and US forces.

Aviation Week reports that Boeing is also in talks with a number of European countries to lease ScanEagle UAV services, with the option of an upgrade to their Insitu subsidiary’s slightly larger and more advanced Integrator UAV later on. Aviation Week | Shepard Group | StrategyPage.

June 12/10: Boeing receives a $59.5 million ceiling-priced modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-09-C-0050) to provide 3,300 flight hours of persistent intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance UAV services to the U.S. Marine Corps.

Work will be performed in Bingen, WA (97%), and St. Louis, MO (3%); and is expected to be complete in December 2010. $29.75 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/10.

June 8/10: FAA tests. Boeing subsidiary Insitu Inc. signs a cooperative research development agreement with the USA’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), in order to guide the development of recommendations for UAV use in civil airspace. The research will be managed by the FAA’s Research and Technology Development Office and conducted at the William J. Hughes Technical Center in Atlantic City, NJ. Insitu | FAA Fact Sheet.

Insitu will provide a ScanEagle system, related support hardware and data, and UAV training for FAA pilots and maintenance staff. Insitu will also supply documentation related to ScanEagle, including an open invitation for FAA personnel to visit Insitu.

June 2/10: Canada. Insitu announces that its ScanEagle has logged more than 17,000 combat flight hours and 1,700 sorties with the Canadian Forces, as part of a “rent a drone” service operated by their Canadian partner ING Engineering. ScanEagle has been deployed with the Canadian Forces in theater since 2008 and has completed a successful maritime flight demonstration aboard the Kingston Class patrol vessel HMCS Glace Bay.

May 13/10: Insitu Inc. announces that it has demonstrated its heavy fuel engine-configured ScanEagle UAS to the U.S. Army Aviation Center of Excellence, in conjunction with the Joint Systems Integration Laboratory (JSIL). The tests at Fort Rucker, AL demonstrated interoperability between ScanEagle video with metadata and the U.S. Army’s One System Remote Video Terminal (OSRVT), a digital video encrypted data feed, a mid-wave infrared (MWIR) sensor for night scans, and Insitu’s stabilized airborne target tracking system.

May 12/10: SECC. Boeing tests its ScanEagle Compressed Carriage (SECC), whose 132-inch wingspan and folding aero surfaces let it be carried in a container and launched from an aircraft pylon, or a submarine. It’s recovered using the same SkyHook system as a regular ScanEagle.

ScanEagle SECC is powered by a 6 hp heavy-fuel engine. The test launched it from a ground vehicle, whereupon it flew an autonomous 75 minute flight plan at various altitudes, and provided streaming video to a nearby ground station. Boeing | Boeing feature w. video.

April 29/10: Insitu Inc. announces that its ScanEagle UAS recently exceeded 300,000 combat flight hours since its 1st operational flight in 2002, and accounted for approximately 22% of the 550,000 hours that American UAVs flew in 2009.

April 14/10: An $11 million modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-09-C-0050) to provide 6,600 flight hours of persistent ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) unmanned aircraft vehicle services in support of naval maritime missions. Work will be performed in Bingen, WA (97%), and St. Louis, MO (3%), and is expected to be complete in June 2010. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.

March 16/10: Boeing subsidiary Insitu, Inc. in Bingen, WA received an $8.6 million firm-fixed-price contract for technical services, to support intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance services. In addition, this contract covers 6 critical spare kits and 9 SkyHook recovery system modifications.

Work will be performed in Bingen, WA, and is expected to be complete in December 2010. Contract funds in the amount of $8.4 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/10. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to FAR 6.302-2 (N00019-10-C-0045).

Feb 23/10: Sensors – NanoSAR. Insitu Inc. announces that after 4 years of work with ImSAR LLC and 2 years of flight testing, the NanoSAR ground-scanning radar has moved out of development, is now available as a payload for its ScanEagle dual bay and follow on “Integrator” UAVs. See May 28/08, Jan 7/08 entries.

NanoSAR

Feb 19/10: A $6.1 million not-to-exceed modification to a previously awarded indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract (N00019-08-D-0013) to provide 300 hours of persistent UAV intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance services in support of naval maritime missions.

Work will be performed in Bingen, WA (65%) and St. Louis, MO (35%), and is expected to be complete in July 2010. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.

2009

US SOCOM MEAUS order; Canada SUAV order; Maersk Alabama rescue; E-737 AEW&C’s UAV control; ASW MagEagle?; Bandit & Enerlink datalinks.

ScanEagle UAS
ScanEagle UAV
(click for alternate view)

Dec 18/09: Bandit datalink. Boeing subsidiary Insitu Inc. announces that a flight test with L-3 Communication Systems-West’s Bandit digital data link worked “well in excess of range requirements.” Insitu is integrating the Bandit digital data link into its ScanEagle, NightEagle and Integrator UAVs. Bandit is Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) capable and ROVER 4/ 5 compatible. This test was conducted using the Integrator UAV, but tests also happened on a ScanEagle earlier in 2009.

Dec 1/09: USCG. Aviation Week reports that the US Coast Guard is still considering its UAV options:

“As part of its ongoing analysis, the service has participated in numerous exercises with other platforms [beyond the MQ-8B]… including Boeing’s A160 Hummingbird, an AeroVironment vehicle and ScanEagle tested on board a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ship.”

Nov 25/09: The University of North Dakota (UND) receives its ScanEagle UAS, to be used in Department of Defense (DOD) contracted research providing data for UAS national airspace integration. UND is a designated State Center of Excellence for UAS Research, Education and Training, and funds for this project were provided by a USAF research contract. UND Associate Professor of Aviation and Director of Program Development for the UAS Center of Excellence, Douglas Marshall, in Insitu’s Press release:

“To date, the university’s only fully trained operators and maintenance technicians are UND employees and primarily flight instructors. We hope to integrate a ScanEagle system into our curriculum and allow students to fly the system against a radar test bed, while learning to operate the UAS itself.”

Nov 24/09: Canada. Boeing subsidiary Insitu Inc. announces a successful ScanEagle flight demonstration aboard Canada’s Kingston class coastal patrol vessel HMCS Glace Bay [MM 701]. The demonstration was conducted by the Canadian Forces Maritime Warfare Centre (CFMWC), and included an in-flight handoff of the ScanEagle by Canadian Navy personnel aboard HMCS Glace Bay to a ground control station (GCS) operated by Canadian Army personnel at Naval Base Halifax.

Oct 19/09: ScanEagle wins C4ISR Magazine’s 2009 C4ISR Platforms Category Award. Insitu release | C4ISR Magazine.

Sept 28/09: Sensors – MagEagle? Boeing receives a $275,000 contract from the US Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD) to study of the magnetic noise associated with the heavy-fuel propulsion system on Boeing’s MagEagle Compressed Carriage (MECC) ScanEagle variant. The MagEagle is being designed and built to be magnetically quiet, in order to help it locate, track and attack submarines using a magnetic anomaly detector (MAD) system that picks up the changes in earth’s magnetic field caused by large metal objects.

Boeing envisions MECC as another UAV extension of the manned P-8A Poseidon aircraft, launchable from the aircraft itself. They will begin testing the MECC sensor system, vehicle integration, and magnetic noise reduction in 2010. Boeing.

Aug 11/09: Insitu announces that ScanEagle recently surpassed the mark of 200,000 operational flight hours since 2004.

Aug 5/09: Insitu marks more than 2,500 combat flight hours and more than 300 shipboard sorties with its heavy fuel engine (HFE) ScanEagle since flight-testing began in 2006, which. ScanEagle HFE has been deployed aboard the destroyers USS Mahan and USS Milius, and uses the same JP-5 kerosene-based diesel fuel commonly used in jet aircraft engines, as opposed to the more flammable and dangerous auto gas. Other advantages include simple starting and operation, a wider weather envelope, improved reliability and increased endurance.

Insitu developed the engine in partnership with combustion system experts Sonex Research, Inc. in Annapolis, MD.

July 9/09: #1,000. Insitu Inc. marks delivery of its 1,000th ScanEagle, and announces that it is expanding its UAS manufacturing capacity.

May 27/09: Canada. Boeing announces $25 million in contracts to Canadian industry, as part of its $30 million industrial offsets commitment following Canada UAV services order. See also April 6/09 entry.

Winners include: ING Engineering Inc. (field services), MKS (MKS Integrity software and consulting services for program life-cycle management), and NovAtel (ScanEagle GPS).

May 22/09: The SEALs must have really liked what the ScanEagle did for them during the Maersk Alabama incident, and been satisfied with past experiments involving launches from their MkV boats and trials on other Navy ships. Boeing announces a 5-year, $250 million contract from US Special Operations Command for:

“Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) services… Boeing and its subsidiary Insitu Inc. will operate, maintain and support ScanEagle systems for the Special Operations Forces Mid Endurance Unmanned Aircraft System (MEUAS) program….”

Boeing VP of Boeing Defense & Government Services Greg Deiter says that Boeing’s past performance on ScanEagle battlefield surveillance contracts was a significant reason for their win. That kind of record will become a valuable competitive asset as new designs like the blended-wing KillerBee 4 begin competing in ScanEagle’s niche.

US SOCOM MEAUS

April 13/09: The Boeing Co. in St. Louis, MO received a $45.4 million ceiling-priced, unfinalized contract to provide persistent UAV services from land bases on the Afghan front.

Work will be performed in Bingen, WA (65%) and St. Louis, MO (35%), and is expected to be complete in December 2009. Contract funds in the amount of $22.7 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured, pursuant to FAR(Federal Acquisition Regulations) 6.302-2 (N00019-09-C-0050).

April 9/09: Maersk Alabama rescue. The US Navy releases some stills from videos of the Maersk Alabama’s 28-foot closed lifeboat, taken by ScanEagle UAVs. The hostage incident ended a couple of days later, when Cmdr. Frank X. Castellano of the USS Bainbridge [DDG-96] ordered Navy sharpshooters to kill the Somali pirates who were holding Capt. Richard Phillips hostage. Photo 1 | Photo 2 | Photo 3.

Maersk Alabama

April 6-12/09: During this week, ScanEagle UAVs flew their 150,000th hour in service with the U.S. Marine Expeditionary Forces, U.S. Navy, U.S. Special Operations Command, Australian Army and Canadian Forces. Boeing release.

April 6/09: Insitu receives an award to provide “small unmanned aerial vehicle (SUAV) services” to support the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan, and elsewhere. See also Nov 6/08 entry. The initial contract is worth US$ 30 million, with options for another US$ 31 million.

As part of the Request for Proposal, Insitu Inc. must provide 100% industrial and regional offset benefits. Its association with Boeing, which has substantial Canadian operations, should make that easy. Canadian government.

Canada

April 1/09: Boeing subsidiary Insitu, Inc. in Bingen, WA received a $20.9 million firm-fixed-price contract to supply ScanEagle hardware for 4 operational sites, 3 spare/operational float packages, and critical spares kits in support of the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Work will be performed in Bingen, WA, and is expected to be complete in July 2009. This contract was not competitively procured, pursuant to FAR 6.302-2 (N00019-09-C-0005).

March 16/09: Australia – AWACS compatibility. Boeing’s two-fer. Australia’s Project JP129 failure has created an opening for Boeing’s ScanEagle UAV, but its flagship “Wedgetail” E-737 AWACS faces questions. Boeing responded by linking 2 birds with one datalink: a live demonstration in which a not-yet-delivered Wedgetail aircraft flying over Washington State, USA controlled and received sensor data from 3 ScanEagle UAVs.

The 3 ScanEagles were launched from Boeing’s Boardman Test Facility in eastern Oregon, approximately 120 miles/ 190 km away from the airborne Wedgetail. Using the company’s UAS battle-management software, airborne operators issued NATO-standard sensor and air-vehicle commands via a UHF satellite communication link and ground-station relay. Operators tasked the UAVs with area search, reconnaissance, point surveillance and targeting, while the UAVs sent back real-time video imagery of ground targets.

Boeing will conduct a follow-on demonstration for the Australian government in early May 2009 at RAAF Base Williamtown in New South Wales. A Wedgetail will take control of ScanEagles operated by Boeing Defence Australia personnel at Woomera Test Facility in South Australia, approximately 1,080 miles/ 1,730 km from Williamtown.

March 2/09: Singapore. Boeing announces that Singapore has been putting their ScanEagle UAV through ship-based trials, including flight from the helicopter decks of an LST amphibious support ship and a frigate. Boeing Defence Australia provided a complete maritime ScanEagle system for the successful trials, including a ground control station, communication links, launcher and SkyHook recovery system. They were complemented by a Boeing/ Insitu support team that was deployed to Singapore.

Jan 21/09: EnerLinks datalink. Viasat subsidiary Enerdyne Technologies Inc. signs an agreement with Insitu Inc. to supply its EnerLinksII DVA digital data link technology for use in the ScanEagle UAV. The EnerLinksII DVA is a small 3″ x 5″ x 1″ module that’s placed between the ScanEagle’s sensors and the RF transmitter, using less than 8 watts and weighing under 0.5 pounds.

The concept of a DVA (Digital Video over Analog) system involves simple conversion of older FM analog video links to encrypted digital links, without replacing any of the RF equipment in either the aircraft or the ground. EnerLinksII’s improved digital performance improves both UAV video link range and bandwidth use by a factor of 4, and can transmit 2 Mbps of IP data simultaneously with compressed FMV (Full Motion Video). Features include H.264 compression, IP multiplexing, AES encryption, FEC coding, and modulation waveshaping.

Jan 7/09: Boeing subsidiary Insitu announces that its ScanEagle unmanned aircraft system has just completed its 1,500th shipboard sortie in service with the U.S. Navy.

2008

US Navy win; US SOCOM, Canada place initial orders; Australian subsidiary; Shot locator, SWIR camera variants; NanoSAR.

Iraq: Boeing contractor recovers ScanEagle
ScanEagle returns
(click to view full)

Nov 26/08: Sensors – shot locator. The US Office of Naval Research and Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division discuss a Navy Expeditionary Overwatch (NEO) program exercise, which involved US Navy Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC) sailors deploying a ScanEagle UAV, a manned Humvee with “Gunslinger” shot location and counterfire system, and an unmanned surface vehicle (USV) on a successful mission to detect and engage fictional insurgents over a 10 square mile radius.

The Gunslinger Humvee’s remote-control gun is operated by a gunner who sits at a control panel in the back seat. The Mk 45 weapons system is hooked up to video and infrared cameras connected to a set of sensors designed to detect gunfire, including a device that watches for muzzle flashes and listens for gunshots. It then points the remote-controlled weapons system on the Hummer’s roof at the source of fire.

At the Potomac River NEO demonstration, warfighters in the Humvee used the Gunslinger’s acoustic detection package and infrared sensors to determine the location of hostile fire and automatically move the weapon in the direction of the fire for friendly force response. The 36-foot-long semi-autonomous USV was also equipped with a Gunslinger payload and a range of sensors and communications systems. US Navy release | The Register re: Gunslinger..

Nov 12/08: Boeing receives a $65 million estimated value modification to a previously awarded indefinite delivery indefinite quantity “Interim UAS” contract, exercising an option for “persistent unmanned aerial system intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance services in support of Global War on Terror, Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom sea-based deployments and land-based detachments.” That’s milspeak for contractor operation and maintenance of ScanEagle UAVs in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Work will be performed in Bingen, WA (65%); and St. Louis, MO (35%), and is expected to be complete in November 2009. Contract funds in the amount of $6.8 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year (N00019-08-D-0013).

Nov 6/08: Canada. Canada issues a MERX solicitation (W8486-09MGSL/A) for a leased small UAV service. Canada is already leasing ScanEagle UAVs that can fulfill the MERX requirements: 90% operational availability, 12 hours on station, ability to gather and transmit high quality imagery from a distance of 50km.

Aug 6/08: Sensors – SWIR. Boeing and Goodrich Corporation announce that they have successfully flight-tested a ScanEagle unmanned aircraft equipped for the first time with a short-wave infrared (SWIR) camera. A SWIR camera can see more effectively in fog, rain or when little or no heat is radiated, which makes it especially useful for maritime surveillance. Boeing release.

July 22/08: Merger. Boeing buys its partner Insitu, which will operate as a wholly owned subsidiary of Boeing’s Integrated Defense Systems’ Military Aircraft division. Subsequent reports place the price at around $400 million:

“Insitu’s key technologies and advanced capabilities in rapid prototyping and manufacturing are driving its revenue to an anticipated $150 million this year, 70 percent higher than in 2007, and have it well positioned for the future… Terms of the cash transaction were not disclosed. This transaction, anticipated to close by the end of September following regulatory approvals, does not affect Boeing’s financial guidance.”

Insitu, Inc. retained investment bankers Houlihan Lokey for the acquisition, and terms of the sale were not disclosed. Insitu’s investors are led by Battery Ventures, Second Avenue Partners, and Pteranodon Ventures. Boeing | Insitu | Wall Street Journal (subscription reqd).

Boeing buyout

June 2/08: Boeing received an estimated $65 million indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract to “provide persistent Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance services supporting the Global War on Terror, Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom sea-based deployments and land-based detachments.” The language above refers to their ScanEagle operation services, which are undertaken in cooperation with Insitu.

Work will be performed in Bingen, WA, (65%); and St. Louis, MO (35%) and is expected to be complete in May 2009. Contract funds in the amount of $7 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured by electronic request for proposals, with 2 offers received (N00019-08-D-0013). Boeing release | Insitu copy.

Interim UAS win

May 28/08: NanoSAR. The NanoSAR test program continues, as Boeing, ImSAR and Insitu Inc. achieve real-time processing of Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) data aboard a ScanEagle UAV which is also equipped with a standard inertially stabilized electro-optical (EO) camera. The tests marked the first time SAR and EO capabilities have flown together on such a small, lightweight platform, and involved real-time SAR processing with streaming radar images displayed on the ground station. Creating real-time images onboard ScanEagle eliminates the requirement of either processing imagery on the ground after flight or using high-speed data links to a ground station. Insitu release.

May 26/08: Australia. Insitu, Inc.partners with the Queensland state government in Australia to announce the formation of its wholly owned subsidiary, Insitu Pacific Pty Ltd. The release adds that:

“Insitu, along with Boeing Australia, is proud to be part of the experienced team that has delivered more than 13,000 surveillance and reconnaissance flight hours to help protect Australian troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Insitu Pacific

April 29/08: Insitu announces that the ScanEagle has now surpassed 50,000 combat flight hours with the U.S. Marine Expeditionary Forces (MEF) in Iraq and 1,000 shipboard recoveries with the U.S. Navy.

April 22/08: Testing. Insitu announces that it has flown Heavy Fuel Engine (HFE) equipped ScanEagles in Iraq, in cooperation with the US Navy. Heavy fuel refers to the kerosene-based fuel used in diesel and/or jet aircraft engines such as JP5, JP8, or Jet-A. ScanEagles flying in Iraq are using naval JP5 fuel, which is designed to be safer aboard ships.

The effort involved Insitu, Boeing, and Sonex Research Inc. in Annapolis, MD. The effort took 2 years of development and included over 2000 hours of testing, including a new ScanEagle flight endurance mark of 28 hours, 44 minutes using JP5. Insitu release.

April 18/08: Recall the Feb 7/08 launches from a Navy SEAL MkV boat, and demonstration by AFSOC at Hurlburt Field, FL.

Insitu Group, Inc., of Bingen, WA receives a firm-fixed price contract with a not-to-exceed value of $24 million for unmanned aircraft system information gathering, target surveillance, and reconnaissance services in support of U.S. Special Operations Command. The work will be performed in Bingen, WA and 3 other undisclosed locations using FY 2008 operations and maintenance funds (H92222-08-C-0022).

US SOCOM

March 25/08: Canada stands up an SUAV (Small Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) Troop. After live flight training in New Mexico, SUAV Troop deploys to Afghanistan to operate leased ScanEagles, which are referred to as “Interim SUAV”. Source: CASR.

Canada

Feb 7/08: US AFSOC. Air Force Special Operations Command, as the lead command for small unmanned aircraft systems, highlights the capabilities of the Scan Eagle during a demonstration at the Eglin Air Force Base test range. AFSOC has been training with the 820th Security Forces Group from Moody Air Force Base, GA since September 2007, to employ the system. AFSOC release.

Feb 7/08: USN SEALs. A Scan Eagle unmanned aerial vehicle is launched from a MK V naval special warfare boat off the coast of San Clemente Island. This is the first time a Scan Eagle, used for various applications such as intelligence gathering and battle damage assessment, has been launched from this kind of platform. Insitu photo links.

Jan 14/08: USN’s Interim UAS. Jane’s reports that:

“Industry rivals are waiting to hear if they have ousted the Boeing/Insitu ScanEagle unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) from its role as provider of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) support for US Navy ships at sea. A decision on the interim UAS contract, which will provide ISR imagery services to warships and to the US Marine Corps into the next decade, is expected in late January or early February 2008.”

Other competitors are thought to include AAI Corporation’s long-endurance Mk 4 Aerosonde, Aurora Flight Sciences’ vertical take-off and landing GoldenEye 80, BAE Systems’ Skylynx II, MTC Technologies’ Spyhawk T-16 and Raytheon/Swift Engineering’s Killer Bee. Insitu link.

UPDATE: the decision took until June 2008, and ScanEagle won.

NanoSAR
NanoSAR on ScanEagle
(click to view full)

Jan 7/08: Sensors – NanoSAR. Boeing, Insitu, and ImSAR conduct a successful flight-test for the tiny NanoSAR Synthetic Aperture Radar aboard a ScanEagle UAV. The NanoSAR is a 2-pound system about the size of a shoebox, which is a couple orders of magnitude lighter than most SAR systems. As a sign of the times, “import to Google Earth” is an option for the system.

As a comparison, the I-Master SAR aboard Britain’s new Watchkeeper UAVs is considered small at 65 pounds. SAR radars aren’t an all-purpose replacement for ScanEagle’s existing electro-optical sensors, but they’re a very important complement because of their ability to see through fog, dust, et. al. The issue for NanoSAR will be providing acceptable resolution and coverage despite its tiny size.

Targets for the 1.5 hour test flight at the Boardman, OR test range included vehicles, structures and corner reflectors. Data collection worked as planned, and SAR imagery was later created on the ground. The next step in flight testing will be to create imagery aboard the UA in real time. Boeing release | ImSAR on NanoSAR | Insitu re: NanoSAR.

Additional Readings

News & Views

ER/MP Gray Eagle: Enhanced MQ-1C Predators for the Army

$
0
0
MQ-1C Hellfires
ER/MP, armed
(click to view full)

Its initial battles were fought within the Pentagon, but the US Army’s high-end UAV has made its transition to the battlefield.

The ER/MP program was part of the US Army’s reinvestment of dollars from the canceled RAH-66 Comanche helicopter program, and directly supports the Army’s Aviation Modernization Plan. The US Air Force saw this Predator derivative as a threat and tried to destroy it, but the program survived the first big “Key West” battle of the 21st century. Now, the MQ-1C “Gray Eagle” is in production as the US Army’s high-end UAV. As CENTCOM’s wars end, however, the Gray Eagle may find that staying in the fleet is as hard as getting there.

This FOCUS article offers a program history, key statistics and budget figures, and ongoing coverage of the program’s contracts and milestones.

The MQ-1C Gray Eagle, and its Band of Brothers

MQ-1 Predator: 1 Hellfire fired?
Predator landing
(click to view full)

With General Atomics MQ-1A/B Predators, MQ-1C Gray Eagles, and MQ-9 Reaper UAVs all headed for the skies above the conflict zone, our readers have asked us to help them tell the difference. It’s clear that all 3 share a design philosophy, but their capabilities diverge in important ways.

View from the Air

The MQ-1 Predator is 27 feet long, with a 55 foot wingspan. Its maximum gross takeoff weight is 2,300 pounds, and it can carry 625 pounds of fuel, 450 pounds of internal payload (sensors), and another 300 pounds on its wings for up to 2 AGM-114 Hellfire anti-armor missiles or equivalent loads. Its service ceiling is 25,000 feet, which can keep it well above the 10,000-15,000 ft ceiling above which most guns are ineffective. The piston engine is a Rotax 914 turbo that runs on aviation fuel, and pushes the Predator at a slow speed of 120 KTAS. It’s controlled by UHF/VHF radio signals, and is designed to be flown by a pilot – without automated takeoff and landing.

The USAF also had an MQ-1B Block X/ YMQ-1C project underway, to develop a Predator system that would run on heavy fuel and carry up to 4 Hellfires. That project, and questions of cross-service compatibility, died when the USAF stopped buying MQ-1 Predators, and shifted its focus to the larger MQ-9 Reaper instead.

MQ-9 Predator-B with paveways
MQ-9 w. Paveways
(click to view larger)

The MQ-9 Reaper, once called “Predator B,” is somewhat similar to the Predator. Until you look at the tail. Or its size. Or its weapons. It’s called “Reaper” for a reason – while it packs the same surveillance gear, it is much more of a hunter-killer design than its counterparts. The Reaper is 36 feet long, with a 66 foot wingspan. Its maximum gross takeoff weight is a whopping 10,500 pounds, carrying up to 4,000 pounds of fuel, 850 pounds of internal/ sensor payload, and another 3,000 pounds on its wings. The MQ-9 has 6 pylons, which can carry GPS-guided JDAM family bombs and other MIL STD 1760 compatible weapons, Paveway laser-guided bombs, Sidewinder missiles for air-air self defense, and AIM-114P Hellfire missiles or laser-guided Hydra rockets. With that arsenal the Reaper becomes the equivalent of a close air support fighter with less situational awareness, less speed and less survivability if seen – but much, much longer on-station time than its manned counterparts.

MQ-1 Predator vs MQ-9 Predator-B
MQ-1 vs. MQ-9
(click to view full)

The Reaper’s service ceiling is 50,000 feet unless it’s fully loaded, but even the lower altitudes it usually flies at make a lurking MQ-9 very difficult to find from the ground, and the ability to drop GPS and laser-guided bombs makes high-altitude precision strikes fperfectly plausible. The engine is a Honeywell TPE 331-10T, which pushes it along at a rather speedier clip of 240 KTAS. Not exactly an F-16, or even an A-10, but the extra speed does get it to the problem area more quickly when a call comes in from the troops.

Several MQ-9 variants exist. An extended range variant adds fuel tanks, and lengthens the wingspan to 88 feet. US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) also flies the MQ-9 Reaper, and has its own MQ-1 Predator program, too. Both UAVs are referred to as Medium Altitude Long Endurance Tactical (MALET) platforms. If SOCOM has to bring the MALET to hammer a target down, or soften it up, they fly in enhanced variants with improved video transmission, infrared modifications, signals intelligence payloads, and “delivery of low collateral damage weapons.” The latter presumably includes precision mini-missile options like Raytheon’s Griffin, and precision glide bombs like Northrop Grumman’s GBU-44 Viper Strike and Lockheed Martin’s Scorpion, all of which allow a single Hellfire rail or weapon station to carry multiple weapons.

General Atomics’ Mariner maritime surveillance UAV and FAA-certified high-altitude Altair research UAV are both derived from the MQ-9 Reaper. So, too, is NASA’s Ikhana.

The Army’s MQ-1C Gray Eagle

MQ-1C system: Performance & Components

The MQ-1C Sky Warrior/ Gray Eagle looks a lot like the Predator, but it’s a little bit bigger, can carry more weapons, and has an engine that can run on the same “heavy fuel” that fills up the Army’s land vehicles. The initial engine was Thielert’s 160hp Centurion, but the firm filed for insolvency after substantive revelations of accounting fraud (q.v. May 17/08), and in July 2013, its commercial assets were bought by China’s AVIC. Gray Eagles will continue to fly with existing stocks of the Thielert engine, but new UAVs will fly with Lycoming’s 250hp DEL-120.

Maximum operating altitude is 29,000 feet, at a speed of up to 135 knots. The sensor turret payload was initially Raytheon’s AN/DAS-2, but has shifted to the final “Army Common Sensor Payload” AN/AAS-53 variant. The Army also added a communications relay, and has been working to give the UAV “sense and avoid” capabilities for safety in crowded airspace.

An Improved Gray Eagle variant was introduced in July 2013, and this type has flown a 45 hour mission in unarmed configuration. It includes the new Lycoming DEL-120 engine, and a heavier airframe thanks to a deep belly design that raises internal fuel load from 575 pounds to 850 pounds. A 500-pound wet centerline hard point can be used to push the UAV’s fuel total to 1,350 pounds. The new MQ-1C IGE also has a maximum 540-pound internal payload capacity, compared to the MQ-1 Block 1’s 400 pounds. The end result is a maximum takeoff weight that rises from 3,600 pounds to 4,200 pounds.

Sensors and Add-Ons

ZPY-1 STARLite
click for video

Beyond its standard equipment, the US Army is also developing and qualifying new payloads for the MQ-1C fleet, thanks to efforts by Product Manager RUS (Robotic and Unmanned Sensors) and PM-ARES (Airborne Reconnaissance and Exploitation Systems).

AN/AAS-53 CSP+. Raytheon’s base Common Sensor Payload (CSP) is being upgraded, and CSP High Definition (HD) is planned for production cut-in in FY 2013. It adds high-definition Full Motion Video (FMV) in both the Electro-optical and Mid-wave IR spectrums. A retrofit plan will begin in FY 2014 to convert all MQ-1Cs to CSP HD. The Army sees CSP Target Location Accuracy (TLA) as the final upgrade, upgrading targeting accuracy to allow timely use of GPs-guided bombs and missiles. All Gray Eagles will eventually be equipped with CSP TLA.

AN/ZPY-1 STARLite-ER. Northrop Grumman’s Small Tactical Radar – Lightweight (STARLite) Synthetic Aperture Radar/ Ground Moving Target Indicator (SAR/GMTI) is a lightweight, high performance, all weather radar that can track small moving ground targets, down to small car size, even in bad weather. It cross-cues with the UAV’s cameras, and enhancements have been approved to extend its range, and detect man-sized targets. STARLite ER (Extended Range) has been cut into production since FY 2011, and began fielding and retrofitting in FY 2012. The Army plans to buy 1 STARLite ER system per UAV.

Sense and Avoid. Ground Based Sense and Avoid (GBSAA) is a system designed to be aware of other aircraft, especially in civil airspace, and help avoid collisions with the MQ-1C. The Phase 2, Block 0 system will provide the operator with an air traffic display, color-coded to reflect the highest-priority potential conflicts. The Block 1 system will add recommended maneuvers to avoid crashing into others. That isn’t the full sense-and-avoid you’d see on a commercial jet, but by 2015 it will let the Army fly the UAVs from Fort Hood, TX; Fort Riley, KS; Fort Stewart, GA; Fort Campbell, KY; and Fort Bragg, NC, through Class D military airspace, to nearby test ranges without a manned chase plane. As the acronym suggests, making this work requires certain equipment in place on the ground at those locations.

Traveler Pod. BAE’s pods are designed to find and eavesdrop on electronic emitters, identify them (enemy radio communications? radar? etc.), then offer aerial precision geolocation (APG) and copying. SIGINT/ELINT pods and equipment can already be installed in larger UAVs like the USAF’s RQ-4 Global Hawks, and aboard light surveillance planes like the Beechcraft King Air MC-12Ws. The challenge is to shrink them and their supporting systems within the MQ-1C’s weight and size limits.

NERO pod. Provides electronic jamming that can prevent remote detonation of land mines, giving the UAV a very useful convoy overwatch role. It can also disrupt enemy communications. Raytheon’s NERO is adapted from the CAESAR pod that equips manned C-12 (Beechcraft King Air) turboprops. Initial deliveries took place in 2013.

The Army’s ER/MP Program

UAV MQ-1C SkyWarrior First Flight Dawn
Prep for flight
(click to view full)

The Gray Eagle began in August 2005, as “Team Warrior” won a $214.4 million contract to develop the Extended Range/ Multi Purpose Unmanned Aerial Vehicle System (ER/MP UAS). The Army wanted its ER/MP UAV to fill both surveillance and attack roles. General Atomics’ Sky Warrior, derived from their famous MQ-1 Predator, beat the Hunter II system offered by Northrop Grumman, Aurora Flight Systems, and IAI.

That was just the first step along the US Army’s $5 billion road to fielding a true Medium Altitude, Long Endurance, armed UAV, modified from the USAF’s famous MQ-1 Predator. Its position got a boost when a 2007 program restructuring short-circuited the Future Combat Systems Class III UAV competition, in favor of ER/MP. That decision has held, and the UAVs are now operated by the US Army and by SOCOM’s “Night Stalkers” regiment.

The Systems Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase of GA-ASI’s multi-year ER/MP contract began with 17 MQ-1C UAVs, and 7 One System Ground Control Stations (OSGCS). Those pre-production Block 0 Gray Eagles began flying on the front lines, in Quick Reaction Component (QRC-1, 1R, and 2) deployments which began in December 2009. QRC drones are unarmed, and lack other key capabilities. Even so, the Army has been very enthusiastic about their performance.

As of 2013, the current plan reorganized its 152 planned buys to equip 10 active duty divisions, 2 special operation units, 2 aerial exploitation units, and the National Training Center. Gray Eagle companies are equipped with 9 UAVs and 5 Ground Control Stations each. Only deployed units get the extra 3 aircraft, drawn from stateside units, to bring their division up to 12 MQ-1Cs. Gray Eagle companies fit within each division’s Combat Aviation Brigade (CAB), following a model initiated in March 2012 at the 1st Infantry Division. Once the division’s UAVs are broken down, each CAB would end up with 4 Gray Eagles, 8 smaller RQ-7B Shadows, and 35 mini-UAVs.

A few years after the ER/MP program began, General Atomics-ASI’s Steve May was already saying that “The Army is now as large a customer for us as the Air Force.” At the time, the firm saw a potential market for as many as 540 “Sky Warrior” UAVs – 45 sets of 12 UAVs each for each brigade, plus accompanying ground stations and crews. The Army’s production program grew five-fold, but it’s still only about 30% of that maximum prediction, and remains far behind the USAF.

As the MQ-1C transitioned into production, Pentagon documents began breaking the program out from its USAF counterparts. The total program, including both the initial development contract and follow-on production, looks like it will be worth almost $5 billion. Budgets from 2004-2017 include:

ER/MP MQ-1C UAV budgets, 2004-2017

There’s also a manpower equation for the Army, which affects ongoing operating costs. Those aren’t found in these budgets, but they make up well over half of a program’s actual lifetime cost. Fully automated take-off and landing (ATLS) systems are becoming more common among UAVs, and the MQ-1C’s ATLS is an important difference from the USAF’s MQ-1 Predators, which have all flight operations handled by pilots. While the initial batch of Gray Eagle UAVs will be flown by Army aviators, the Army plans to assign future MQ-1Cs to non-pilot warrant officers with UAV training. That’s a less expensive proposition, in terms of both salary and training costs. It’s also less expensive in terms of lost UAVs, as ATLS seems to lead to fewer crashes.

Key MQ-1C industrial partners include:

ER/MP MQ-1C Industrial Partners

Contracts & Key Events

FY 2016

MQ-1 IGE, 1st flight
MQ-1 IGE
(click to view full)

December 2/15: A US Air Force MQ-1 squadron has been deactivated in Djibouti, raising doubts over the continued use of UAVs in combat operations based out of the area. The 60th Expeditionary Reconnaissance Squadron had flown over 24,000 hours between November 2014 and October 2015. During this period, the MQ-1s neutralized 69 enemy fighters, including five high valued individuals. Based out of camp Lemonnier, the MQ-1s were involved in operations not only on the African continent, but in the Gulf region as well. It is unclear if other units are operating UAV missions from the base or its network of camps and outposts or if the 60th is to be replaced.

October 16/15: A $121.4 million order for 19 MQ-1C Gray Eagle UAVs back in June has now been revealed as the first order for the Improved Gray Eagle configuration, first introduced in July 2013. The new model uses a heavier airframe and a new engine to increase fuel capacity, range, internal payload weight and take-off weight. The Army is also now looking to introduce more weapon options and other improvements for the Gray Eagle.

October 15/15: As the Army looks to standardize equipment to better enable Manned-Unmanned Teaming (MUM-T), the datalink equipping AH-64E Apaches will be replaced by one capable of operating across a broad spectrum of bandwidths used by various UAV systems. L-3 was awarded a contract last month for the MUM-TX datalink capable of operating across this spectrum, with this set to equip the future Apache fleet. In June the Army carried out a MUM-T test involving an AH-64 Apache and a MQ-1C Gray Eagle, with the Apache demonstrating the ability to launch a Hellfire missile using data remotely received from the UAV’s sensors.

Meanwhile, the Army is looking to field a wider array of weapons on the MQ-1C, with a particular focus being given to cheap, small munitions to complement the expensive AGM-114 Hellfires to which it sis currently limited. The program office is also looking for subsonic, lightweight weapons weighing around 30lb. The Hellfire currently weighs in at 105lb, with the reduced weight allowing for more weapons to be carried by the UAV. The Army also wants to implement a host of other improvements to the Gray Eagle, including more jam-resistant datalinks and assured position navigation and timing.

FY 2014 – 2015

June 25/15: The Army has successfully conducted Manned Unmanned Teaming (MUM-T) involving an AH-64 Apache and a MQ-1C Gray Eagle UAV. The Gray Eagle was used to designate a target for the Apache, with the latter then firing a Hellfire missile using data from the UAV. The test has allowed the 3rd Combat Aviation Brigade to certify the Fort Stewart complex for live Hellfire tests, an important tool as access to training ranges in Afghanistan and Iraq has diminished.

In related news, the Army awarded a $121.4 million contract to General Atomics on Tuesday for nineteen MQ-1C Gray Eagle UAVs, with these set for delivery by 2018. This follows a comparable contract in March, also for nineteen Gray Eagles, with that contract valued at $133 million. The company was also awarded a $84.8 million contract in May for performance-based logistics to support the UAV.

March 17/15: 19 More.The Army awarded General Atomics a contract for 19 Gray Eagle UAVs, as part of a $132m contract which also included SATCOM terminals and support.

April 23/14: Sensors. Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. in Linthicum Heights, MD receives a $40.7 million firm-fixed-price multi-year contract to provide up to 94 STARLite ground-looking SAR/GMTI radar systems. A system consists of 1 Aviation (A-Kit) and 1 B-Kit.

All funds are committed immediately, using mostly FY 2013 funds and some FY 2014 funds. Work will be performed in Linthicum Heights MD, and the estimated completion date is April 22/17. One bid was solicited and 1 received by the US Army Contracting Command in Aberdeen, MD (W15P7T-14-C-C005).

March 31/14: GAO Report. The US GAO tables its “Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs“. Which is actually a review for 2013, plus time to compile and publish. The MQ-1C is a stable design, but:

“Program officials said they are considering a change to the aircraft tail, which would be costly and require retrofitting the entire fleet. The program is also developing a new ground control station which will not undergo operational testing until May 2015. In addition, a production readiness review conducted in support of the program’s full-rate production decision identified several high risk supplier base issues that pose uncertainty for the program’s cost and schedule.”

Supplier issues include the new engine, “…and the Defense Contract Management Agency are also tracking other risk items related to multiple suppliers’ financial concerns as well as quality control….” Program officials say that have mitigation strategies are in place if something goes wrong.

Finally, the Ground Control System has been criticized in past evaluations. The Army is moving to new hardware and software, with follow-on testing planned in May 2015. If it goes well, the Army would begin deploying the new GCS to new and fielded units.

March 4-11/14: FY15 Budget. The US military slowly files its budget documents, detailing planned spending from FY 2014 – 2019. FY 2015 is the last year of Gray Eagle production: 19 UAVs, 19 Satellite Airborne Data Terminals (SADT), Government Furnished Equipment (GFE), Ground Based Sense and Avoid (GBSAA) Block 1 software, and site preparation and fielding for 2 locations. Payloads and Universal Ground Control Station systems will still be bought for a few more years.

For R&D, the Army continues development and integration of changes to the the Universal Ground Control Station, the GBSAA system as an alternate means of FAA compliance in properly-equipped civil airspace, and a signals intelligence (SIGINT) capability.

Nov 19/13: SOCOM. The 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (“Night Stalkers”) receives the 1st of E-Company’s 12 MQ-1C Gray Eagles. Sources: The Aviationist, “Legendary U.S. Army Special Operations Force gets MQ-1C Gray Eagle drones”.

SOCOM’s 160th SOAR

Dec 13/13: Support. General Atomics Aeronautical in Poway, CA receives an $110.4 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for continuing MQ-1C support and spares services until Dec 15/14.

$8 million in FY 2014 operations and maintenance funds are committed immediately. Work will be performed in Afghanistan and Poway, CA. One bid was solicited with one received by the US Army Contracting Command (Aviation) in Redstone Arsenal, AL (W58RGZ-14-C-0008).

Oct 22/13: Engine. During AUSA 2013, General Atomics confirms to DID that the US Army will use its existing inventory of Thielert Centurion heavy fuel engines to keep the current Gray Eagle fleet running for now, rather than doing wholesale retrofits. One presumes that retrofits would follow if Centurion stocks or part inventories drop too low.

Oct 22/13: Testing. GA-ASI uses their own funds to conduct a 45-hour MQ-1C Improved Gray Eagle flight, in reconnaissance-only configuration. They also confirm that new Gray Eagle IGEs will be built with Lycoming’s 205hp DEL-120 heavy fuel engine, replacing the discontinued Thielert Centurion (q.v. July 26/13).

A 2nd demonstration, which is planned for later in 2013, will feature an MQ-1C IGE with a wing-mounted external payload and weapons. Source: GA-ASI, Oct 22/13 release.

FY 2013

Annual order; NERO jamming pods delivered; What now for the USA drone fleets?; The pilot issue; FRP decision.

MQ-1C: Afghan Sunset
MQ-1C: what now?
(click to view full)

Sept 26/13: Support. General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. in Poway, CA receives an $86.6 million cost-plus-incentive-fee modification to finalize FY 2013 Gray Eagle performance-based logistics product support. The contract covers both newer, armed Block 1s program and the initial few Block 0/ Quick Reaction Capability drones.

Work is performed from Poway, CA. The contract was solicited via the web with one bid received. The U.S. Army Contracting Command – Redstone Arsenal (Aviation), Redstone Arsenal, AL, is the contracting activity (W58RGZ-12-C-007, PO 0032).

Sept 24/13: Djibooted. The small but strategically critical African state of Djibouti has forced the US military to move its drones out of Camp Lemonnier, which serves as Africa Command’s main base. Their problem? Lemonnier’s runway is too close to the international airport, and 5 Predator drone crashes since 2011 have left the locals unwilling to continue done flights.

The Pentagon has moved its drone operations to a more remote base, and the Gray Eagle’s automatic landing equipment makes it rather less crash-prone than USAF Predators and Reapers. At the same time, it’s an issue that the Army’s fleet will also face. Operations over a war zone are one thing. ISR support operations to aid friendly countries that have national and international air traffic moving through their space are a totally different kettle of fish. Sources: Washington Post, “U.S. moves drone fleet from Camp Lemonnier to ease Djibouti’s safety concerns” | VOA, “US Military Relocates Drone Fleet From Djibouti Base”.

Sept 25/13: Support. General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc. in Poway, CA receives a sole-source $70.2 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract to conduct MQ-1C Gray Eagle 4.3.2 software development and depot repair of related spares.

Work will be funded from FY 2012 and 2013 R&D funds. US Army Contracting Command – Aviation in Redstone Arsenal, AL manages the contract (W58RGZ-13-C-0136).

Sept 25/13: STARLite radar. Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. in Linthicum Heights, MD receives an $85.3 million cost-plus-fixed-fee, multi-year, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quality contract to provide STARLite system support, including the SAR/GMTI features. Performance location and funding will be determined with each order. See the “Sensors and Add-Ons” section for full details re: the ZPY-1 STARLite.

This contract was a sole-source acquisition, but its duration isn’t clear. US Army Contracting Command – Aviation in Redstone Arsenal, AL manages the contract (W15P7T-13-D-C118).

Sept 25/13: General Atomics announces that the Gray Eagle fleet has reached 20,000 successful launch and recoveries using their Automatic Takeoff and Landing System (ATLS). They hit the 10,000 milestone in June 2012.

ATLS has been deployed at 8 sites worldwide, including 3 overseas, with 4 additional sites planned by January 2015. Source: GA-ASI, Oct 23/13 release.

Sept 13/13: FY 2013. General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. in Poway, CA receives a sole-source $199.7 million firm-fixed-price contract to provide FY 2013 MQ-1C Gray Eagle production (19 UAVs), and “FY 2012 hardware backfill requirements.” General Atomics confirmed that the overall contract involves 19 UAVs, plus ground control equipment, automatic landing systems, SATCOM and data terminals, spares, and mobile maintenance facilities.

Work will be performed in Poway, CA. US Army Contracting Command, Aviation at Redstone Arsenal, AL manages the contract (W58RGZ-13-C-0109).

Aug 25/13: Help Wanted. The USAF has a pilot recruitment problem for drones, driven by lower recognition and a true perception that promotions are less likely in that service. The US Army has an easier time of things, because they tap enlisted and non-commissioned soldiers to fly their UAVs: 15W Operator and 15E Repairer are enlisted soldiers positions, and 150U technician positions involve a warrant officer. Here’s the USAF’s math:

The USA has 61 round-the-clock UAV Combat Air Patrols, and plans to increase that to 65 by 2015. That increase is now suspect. If it’s maintained, the Pentagon’s April 2012 “Report to Congress on Future Unmanned Aircraft Systems Training, Operations, and Sustainability” says the USAF will require, at minimum, 579 more MQ-1/9 UAV pilots from December 2011 – 2015. In 2012, the 40 USAF training slots attracted just 12 volunteers, and training attrition rates are 3x higher than they are for regular pilots. Unlike the USAF’s manned aircraft training slots, only 33 RPA (Remotely Piloted Aircraft) training slots were filled (around 82%), triggered in part by the correct perception that those who succeed will have less successful careers. Based on present rates, 13% fewer RPA pilots have become majors, compared to their peers.

Army schadenfreude aside, the Pentagon’s April 2012 report did say that the Army needed to add 820 more MQ-1C Gray Eagle positions between December 2011 – 2015. They can’t neglect this area, either. Sources: Stars & Stripes, “Unmanned now undermanned: Air Force struggles to fill pilot slots for drones” | See Additional Readings section for full Pentagon report.

Aug 22/13: Training. General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. in Poway, CA receives a maximum $30.5 million cost-plus-incentive fee, option eligible, multi-year contract for 1 MQ-1C Gray Eagle Composite Maintenance System Trainer (CMST) suite of equipment, plus Interim Contractor Support at Fort Huachuca, AZ. US Army Contracting Command Aviation at? Redstone Arsenal, AL manages the contract (W58RGZ-13-C-0127).

Aug 16/13: Support. General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc. in Poway, CA receives an $11.4 million cost-plus-fixed-fee, option-eligible, non-multi-year, contract modification.

The award exercises an option for additional MQ-1C engineering services, and the announcement’s confusing language is “$11,423,474.37 with a cumulative maximum value of $156,370,264”. We’ve added all awards under this contract, and so far, announced awards total $81.9 million. But General Atomics clarifies that (since Sept 2009) “we have received contracts that value $156.4 million for Gray Eagle engineering services, including the $11.4 million contract that was just announced.”

Work will be performed in Poway, CA, using FY 2013 “other funding.” One bid was solicited, and 1 receives by US Army Contracting Command (Aviation) in Redstone Arsenal, AL (W58RGZ-09-C-0136, PO 0094).

July 26/13: MQ-1 IGE. A successful first flight of the Improved Gray Eagle (IGE) derivative of the MQ-1C Block 1, at GS-ASI’s Adelanto, CA facility.

IGE is designed for increased endurance, thanks to its “improved Heavy Fuel Engine” and deep belly fuselage with over 50% more capacity. In the field, that translates into up to 23 more hours aloft on reconnaissance missions. Overall payload capacity also improves by 50%, with an upgraded centerline wet hardpoint that can mount a 500 pound external fuel tank or a 360 degree sensor payload. General Atomics also cites the “potential of incorporating lightning protection, damage tolerance, and Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) features.” Source: General Atomics, July 26/13 release.

Improved Gray Eagle introduced, flies

July 23/13: Engine out. State-owned Aviation Industry Corp. of China buys Thielert’s commercial assets out of insolvency, and folding them into its Continental Motors division. In order to get approval for the sale from the German government, however, the firm has to divest its military business. They elect to close it, leaving the MQ-1C Gray Eagle and Turkey’s Anka UAV without an engine. Sources: Bloomberg, “AVIC Buys Thielert to Shift Company to Planes From Drones” | Reuters, “China’s AVIC to buy German aircraft engine maker Thielert”.

Thielert to China

June 14/13: FRP. The Defense Acquisition Board approved Gray Eagle for Full Rate Production (FRP), which will lead to the purchase of an additional 49 aircraft over FY13-15. Because of the current budget constraints, the FY13 buy was reduced from 19 to 15. FY14 is planned for an additional 19, with a final 15 units in FY15.

Deputy Program Manager Jeff Crabb tells DID that the program was also moved from the ACAT 1D down to the ACAT 1C level, meaning the Army is now the Milestone Decision Authority (MDA), as opposed to the Office of the Secretary of Defense. This makes sense since close to 70 aircraft have already been delivered after 3 LRIP lots, out of a planned total of 152. Of these, 4 have been lost in combat so far.

The program’s next milestone is Follow-on Operational Test & Evaluation (FOT&E) in early 2015, mostly around the universal ground control station (GCS) which involves both hardware and software components.

FRP

May 14/13: NERO EW pod. Raytheon announces that they’ve delivered the first 2 Networked Electronic Warfare, Remotely Operated (NERO) pods, as part of a contract awarded by US NAVSEA-Crane in 2012 for use on the US Army’s MQ-1C Gray Eagle.

NERO is an airborne electronic attack system capable of jamming enemy communications systems, including remote detonators for land mines. It’s derived from the Army’s Communications Electronic Attack with Surveillance and Reconnaissance (CEASAR) program, which is mounted on MC-12W King Air manned turboprops. Moving to the Gray Eagle doubles or triples flight time, at a similar or lower operating cost. Raytheon.

May 7/13: Support. GA-ASI in Poway, CA receives a $110.3 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract modification for MQ-1C support and fleet sustainment, driving the contract’s total cumulative face value to $354.7 million.

Work will be performed in Afghanistan, using FY 2013 Operations and Maintenance funds, and other Procurement fund. The US Army Contracting Command in Redstone Arsenal, AL manages the contract (W58RGZ-12-C-0075, PO 0032).

April 10/13: FY 2014 Budget. The President releases a proposed budget at last, the latest in modern memory. The Senate and House were already working on budgets in his absence, but the Pentagon’s submission is actually important to proceedings going forward. See ongoing DID coverage. For the Gray Eagle, the budget requests $627.1 million, of which just $10.9 million is RDT&E. That’s a cut of about $151.8 million from previous plans, and when combined with 2015 plans it cuts the program by $337.8 million. They’re still ordering the same number of UAVs, though.

The FY 2014 request covers continued development of the Universal Ground Control Station, a Ground Based Sense-and-Avoid system for flights at several US based locations (vid Aug 10/12 entry), 15 UAVs, 8 AN/ZPY-1 STARLite ER radars, 8 AN/AAS-53 Common Sensor Payload surveillance & targeting turrets, 16 Tactical SIGINT (TSP for signals interceptions) payloads, and 3 modular platoon sets of equipment.

April 2/13: What now? Defense News aptly summarizes the key question facing the USA’s large drones:

“On the one hand, the work in Mali shows that the signature weapon of the U.S. war in Afghanistan is outlasting that conflict. On the other, the detachment is a tiny fraction of the Predator/Reaper fleet – and just where are the rest of them going to go?”

With flights below 60,000 feet heavily restricted within the USA, there aren’t that many options stateside, and most of the MQ-9 fleet’s $8,000 per flight hour operations are funded by wartime OCO appropriations. AFRICOM may have the best combination of circumstances abroad, thanks to growing trouble in the Gulf of Guinea to the West, as well as the Indian Ocean to the East. Even a massive increase in surveillance can’t absorb all of the UAVs, and the $6,000 per flight hour manned MC-12s are a natural competitor.

FY 2012

Attack helicopter control MQ-1C in flight; Operational Testing & Evaluation; Approval sought to extend LRIP buys; Predator GCS virus won’t affect Army; SIGINT pod.

MQ-1C, Taji
Gray Eagle in Iraq
(click to view full)

Unless otherwise specified, the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command in Redstone Arsenal, AL issues the contracts to General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. (GA-ASI) in Poway, CA.

Oct 2/12: Support. A $102.6 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for services to support the Gray Eagle UAS.

Work will be performed in Poway, CA, with an estimated completion date of May 7/13. One bid was solicited, with one bid received (W58RGZ-12-C-0075).

Oct 2/12: Engine retrofits. A $10.7 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract modification to retrofit MQ-1C Block 0 UAVs with an alternate heavy fuel engine.

Work will be performed in Poway, CA with an estimated completion date of Sept 26/13. One bid was solicited, with one bid received (W58RGZ-12-C-0001).

Aug 27/12: A $25.9 million fixed-price-incentive contract modification will add “a platoon set of ground equipment.” Note that for these UAVs, a “platoon” is 12 MQ-1Cs.

Work will be performed in Poway, CA with an estimated completion date of June 30/15. One bid was solicited, with one bid received (W58RGZ-12-C-0057).

Aug 27/12: An $11 million fixed-price-incentive contract modification, to buy more universal ground data terminals. Work will be performed in Poway, CA with an estimated completion date of April 30/14. One bid was solicited, with one bid received (W58RGZ-11-C-0099).

Aug 10/12: Civil airspace. The U.S. Army has validated the design and functionality of a Phase 2 ground-based sense and avoid (GBSAA, see above) radar system that will support training flights of MQ-1C Gray Eagle UAVs in unrestricted airspace, beginning in 2014.

The baseline GBSAA system was demonstrated in June 2012 at Dugway Proving Ground’s unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) testbed, and the Army’s UAS Rapid Integration and Acceptance Center. The 2-week demonstration covered several “vignettes” involving live RQ-7 Shadow and RQ-5 Hunter UAVs as well as simulated UAVs and intruder aircraft. The testing also replicated the airspace over other military installations and used live and recorded air traffic data from Salt Lake City, UT and Boston’s Logan airports. AIN Online.

July 18/12: A $19 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract modification for MQ-1C contractor logistics support. Work will be performed in Poway, CA with an estimated completion date of July 15/13. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received (W58RGZ-11-C-0001).

July 11/12: A $411 million fixed-price-incentive contract for Gray Eagle systems, initial spares, and additional hardware. Work will be performed in Poway, CA with an estimated completion date of March 31/15. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with one bid received (W58RGZ-12-C-0057).

Looks like they got that authorization to continue Low-Rate initial Production.

July 2/12: Support. General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. in Poway, CA receives an $8.6 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract modification for MQ-1C Gray Eagle engineering support.

Work will be performed in Poway, CA, with an estimated completion date of Sept. 30/13. One bid was solicited, with one bid received. The U.S. Army Contracting Command at Redstone Arsenal, AL manages the contract (W58RGZ-09-C-0136).

June 27/12: Reliability & report. The US Army has some good news, and some bad news.

The bad news is that Gray Eagles are flying at about 80% availability rates after 24,000 combat flight hours, instead of their target 90%. The problems are mostly traceable to software issues that arise when new sensors are added.

The good news? The program is under budget. The UAVs have added weapons, ground-looking radars, and communication relays to their payload. The Army likes them a lot, and thinks they’re making a big difference, so they’ve decided to focus on expanding Gray Eagle capabilities for now, rather than trying to reach 90% availability rates. Right now, there are a pair of platoon-size 4-UAV QRC units in Afghanistan, and the “Fox 227” full-size company of 12.

May 29/12: IOT&E funds. An $8.5 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract modification supplies incremental funding to support MQ-1C operational test and evaluation. The program’s IOT&E was moved back from October 2011, and is now expected in August 2012 (a milestone that was indeed met at that date).

Work will be performed in Poway, CA, with an estimated completion date of Nov 30/12. One bid was solicited, with one bid received (W58RGZ-05-C-0069).

May 10/12: A $141.8 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract, for services in support of the MQ-1C Gray Eagle. Work will be performed in Poway, CA, with an estimated completion date of May 7/13. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received (W58RGZ-12-C-0075).

April 4/12: Plans. The US Army discusses its plans for the MQ-1C, which includes the addition of a new Synthetic Aperture Radar with Ground Moving Target Indicator, and the development of a Universal Ground Control Station, or UGS that can show video feeds from Gray Eagle, Shadow and Hunter UAS on a single system.

A full company of 12 Gray Eagle UAS have now deployed as part of a full-spectrum Combat Aviation Brigade, and a Pentagon Defense Acquisition Board meeting is planned for mid-May 2012, to approve another Low Rate Initial Production buy. Initial Operational Test & Evaluation is scheduled for summer 2012.

March 30/12: GAO Report. The US GAO tables its “Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs” for 2012. With respect to the MQ-1C, it mentions that the Army will be modifying the UAV’s tail rudder and elevator, and the GAO is now satisfied with the automatic take-off and landing system’s technical maturity:

“However, the tactical common data link is still not fully mature… its air data relay capability has been deferred until fiscal year 2012. The March 2011 accident involving an MQ-1C in testing has delayed several key program events… The Army now plans to start [IOT&E] operational testing in August 2012 [instead of October 2011, and a]… full-rate production decision was postponed from August 2012 to March 2013. The Army has already awarded two low-rate production contracts in 2010 and 2011 for 55 aircraft. To avoid a break in production, the Army is planning to seek approval to award a third low-rate contract for 29 aircraft in May 2012. Based on the current program schedule, the Army will procure more than half of the total planned aircraft before the system’s operational effectiveness and suitability is fully tested…”

Jan 26/12: Preliminary FY 2013 budget materials discuss coming shifts in Pentagon priorities, as the defense department moves to make future cuts. The USAF will get fewer MQ-9 Reapers, but the Army’s MQ-1C is protected:

“Unmanned Air Systems – fund enough trained personnel, infrastructure, and platforms to sustain 65 USAF MQ-1/9 combat air patrols (CAPs) with a surge capacity of 85; the Predator aircraft was retained longer than previously planned, allowing us to slow the buy of the Reaper aircraft and gain some savings; we also protected funding for the Army’s unmanned air system, Gray Eagle.”

See: Pentagon release | “Defense Budget Priorities and Choices” [PDF]

Jan 17/12: A $30.3 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract modification to support the MQ-1C Gray Eagle Quick Reaction Capability drones in theater. Work will be performed in Poway, CA, with an estimated completion date of May 7/12. One bid was solicited, with one bid received (W58RGZ-09-C-0153).

Jan 5/12: SIGINT Pods. BAE Systems in Nashua, NH receives a $12.3 million firm-fixed-price and cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for T-Pod SIGINT Systems. on the MQ-1C Unmanned Aircraft System. A December 2011 expression of interest stated that the US Army was looking for up to 5 tested and calibrated Traveler Pods within 4 months for integration work on the MQ-1C, and within 6 months for deployment. The pods are designed to find and eavesdrop on electronic emitters, identify them (enemy radio communications? radar? etc.), then offer aerial precision geolocation (APG) and copying. Pods and equipment can already be installed in larger UAVs like the USAF’s RQ-4 Global Hawks, and aboard light surveillance planes like the Beechcraft King Air MC-12Ws. The challenge is to shrink them and their supporting systems so that it falls within the MQ-1C’s weight and size limits.

Work will be performed in Nashua, NH, with an estimated completion date of Dec 27/12. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received by US Army Contracting Command at Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD (W15P7T-12-C-C009). See also FBO.gov.

Jan 5/12: A $20.5 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract modification to pay for operational test and evaluation. It does not specify further, but the contract is the MQ-1C’s.

Work will be performed in Poway, CA, with an estimated completion date of Nov 30/12. One bid was solicited, with one bid received (W58RGZ-05-C-0069).

Dec 30/11: A $12 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for Warrior A/Block 0 support services. These are the Quick Reaction Capability drones. Work will be performed in Poway, CA, until Dec 17/13. One bid was solicited, with one bid received (W58RGZ-12-C-0001).

Dec 23/11: An $18 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract. “The award will provide for the modification of an existing contract to allow for incremental funding of previous change order”; it does not specify further, but the contract is the MQ-1C’s. Work will be performed in Poway, CA; Hunt Valley, MD; Salt Lake City, UT; and Lake Forest, CA, with an estimated completion date of Dec 31/11. One bid was solicited, with 1 received (W58RGZ-05-C-0069).

Nov 10/11: A $15.2 million cost-plus-fixed-fee and cost-plus-incentive-fee contract modification, to support the MQ-1C QRC contingents. Work will be performed in Poway, CA, with an estimated completion date of Jan 7/12. One bid was solicited, with one bid received (W58RGZ-09-C-0153).

Nov 9/11: An AH-64D Apache Block III attack helicopter fitted with the Unmanned Aerial Systems Tactical Common Data Link Assembly (UTA) atop its mast has controlled the payload and flight of an MQ-1C Grey Eagle UAV, while both are in flight. This marks the 1st time an unmanned vehicle has been controlled from the cockpit of an Apache helicopter.

Lockheed Martin says that the test program proved the UTA’s design, adding that: “All goals of this phase of UTA testing were completed with 100 percent success.”

Oct 17/11: A $30.3 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract modification for additional MQ-1C engineering services. Work will be performed in Poway, CA, with an estimated completion date of Aug 30/12. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received (W58RGZ-09-C-0136).

Oct 7/11: Hacked. WIRED Danger Room reports that a “keylogger” virus has infected the USAF’s MQ-1A/B Predator and MQ-9 Reaper fleets:

“The virus, first detected nearly two weeks ago by the military’s Host-Based Security System, has not prevented pilots at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada from flying their missions overseas. Nor have there been any confirmed incidents of classified information being lost or sent to an outside source. But the virus has resisted multiple efforts to remove it from Creech’s computers, network security specialists say… “We keep wiping it off, and it keeps coming back,” says a source familiar with the network infection, one of three that told Danger Room about the virus. “We think it’s benign. But we just don’t know.”

Unlike the USAF, the Army’s philosophy is to operate its MQ-1C Gray Eagles in-theater. The virus doesn’t compromise Army UAVs, therefore, but it may indicate a similar vulnerability point in the Army’s network.

Oct 5/11: Support. General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. in Poway, CA receives an $84.8 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract. The award will provide for the logistics and hardware services in support of Gray Eagle First Unit Equipped system hardware.

Work will be performed in Poway, CA, with an estimated completion date of March 27/13. One bid was solicited, with one bid received. The U.S. Army Contracting Command at Redstone Arsenal, AL manages the contract (W58RGZ-11-C-0143).

Oct 5/11: An $8.8 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract will fund RESET efforts for the Warrior A/Warrior Block 0 Unmanned Aircraft Systems. RESET is a program for worn vehicles and aircraft, involving tear-down and comprehensive inspections, followed by replacement of any worn parts, and restoration to “like new” condition. The question is whether these initially-fielded “Quick Reaction Capability” UAVs will be upgraded to full operational MQ-1C Block 1 status, complete with weapons.

Work will be performed in Poway, CA, with an estimated completion date of June 30/13. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received (W58RGZ-11-C-0001).

FY 2011

MQ-1C program ramp-up; USAF accepts last MQ-1B Predator; TRACER foliage-penetrating radar; Iraq quick reaction deployment discussed.

MQ-1C, Taji
QRC-1 sunrise, Taji
(click to view full)

May 20/11: An $8.9 million cost-plus-fixed-fee, cost-plus-incentive-fee contract, that buys additional spare hardware under the MQ-1C Gray Eagle’s logistics support contract. Work will be performed in Poway, CA, with an estimated completion date of Jan 18/12. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received (W58RGZ-09-C-0153).

May 10/11: Support. General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. in Poway, CA receives an $9 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract May 6/11. The award will provide for MQ-1C Universal Ground Control Station integration.

Work will be performed in Poway, CA, with an estimated completion date of June 30/11. One bid was solicited, with one bid received. The U.S. Army Contracting Command at Redstone Arsenal, AL manages the contract (W58RGZ-09-C-0136).

April 25/11: An $8.3 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract, providing incremental funding to cover an extension of the ER/MP system development and design contract. Work will be performed in Poway, CA, with an estimated completion date of Dec 31/11. One bid was solicited with 1 bid received by U.S. Army AMCOM Contracting Center in Redstone Arsenal, AL (W58RGZ-05-C-0069).

April 12/11: +26. $173.5 million of a $354 million fixed-price-incentive-fee contract, for MQ-1C Gray Eagle low rate initial production. Queries to GA-ASI indicate that the contract covers 2 Gray Eagle systems: 26 UAVs (12 aircraft per system, plus 2 spares for losses), 15 of AAI’s OneSystem Ground Control Systems, L-3 Communications’ Satellite Communications equipment, and other peripheral equipment to support the systems.

GA-ASI says that part of this contract is for FY 2010 buys, and part is FY 2011. Work will be performed at Poway, CA, with an estimated completion date of April 30/14. One bid was solicited and one received (W58RGZ-11-C-0099).

March 7/11: A $64.3 million cost-plus-fixed-fee, cost-plus-incentive-fee contract modification for MQ-1C Gray Eagle product support, logistical support and sustainment operations.

Work will be performed in Poway, CA; Adelanto, CA; Palmdale, CA; Salt Lake City, UT; and Hunt Valley, MD, with an estimated completion date of Nov 7/11. One bid was solicited with one bid received (W58RGZ-09-C-0153).

March 3/11: The USAF accepts delivery of its 268th and last Predator UAV, an MQ-1B, at General Atomics’ Gray Butte Aeronautical Systems’ Flight Ops Facility. The delivery leaves the US Army as the only customer for MQ-1 Predator UAVs, unless the RQ-1 Predator XP variant finds some export customers.

Col. James Beissner, Air Combat Command’s Chief Irregular Warfare Division, accepted the aircraft. Aeronautical Systems Center’s Chief of Medium Altitude UAS Division, Col. Christopher Coombs, cites fleet totals of over 900,000 hours since its 1st flight in July 1994, with mission capable rates over 90%. What he does not mention is a high accident rate, which accompanies UAVs without auto-takeoff and landing capabilities. The Army’s MQ-1C Gray Eagle does not suffer from the same officer pilot bias as the USAF, and has adopted these technologies. Wright Patterson AFB | General Atomics.

Milestone

March 2/11: +30. General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. in Poway, CA receives an announced $335.5 million fixed-price-incentive-fee contract for MQ-1C Gray Eagle systems. In-depth discussions with General Atomics place the order in its full context, which is somewhat complex.

In February 2010, General Atomics says the US Army placed a not-to-exceed $399 million contract, but did not appropriate any money. Their first step was the $195.5 million 49% funding contract in the May 19/10 entry. According to the firm, this award funds the remaining contract with another $115.1 million, to make a total of $310.6 million. This will include the LRIP Lot 1 order for 2 systems (24 UAVs + 2 attrition), plus the FY 2009 supplemental funding of 8 UAVs, and a sizable quantity of plus-up air, ground and communication equipment.

Work will be performed in Poway, CA, with an estimated completion date of Dec 31/12. One bid was solicited with one bid received (W56RGZ-10-C-0068).

Feb 14/11: Budget request. The Pentagon releases its FY 2012 budget request, which includes breakout information concerning the MQ-1C Gray Eagle program. The FY 2012 request is $805.8 million for 36 systems, which includes $137 million in RDT&E(Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation) funds.

Jan 18/11: Program ramp-up. A US Army release quotes Tim Owings, deputy project manager for Army Unmanned Aircraft Systems:

“We’re going to accelerate Gray Eagle yet again. We’re accelerating from two systems per year to three systems per year, which will result in seventeen systems being procured by FY 2014… Defense Acquisition Board in February of this year is expected to confirm the addition of two more Low Rate Initial Production Gray Eagle systems – each consisting of 12 air vehicles, five ground control stations and five additional attrition vehicles… The Army has already deployed two Gray Eagle “Quick Reaction Capabilities.” One QRC is now flying with Army Soldiers in Iraq and another is with U.S. Special Operations Forces in Afghanistan”

Nov 28/10: Iraq T&P work. A posting from the 1st Infantry Division discusses [Pentagon DVIDS | US Army] some of the work that goes into the Gray Eagle’s Quick Reaction Capability 1-Replacement 1 (QRC-1/R1) deployment in Iraq, which is working to pioneer Gray Eagle tactics, techniques and procedures before the UAVs are deployed throughout the Army. Some excerpts:

“The QRC1-R1 operators are working with aviators from the brigade’s Apache battalion to integrate their mission… The unit has flown nearly 7,000 accident free hours, more than 350 combat missions, produced over 16,000 surveillance-type images, and maintained a systems operational readiness rate of about 93 percent [in its first 6 months].

“…One of the biggest things we try to do is educate other units about our capabilities,” said [unit commander Capt. Michael] Goodwin. “A lot of units have the ability to use our assets, but they don’t know what we can do.” One of the most useful tools the unit offers ground troops is education on a portable system known as the OSRVT, or One Station Remote Viewing Terminal. “We’re finding that a lot of units have the OSRVT, but don’t know what it does for them,” said Goodwin. “Our company helps train the ground guys on the system, on how to access our feeds and use our aircraft to support them.” …The unit is working to prepare the aircraft to carry hellfire missiles, and is scheduled to conduct a live test of the missiles in Iraq this January.

Sgt. Brent Randal, a Gray Eagle operator deployed with QRC1-R1 and a native of Las Vegas, Nev., said that one of the aircraft’s best features is its new Synthetic Aperture Radar, or SAR. Mounted underneath the Gray Eagle’s nose, the SAR can compare high resolution images of a location taken at different times to determine whether objects have been removed from or placed at a scene… The Gray Eagle can also help ground troops communicate with their headquarters over long distances. The success of [Predator drones he flew for Task Force ODIN] helped pave the way for the Army’s acquisition of the Gray Eagle, said [former scout Staff Sgt. Raymond] Ballance.”

Nov 19/10: General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. in Poway, CA receives a $31.9 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract, providing incremental funding to cover an extension of the ER/MP system development and design contract. Work will be performed in Poway, CA, with an estimated completion date of Dec 31/10. One bid was solicited with one bid received by U.S. Army AMCOM Contracting Center in Redstone Arsenal, AL (W58RGZ-05-C-0069).

Announced System Development & Demonstration contracts covered here, not including any UAV buys or any support contracts, now stand at $253.4 million.

Nov 8/10: STARLite radar. Northrop Grumman announces a contract for 40 more AN/ZPY-1 STARLite synthetic aperture ground-looking radars, bringing announced orders to 73. These lightweight radars include Ground Moving Target Indicator (GMTI) capabilities, and will equip the Army’s MQ-1C Gray Eagle UAVs,. Under the terms of the contract option, deliveries to the Army’s Product Manager Robotic & Unmanned Sensors Program Management Office will begin in March, 2011 and conclude in March, 2012.

Pat Newby, vice president of Weapons and Sensors for Northrop Grumman’s Land and Self Protection Systems Division. “STARLite completed all first article and government testing requirements, which led to this award. These systems are ready now for immediate deployment.” See Feb 11/10, Apr 28/08 entries for more.

Oct 27/10: TRACER radar. Lockheed Martin’s tree-penetrating Tactical Reconnaissance and Counter-Concealment-Enabled Radar (TRACER) flies for the 1st time aboard NASA’s Ikhana MQ-9, because the Army Gray Eagle MQ-1C fleet that will eventually host the external unpressurized TRACER pods are all busy on operations.

TRACER is a dual-band synthetic-aperture radar (SAR), designed to detect vehicles, buildings and other man-made objects that are buried, camouflaged or concealed under trees and other foliage. The flight tests on Ikhana focused on the radar’s performance in the harsh environment of the unpressurized pod, as the TRACER system will eventually be installed on a variety of manned and unmanned aircraft. Lockheed Martin.

FY 2010

ER/MP becomes “Gray Eagle”; Army hits 1 million total UAV hours; USAF bows out of Predator buys, ending UAV War; MQ-1C arming approved; Hellfire missile tests; 1st STARLite radars delivered.

ERMP Warrior test flight
MQ-1C test flight
(click to view full)

In 2010, the Army officially changed the planned number of production MQ-1C Gray Eagle Block I+ systems from 13 company-sized units of 12 aircraft, to 31 independent “UAS Platoons” with 4 MQ-1Cs each, plus Standard Equipment Package (SEP), and Ground Equipment. The main production program would also buy 21 UAVs to replace those lost, and 7 training UAVs, for a total of 152.

Oct 4/10: Support. General Atomics Aeronautical Systems in Poway, CA receives a $5.8 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract modification for ER/MP engineering and integration support, integrated logistics support, and program management. It was actually issued at the end of FY 2009.

Work will be performed in Poway, CA, with an estimated completion date of Sept 30/11. One bid was solicited with 1 bid received by the US Army at Redstone Arsenal (W58RGZ-09-C-0136, PO 0018).

Sept 10/10: A $7.2 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract modification for ER/MP Quick Reaction Capability contractor logistics support replenishment sustainment spares. Work is to be performed in Poway, CA with an estimated completion date of June 6/12. One bid was solicited with 1 bid received (W58RGZ-09-C-0153).

Aug 24/10: The ER/MP’s new name is confirmed during a US Army UAS panel discussion at AUVSI Unmanned Systems North America. US Army UAS US Army Project Manager Col. Gregory Gonzalez says that using both ER/MP and SkyWarrior had created name recognition issues, and the USAF had approved the name. US Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Capabilities Manager Col. Robert Sova adds:

“That’s ‘Grey Eagle’ as ‘G-R-E-Y’… The naming nomenclature, of course, is usually after an Indian chief or Indian tribe and I would suggest that you look up ‘Grey Eagle,’ because there is a good history of that particular Indian chief and his lineage with the army and special operations. So it is not only a cool’ name, it has substance and meaning behind it.”

We’re not the only ones scratching our heads about this reference, which is probably a mistake that stems from believing too many things on the Internet. Though we do like Shephard Group | this Chief Gray Eagle.

Milestone

May 24/10: A $38.5 million cost-plus-incentive-fee/cost-plus-fixed-fee contract modification that pays for new contractor logistics support; a transition to performance-based logistics for the Quick Reaction Capability 1 (see December 2009 entry), QRC-1R, and QRC-2 UAVs; and a UAS training base in support of Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom.

Work is to be performed in Adelanto, CA (34%); Hunt Valley, MD (24%); Poway, CA (18%); Palmdale, CA (17%); and Salt Lake City, UT (7%). The estimated completion date is May 19/11. One bid was solicited with one bid received (W58RGZ-09-C-0153, #P00011).

May 19/10: +26. General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. in Poway, CA received a $195.5 million fixed-price-incentive-fee contract for MQ-1C supplemental hardware and low-rate initial production. Work is to be performed in Poway, CA, with an estimated completion date of Nov 30/12. One bid was solicited with one bid received (W58RGZ-10-C-0068).

General Atomics tells us that this is for the first half (49%) of the LRIP Lot 1 contract, and covers 2 full Sky Warrior systems (24 UAVs) and FY 2009 supplemental hardware (2 attrition UAVs). The rest of the funding is expected in a few months, and could drive this contract set to about $399 million for 34 Sky Warrior aircraft, 16 of AAI’s One System Ground Control Stations, L-3 Communications West’s airborne and ground Tactical Control Data Link (TCDL) equipment, and various other items to include automatic landing systems, spares, and ground support equipment. Beginning in December 2011, the company is scheduled to deliver over 2 MQ-1C aircraft a month through the end of 2012.

This award comes at the same time that the U.S. Army is celebrating the achievement of 1,000,000 flight hours for its entire unmanned aircraft systems fleet, of which GA-ASI Sky Warrior Alpha and Sky Warrior UAS have logged 145,000 flight hours. See also July 8/10 release.

May 7/10: Lynx radar. General Atomics announces that its Lynx Block 30 Synthetic Aperture Radar with Ground Moving Target Indicator (SAR/GMTI) has achieved over 1,000 collective mission hours on their 4 Sky Warrior Block 1 UAVs in Iraq. The radar has a broad area GMTI scanning mode for detecting moving vehicles in front and to either side, can cue the camera payload to things it “sees” by using the CLAW payload control software, and features very fast Coherent Change Detection (CCD) algorithms.

The US Army’s Quick Reaction Capability-1 (QRC-1) deployment began in December 2009. A second group of 4 Lynx Block 30 radars is scheduled to begin Limited User Testing with the Army later in May 2010, in support of this summer’s planned QRC-2 deployment. In addition to supporting QRC-1 operations with the Lynx radar, GA-ASI is providing full Contractor Logistics Support (CLS), including radar operation, image analysis, and maintenance support.

May 7/10: A $5.8 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for continued performance of the ER/MP’s SDD phase. Work is to be performed in Poway, CA, with an estimated completion date of Dec 31/10. One bid was solicited with one bid received by U.S. Army Contracting Command, AMCOM Constructing Center at Redstone Arsenal, AL (W58RGZ-05-C-0069).

May 6/10: A $15.2 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract, exercising an option in support of the ER/MP production readiness test asset. Work is to be performed in Poway, CA, with an estimated completion date of April 09/11. One bid was solicited with one bid received by U.S. Army Contracting Command, AMCOM Constructing Center at Redstone Arsenal, AL (W58RGZ-09-C-0151). Asked about this contract, General Atomics spokespeople said that:

“…this is not the other half of the [April 22/10] PRTA contract, this is an additional amount for spares and ground support equipment.”

On other topics, they add that the ER/MP’s name change from General Atomics’ Sky Warrior designation to the US Army’s Gray Eagle designation is not official – yet.

April 29/10: 1,000,000 UAV hours. The US Army announces that April 2010 saw the 1,000,000th flight hour for its UAV fleets. That’s a dramatic change from the handful of Army RQ-7 Shadow and RQ-5 Hunter systems in 2001, to roughly 1,000 UAVs by 2010 that are logging up to 25,000 of UAV flight hours per month. It has taken 13 years to put together the first 100,000 hours, followed by 8.5 years to add the next 900,000. About 88% of these flight hours are from time in combat.

The Army now operates 6 MQ-5 Hunter systems that have recently been armed, 87 RQ-7 Shadow UAS systems that are likely to become armed MQ-7 variants son, 9 MQ-1C ER/MP variants, 1,300 Raven mini-UAV systems and 16 RQ-18 gMAV systems. Each system includes several UAVs, plus launch platforms if needed and associated ground control station and communications equipment. Tim Owings, deputy program manager, Army UAS:

“Ninety-five percent of what the Army has in its inventory today did not even exist at the beginning of the war… A lot of people liken Vietnam to a helicopter war – I liken these two wars as the unmanned systems wars because these are the wars where these systems hit the central axis of the way we fight and became part and parcel to the way the Army prosecutes wars… It has been absolutely amazing, no matter how many we have built there has always been a need for more.”??

A Quick Reaction Capability (QRC) of 4 unarmed MQ-1C Block 0s were deployed to Iraq in 2009 – and another ERMP QRC is slated for Afghanistan later in 2010, armed with Hellfire missiles. The idea of the QRC is to field technologies in service of the ongoing war effort as they are available while simultaneously developing a system as a program of record.

April 22/10: +4. A $17 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract to finalize a contract for ER/MP production readiness test assets. Work is to be performed in Poway, CA, with an estimated completion date of Sept 30/11. One bid was solicited with one bid received (W58RGZ-09-C-0151). In response to a query, General Atomics tells DID that the contract includes:

“…4 Sky Warrior ER/MP aircraft, 2 ER/MP One System GCS, TCDL/GDT, SGDT, TALS, etc.). The [equipment is] to be used for the Initial Operational Test & Evaluation (IOT&E) phase that follows SDD.”

The other $23.4 million part of this contract, plus the May 6/10 contract, leaves the final price at $55.6 million for systems and support.

MQ-1C Sky Warrior
MQ-1C Sky Warrior
(click to view full)

March 30/10: GAO report. The US GAO audit office delivers its 8th annual “Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs report. With respect to the ER/MP:

“…a Secretary of Defense memorandum to field the capability as soon as possible… affected the program in several ways. According to program officials, it extended system development and demonstration by about 2 years and delayed the award of the low-rate initial production contract by over 1 year. In accordance with the Secretary’s direction, the Army fielded one “Quick Reaction Capability” system in 2009 and plans to field another in 2010. These systems lack the full capabilities planned.”

“…All four critical technologies are now mature and have been demonstrated on the final version of the unmanned air system… The ER/MP is expected to enter low-rate initial production in early 2010 with all its manufacturing processes demonstrated in a production representative environment… the program was approved in February 2010 for low-rate initial production, and they now anticipate changes in cost, quantity, and schedule. However, official, detailed information was not available in time for inclusion in this report… the Air Force has determined it will no longer acquire the MQ-1C Predator. The Army now anticipates a DOD acquisition memorandum closing the [DoD’s earlier] direction to combine the programs.”

Feb 19/10: General Atomics Aeronautical System in Poway, CA receives a $36.7 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract, covering in-theater support for ERMP Alpha and Block 0 UAVs for the Iraqi and Afghan theaters of war. The contract will run until Nov 15/11. One bid was solicited, with one bid received (W58RGZ-10-C-0044).

Feb 18/10: Tests, and Milestone C. The US Army announces that the ER/MP has successfully completed a series of tests with the HELLFIRE II UAS missile variant, whose 360-degree targeting ability, allowing UAVs that lack a helicopter’s instant maneuverability to put missiles on target faster. Testing began on Nov 22/09, and took place at Naval Air Weapons Station, China Lake, CA, following cooperation from General Atomics-Aeronautical Systems, Inc.’s Software Integration Laboratory, the company’s El Mirage Flight Test Facility in El Mirage, CA, and Edwards Air Force Base, CA..

The tests began with dry runs and an inert test missile, followed by a successful “cold” pass using a live missile to verify lock-on, followed by “hot pass” firing. November and December involved testing in various conditions, from varying altitudes, against stationary or moving targets. Tests recorded 9 successful shots, which helped pave the way for the UAV’s February 2010 Milestone C approval.

Feb 13/10: The US military issues a FedBizOpps notice as it conducts market research seeking sources to provide in-theatre logistical support, to include field service representatives and maintainers to support sustainment of the AN/DAS-2 payload and the AN/AAS-53 sensor and target designation turrets. The usual winner in these cases is the contractor, especially when, as in this case, “The government does not own the technical data package for these payloads.”

The AN/DAS-2 equipped initial SkyWarriors. The day/night sensing and targeting turret contains a continuous zoom day camera, a thermal imager, a visible imager, a laser designator, and an eye-safe laser rangefinder, all packaged within a stabilized gimbal. The AN/AAS-53 “is planned to replace the AN/DAS-2 beginning in fourth quarter 2009.” FBO solicitation.

Feb 11/10: STARLite, express. Northrop Grumman announces the recent delivery of the first 2 production AN/ZPY-1 STARLite radars for the US Army’s ER/MP, under a compressed 18-month schedule. The STARLite radar is a 65 pound synthetic aperture radar (SAR) with ground moving target indicator (GMTI) capabilities. In SAR mode, the radar provides images along the aircraft’s flight path or along a path independent of the flight path. It can also provide a high-resolution image of a specific area on the ground. In the GMTI mode, the radar provides moving target locations overlaid on a digital map. It can see through battlefield obscurants at all times of day, and in all weather. It also has software that connects with the Army One Common Ground Station.

Northrop Grumman is working under a $78.5 million contract with the Army’s Robotics and Unmanned Sensors Product Office at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, MD, to provide a total of 33 STARLite radar systems by April 2011.

Feb 2/10: Milestone C. The Army’s ER/MP passes its Milestone C review, following success during the UAV’s Operational Assessment test phase, and a positive verdict regarding production readiness. The decision allows Low Rate Initial Production to begin. Tim Owings, the US Army Deputy Project Manager for Army UAS, states that Milestone C authorizes 2 complete systems of 24 total UAVs plus ground control and related equipment, plus 8 UAVs for training and war-loss replacement. US Army.

Milestone

Feb 1/10: The Pentagon releases its FY 2011 budget requests. For the ER/MP program, Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation would jump 45% to $123.2 million. Purchases would jump about 5% to $506.3 million for 29 UAVs, including 3 UAVs under OCO/war funding purchases.

Dec 11/09: Arming begins. Aviation Week reports that the Army is beginning to arm its MQ-1Cs as its pushes toward a “Milestone C” production decision. Tests at China Lake, CA began with 2 Hellfire shots in late November, and will continue until Dec 18/09.

“The soon to be re-designated Gray Eagle UAV, currently called the extended range/multi-purpose (ERMP) unmanned aircraft system by the Army, is being rushed into service with newly-formed quick reaction capability (QRC) units in Iraq and Afghanistan… the initial QRC-1 unit is now deployed in Iraq with four unarmed aircraft… The current weapons tests… form part of preparations to arm QRC-2 aircraft which will be deployed to Afghanistan in July [2010].”

Army UAS project manager Col. Gregory Gonzalez confirmed to Aviation Week that QRC-2 will have the first real weaponized MQ-1C system.

Oct 27/09: The DEW Line highlights a Raytheon Program Manager job ad that discusses possible improvements to the MQ-1C fleet:

“[Raytheon] has proposed a significant upgrade program to the baseline CSP configuration to include High Definition (HD) EO/IR capability and Target Location Accuracy (TLA) enhancements. This position is the program manager (PM) of the CSP TLA/HD (approx $30M) development program. The selected individual will be responsible for managing all aspects of the development program including start up, gate reviews, customer reviews, customer daily interface, supplier management, build of 6 integration and test systems, quality testing and flight testing. It is anticipated the CSP TLA/HD development program will result in retrofit of up to 100 baseline CSP systems and this position would manage the follow-on retrofit business. The TLA/HD upgrade program will be run in parallel with the CSP IDIQ base program and will require integration and leveraging with the on-going CSP production program.”

Oct 9/09: Support. General Atomics Aeronautical Systems in Poway, CA receives on Sept 30/09 a $16.8 million cost-plus-fixed-fee engineering services contract, to support product improvements and new technology insertions into the ER/MP UAS.

Work will be performed in Poway, CA, with an estimated completion date of Sept 29/12. Bids were solicited online, with 1 bid received. U.S. Army Aviation & Missile Command Contraction Center, Redstone Arsenal, AL, is the contacting activity (W58RGZ-09-C-0136).

FY 2008 – 2009

1st mission in-theater; GAO decision blasts GA-ASI; Insolvency & fraud scandal for engine-maker Thielert; UAV Wars.

MQ-1C Block0
MQ-1C, Block 0
(click to view full)

August 2009: QRC-1 deploys. Deployment of Sky Warrior Block 1 (ER/MP program version), as the Quick Reaction Capability-1 (QRC-1). Feedback from the field will be incorporated into the QRC-2 deployment as software and hardware upgrades, and tactical changes. Source.

March 2/09: +8. General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. in San Diego, CA received a $35 million cost plus incentive fee, definitization of a letter contract to acquire 8 ERMP Quick Reaction Capability UAVs, and associated support equipment. This acquisition is directed by the Joint Chief of Staff to accommodate a surge of UAVs in theater.

Work is to be performed at San Diego, CA (46%); Adelanto, CA (14%); Palmdale, CA (8%); Salt Lake City, UT (18%); and Hunt Valley, MD (14%), with an estimated completion date of Jan 15/10. One bid was solicited and one bid received (W58RGZ-05-C-0069).

Feb 5/09: No SAR. Jane’s Defence Weekly [site] reports that:

“The US Army is suspending a synthetic aperture radar (SAR) requirement for Warrior unmanned aerial systems (UASs) in order to… speed the Warrior’s deployment to theatre, where intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) assets are in great demand.”

USAF MQ-1A/Bs currently carry the AN/APY-8 Lynx ground-looking synthetic aperture radar, which gives them the ability to notice certain kinds of objects more prominently, and to see through some obscurants like low clouds, smoke, etc. On Feb 5/09, General Atomics tested a Lynx II dual-beam variant, with a Space Time Adaptive Processing (STAP) upgrade developed in cooperation with BAE Systems. The modifications cancel the main beam’s GMTI (ground moving target indicator) clutter, which helps the radar detect slow-moving objects more accurately and at longer ranges.

Sept 18/08: General Atomics Aeronautical System in San Diego, CA received a $37.2 million cost plus incentive fee price contract for incremental funding for systems development and demonstration (including integration of the Hellfire Missile) for the ER/MP. Work will be performed in San Diego, CA, Adelanto, CA, Palmdale, CA, Salt Lake City, UT, Hunt Valley, MD, and Huntsville, AL, with an estimated completion date of Aug 31/09. One hundred and twenty bids were solicited and 3 bids were received (W58RGZ-05-C-0069).

Aug 19/08: General Atomics Aeronautical Systems in San Diego, CA received a $7.9 million cost plus fixed fee contract to acquire 3 ERMP Block 0 Unmanned Aircraft in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. Work will be performed in San Diego, CA with an estimated completion date of March 31/10. One bid was solicited and one bid received (W58RGZ-06-C-0208).

Aug 8/08: GA-ASI issues. A US GAO decision denies Lockheed Martin’s bid protest over the BAMS maritime surveillance UAV contract – and cites ongoing performance issues with its key partner General Atomics as the reason. The GAO summary for Bid Protest B-400135 states that:

“Agency reasonably determined, in procurement for unmanned maritime surveillance aircraft, that awardee [DID: Northrop Grumman] had significant advantage over protester [DID: Lockheed Martin] with respect to past performance where: protester’s subcontractor [DID: General Atomics], responsible for approximately 50 percent of contract effort, had recent past performance history of being unable to resolve staffing and resource issues, resulting in adverse cost and schedule performance on very relevant contracts for unmanned aircraft; record did not demonstrate that protester’s subcontractor had implemented systemic improvement that resulted in improved performance; [in contrast] operating division of the awardee also had performance problems on very relevant contracts for unmanned aircraft, many had been addressed through systemic improvement; and overall performance of awardee’s team on most evaluated contract efforts was rated better than satisfactory, while the overall performance of protester’s team on 11 of 26 contract efforts was only marginal.”

The BAMS bid in question has been based on General Atomics’ Mariner, a variant of its larger MQ-9 UAV. The GAO decision then goes on to discuss these issues in more detail, including this passage:

“In contrast, however, GA-ASI’s contract performance was a matter of great concern to the agency. Specifically, while recognizing that GA-ASI had demonstrated a willingness and ability to respond on short notice to evolving Global War on Terror (GWOT) warfighter requirements, the SSEB found that GA-ASI’s performance demonstrated: inadequate staffing, resulting in performance problems on SDD contracts for the MQ-9 Reaper (a second-generation, Predator B model) and the MQ-1C Extended Range/Multipurpose (ER/MP) UAS (a second-generation Predator model); unfavorable schedule performance on four of seven relevant GA-ASI contracts, including very relevant contracts for the MQ-9 Reaper, UAS ground control stations, MQ-1C ER/MP, I-GNAT Extended Range UAS (a version of the Predator with some differences for the Army), and MQ-1 baseline Predator; poor performance in meeting technical quality requirements on three of seven GA-ASI contracts, including contracts for the MQ-9 Reaper, MQ-1C ER/MP, and I-GNAT Extended Range UAS; and workload exceeded the firm’s capacity on five of seven GA-ASI contracts, including contracts for the MQ-9 Reaper, UAS ground control stations, MQ-1C ER/MP, I-GNAT Extended Range UAS, and MQ?1/MQ-9 maintenance support. In summary, the SSEB found the overall performance of GA-ASI on its very relevant contracts for the MQ-9 Reaper (most delivery orders), UAS ground control stations, MQ-1C ER/MP, and I-GNAT Extended Range UAS to be marginal.”

June 12/08: 1st mission. General Atomics announces that 2 MQ-1C Block 0 UAvs are now operational in Iraq. The first mission for WY-201 occurred on April 18/08 and lasted 10.5 hours. MQ-1C #WY-202 was deployed at the end of April.

Milestone

May 17/08: Thielert scandal. Thielert Engines insolvency administrator Dr. Bruno M. Kubler discusses the current situation in a release, including some revelations with implications for customers like General Atomics. The statement notes that attempts are being made to keep Thielert as a an operating concern, with some flexibility shown by creditors and Frank Thielert may not be CEO, but he remains the personal holder of key permits and therefore remains involved. Meanwhile:

  • German insolvency law does not permit the assumption of warranties or guarantees free of charge for products and services supplied prior to the declaration of insolvency. Parts supplied after insolvency can be warrantied, but the firm is in no position to do so. Dr. Kubler hopes that aircraft manufacturers will step in.
  • Higher prices will be charged for engines and spares.
  • Payment in advance is now required, but assurances are made re: delivery once payment is made.
  • The firm’s #1 customer, Diamond Aircraft, has pushed for concessions and preferential deals with Thielert, using both private negotiations and public tactics. Relations are deteriorating, but the firms are still negotiating.

April 28/08: STARLite radar. Northrop Grumman announces that its STARLite has been selected by the U.S. Army Communication-Electronics Life Cycle Management Command to equip ER/MP UAVs. The initial $42 million contract will finalize development, and deliver 10 radars.

The ground looking SAR/GMTI (Sythetic Aperture Radar with Ground Moving Target Indicator) fills the niche that General Atomics’ own AN/APY-8 Lynx radar occupies on USAF MQ-1A/B Predators.

April 16/08: +8. General Atomics Aeronautical Systems in San Diego, CA receives $38.5 million cost-plus incentive fee contract for the acquisition of 8 ER/MP quick reaction capability unmanned aircraft vehicles and assorted support equipment.

Work will be performed primarily in San Diego, CA and is expected to be complete on May 15/09. One bid was solicited on March 17/08 (W58RGZ-05-C-0069).

April 10/08: Thielert insolvency. SkyWarrior engine maker Thielert issues a release concerning their “urgent liquidity crisis.” The act is not an isolated incident, but rather a culmination of trends that include formal charges of accounting fraud and falsification of documents.

It is followed by a declaration of insolvency in May 2008.

March 31/08: General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. flies the first Sky Warrior Block 1 UAV from the company’s El Mirage Flight Operations Facility in Adelanto, CA. GA-ASI release.

March 3/08: General Atomics Aeronautical Systems in San Diego, CA received an $18.7 million cost-plus incentive fee contract that provides incremental funding for system development and demonstration of the ER/MP UAV. Work will be performed in San Diego, CA; Adelanto, CA; Palmdale, CA; Salt Lake City, UT; Hunt Valley, MD; and Huntsville, AL; and is expected to be complete by Aug 31/09. There were 120 bids solicited on Sept 1/04, and 3 bids were received (W58RGZ-05-C-0069).

Feb 14/08: Raytheon announces 2 U.S. Army orders totaling $17.2 million for 18 common sensor payloads, as system design and development continues. The article does not give details that would confirm the Nov 7/07 entry as one of those contracts, but it is possible. The firm states that they’ve delivered 10 AN/DAS-2 sensors so far.

Nov 7/07: Raytheon Co. in McKinney, TX received a delivery order amount of $11 million as part of an $800 million firm-fixed-price and cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for common sensors for the ARH-70A helicopter and the MQ-1C Sky Warrior ER/MP UAV. Work will be performed in McKinney, TX and is expected to be complete by Oct. 31, 2016. Bids were solicited via the World Wide Web on April 24, 2007, and 5 bids were received by the U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command in Fort Monmouth, NJ (W15P7T-08-D-S602).

Raytheon’s release adds that the program calls for design and development, testing and air vehicle integration of a variant of Raytheon’s Multi-spectral Targeting System, in a project could be worth up to $1.2 billion for 875 units, if all options are exercised. See also Raytheon Feature | Common Sensor Platform product page. Raytheon’s CSP completes its Predator family trifecta; it also supplies the AN/DAS-1 system that equips MQ-1 Predator UAVs, and the AN/AAS-52 on MQ-9 Reapers. With respect to deliveries to the Sky Warrior program thus far:

“The company has delivered 10 AN/DAS-2 electro-optical/ infrared/ laser designator sensors under a system design and development contract let in May 2005. At the beginning of this year, the Army ordered seven more systems under a low rate production option.”

Oct 19/07: General Atomics Aeronautical System in San Diego, CA received a $20.8 million increment as part of a $231.2 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for system development and demonstration for the ER/MP UAV Vehicle, including integration of the Hellfire Missile.

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA (43%), Adelanto, CA (14%), Palmdale, CA (8%), Salt Lake City, UT (18%), Hunt Valley, MD (14%), and Huntsville, AL (3%), and is expected to be complete by Aug 31/09. There were 120 bids solicited on Sept. 1, 2004, and 3 bids were received (W58RGZ-05-C-0069).

Oct 1-17/07: UAV Wars. DID talks to the US Army about the SkyWarrior program. Going forward, the USAF will manage the program according to jointly agreed requirements, but each service will maintain its own budget for the UAVs it wants.

A common version will be selected and approved by late 2008, but no decision has been reached re: which version will predominate: the MQ-1B Block X/MQ-1C with 4 missile pylons and a heavy fuel engine that can burn diesel, or the existing MQ-1 that burns aviation fuel and has 2 missile pylons.

Oct 1/07: General Atomics Aeronautical Systems in San Diego, CA received a $27.5 million modification to a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for contractor logistics support for the Sky Warrior Block 0 Unmanned Aircraft System.

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA (80%); Hunt Valley, MD (10%); and Salt Lake City, UT (10%); and is expected to be complete by Sept. 27, 2008. This was a sole source contract initiated on Sept. 14, 2007 (DAAH01-03-C-0124).

FY 2005 – 2007

UAV Wars between US Army & USAF; Army Future Combat System changes improve ER/MP’s opportunity; 1st ER/MP flight; ER/MP development contract issued.

MQ-1C Sky Warrior
MQ-1C Sky Warrior
(click to view full)

Sept 28/07: UAV Wars. In its Daily Report for this date, the Air Force Association’s Air Force Magazine Online discusses the UAV executive agency issue:

“Defending the recent Pentagon decision not to give the Air Force executive agency over medium- to high-altitude unmanned aerial vehicles, Army Secretary Pete Geren told defense reporters Thursday that the Army’s modernization goals don’t fit with an executive agent approach. “The need for control with UAVs fits close to the individual soldier,” Geren said. Part of the Army’s Future Combat Systems program is to empower soldiers and give them greater control over assets such as UAVs. He noted that Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Moseley have met on the issue recently to work out disagreements. “Some of the disagreements have arisen because these issues have not been tackled at a high enough level,” Geren said. While sympathetic to the Air Force’s perspective, he noted that an executive agent approach that’s advocated by some would make sense if we were fighting a conventional war. “It’s a different debate when you’re talking about the kind of fight we are in today,” Geren declared.”

See also Military.com’s article re: the decision fallout.

Sept 13/07: UAV Wars. Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England rejects Air Force efforts to become the executive agent for all medium- and high-altitude unmanned aerial vehicles, over objections from the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps. In his memo, England directed the Pentagon’s acquisition office to create a task force on UAV issues to “enhance operations, enable interdependencies, and streamline acquisition” of the drones. He also directed Pentagon officials to take other steps to foster cross-service collaboration on the UAV programs.

The Predator and SkyWarrior programs, however, have been merged. The exact meaning of that move remains to be seen – either to standardize the Predator on a similar SkyWarrior/MQ-1C version, or eliminate the Warrior variant and use existing MQ-1As. GovExec | The Hill.

Aug 22/07: A $5.15 million increment as part of a $215.4 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for system development and demonstration for the ER/MP UAV. Work will be performed in San Diego, CA (43%), Adelanto, CA (14%), Palmdale, CA (8%), Salt Lake City, UT (18%), Hunt Valley, MD (14%), and Huntsville, AL (3%), and is expected to be complete by Aug. 31, 2009. There were 120 bids solicited on Sept. 1, 2004, and 3 bids were received (W58RGZ-05-C-0069).

According to DID’s calculations based on DefenseLINK public announcements, about $167 million of the $215.4 million ER/MP program’s contracts have been issued as of this increment.

Aug 6/07: +2 YMQ-1C. General Atomics in San Diego, CA received a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for $7.3 million to provide 2 Pre-Production YMQ-1C Block X aircraft. General Atomics has confirmed to DID that these are USAF versions of the Army Sky Warrior. See the May 7/07 entry and Appendix A for details; this award should be seen in the context of the USAF’s effort to take over UAV authority.

At this time, total funds have been obligated. Solicitations began in April 2006, negotiations were completed in July 2007, and work will be complete in January 2009 (FA8620-05-G-3028-0018).

July 5/07: General Atomics Aeronautical Systems in San Diego, CA received a $14.7 million increment as part of a $215.4 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for system development and demonstration for the ER/MP Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. Work will be performed in San Diego, CA (43%), Adelanto, CA (14%), Palmdale, CA (8%), Salt Lake City, UT (18%), Hunt Valley, MD (14%), and Huntsville, AL (3%), and is expected to be complete by Aug. 31, 2009. There were 120 bids solicited on Sept. 1, 2004, and 3 bids were received (W58RGZ-05-C-0069).

June 27/07: UAV Wars. Air Force Times report: With the question of whether there should be an executive agency in charge of medium- and high-altitude UAVs still hanging in the air, U.S. deputy defense secretary Gordon England wrote in a letter earlier in June to Army and Air Force leaders asking the services to collaborate on procuring and operating the Predator and Warrior UAVs. Army and Air Force officials were asked to submit briefings to England by the end of June 2007.

June 6/07: The first ER/MP Sky Warrior aircraft flew successfully from General Atomics’ El Mirage Flight Operations Facility in Adelanto, CA. The company-owned Block 0 aircraft completed all stated objectives for its maiden flight. General Atomics release.

Milestone

May 17/07: UAV Wars. The Congressional Government Accountability Office releases report #GAO-07-578, “Greater Synergies Possible for DOD’s Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Systems,” which explicitly discusses the possible merger of Warrior & Predator programs. It mentions that “The Air Force and the Army are currently working to identify program synergies in a three-phased approach:

  • First, the Air Force will acquire and test two of the more modern Warrior airframes.
  • Second, the two services will compare their requirements for ground control stations and automated takeoff and landing.
  • Finally, the Army and Air Force plan to compare concepts of operation and training requirements for additional synergies.”

May 10/07: The JROC directs the USAF to flesh out its executive agency plan. No firm deadline is set, and no firm decision is taken.

May 7/07: “Predator Block X”. General Atomics in San Diego, CA received a $10.1 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract from the USAF’s Headquarters Aeronautical Systems Center at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH. This contract action will provide a series of required tasks to design, fabricate, integrate, and test the Predator MQ-1B Block X aircraft which will utilize a Heavy Full Engine (HFE), will support a 3,200 lbs gross take-off weight, and will carry 4 Hellfire missiles (2 on each wing). The Predator MQ-1B Block X shall leverage off technology from the existing Predator B (MQ-9) program, the Army’s ER/MP program, and on-going GA-ASI internal research and development efforts. At this time, total funds have been obligated. Solicitations began June 2006 and negotiations were complete April 2007 (FA8620-05-G-3028-0016).

It should come as no surprise to anyone that the ability to operate the engine on “heavy” fuels like diesel, and to carry 4 Hellfire missiles instead of 2, constitute the two biggest differences between the USAF’s MQ-1 Predator and the Army’s Warrior UAV. This award should be seen in the context of the USAF’s effort to take over UAV authority, vid. Appendix A.

May 7/07: UAV Wars. Officials with the DoD’s Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) meet with Army and Air Force officials to discuss proposals to put all such UAVs under a single executive agency. See Appendix A for more background.

April 6/07: General Atomics Aeronautical System in San Diego, CA received a $5.3 million modification to a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for ERMP Block 0 UAVs. Work will be performed in San Diego, CA (65%), Adelanto, CA (5%), Palmdale, CA (5%), and Salt Lake City, UT (25%), and is expected to be complete by Aug. 31, 2007. This was a sole source contract initiated on June 21, 2006 (W58RGZ-06-C-0208).

March 5/07: UAV Wars. US Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley’s circulates a memo, proposing to name his service as the Pentagon executive agent for UAVs. See Appendix A for more background.

Feb 14/07: 4 more. General Atomics Aeronautical System in San Diego, CA received an $11.7 million modification to a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for acquisition of 4 ERMP Block 0 UAVs, associated support equipment, and initial spares. This appears to be the initial installment on the test aircraft.

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA (65%), Adelanto, CA (5%), Palmdale, CA (5%), and Salt Lake City, UT (25%), and is expected to be complete by Dec. 18, 2007. This was a sole source contract initiated on June 21, 2006 (W58RGZ-06-C-0208).

Jan 9/07: FCS changes. The US Army restructures its $160+ billion Future Combat Systems program, and “delays”/ eliminates its Class II and Class III UAVs. The Warrior ERMP is expected to be one of the existing systems filling the Class III brigade-level gap.

Dec 22/06: General Atomics Aeronautical System, San Diego, CA was received a $63.1 million increment as part of “a $215.4 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for System Development and Demonstration for the Extended Range / Multi-Purpose Unmanned Aerial Vehicle.”

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA (43%), Adelanto, CA (14%), Palmdale, CA (8%), Salt Lake City, UT (18%), Hunt Valley, MD (14%), and Huntsville, AL (3%), and is expected to be complete by Aug. 31, 2009. There were 120 bids solicited on Sept. 1, 2004, and 3 bids were received by the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command in Redstone Arsenal, AL (W58RGZ-05-C-0069).

March 13/06: DID – Warrior UAV Program Underway. $67 million increment received for the Warrior program, as part of a “$214.3 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for System Development and Demonstration for the Extended Range / Multi-Purpose Unmanned Aerial Vehicle” (W58RGZ-05-C-0069).

Oct 6/05: DID – AAI Takes Another UAV Ground Control Project. A $30 million subcontract for the Warrior UAV’s ground control.

Aug 8/05: Winner! General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. in San Diego, CA has won a $214.4 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for research, development, test and evaluation of the Extended Range Multi Purpose Unmanned Aerial Vehicle system (ERMP UAV).

One hundred twenty bids were solicited on Sept 1/04, and 3 bids were received. Work will be performed at facilities in 6 locations: San Diego, Adelanto and Palmdale, CA; Salt Lake City, UT; Hunt Valley, MD; and Huntsville, AL, and is estimated to be complete by Aug. 31, 2009. The U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command at Redstone Arsenal, AL issued the contract (W58RGZ-05-C-0069). The Army’s public affairs office can be reached at (256) 955-9174.

Milestone

Appendix A: US Army et. al. vs. USAF Over UAVs

US Army Air Corps
US Army Air Corps

Faced with an aerial tanker fleet that’s 50+ years old, front line fighters under flight restrictions due to age and fatigue, and heavy strain on transport aircraft resources, the USAF has been making strenuous efforts to take over the UAV domain. At the moment, UAVs are bought by individual services: Army, Navy, USAF, Marines. The Army in particular has been using UAVs for reconnaissance and persistent fire support, as in-house assets that involve less organizational friction to deploy, and can be prioritized for purchase according to the needs of soldiers on the ground.

The USAF had asked for authority over all American UAVs before, but this was refused. The Pentagon’s JROC(Joint Requirements Oversight Committee) determined that an executive agent was not necessary. Instead, they created the Joint Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Center of Excellence at Creech Air Force Base, NV to share operational tips; and the Joint Unmanned Aerial Systems Materiel Review Board in order to work out best practices for materiel. There is also a US Army UAV Center of Excellence at Fort Rucker, AL.

The end of the argument? No, because of the organizational and budgetary threat that non-USAF UAVs represent.

Viper Strike BAT Hitting Tank
Viper Strike
(click to view larger)

One measure of the potential threat can be inferred from usage figures. As of September 2007, MQ-1 Predator UAVs had reached 300,000 flight hours since inception around 2001, of which 80% were combat flight. Fully 1/3 of those flight hours were accumulated in the previous 12 months, and total fleet flying hours had risen to 10,000 hours/month. On Nov 9/07, Jane’s International Defense Review reported that by the end of the second quarter of Fiscal Year 2007, US Army UAVs had flown a total of 295,181 hours in Iraq, nearly 18% of the total hours flown by the army aviation fleet.

Well below a Predator’s size threshold, US Army RQ-7 Shadow battalion-level UAVs are racking up 8,000 flight hours per month in Iraq (almost equal to the Predators’ recent totals), accompanied by US Army RQ-5 Hunter aircraft that sit somewhere between a Predator and Shadow in size and are accumulating their own flight time. Smaller UAVs like the popular RQ-11 Raven, meanwhile, are racking up their own significant totals, with shorter flight times offset by much larger numbers in the field to produce 300,000 flight hours in 2007 alone. The Army reached 1 million UAV flight hours for its fleet of RQ-5 Hunter, RQ-7 Shadow, RQ-11 Raven, RQ-18 gMAV, and MQ-1C ER/MP UAVs in April 2010, and is adding to that at 25,000 hours per month.

The RQ-5 Hunters have been tested with Viper Strike mini-bombs, and the Shadows may be eligible as well if the Army wishes. Shadows will certainly be eligible for NAVAIR’s 5-6 pound Spike missile project (scheduled for an autumn 2007 UAV test), and all UAVs can provide targeting for M30 GPS-guided MLRS rockets, long-range ATACMS MLRS missiles, or the 155mm Excalibur artillery shells entering service in Q3 2007. Larger UAVs like the Sky Warrior add Hellfire II missiles, the 250 lb. Small Diameter Bombs, and 250 – 500 lb. GPS-guided JDAMs or laser-guided Paveway bombs to the mix.

With these fire support assets on the airframe or on call, most close air support functions encountered in counterinsurgency missions can be covered.

Manned fighters offer their own advantages: anti-air capabilities, a payload capacity several times a UAV’s, greatly improved panoramic visibility, no need for potentially vulnerable or limited-bandwidth long-range communications in order to fly, better intimidation presence via fast flyovers, and better survivability/ fewer crashes. In counterinsurgency scenarios, however, air threats are minimal to nonexistent, fighters are usually loaded with just a couple of weapons; and except for the A-10 or dedicated COIN (COunter-INsurgency) turboprops, the planes are moving so quickly that they must rely on targeting pods with the same narrow field of view as a UAV pilot’s. That still leaves intimidation and survivability advantages, but your average jet fighter is extremely expensive to buy, has a 7,000 – 10,000 hour airframe life, costs many multiples of dollars per flight hour to operate, and offers an on-station time that is usually less than half that of a Predator class MALE UAV.

Specialty close-support aircraft like the USA’s A-10, gunships like the AC-130s, and even COIN turboprops offer combinations of affordability and/or compelling advantages that keep them competitive in counterinsurgency scenarios. Can the same be said for the USAF’s F-16s, F-15… or its future F-35 Lightning II and F-22A Raptor fighters? In their January 2007 article “UAVs With Bite,” Air Force Magazine notes that:

“The Air Force now has provisional plans to buy some 170 Predator MQ-1s by 2010 and acquire 50 to 70 MQ-9s by around 2012, for a total of 220 or more of the combat-capable drones. At present, the service plans on retiring a comparable number of F-16s over the same period.”

MQ-1 Predator
MQ-1 Predator:
circling to kill?
(click to view full)

This calculus is why some observers saw the UAV fight as the “Key West Agreement” fight for the 21st century, with the outcome determining the future organizational backbone and role of the USAF – and other services besides.

Hence the USAF’s persistence. The USAF’s return foray in March 2007 involved a move to take over acquisition authority for all UAVs designed to operate at “medium or high altitudes.” Battalion-level UAVs like the RQ-7 Shadow 200 might or might not escape, but even so the maneuver would neatly strip away virtually all armed UAVs, and hence the bureaucratic threat of Army UAVs evolving toward the USAF’s close air support role. Besides, with the USAF re-organizing its ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance & Reconnaissance) assets into their own dedicated function, they can always come back for the rest later under a “unified ISR” claim, once a large portion of UAV acquisition and prioritization are already under their control.

The ER/MP Warrior program is obviously a front-line target in this fight, given its derivation from the MQ-1 Predator UAVs the USAF had already bought in quantity, before switching future orders to the larger MQ-9 Reaper.

Three broad-brush outcomes were possible:

# The US Army and USAF retain separate control of their UAVs, and continue to work out standards et. al. through the established joint centers of excellence; Warrior program unaffected.
# The USAF does NOT acquire executive authority over UAVs, but there is consolidation between the US Army and USAF MQ-1 variants/programs to a common version. This is the current state. The Warrior program survives only if it becomes that common version.
# The USAF acquires executive authority over “medium to high altitude” UAVs. The ER/MP Warrior UAV program is almost certainly canceled, future USMC programs are under threat, and the Navy will have to fight to maintain control of its own programs.

In the end, the answer was solution #1, with a twist. The USAF also switched its future UAV production plans from the Predator to the MQ-9 Reaper, whose high altitude performance and 3,000 pound ordnance load give it dramatically different capabilities.

USAF Logo

There’s obviously a larger debate going on here. The Kasserine Pass disaster in World War 2, where commanders in quiet sectors refused to turn over their aircraft to units under fire, provided the impetus for today’s TacAir system, which puts airmen in charge of managing and allocating air assets in response to the needs of the ground commander. At some level, the USAF arguments hark back to that concept, and to the 1948 “Key West Accords,” which ended up turning Army Aviation into a helicopter force. There’s also a procurement angle, as noted during coverage of USAF Chief of Staff Moseley’s testimony on this issue before Congress:

“Without an executive agency, the services will likely continue their separate design and procurement efforts, and the DOD will have forfeited the considerable savings it could have realized. Additionally, DOD will have lost an opportunity to create and harness the interservice synergies that would result from building upon — rather than duplicating — each service’s strengths, General Moseley said.”

On the other hand, the US Army hasn’t always felt well served by the USAF’s procurement priorities, which many feel have tended to emphasize high-end USAF assets at the expense of some key roles (forward observation, light transport, close support) needed by troops on the ground. That fact that UAVs serve in a couple of the roles that have previously received short shrift doesn’t make the Army feel any better. They also worry that a service run by fighter jocks is likely to steer unmanned systems away from anything that might intrude on their established roles, or call high-ticket platforms into question. The last 40 years of organizational and political theory tends to support that worry.

Tim Owings, deputy project manager for the Army’s unmanned aircraft systems:

“From our perspective, consistently what has come out of theater is the need for our commanders to have direct control and ownership of the UAV application. That has played out in every theater that we have been in.”

In 2010, director of the Army Quadrennial Defense Review Timothy Muchmore brought the issue into sharp relief, when he was quoted as saying that:

“The air power provided by our sister services has dominated the third dimension, but the Army is unable to leverage that third dimension… We’ve had two combat outposts overrun by superior forces [during the past year]. Those are losses that we consider unacceptable, because we couldn’t see what was going on around the outposts.”

Anyone who has worked in a large organization can see the shape of the bureaucratic battle here. On one side, you have the staff department, preaching the benefits and savings of centralization and standards, and urging central control over the function. Some of those benefits may be real. Some of the “joint” and “team” rhetoric may also be real. But the real issue is control. On the other hand, you have the front-line business unit managers who want resources that are dedicated to their needs – and under their clear authority, in order to ensure required accountability and service levels. Some of that may be required. Still, the key is not so much the promised dedication as the control that guarantees it. Throw in a central department that has sometimes placed business unit needs lower on the priority scale than their own long term plans, add a dash of politics, and stir.

The US Navy, with a long history of running its own aviation programs, and the qualifying UCAS-D unmanned strike aircraft and BAMS maritime reconnaissance UAV programs underway, will not be watching idly. Nor will the US Marines, who also operate integrated aircraft and have UAV plans of their own.

There’s always a proper balance point in any organization, and points beyond which either central control or local control of key functions can become dysfunctional. The thing is, there’s no set recipe. It’s different in each organization, and depends on the situation, past institutional performance, and (legitimately) on the personalities involved at the time.

Where is that balance point for the US military and UAVs? Because there’s a larger issue a-wing beyond the ER/MP program – and this time, getting the answer right really is a matter of life and death.

  • = DID is aware that the US Army Air Corps no longer exists.

Footnotes

fn1. A communication from General Atomics to DID referred to the platform as the “MC-1C”, a designation DID subsequently used in the article. Andreas Parsch of the fine site Designation Systems asked some questions about that, and the investigation revealed that it had been a typo. DID has corrected the article accordingly. Danke schön, Andreas.

Appendix B: Who Controls the UAVs? Readings & Primers

“Predator-series aircraft have amassed over a half-million flight hours and will soon complete 50,000 total missions, with 85-percent of that time spent in combat… Predator-series aircraft are now flying over 20,000 hours a month supporting U.S. coalition forces in combat and homeland security requirements… In the past year alone, monthly flight hours have doubled. Over 300 Predator-series aircraft have been produced to date”

  • DID (Aug 29/08) – UAMS Experiment Brings Deconfliction Closer for Smaller UAVs. If efforts like UAMS succeed, the argument for single-service UAV control suffers a major blow.
  • US Army (July 3/08) – Leaders discuss new joint unmanned aerial operations. “Army and Air Force leaders met Monday to discuss developing a new joint unmanned aerial system concept of operations…”
  • NY Times (June 22/08) – At Odds With Air Force, Army Adds Its Own Aviation Unit. Project ODIN includes both manned C-12s and UAVs like SkyWarrior. “The work of the new aviation battalion was initially kept secret, but Army officials involved in its planning say it has been exceptionally active, using remotely piloted surveillance aircraft to call in Apache helicopter strikes with missiles and heavy machine gun fire that have killed more than 3,000 adversaries in the last year and led to the capture of almost 150 insurgent leaders.” See also…
  • CASR (June 22/08) – Counterinsurgency Legacy – US Army Aviation Supports its Own: US Air Force turns out to be too Tardy to be Tactically Useful. Excerpts and background the NYT article. The US Army is reportedly seeking money to raise a similar unit in Afghanistan by late 2008/early 2009.
  • Military.com (March 18/08) – Army Embarks on Ambitious UAV Program. Discusses key tactical and operational differences between the Army and USAF’s use of UAVs.
  • US Air Force Association, Air Force Magazine (October 2007) – The Big Squeeze. Describes steps the USAF is taking to improve its ISR capabilities, the challenges, and some of the platforms involved. As recapitalization of major assets is pushed back, UAV/UAS options will grow in popularity.
  • Lexington Institute (Sept 5/07) – Army Plans For Reconnaissance Drones Misuse A Vital Asset. Loren Thompson’s analysis explains the drivers at both ends of the UAV controversy without really addressing the implications of each, and without securing some underlying assumptions re: employment. Both sets of drivers and assumptions may even be true as written, and the question then becomes one of priorities:

bq. “Only 34 of the 1,200 drones U.S. forces are using in Southwest Asia can operate beyond the line of sight of ground controllers, so sometimes the wait for access to that handful of planes can be quite lengthy… Under the Army plan, if five divisions were deployed in Iraq (as is presently the case), their combined inventory of 60 Predators would be able to keep 12-15 aloft at any given time. In contrast, the approach used by the Air Force can keep nearly three times as many drones in the air because the availability of the fleet is not tied to rotation patterns and concentrating all the drones at a few sites permits maintenance efficiencies.”

Additional Readings

Thanks to DID correspondent Trent Telenko for his assistance.

Background: Gray Eagle UAVs & Related Tech

Background: Sensors and Ancillaries

Official Reports

News & Views

Korea’s T-50 Family of Trainers/Fighters

$
0
0
T-50 Side Left lg
T-50 Golden Eagle
(click to view full)

South Korea’s T-50 Golden Eagle family offers the global marketplace a set of high-end supersonic trainer and lightweight fighter aircraft. They’re hitting the international market at a good time: just as many of the world’s jet training fleets are reaching ages of 30 years or more, and high-end fighters are pricing themselves out of reach for many countries.

Most recently, Thailand is increasing its defense budget and the speed of its procurement process to, among other things, procure a replacement for its aging L-39. The T-50 is one of three candidates.

The ROK’s defense industry is advancing on all fronts these days. Its shipbuilding industry, one of the world’s busiest, is beginning to turn out its own LHDs, and even high-end KDX-III AEGIS destroyers. On the armored vehicle front, Korea’s XK2 tank and K9/K10 self propelled howitzer are beginning to win export orders, and its XK-21/KNIFV amphibious infantry fighting vehicle may not be too far behind. All fill key market niches, promising performance at a comparatively inexpensive price. Now its aerospace industry is in flight abroad with the KT-1 turboprop basic trainer, complemented by the T-50 jet trainer, TA-50 LIFT advanced trainer & attack variant, and FA-50 lightweight fighter.

The TA-50 and FA-50 are especially attractive as lightweight export fighters, and the ROKAF’s own F-5E/F Tiger II and F-4 Phantom fighters are more than due for replacement. The key question for the platform is whether it can find corresponding export sales.

T/F/A-50: The Planes

T-50 Underside
T-50, 3-view
(click to view full)

The T-50 was developed by Korea Aerospace Industries, Ltd., with cooperation and global marketing support from Lockheed Martin. Both firms were aware that many training aircraft fleets are aging, even as higher-performance fighters demand trainer aircraft that can keep up. The Korean government needed a fleet of trainers, and saw an opportunity to give their aerospace sector a strong boost in the process. Total investment in the T-50’s RDT&E program amounted to more than $2 billion: 70% from the Korean government, 17% from KAI, and 13% from Lockheed Martin.

With a length of 43 feet and a wingspan of 30 feet, the 2-seat T-50 is about 4 feet shorter than the F-16; overall, it’s only about 80% of the F-16’s size. The relative size of the control surfaces and tails are larger, however, to improve handling characteristics at lower speeds and make the aircraft easier to land. Larger landing gear is also fitted, to absorb harder landings, which is to be expected from student pilots. Its form’s resemblances to Lockheed Martin’s F-16 are suggestive, and include the blended mid-set wing, complete with leading-edge root extensions and rear ‘shelf’ fairings ending in F-16-style split airbrakes. The air intake layout on the sides is somewhat similar to the F/A-18 Hornet or Northrop’s excellent but ill-fated F-20A Tigershark, and the aircraft is powered by the same engine: GE’s popular, reliable and fuel-efficient F404, with slight improvements over the F404-GE-402 to enhance single-engine redundancy and reliability.

The T-50 trainer carries a basic navigation / attack system, which gives it some multi-role capability. The aircraft can carry Sidewinder missiles on the wingtips, as well as fuel, rockets, or qualified bombs on its 5 underwing and center pylons. The center pylon and 2 inner underwing pylons are “wet,” and can accommodate 150 gallon fuel drop tanks.

The T-50 family’s empty weight is 14,000 pounds, and maximum takeoff gross weight is 27,700 pounds. The plane’s F404-GE-102 engine produces 17,700 pounds of thrust at afterburner. Maximum rate of climb is 39,000 feet per minute; and the maximum speed is Mach 1.5. Service ceiling is 48,500 feet, the design load factor is 8gs, and the trainer airframe is designed for up to 10,000-hour service life (8,344 hours for the A-50).

T-50 Cockpit
T-50 cockpit
(click to view full)

Still, the plane is designed to be a trainer, with better rear visibility than a 2-seat F-16. An “active stick” ensures that stick movements in the front or rear are transmitted to the stick in the other seat, to improve monitoring and learning. Embedded training features, in-flight recording and post-mission debriefing capability are all built in. The standard tools of a modern fighter pilot’s trade are likewise present: “glass cockpit” of digital screens, HUD (Head Up Displays), HOTAS (Hands On Stick And Throttle) control systems to keep everything at the pilot’s fingertips, triple-redundant electrical system, fly-by-wire, advanced radio and navigation systems including INS/GPS, and a Martin-Baker zero-zero ejection seat. The seat back angle is 17 degrees – similar to the seat angles of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and the F/A-22.

Per the standards for modern trainers, the aircraft is part of a larger, integrated training system that includes simulators, computer-based training, cockpit and maintenance trainers, and a training management system.

Maintenance has also received careful thought. The new trainer’s airframe will require no mandatory depot maintenance, and the aircraft boasts a “single-tier design” with some 250 access panels, allowing technicians to get at any major system. Extensive self-diagnostics are expected to help keep maintenance costs down.

All in all, the T-50 may remind some people of the F-16 that was originally designed by the 1970s “Fighter Mafia,” who were busy breaking every big-jet, multi-role, high-priced rule the USAF had cultivated for over a decade. The T-50’s 0.65:1 thrust/weight ratio ensures that it’s no F-16. Even so, more than 25 years after the F-16 entered service, the T-50 family retains one more comparison point: a similar price point in absolute dollars. Its $20-30 million cost places it firmly on the high end of the modern trainer market, but its supersonic performance and fighter versatility could still make the T-50 family very popular indeed.

Key market competitors include the subsonic BAE Hawk, Aermacchi’s now-supersonic M346, and its Russian twin the Yak-130.

T-50 Variants

T-50Bs air show
Black Eagles
(click to view full)

At present, 3 variants of the T-50 are planned, beyond the basic T-50 trainer aircraft.

T-50B aerobatic variant. It has replaced ancient A-37 Dragonflys in South Korea’s “Black Eagles” national aerobatic team. This makes South Korea 1 of just 4 countries whose aerobatic teams fly locally designed and manufactured supersonic aircraft. Their Black Eagles perform in this category alongside the USA’s Thunderbirds (F-16) and Blue Angels (F/A-18), Russia’s Swifts (MiG-29) and Knights (SU-27), and China’s 1st Aerobatic Team (J-10s).

TA-50 lead-in fighter trainer (LIFT). Offers weapons training and usage, eliminating weapon training hours in more expensive jets, and allowing operational employment. TA-50s add an internal 3-barreled M61 20mm cannon, and can carry AIM-9 Sidewinder air-air missiles, AGM-65 Maverick short-range strike missiles, rocket pods, Mk80 family bombs, and SUU-20 practice bomb carriers. The TA-50 has full avionics including stores management, and the IAI/ LIG Nex1 version of the ELM-2032 multi-mode radar is an option. Some reports add Lockheed Martin’s AN/APG-67v4 multi-mode radar as an alternative option, derived from the radar that equipped Northrop’s F-20 Tigershark.

Other reports have mentioned that the TA-50 has provisions for radar warning receivers and specialty pods, if customers wish to add them, but this isn’t confirmed. That would seem like a better fit with the FA-50, as a complete low-end light fighter that’s able to add precision strike bombs and other weapons to its arsenal.

FA-50 fighter
KAI’s FA-50
(click to view full)

FA-50 lightweight fighter. A slightly more expensive variant that’s fully fitted for the lightweight fighter and light attack roles, with a secondary role as a lead-in fighter trainer (LIFT) if necessary. It is beginning to gain good traction in the international marketplace.

Weapons are slated to include the same lightweight 3-barreled M61 20mm gun and weapon set as the TA-50. The ELM-2032 radar is a big step forward, and the plane’s electronic architecture reportedly adds the ability to integrate GPS-guided weapons like JDAM bombs, WCMD/SFW cluster bombs, and eventually JSOW glide bombs. A targeting and surveillance pod, AIM-120 AMRAAM radar-guided air-to-air missiles, anti-ship missiles, and other advanced weapons will likely follow, as the ROKAF and other customers look to diversify their roles.

KAI on FA-50

There is a small catch. The FA-50 is a joint KAI/ Lockheed Martin project, and the associated co-operation agreements reportedly included a number of restrictive terms. One is that Lockheed Martin won’t transfer aircraft source code to other nations, leaving Lockheed as the sole integrator for key capabilities. A 2nd provision is that the T-50’s capabilities cannot exceed Korea’s F-16s. A 3rd provision reportedly banned South Korea from integrating T-50 variants with non-U.S. technology that the United States doesn’t have.

Provisions 2 and 3 had a big influence on the plane’s radar options. Instead of SELEX Galileo UK’s Vixen 500E AESA, the first FA-50s will use a cooperatively produced version of IAI’s popular ELM-2032 multi-mode radar, via LiG Nex1 and SamsungThales. The radar will be tied to additional datalinks like Link-16, radar warning receivers, and a MIL-STD-1760 databus. FA-50s will also be able to carry additional electronic countermeasures equipment, and specialty pods like LITENING or Sniper ATP for targeting, surveillance, etc.

SamsungThales and LiG Nex1 may be enough “laundering” for ELM-2032 radar exports to Islamic countries. Reports re: Iraq’s sale say nothing about a substitution, and any radar switch would require a full integration project. Lockheed Martin’s AN/APG-67v4 radar, developed for the F-20, would be an obvious alternative, and Selex ES’ Grifo is a popular global choice for light fighters. A longer-term possibility involves a step up to more advanced AESA radars, which are already making inroads into the medium end of the fighter market. An imminent program to upgrade the ROKAF’s KF-16s with AESA radars could offer KAI a way up. Once the ROKAF adds Raytheon’s RACR AESA radars to its F-16s, the FA-50 could add the same radar without violating the FA-50’s MoU restrictions. The need for Lockheed Martin’s agreement to integrate an American AESA radar would be the only remaining obstacle.

T/F/A-50: The Program

T-50 cutaway from KAI
T-50 cutaway, KAI

Click here for full graphic, from KAI [1500 x 696, 454k].

Home Customer: 142 ROKAF: 50 T-50, 10 T-50B, 22 TA-50, 60 FA-50.
Export Customers: Indonesia (16 T-50i), Iraq (24 FA-50), Philippines (12 FA-50).
Prospects: Botswana, Chile, Peru, Thailand, Brunei, UAE (~48), USA (up to 350).
Losses: Israel (M-346), Poland (M-346), Singapore (M-346), UAE (M-346 picked 2009, but still no contract).

KAI T-50, TA-50 & FA-50 program & export milestones
Arirang report

KAI is the T-50’s prime contractor, and is responsible for the design of the fuselage and tail unit, final assembly of the aircraft, and design of the accompanying training systems. The mid-mounted variable camber wings are manufactured by Lockheed Martin, who is also responsible for the avionics and fly-by-wire flight control system, and provides technical consulting.

The production line at Saechon is designed for a 1.5-aircraft-per-month production capability with a single shift, but the assembly process can produce up to 2.5 aircraft per month by simply adding another shift if orders increase. Man Sik Park, director of the T-50 management team at Sacheon, adds that “Getting more customers than our line can currently handle is no problem because we can increase the production rate further with additional tools and assembly jigs.”

TA-50, labeled
KAI’s TA-50

The ROKAF already has production orders for 102 of KAI’s aircraft: 50 T-50 trainers, 22 TA-50 LIFT/ light fighters (with an option for another 22), 10 T-50B aerobatic aircraft that replaced the Black Eagles’ A-37 Dragonflys, and 60 FA-50s to replace the RoKAF’s F-5 Tiger II and F-4 Phantom fighters.

Outside South Korea, Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems and KAI have created the T-50 International Company (TFIC) to pursue export markets. Indonesia (16 TA-50 “T-50i”), Iraq (24 FA-50 “T-50IQ”), and the Philippines (12 FA-50) have signed contracts. Botswana and Chile have both reportedly expressed interest, as well as Brunei. The UAE has yet to sign its trainer deal for 48 planes, and wants an armed variant that doesn’t exist for its chosen M-346, so KAI may yet be able to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, as they did in Iraq. The USA is TFIC’s biggest target, however, thanks to the 300-plane T-X program to replace the USAF’s supersonic T-38 trainers.

The FA-50 in particular will offer performance that competes favorably with peers like the Chinese/Pakistani JF-17, and India’s Tejas LCA. All 3 of these jets are likely to find themselves dueling for the niche once occupied by a pair of 1960s-1970s era competitors – Russia’s MiG-21s, and Northrop’s amazingly popular F-5, which still flies with the ROKAF. Both aircraft types are still flying in many air forces, and both are reaching the end of their lifespans. Hence the market opportunity. The difference is that unlike its Chinese and Indian competitors, the F/T/A-50 family’s secondary trainer role makes it attractive to 1st and 2nd world air forces as well.

Contracts & Key Events

2015

Thailand chooses T-50 over Hongdu L15;

ROKAF FA-50 fires AGM-65G Maverick
FA-50 & AGM-65G

December 2/15: The Philippine Air Force (PFA) has received the first two FA-50 Golden Eagle fighters from South Korea. 12 were ordered in 2013 in a deal between the two governments totaling $400 million. The remaining jets will be delivered in batches throughout 2017 with the first two being utilized as trainers. Weapons systems for the fighters are to be purchased later, but it is said that an Israeli firm is being looked at to meet these requirements. The purchases come at a time when the Philippines is trying to beef up its maritime and air force capabilities amid creeping expansion by China in the South China Sea.

October 27/15: The US government has put a stop to South Korean plans to sell the T-50 to Uzbekistan. The now-defunct $400 million deal would have seen a dozen KAI T-50 trainers sold to the Central Asian state, with the US reportedly fearing that Tashkent could hand over sensitive US-developed technology to Russia. The T-50 was co-developed with Lockheed Martin in the mid-2000s, with the US firm incorporating advanced technologies for several of the aircraft’s systems, including the avionics and engine.

September 18/15: Thailand has opted to buy four Korea Aerospace Industries T-50 trainer/light attack jets, with the South Korean design fending off competition from the Hongdu L15. Thailand joins South Korea, Indonesia and the Philippines as the fourth Asian state operating the T-50, with the jet also participating in Peru’s light attack aircraft competition.

June 26/15: The first of twelve Korean Aerospace Industries FA-50 fighter aircraft sold to the Philippines through a government-to-government deal with South Korea in 2013 has successfully completed its first test flight, with the first deliveries expected by December, when the Philippines will receive its first two FA-50s ahead of schedule. The full dozen should be delivered by 2017, with the Korean fighter/trainers a strategic interim as the Philippines looks ahead to acquiring more capable multi-role aircraft.

Feb 4/15: Peru.The Peru tender for about $1 billion of fighters is the next target for South Korea. The decision is supposed to happen in the second half of the year. Other expected competitors include firms from Russia, Italy and China.

2014

Philippine contract for 12 FA-50s; Export prospects; Indonesian deliveries done; Does the ROKAF need stopgap rental fighters?

Dec 14/14: Philippines. Filipino President Benigno Aquino says that the first 2 of 12 FA-50s ordered back in March are on track to be received by his country sometime in 2015, with the remaining 10 to follow by 2017. That’s a couple years later than they were aiming for when the negotiations started, but the order took about 2 years to materialize. Source: Manila Standard: “First 2 Korean jets to arrive next year”.

Dec 12/14: Brunei? Brunei Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah gave a smiling thumb up aboard an FA-50 on display at the Gimhae airport. According to South Korea’s Yonhap agency, this may be more than a photo op as an envoy from Brunei visited the headquarters of KAI in Sacheon last month. Source: Yonhap: “S. Korea’s FA-50 jet to be displayed at Busan airport”.

Oct 10/14: Weapons. The FA-50 fires an AGM-65G Maverick short-range strike missile for the first time, hitting a retired ship moored 7 km away in the East Sea (Sea of Japan). The Maverick actually has an outside range of around 20+ km, but that wasn’t what they were testing here. Sources: Chosun Ilbo, “FA-50 Fighter Jets Hit Target with Guided Missile” | Joong Ang Daily, “Air Force successfully test fires guided missile.”

July 17/14: USA The USAF experiences a flight in a ROKAF TA-50, as part of their due diligence for the coming T-X advanced trainer competition. Major-to-be Lee Seong-wook and Lieutenant Lee Kwang-won from the 16th fighter wing put the American team in the backseat of their TA-50s for 4 sorties.

The American due diligence team also visited South Korea’s Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA), 16th Fighter Wing and Logistics Command, and the 16th fighter wing’s operation and maintenance. Sources: ROK MND, “Korean Trainer Aircraft TA-50 shows its excellence”.

March 28/14: Philippines. The Philippines signs the P18.9 billion contract for 12 FA-50 jets, paid for from the P85 billion initial fund under the Revised Modernization Program of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. That’s currently $420.9 million, which is close to the $422 million at which the government starts paying the exchange risk. Let’s hope they’re hedged. The moves will give the Philippines a fighter force again, with 2 jets arriving for training and IOT&E 18 months after the Letter of Credit is “opened,” another 2 a year after that, and the last 8 by 2017. Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin had an interesting way of describing the negotiations:

“In the Philippines we have an old saying that goes like this, “Pagkahaba-haba man ng prusisyon, sa simbahan din ang tuloy. Literally, this translates to no matter how long the procession is, it still ends up in the church. What we went through these past months even years is akin to a procession: slow, tedious and full of challenges. And like a procession we knew where our destination was and why we’re doing it.”

That last sentence becomes especially interesting, in light of PAF spokesman Col. Miguel Okol’s comments to GMA News. He said “kung anong ibbiigay sa atin ngayon, we make do what is given,” while adding that the FA-50s are “a step in the right direction.” The PAF ultimately wants more advanced fighters, with full multi-role capabilities. They may find their FA-50s growing into precisely that, as the ROKAF adds more advanced weapons. Otherwise, they’ll need to be able to afford what they want. Sources: KAI, “KAI won a contract to export 12 FA-50s to the Phil” | GMA News, “PAF wants more sophisticated fighter planes, but will make do with FA-50” | Philippine Daily Inquirer, “PH acquires P23.7B-worth of fighter jets, helicopters” | The Philipiine Star, “2 contracts for purchase of fighter jets signed today” | Rappler, “PH Air Force a joke no more, gets fighter jets” | Arirang, “Korean government to sell 12 FA-50 fighter jets to Philippines”.

Philippines: 12 FA-50s

March 28/14: Exports. A post on KAI’s official blog announces the Philippine sale, and confirms that “KAI is eyeing to further exporting the T-50 variant aircraft to the U.S.A., Botswana, the U.A.E., Thailand and Peru.” Chile no longer gets a mention, but they still have a need. Sources: KAI, “KAI won a contract to export 12 FA-50s to the Phil” | KAI Fly Together Blog.

March 26/14: Fill-ins. The ROKAF needs to retire its fleets of 136 or so F-5E/F Tiger light fighters, and about 30 F-4 Phantom fighter-bombers. Meanwhile, The F-16 fleet is about to begin a major upgrade program that will keep part of that fleet out of service. The F-X-3 buy of F-35As is expected to be both late, and 20 jets short of earlier plans. The KF-X mid-level fighter project will be even later – it isn’t likely to arrive until 2025, if it arrives at all. The ROKAF is buying 60 FA-50s to help offset some of the F-5 retirements, but the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses (KIDA) sees this combination of events leaving South Korea about 80 planes short.

FA-50 deliveries only began in August 2013, and foreign FA-50 orders from Iraq and the Philippines are beginning to take up additional slots on the production line. As such, the ROKAF may be leaning toward a quicker stopgap:

“The Air Force is considering leasing used combat jets as part of ways to provide the interim defense capability because replacement of aging F-4s and F-5s wouldn’t take place in a timely manner,” a senior Air Force official said, asking for anonymity. “As midlevel combat jets are mostly in shortage, the Air Force is considering renting 16 to 20 used F-16s from the U.S. Air Force…. “The U.S. Air Force stood down some F-16s in the wake of the defense spending cut affected by the sequestration,” another Air Force official said, asking not to be named. “Under current circumstances, we can rent F-16s or buy used ones.”

It will be interesting to see if the USAF will let the ROKAF lease, or just have them buy the jets at cut-rate prices. Sources: Yonhap, “S. Korea considers F-16 lease deal to replace aging jets”.

Feb 21/14: Philippines. News reports say that the 2 sides have reached agreement, with a formal contract signing to follow in March 2014. It’s reportedly a $422 million deal for 12 FA-50s, denominated in US dollars, with the Philippine government taking the exchange risk that total costs won’t climb much above P18.9 billion. They’ve also decided to reduce spare parts purchases by $500,000, which is almost always a false economy that hurts aircraft availability. In exchange, KAI accepted a much lower down payment of 15% per Philippine law (q.v. Dec 26/13), and will take risks regarding the cost of some equipment furnished through the USA.

The first 2 FA-50s will be delivered by September 2015. Sources: Philippine Daily Inquirer, “Deal to buy 12 fighters jets from South Korea reached” | Rappler, “PH completes negotiations for 12 fighter jets” | Yonhap, “FA-50 sales to Philippines make headway, deal possible as early as March: source” | The Malay Mail, “Philippines to buy 12 South Korean fighters for US$422m”.

Indonesian T-50i
Indonesian T-50i
(click to view full)

Feb 13/14: Indonesia. KAI has completed the delivery of all 16 T-50i jets, via a series of ferry flights between September 2013 and January 2013. Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono hosts a commemoration ceremony celebrating the T-50i’s deployment at Halim Perdanakusumah Airport in Jakarta. Sources: KAI release [in Korean] | The Korea Herald, “S. Korea completes delivery of 16 T-50 trainers to Indonesia”.

Indonesian deliveries done

2013

ROKAF follow-on FA-50 buy, takes 1st FA-50 delivery; Iraq buys 24 FA-50s; Philippines pick FA-50; Loss in Poland; FA-50 potential in Indonesia; Opportunity in Taiwan?

TA-50
TA-50 drops tank
(click to view full)

Dec 26/13: Philippines. Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin says that they’ve recommended an exemption from laws that limit government contracts to 15% payment before goods are delivered, in order to allow KAI’s requested 52% down payment for FA-50 fighters. Ultimately, it will be President Aquino’s decision.

Defense Assistant Secretary Patrick Velez had more good news concerning negotiations, saying that: “We have settled the turnaround time issue. We are discussing the payment scheme” (q.v. Dec 2/13). It sounds like they’ll end up pretty close to KAI’s request payment schedule, but Velez still wouldn’t place any kind of timeline on negotiations. The issue is that any delays beyond this point are going to change the in-service date for the country’s air force, and the planned 2015 time frame is already a bit late, given Chinese pressure. Sources: The Philippine Star, “DND seeks release of funds to buy Korean fighter jets”.

Dec 20/13: Poland. Poland’s MON picks the M-346 as its next jet trainer. The package includes 8 planes + 4 options, along with simulators and other training systems, spares, and technical support.

Even though the M-346 was the only finalist without certified dual-role capability, Alenia (PZL 1.167 billion / $377.1 million) was the only contender to submit an offer within the MON’s PZL 1.2 billion budget. BAE’s Hawk T2 LIFT (PZL 1.754 billion/ $566 million) and KAI/Lockheed’s T-50 (PZL 1.802 billion/ $582 million) did not fit, and consideration of lifetime costs wasn’t enough to save them from disqualification. Read full coverage at: “Poland’s New Advanced Jet Trainer: M-346 Wins“.

Loss in Poland

Dec 12/13: FA-50. Iraq signs a $1.1 billion deal to buy 24 T-50IQ light fighters, which Korean news agencies cite as an FA-50 variant. The price works out to about $46 million per plane, but it necessarily includes added costs like initial training infrastructure. If the Iraqis have learned anything from their other programs, it will also include a solid initial supply of spare parts. KAI expects a 25-year, $1 billion T-50IQ support deal to follow shortly.

These “T-50IQs” will apparently serve double duty: as the IqAF’s advanced jet trainers once pilots graduate from T-6B turboprops, and as a backup fighter force. The deal is a big save for KAI, as Iraqi interest in the TA-50 armed trainer had apparently waned in favor of the Czech L-159T. Increased instability in the region may have helped revive their interest, as it will take more than the IqAF’s 36 ordered F-16IQs to provide even reasonable airspace control. A supersonic “F-16 lite” provides Iraq with better air defense, though it may come at the cost of some counterinsurgency strike performance relative to the L-159. KAI is quoted giving a delivery window of 2015 – 2016, while Reuters cites April 2016 – 2017.

Note that the Yonhap article has a key error. The plane exported to Indonesia, Peru & Turkey is KAI’s KO-1/KT-1 turboprop trainer and counterinsurgency aircraft, not the T-50 family. The T-50 family has been exported to Indonesia, and the Philippines is negotiating. KAI hopes that the breakthrough in Iraq may trigger interest elsewhere in the Middle East. Perhaps it will re-open the UAE’s 48-plane armed trainer pick, which has been stalled since 2009. Sources: KAI, “KAI has signed the contract with Iraq for exporting T-50 supersonic advanced jet trainer & light attack” | Korea Times, “Korea exports 24 attack jets to Iraq” | Reuters, “S.Korea’s KAI sells fighter jets worth $1.1 billion to Iraq” | Yonhap, “S. Korea to export 24 FA-50 light attackers to Iraq”.

Iraq: 24 FA-50s

Dec 2/13: Philippines. As China places growing pressure on the Philippines and Korea alike over territorial claims, TA-50/ FA-50 negotiations drag on and actual fielding of useful jets is farther and farther away. The issues seem to be substantive, however, rather than bureaucratic. South Korea wants a 52% down payment of PHP 9.8 billion ($224.25 million). The budgeted funds involved 15% down, which is apparently tied to government contracting laws rather than a different self-evaluation of customer risk. The 2nd issue reportedly concerns delivery times for spares under the support contract. South Korea wants a much longer delivery time.

Philippine Defense Undersecretary for Finance Fernando Manalo says that they’re preparing a “firm position” for submission to KAI, who have to decide whether they’ll accept it. If not, however, the Philippines’ alternatives are sparse. India’s Tejas isn’t ready, and the Chinese/Pakistani JF-17 is out of the question. They could take on the risk of old, high flight hours, early-block F-16s from the USA. Or, they could seek to buy refurbished Israeli Kfir C10s for less money, if Israel is willing cross China by selling them. Meanwhile, they’ll remain helpless against Chinese aerial provocations. Sources: Rapler, “‘Major issues’ with South Korea delay PH fighter jets”.

Nov 13/13: Taiwan? Submarines remain high on Taiwan’s agenda, but they aren’t the only items. The ROCAF plans to go outside the USA entirely for its new jet trainer, but replacements for the AIDC AT-3 Tzu Chung have been canceled before. The last AT-3 was delivered in 1990, but South Korea’s T-50 family is reportedly quite tempting.

Taiwan needs to grow its fighter fleet, and a TA-50 sale would also provide Taiwan with a local interceptor and light attack jet. China has been antagonizing South Korea lately, and a TA-50 sale would certainly provide a diplomatically painful riposte. Sources: Defense News, “Taiwan Still Hungry for More US Arms”.

Oct 28/13: KF-X shrunk? Aviation Week reports that KAI has responded to the KF-X’s program’s stall with a smaller, single-engine “KFX-E/ C501” design that uses the F-35-style C103 design as a base, and proposes to reuse some systems from the FA-50. South Korea’s subsequent decision to short-circuit a competition in favor of Lockheed Martin’s F-35A fighter means that the T-50 partner is also committed to helping with KF-X, and efforts to move the delivery date earlier will add impetus to plans that reuse existing technologies. Read “KF-X Fighter: Pushing Paper, or Peer Program?” for full coverage.

Oct 22/13: Poland. President Park Geun-hye and President Bronislaw Komorowski signed a cooperation pact in Seoul, spanning issues from defense to trade and energy. President Park pitched T-50 trainers as well as submarines. Her counterpart sounded somewhat noncommittal, as the AJT competition remains open at least until early 2014.

Oct 17-21/13: Philippines. For her first state visit at home since her election, President Park received Filipino President Benigno S. Aquino III to discuss several bilateral agreements, including defense cooperation. The phrasing of her official statement implies that a contract for FA-50 aircraft has not been signed yet, but a Memorandum of Understanding has. So much for a deal signed by July (q.v. Jan 30/13).

The MoU request is confirmed at 12 jets, backed by a budget set aside of close to PHP 19 billion (about $440.5 million). After the official visit, the Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper reported that China had pressured South Korea not to sell the planes. This was officially denied by the South Korean government, but confirmed by anonymous government officials. China and the Philippines have unresolved territorial disputes in the South China Sea, in that section the Philippines calls the West Philippine Sea. Sources: ROK President | Chosun Ilbo.

Sept 10/13: Indonesia. The first 2 T-50i jets take off from Sacheon airfield in Korea, en route to Indonesia. Their trip will take it to Gaishung, Taiwan; Cebu, Philippines; and Spinggan, Indonesia; before arriving at its future home base of Ishuwahyudi, Indonesia. Source: ROK MND | KAI release, Sept 10/13.

June 28/13: T-50i cert. The T-50i receives its military type certificate through the South Korean Government’s airworthiness authority committee, which is chaired by the DAPA defense procurement agency’s bureau of analysis and evaluation, MACA (Military Airworthiness Certification Authority).

KAI adds that 6 pilots from the Indonesian Air Force have been training since February 2013 with the T-50 and TA-50, accompanied by Indonesian ground maintenance crews. T-50i deliveries are expected to begin in September 2013, with all 16 delivered within the first half of 2014. Source: KAI release, June 28/13.

T-50i military type cert

Aug 20/13: FA-50. KAI delivers the 1st FA-50 fighter to the ROKAF, with another 60 due for delivery by 2016 to replace about 120 Vietnam-era F-5E/F Tiger II fighters. KAI sees a bright future in Asia, where IHS projects that defense budgets will increase beyond by 35% from 2013 – 2021.

Park Jeong-soo and other KAI officials say they aim to sell about 1,000 T-50 family planes by 2040 or so, but even factoring in Asian growth, their success or failure in the USA’s 300 plane T-X requirement will play a huge role in whether or not they achieve it. Source: Reuters, “South Korea targets growing Asian defence market with fighter jets”

TA-50 delivered

June 19/13: Indonesia. KAI representatives at the 50th Paris Air Show tell Flight Global that Indonesia will receive its full complement of 16 T-50i jet trainers (q.v. May 25/11) between September 2013 – February 2014. They’re also pursuing a deal for 12 FA-50 light fighters, which would replace the TNI-AU’s F-5s. Flight Global.

May 7/13: FA-50s. KAI borrows the people who seem to write most of the technical manuals for consumer electronics, in order to describe the 1.1 trillion won (about $1.02 billion) ROKAF contract for full rate production of the FA-50. Based on our translation of their English translation, KAI seems to be saying that follow-on FA-50s will begin arriving in August 2013, and that production will continue into 2016. This timeline fits previous reports, and implies that KAI has been doing advance production work.

KAI’s writers wouldn’t be faithful to the spirit of those technical manuals if they didn’t leave out important information, so they made sure to leave out the number of planes bought. The ROKAF ordered 20 FA-50s in December 2011, and was slated to order another 40-110 as the follow-on. Given the contract funding, and expected costs, it appears that the ROKAF has ordered another 40 FA-50s, at around $25.5 million per plane. Subsequent reports confirm it.

You’re denying yourself one of life’s guilty pleasures if you don’t read the original KAI release in all its glory. See also: UPI.

ROKAF: 40 FA-50s

March 6/13: Philippines. The Zamboanga City Times reports that the country’s Government Procurement Policy Board (GPPB) has only just given the go-ahead to draw up a Terms of Reference document, in advance of a government-to-government deal for 12 FA-50 fighters.

The document will define what has to be achieved; stakeholders, roles and responsibilities; resource, financial and quality plans; work breakdown structure and schedule; and success factors/risks. That isn’t a small job, yet the official line is that the TOR will be done and negotiations held by the end of 2013, which aircraft flying within about 2 years – or about a decade after they retired the F-5s in 2005. It’s possible, but both of those dates seem optimistic at best.

Jan 30/13: Philippines. Agence France Presse reports that the Philippines is headed into negotiations with KAI in February 2013, and expects to have a deal by July. Their jets won’t arrive until 2015.

The big question is, which jets they will be? AFP and Flight International report that they’ll be FA-50 fighter variants, rather than the TA-50 armed trainers. If the PAF technical team mentioned in the Oct 29/12 entry came back with unsatisfactory answers about the TA-50, KAI’s FA-50 is the logical next option. Close parsing of the public statements made by Presidential spokesperson Edwin Lacierda and Defense Assistant Secretary Patrick Velez don’t provide direct confirmation. FA-50s will be more expensive, however, making TA-50s a potential fallback option in negotiations. Nothing is final yet, and we’ll only know the answer when the deal is done.

Postscript: Manila Channel wins the award for media confusion, by posting a graphic of Russia’s developmental T50 stealth fighter in their story. Uh, guys, these aren’t the fighter jets you’re looking for. Chosun Ilbo | Manila Channel | Manila’s Sun Star | Bloomberg | Flight International.

2012

ROKAF orders 1st FA-50s; Philippines picks TA-50? KAI privatization fails.

Building T-50s
T-50 line
(click to view full)

October 2012: FA-50. The FA-50 gets South Korean type certification. Source.

Oct 29/12: Philippines. The Philippine Star says that a PAF technical team is investigating whether the TA-50 can deliver “medium range missiles”, and the quality of its radar system. If the country decides to remain on course for a competition, these questions will become more important.

Radars are important to surveillance as well as air superiority, and the Philippines needs both. South Korea has a partnership with IAI for its EL/M-2032 radar, which includes surface scan capabilities, on the FA-50; will the Philippines pay for that? Beyond the radar, the term “medium range missile” is very ambiguous. TA-50s can deliver AGM-65 Maverick short-range strike missiles or AIM-9 Sidewinder short range air-to-air missiles, but they would require additional integration to deliver a medium range anti-ship weapon like an American AGM-154C JSOW glide bomb, an anti-ship missile like the AGM-84 Harpoon, or a medium-range air-to-air missile like the AIM-120 AMRAAM.

Oct 28/12: Philippines. The Philippine Star reports that their buy is becoming a competition again:

“The Philippine Air Force (PAF)’s planned acquisition of lead-in fighter jets from South Korea or any friendly state may take longer than expected after it was decided that the multi-billion peso defense procurement will be bid out instead of the government entering into a government-to-government deal.”

That changes Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin’s June announcement of a TA-50 buy from South Korea, with deliveries expected to begin in 2013. Philippine media report that the offer of 12 jets would include a soft loan of $560 million from South Korea’s Economic Development Cooperation Fund, disbursed through the Export-Import Bank of Korea.

Aug 31/12: KAI Privatization fails. Korean Air Lines Co. is the only bidder to register by the extended deadline, but rules governing sales by government entities require at least 2 bids.

Korean Air generated 3.3% of revenue making plane parts in 2011, and has tried to buy into KAI before. Beyond stepped up Korean orders for T-50 jets and Surion helicopters, KAI is also makes civil and military parts for Boeing, and is building a new plant to make Airbus A320 wing components under a $1.2 billion deal signed in March 2012. Bloomberg.

Privatization

Aug 6/12: KAI privatization crashing. The government wants to privatize KAI, but finding a bidder has been difficult, and it looks like they’re about to fail on the Aug 16/12 deadline.

The government and its Korea Finance Corporation (KoFC) wanted to sell 41.75% of KAI via a publicly opened bid, which includes 11.4% of KoFC’s 26.41%, and shares owned by Samsung Techwin (10%), Hyundai Motor (10%), Doosan (10%), and KDB Bank (0.34%). The bid terms require at least 2 competing bidders, but as the JoongAng Daily explains, all of the major South Korean firms who could afford such a bid have other priorities. The asking price is also perceived to be high, and the market is reinforcing that by driving down KAI’s share price in anticipation of a failure to privatize it. Now political opposition to privatization is also growing, which could be the final nail in the coffin.

Aug 2/12: Philippines pick. The Philippines DND’s undersecretary for finance, munitions, installations and materiel, Fernando Manalo, makes the country’s choice official: KAI’s T-50s. Chinese bullying in the West Philippine Sea around Scarborough Shoal played a significant role in pushing them toward a more capable fighter, which would remove the M-346 from contention. Meanwhile, used F-16s were seen as too expensive to operate, with little airframe life left.

The problem is that without an approved modernization budget, the armed forces can’t sign a contract. If the country does sign a contract by the end of 2012, they want 2 of the Golden Eagles to be delivered immediately, so that their pilots will be trained by the time the other 10 arrive in 2015. Manilla Bulletin | Manilla Standard Today.

June 20/12: Philippine buy? ABS-CBN news of the Philippines quotes Philippine air force officials as saying they will buy 12 TA-50s, in order to restore the air force’s ability to police Philippine airspace.

That ability was lost when the country retired its remaining F-5 aircraft in 2005, and the USA no longer bases fighters at Clark AB or USNB Subic Bay. Chinese violations of Philippine airspace and claimed maritime zones have been creating a lot of tension, and the country has been looking at its options for a couple of years now. Their efforts have involved requests for 12 used American F-16s, as well as examination of KAI’s TA-50 and Alenia’s M-346 Master. The M-346 doesn’t have an armed version yet, and the USA hasn’t issued a formal DSCA clearance yet. That leaves the TA-50 as its only approved option that can be bought right now.

The TA-50 deal is reportedly worth around 25 billion pesos (about $590 million), with a contract expected by the end of 2012. All 12 fighter jets are expected to be delivered by the end of 2013. If so, the Philippines would join its neighbor Indonesia as a TA-50 customer.

A 2nd contract for 6 fixed-wing aircraft is expected to replace the country’s OV-10 Bronco counter-insurgency planes, and designs from the USA (likely the AT-6B), Brazil (Super Tucano), and Korea (likely the KT-1) are expected to compete. Given the TA-50’s 2-seat design and ability to use laser-guided weapons, another possibility would be to add options to any TA-50 contract, and use it in both roles. This would be less effective for counter-insurgency, or as an intermediate trainer, but contribute more to airspace policing and defense. It depends where the country’s priorities lie at the time, and external events are unstable enough to change them. Philippines’ ABS-CBN | ABS-CBN re: 2nd buy | South Korea’s Yonhap.

May 16/12: Philippines. Philippine President Benigno Aquino says that his government had asked to buy second-hand F-16s from the USA, but is concerned that maintenance costs on these aging aircraft could end up being too high. This was the problem that forced the country to mothball its F-5 force in 2005, but it seems there is good news. From the AFP report:

“We do have an alternative, and – this is a surprise – it seems we have the capacity to buy brand-new, but not from America… These are manufactured by another progressive country that I won’t name at this point.”

Feb 17/12: US T-X delayed. The USAF confirms that it won’t make a T-X selection until 2016, and doesn’t expect initial operational capability for its new trainers until 2020. Until then, they will continue to use 2-seat F-16Ds to bridge the gap from T-38 trainers, to the F-22A and F-35. Flight International.

Feb 16/12: Israel. The T-50 loses to Alenia’s M-346, as the preferred bidder to stock IAI & Elbit’s TOR public-private joint training venture. Governmental approval is required, and a contract award for 30 planes is expected later in 2012. If the expected billion-dollar contract is signed, deliveries would be expected to begin in the middle of 2014. In return, Italy is rumored to have pledged to buy an equivalent amount of equipment from Israel: IAI’s CAEW 550 AEW&C jets, and a new jointly-developed reconnaissance satellite.

Those contracts were signed in July 2012. Until now, South Korea has been buying a lot of defense gear from Israel. The question is whether that will continue. Read “Trainer Jets for Israel: From the Skyhawk, to the Master” for full coverage.

Israel loss

Feb 11/12: International training. South Korea’s Yonhap news agency quotes an unidentified defense ministry source who said that Portugal has become the preferred partner for a WON 300 billion (about $267 million) T-50 International Military Flight Training Center Consortium (IMFACC). A Memorandum of Understanding might be reached as early as March 2012.

If Portugal wins, they will have beaten potential sites in the USA, Australia, the Philippines and Spain. IMFACC will be a training center for international customers like Indonesia, as well as South Korean pilots who need to be free of flight time restrictions in their own, crowded country. Portugal has large over-water territories to facilitate flight training, and offers a more central location than Australia or the Philippines.

Feb 7/12: FA-50 radars? IAI reveals a $150 million order from an unnamed customer for its EL/M-2032 fighter radar, from an unnamed customer. A Globes report places the customer within Asia, and the timing is one of several factors that suggests a South Korean order.

Read “IAI’s $150M EL/M-2032 Radar Contract Mystery” for full coverage. It includes a survey of potential Asian customers, and the other likely candidate for this order.

Feb 3/12: US T-X. Asia One reports that recent announcements of US budget cuts are expected to affect the T-50, as the USA’s cornerstone T-X program looks set to be delayed:

“The US is by far the largest market for KAI, which hopes to sell at least 350 units to it. But it has deferred its decision on whether to acquire new trainer jets or develop them on its own, or turn their old fighters into trainer aircraft. The so-called T-X project is expected to be further delayed given the US defence cuts. Experts have estimated that the global demand for trainer jets and light fighters over the next three decades will amount to around 3,300 units. KAI aims to export around 1,000 units during that period.”

2011

FA-50 order; Indonesia is T-50’s 1st export customer; TA-50 rollout; Polish do-over; Israeli competition; KAI IPO.

FA-50
FA-50 prototype
(click to view full)

Dec 28/11: FA-50. Korea Aerospace Industries signs a 20-plane, $600 million FA-50 production contract with DAPA, bringing total T-50 family orders to 102 planes. This is a follow-on to the December 2008 development contract, which produced 4 prototype and test aircraft. Deliveries to the ROKAF are expected to begin in 2014.

South Korean orders could eventually swell to over 100 FA-50s, as the ROKAF seeks to replace its F-5E/Fs. This could also help in competitions like Poland’s, by broadening KAI’s in-production T-50 family technology options. KAI | Flight International.

ROKAF: 20 FA-50s

Nov 22/11: AESA for KF-16s? Raytheon declares that it is “responding to the Republic of Korea’s official launch of the F-16 radar upgrade competition with the Raytheon Advanced Combat Radar system (RACR).” RACR is designed as a drop-in AESA radar for F-16 fighters, and is based on the technologies in the AN/APG-79 radar that equips US Navy Super Hornets.

No word yet on other competitors, but any KF-16 AESA upgrade could break a technology logjam for the FA-50 as well.

Oct 28/11: Poland. Poland steps back from its existing trainer & light fighter RFP, and says it will re-do the competition. They seem to have been surprised at the cost of meeting their previous specifications, and will opt for a trainer with lower combat capabilities in the next round. That means the new jets won’t really be able to replace their SU-22s, but it also means that, in the words of deputy defense minister Marcin Idzik, Poland won’t “be the sole country to acquire such an [aircraft as we had requested].” This implies that even the TA-50, which looked to have good odds of winning the bid, was insufficient.

The new RFP is expected in spring 2012. Read “Poland Seeks Advanced Jet Trainers/ Light Fighters” for full coverage.

Oct 10/11: Israel. The Jerusalem Post reports that KAI has formally partnered with Lockheed Martin in its bid to sell T-50 trainers to Israel, citing the advantage of being able to use American military aid funds. That possibility has been a live option since September, but this makes it official.

In Israel, KAI is once again competing against Alenia’s M-346 Master. Italy has reportedly made an interesting barter offer, and the 2 countries built close ties under Prime Minister Berlusconi. Israel’s final choice will be a significant geopolitical decision – read “Trainer Jets for Israel: Skyhawk Scandal Leads to End of an Era” for a full explanation, and ongoing coverage.

Sept 15/11: US FACO? The Korea Herald reports that Lockheed Martin is setting up a T-50 final assembly and check-out (FACO) plant in the USA. That makes perfect sense as it competes for the USA’s pending T-X trainer competition, and it also affects Israel’s buy. If the T-50 series can be considered an American product, that means Israel could buy it with American foreign aid dollars. The M-346 is unlikely to be able to offer that, which would give the Korean jet a significant edge.

The existing T-50 Golden Eagle contract reportedly states that KAI takes 70% percent of the production work, while Lockheed takes the rest. The firms would not address speculation that this ratio might be adjusted for the US T-X and /or Israeli competitions.

June 2011: Iraq. Jane’s Defence Weekly reports that the Iraqis may have made an oil-for-aircraft deal to buy Korean T-50 family jet trainers, some of which could also serve as effective light fighters. If so, this indicates serious budget issues, and makes the reported deal for Aero Vodochody L159T jet trainers questionable. Will the L-159’s potential Iraq deal become yet another canceled Czech?

As of Jan 5/12, however, no public announcement had been made regarding either platform.

May 26/11: KAI IPO. If KAI seemed to jump the gun on the Indonesia announcement, there may be a clear motive. The Korea Exchange has just approved an IPO for the firm to go public, which is expected to raise around $525 million in cash for the firm. Announcing the sale just ahead of that approval is permissible, and has the effect of boosting the expected asking price. Woori Investment & Securities, and Hyundai Securities, will manage the deal. Reuters | Wall St. Journal.

KAI IPO

T-50
T-50: takeoff
(click to view full)

May 25/11: Indonesia win. Well, that was fast. KAI executive VP Enes Park is quoted as saying that the Indonesian Defense Ministry signed a $400 million deal for 16 jets – or $25 million per plane, which is not the deep discount deal touted earlier. Aviation Week says that the contract reportedly involves a T-50 with a gun and weapon pylons (i.e. TA-50), though the actual designation is T-50I.

The planes will replace about 10 Hawk Mk.53 subsonic trainers, and may also supplement or replace the TNI-AU’s 5-6 remaining F-5E/F fighters. Read “Indonesia Looking for Trainer/Attack Aircraft” for full coverage.

May 20/11: Indonesia win? In the wake of an ROK-Indonesian agreement to expand economic and industrial cooperation via a joint secretariat, and reports that KAI has been designated as Indonesia’s preferred trainer jet bidder, Indonesia’s Amir Sambodo suggests that Indonesia might buy 16 T-50 family jets, in exchange for 4 or more additional CN-235 aircraft bought from Indonesia’s Dirgantara. Read “Indonesia Looking for Trainer/Attack Aircraft” for full coverage.

April 12/11: Indonesia. The Indonesian government sends a letter to KAI, designating the South Korean firm as the preferred bidder to replace Indonesia’s BAE Systems Hawk 53s. Source.

Indonesia is 1st export win: 16 “T-50i” TA-50s.

Feb 24/11: UAE stall. Flight International reports that M346 negotiations between the UAE and Alenia Aermacchi have stopped, with no word on when they might resume. Having said that:

“The door appears to remain closed to KAI and the T-50, with officials from the South Korean company agreeing. “Obviously, we would love to get back into the competition and offer the T-50. But we have not had any discussions with the UAE officials about the T-50 since they picked the M-346, and we are not expecting that to change any time soon,” says a KAI official.”

That quote would seem to contradict recent reports by UPI and Defense News, which said that the UAE had re-opened talks.

Jan 24/11: TA-50 rollout. South Korea rolls out the first production TA-50 variant, with light attack capabilities. The TA-50s will mostly be used to train new military pilots on air-to-air and air-to-surface missions before they deploy to KF-16s or F-15Ks, but they can also perform combat missions themselves as secondary air patrol or ground attack assets, and could be asked to do that in the event of a war.

South Korean media report that TA-50 deliveries will continue until 2012, to be followed by full F/A-50 fighters from 2013 onward. KAI | Korea Herald | idomin [in Korean, picture]

TA-50

2010

50th T-50 delivery; SFW bombs for FA-50s; Singapore loss; Iraq stall.

M346
Alenia’s M346
(click to view full)

Oct 25/10: Iraq Czeched? Prague Monitor and Iraq Business report that the Czech Republic might sell up to 25 used Aero L-159s to Iraq. Iraq has been holding a competition for 24 jet trainers between Korea’s T-50, the UK’s Hawk, and Italy’s M-346.

If the L-159 has become a focus, rather than just a competitor, it’s likely that the price of new jet trainers was too high, given other pressing needs – and that Iraq is now looking at value over newness. Time will tell.

Sept 28/10: Singapore loss. Rumors of a loss in Singapore are confirmed, via a EUR 250 million contract to supply Singapore with 12 M-346 trainers and related systems. The win comes via Alenia’s global marketing agreement with Boeing, who already supplies Singapore’s new F-15SG fighters. Read “Finmeccanica’s M-346 AJT: Who’s the Master Now?” for full coverage.

Singapore loss

Sept 2/10: Poland RFP. Poland’s Ministry of Defense (MON) issues its jet trainer RFP for 16 planes, plus support, related training systems like simulators; and initial training for 6 instructors, 6 pilots, and 50 ground crew. 1.45 billion zlotys (about $467 million) has been budgeted, and the T-50 is a contender.

Aug 9/10: Indonesia finalists. Air Forces Monthly reports that Indonesia’s Defense Acquisition Program Administration has narrowed its 16 plane advanced jet trainer and light attack aircraft shortlist to the Czech Aero L-159B, South Korea’s T-50 Golden Eagle, and Russia’s Yak-130.

That leaves both Alenia’s M346 Master and China’s JL-9/FTC-2000 out in the cold. Interestingly, the common denominator for the 2 eliminated types is poor secondary ground attack capabilities.

July 1/10: Singapore loss? Defense News reports that Singapore’s government has selected Alenia Aermacchi’s M-346 as the preferred bidder in its $1.3 billion competition for 48 advanced jet trainers. Aermacchi teamed up with Singapore’s ST Aero to compete against the KAI-Lockheed team, with Boeing providing the ground-based training system to support the M-346.

Singapore’s MINDEF has not made its decision public, and neither KAI, nor Aermacchi, nor South Korea’s Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) procurement and export agency could confirm the tip. The report adds that the UAE’s M346 deal remains in limbo over a side deal to develop UAVs together, which may give the T-50 an opening. Singapore’s loss in particular is a sharp blow to the platform, however, and may set other events in motion – including privatization:

“The state-owned Korea Development Bank (KDB) announced in April 2009 that it would sell its 30.5 percent stake in KAI, which has three other major local shareholders – Samsung Techwin, Doosan Infracore and Hyundai Motors, each with a 20.54 percent stake. But KDB temporarily withdrew from its decision in the face of opposition from KAI’s labor union, which argued that the privatization effort could hurt overseas sales of the T-50… Earlier this year, a KoFC(Korea Finance Corp.) official said, “If KAI fails to sell the T-50 to Singapore, discussions of the KAI privatization would certainly be resurfaced. Our position will be re-established after that.”

See also the official SAF cyberpioneer’s articles covering the BAE Hawk, Alenia M346, and KAI T-50.

May 12/10: #50. The ROKAF holds a ceremony to celebrate the delivery of the 50th T-50 jet, which completes the RKAF’s orders for that variant.

The Korea Herald reports that the T-50 project had cost WON 2.2 trillion ($1.9 billion) on the T-50 project as of 1997, with training beginning in April 2007. The jet has been used to train 190 pilots so far. KAI | Korea Herald.

Last ROKAF T-50

April 6/10: SFW for FA-50s. Textron Defense System announces that the ROKAF will integrate their Sensor Fuzed Weapon (SFW) smart cluster bombs on the FA-50 light combat aircraft. Through a foreign military sale led by the Eglin Air Force Base Air Armament Center and the Defense Acquisition Program Administration of South Korea, Textron Defense Systems expects to begin providing inert integration rounds starting in 2010.

2009

ROKAF’s Black Eagles switch; UAE loss; IAI EL/M-2032 radar & Elisra ECM for FA-50; M61 20mm gun contract.

T-50B
Black Eagles T-50B
(click to view full)

Oct 29/09: AESA offered. Flight International reports that Raytheon officials are touting their RACR model AESA radar for the F/A-50 at the 2009 Seoul air show. Northrop Grumman’s similar SABR radar, which has been designed to compete with RACR in the F-16 retrofit market, is another possibility. Buying an American radar would step around the provisions that F/A-50 source code may not be shared with other countries; whether it would also overcome the agreements’ other obstacles remains to be seen.

Sept 23/09: EL/M2-2032 radar deal. Israel Aerospace Industries announces a $280 million pair of contracts with South Korea, one of which covers EL/M-2032 radars for the TA-50 and FA-50 fighters. The fighter radar will be co-produced by IAI ELTA and South Korea’s LIG Nex1.

The other order reportedly involves Israel’s Oren Yarok (“Green Pine”) long-range air defense and missile tracking radar. Earlier discussions had revolved around figures of about $215 million for 2 Green Pine radar systems, and current reports offer a figure of $200 million for an undisclosed number of systems. The low number of TA-50 and F/A-50 fighter orders at this early stage of their development, and the EL/M-2032 fighter radar’s low R&D needs given its mature state, makes those figures plausible in the absence of a detailed breakout between the 2 contracts. Globes adds that IAI’s usual contract policies involve a down payment of 25-35%, suggesting that it will record $70-98 million revenue from these contracts in its consolidated financial report for 2009.

The release and follow-on reports do not mention South Korea’s KF-16s, which are also slated for a radar upgrade. IAI release | Globes business | Agence France Presse | Flight International.

M-2032 radar deal

Sept 21/09: Israel. Flight International reports that Alenia Aermacchi’s M-346 Master and the Korea Aerospace Industries/Lockheed Martin T-50 have emerged as the leading candidates to replace the Israeli Cheyl Ha’avir’s TA-4 Skyhawk advanced jet trainers. See also full DID coverage: “Israel’s Skyhawk Scandal Leads to End of an Era.”

Aug 2/09: Israel. As reports of Israeli radar cooperation to equip KAI’s TA-50 and FA-50s swirl around the media, Israel has sent a formal delegation to evaluate and test-fly the T-50 as a potential replacement for its Skyhawks. This is the first time in 40 years that Israel is considering purchasing a fighter jet not made either locally, or in the United States.

Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz reports that other candidates include the T-45 Hawk variant, and Alenia’s M-346. Media reports currently cite the T-50 family as the front-runners for the 20-30 plane Lead-In Fighter Trainer order. Read “Trainer Jets for Israel: Skyhawk Scandal Leads to End of an Era” for ongoing coverage.

July 23/09: IAI radar. The Korea Times reports that South Korea’s LIG Nex1 will sign a deal with Israel’s IAI Elta Systems on Sept 3/09. That deal will involve the first phase of development for an indigenous radar based on the EL/M-2032 passive phased array radar, to equip TA-50 and F/A-50 aircraft. The radar’s back end ends up being a SamsungThales project.

An official from the ROK’s DAPA procurement agency told the Times that the radar is expected to be built by the end of 2010, and enter service in 2011. In the mid- to long-term, sources told The Kora Times that the domestically-built radar is likely to be installed on upgraded KF-16 fighters. The Times adds that the effort may even lead to Korean development of an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar under future agreements with IAI Elta, who has also developed the EL/M-2052 AESA.

The South Korean Air Force is buying 50 T-50 trainers, 22 TA-50s with secondary attack capabilities, and 10 T-50Bs modified for aerobatics; and is expected to add 60 F/A-50 light fighters by 2012 to replace its F-5 Tiger and F-4 Phantom fighters.

April 30/09: Black Eagles switch. The ROKAF’s Black Eagles acrobatic flight display team retired its Cessna A-37 Dragonflys after the 2009 Seoul Air Show. The ROKAF announces that they will re-debut with a fleet of 8 T-50B Golden Eagles at Seoul’s international air show in October 2009. Note that the final Black Eagle paint scheme ended up being different than the initial scheme depicted in the photo, above.

This will make the Black Eagles one of the few air force aerobatic teams to use locally designed and manufactured supersonic aircraft, alongside the USA’s Thunderbirds (F-16) and Blue Angels (F/A-18), Russia’s Swifts (MiG-29) and Knights (SU-27), and China’s 1st Aerobatic Team (J-10s). Defense News.

Black Eagles fly T-50B

March 15/09: UAE post-mortem. The Korea Times cites an upcoming $500 million competition in Singapore between the Aermacchi M346 and KAI’s T-50, while delving into some of the reasons behind the recent UAE loss:

“The government’s role is much bigger than it appears in this kind of competition,” [the military analyst] said. “And what the Korean government did in the UAE is, to be frank, far from [adequate].” Italy, which had developed close ties with Middle Eastern countries over the years, rolled out marketing promotions there with pledges of large industrial cooperation projects, including construction of an F-1 racing track… [in contrast] None of the Korean projects have been delivered to Abu Dhabi through a ministerial channel.

When National Assembly Speaker Rep. Kim Hyeong-o visited the UAE in January, he heard from Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi and Deputy Supreme Commander of the UAE Armed Forces, that the preferred bidder will be “decided upon industrial cooperation offered, as well as the trainer jet quality.” He remarked that the country hadn’t heard anything from Seoul for nine months… To make matters worse, Seoul didn’t even take the opportunity of a last chance from Abu Dhabi, after the Korean delegation failed to make it to February’s International Defense Exhibition & Conference held there, where UAE was awaiting a new offer.”

March 12/09: Price problem? The Korea Times publishes an article that wonders if the T-50’s supersonic speed has created a price handicap:

“Although the UAE acknowledged the T-50 has remarkably high quality, the country apparently put more value on cooperative projects in the aerospace industry that the Italian side pledged,” the Ministry of Knowledge Economy said in a statement, which also pointed out a disadvantage in price. A T-50 jet’s flyaway cost is set at 20 billion won to 25 billion won ($13.5 – $16.9 million), while the M-346 costs 18 billion won to 20 billion won.” [$12.15 – $13.5 million]

DID’s take? Advanced jet training does focus on in-air operation, take-off and landing, and blind flying, with secondary weapons training opportunities. Within those constraints, the price of supersonic flight may not be seen as worthwhile. What the capability does, is give the T-50 family a full secondary fighter role that goes beyond the traditional “secondary light ground attack” role for trainers. The ultimate question for the market to answer is how much it values that capability, in an era of shrinking defense budgets that create stronger demands for multi-role platforms, as well as closer attention to costs.

Feb 25/09: UAE setback. At IDEX 2009, the UAE announces that it has begun negotiations for 48 M-346 aircraft from Finmeccanica’s Aermacchi. If the EUR 1 billion deal is finalized, the T/A-50 will have lost this export competition.

Feb 24/09: Iraq. Iraq officially requests T-50 jets, even as Iraq and the ROK sign economic agreements to develop oil fields near Basra, and open Iraqi public infrastructure contracts to South Korean firms. For full details and updates, read “T/A-50 Golden Eagles for Iraq?

Feb 11/09: Elisra ECM for FA-50. Flight International reports that Israel’s Elisra will supply the F/A-50’s electronic warfare and self-protection equipment, under an initial contract worth $7 million for the initial 4 prototypes. The equipment will be supplied over the next 2 years, and “Elisra sources indicate that the selected EW system will include radar warning receivers and chaff and flare dispensers.”

This contract involves the adaptation of proven systems, rather than a new design. The joint Elbit systems (70%)/ IAI (30%) venture Elisra already makes the self-protection systems that equip many of the IAF’s F-16s.

Jan 15/09: Iraq. South Korea’s Yonhap news agency and the World Tribune both file reports concerning Iraqi Defense Minister Abdul-Qader al-Obeidi’s ongoing visit to South Korea, which included inspection and a test flight of the T-50. South Korea sent a 3,600-strong contingent to the northern Iraqi city of Irbil in September 2004 as part of the U.S.-led forces, and a total of 18,000 South Korean troops served in rotation around northern Iraq until 2008.

DJ Elliott of the Long War Journal says that the T/A-50 was suggested in fall 2007 to the Iraqi Ministry of Defense by MNSTC-I’s Coalition Air Force Transition Team. Iraq’s pending trainer aircraft purchase appears to be Hawker Beechcraft’s T-6 Texan II, but a jet trainer is required as an interim step between the T-6 and more advanced planes like the F-16s Iraq is requesting. If Iraq begins with T/A-50s, however, they would also become the new IqAF’s first jet fighters, and give Iraq qualitative parity with many of the fighters currently flown by its semi-hostile neighbors Syria and Iran.

Read “T/A-50 Golden Eagles for Iraq?” for more.

Jan 12/09: M61. General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products announces a contract by Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) for up to 82 of its 3-barreled M61 20mm cannons that will equip the TA-50 and FA-50 variants. Price was not disclosed, but deliveries will begin in October 2010. By May 2013, there are enough orders to account for all guns.

Manufacturing will be performed at General Dynamics’ Saco, ME, facility, and the program will be managed by General Dynamics’ Burlington, VT facility. S&T Dynamics, LTD of South Korea is the designated Korean Industry Partner (KIP) for the program, and they will produce the ammunition containers under a subcontract arrangement with General Dynamics.

Jan 8/09: Poland. The Korea Times reports that Vice Defense Minister Kim Jong-cheon will visit Poland later from Jan 19-23, and that his agenda includes a push for the T-50 trainer. The jets may have very stiff competition, however, as Finland is re-selling its used BAE Hawk trainers.

The report also confirms that competitions are still active in Singapore (12-16 jets, up to $500 million) and the UAE (35-40, $1+ billion, subsequently lost to M346).

2008

FA-50 development contract; Radar complications.

EL/M-2032 IAI
EL/M-2032
(click to view full)

Dec 30/08: FA-50 development. South Korea’s Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) signs a WON 400 billion (about $317 million) contract with Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) to develop 4 prototypes of the F/A-50 light attack jet by 2012.

Full production of about 60 aircraft is scheduled to begin in 2013, at which point the F/A-50s will begin replacing 1960s era A-37 dragonfly attack jets, F-5E/F Tiger II light fighters, and F-4 Phantom II fighters as the ROKAF’s low-end fighters. The Korean buy could extend to 150 aircraft, and its capabilities and price point make exports likely.

That potential was one of the reasons the F/A-50 project has been delayed. The F/A-50 is a joint KAI/ Lockheed martin project, and the agreement includes a number of provisions related to American weapons export policies, and to corporate interests at Lockheed Martin. One stipulation was that Lockheed would not transfer aircraft source code to other nations. Another was that the T-50’s capabilities could not exceed Korea’s F-16s. A 3rd provision banned South Korea from integrating T-50 variants with non-U.S. technology that the United States doesn’t have.

Korea originally wanted to equip the F/A-50 with the lightweight Vixen-500E AESA(Active Electronically Scanned Array) radar developed by U.K. firm Selex Sensors and Airborne Systems, but that would have violated all 3 of the above provisions. Lockheed Martin pushed for its AN/APG-67v4 radar, which equips the T/A-50 LIFT. Instead, the Koreans chose the proven EL/M-2032 mechanically scanned radar from Israel’s IAI Elta Systems. That radar serves on some Israeli F-16s and also equips a range of other aircraft around the world that include F-16s, F-4 Phantoms, F-5 Tigers, MiG-21s, Kfirs and other Mirage variants, India’s Sea Harriers, and India’s forthcoming Tejas lightweight fighter. Korea Times.

FA-50 development

Dec 10/08: After more than 40 years of service, Israel is finally looking to replace its versatile A-4 Skyhawk fleet. KAI’s T-50 family is reportedly one of the 4 contenders. Read “Israel’s Skyhawk Scandal Leads to End of an Era“.

Aug 28/08: An upgraded F/A-50 lightweight fighter counterpart would be a logical replacement for South Korea’s vintage F-5E/F and F-4 fighter fleet, and may also prove attractive as a global export. Flight International reports that the design is almost complete, but program approval for additional South Korean F/A-50s is being held up by 2 key issues.

One is the desire for an AESA radar, which would sharply improve the little fighter’s capabilities while lowering maintenance costs. Both Northrop Grumman (SABR) and Raytheon (RACR) have designed new AESA radars for F-16 refits, and the nature of AESA radars allows them to be resized very flexibly. The bad news is that negotiations with the US government haven’t been able to secure US authorization for AESA radar exports to South Korea. This forces the Koreans to go ahead with a more conventional but limited radar like the AN/APG-67v4, or put the F/A-50 on hold until AESA approval is granted. If it would be granted to a project that’s likely to compete with made-in-USA F-16s on the global export market.

The other issue is Lockheed Martin’s participation. Lockheed helped develop the T-50, and has the fighter development and advanced weapon integration experience that KAI lacks. On the other hand, its involvement raises costs. KAI is reportedly pushing for this partnership, but the government must conclude that the benefits would be worth those extra costs. Likely arguments to that end include lower project/financial risk, improved export prospects, and greater likelihood of American technology export approvals.

2006 – 2007

ROKAF orders 50 more; 1st T-50 delivery; Lockheed Martin MoU; UAE opportunity.

T-50 Underside
T-50, underside
(click to view full)

Nov 1/07: UAE. Reports claim that Aermacchi’s M-346 and KAI’s T/A-50 are the finalists in the UAE competition, with Britain’s Hawk LIFT eliminated by BAE’s own admission. Flight International report. A Korea Times report pegs the UAE’s purchase total at 35-40, rather than 60. Time will tell.

They also add a market prediction from KAI officials that expect T-50 variants will secure about 30% of the 3,300 aircraft global trainer market within 25 years – about 1,100 aircraft.

Oct 26/07: KOIS reports that Korea’s commerce and industry minister Kim Young-ju is headed to the United Arab Emirates (UAE), where the T-50 is competing against the BAE Hawk Mk128 LIFT and Aermacchi’s M-346 for an estimated 60-plane, $1+ billion order. The UAE is expected to choose its next generation trainer jet by early November 2007. See “Korea’s commerce, industry minister pitches T-50 jet to UAE.”

Oct 15/07: On the eve of the Seoul 2007 Air Show, KOIS reports that the T-50 is poised to pick up orders in the United Arab Emirates (60 jets), Greece (30), and Singapore (40). “Korea is expected to sign the deals with the three nations this month or next month,” said Yoon Cha-young, executive director of the Korea Aerospace Industries Association.

Dec 13/06: 2nd ROKAF order. The Government of South Korea has signed a contract with Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) for “approximately 50” additional T-50 and TA-50 Golden Eagle advanced jet trainers. The new aircraft will be used for advanced jet training and lead-in fighter training. All the aircraft will be delivered from KAI’s production facility in Sacheon, South Korea.

Subsequent reports from South Korean media mail this order down at 57 planes: 25 more T-50s, 22 TA-50s, and 10 T-50Bs to replace the Black Eagles’ aerobatic planes. Lockheed Martin release.

ROKAF #2: 57 planes

Nov 16/06: Lockheed MoU. Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) and Lockheed Martin sign a memorandum of understanding today to expand their strategic relationship. Ralph Heath, president of Lockheed Martin Aeronautics, in the Lockheed Martin release:

“First, the memorandum is a recommitment to continue our efforts in marketing the T-50 Golden Eagle to international customers. Additionally, we will seek ways to collaborate on future opportunities in Korea, the United States and the international marketplace. We value the important, long-standing relationship we have with KAI.”

“First, the memorandum is a recommitment to continue our efforts in marketing the T-50 Golden Eagle to international customers” said Ralph Heath, president of Lockheed Martin Aeronautics. “Additionally, we will seek ways to collaborate on future opportunities in Korea, the United States and the international marketplace. We value the important, long-standing relationship we have with KAI.”

Hae Joo Chung, KAI president:

“This new agreement means that our two companies will look to cooperate in the areas of aircraft modification and upgrades, as well as the future fighter requirements for the Korean government. The new business sector of Performance Based Logistics Support provides an important opportunity for cooperation with Lockheed Martin in Korea and with international customers.”

Lockheed MoU

July 17/06: Lockheed Martin release: “Last month program officials announced the opening of a new marketing office in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. This facility gives KAI greater proximity to potential customers in the Middle East and Europe and allows the Korean-based company an opportunity to grow its business-base.”

Jan 4/06: 1st delivery. Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) delivers its first 2 production T-50 advanced jet trainer aircraft to the Republic of Korea Air Force (ROKAF). Designated KAI-1 and KAI-2, these aircraft are the first deliveries to a customer since the award of the production contract just 24 months ago. In addition to these 2 aircraft, KAI will deliver another 8 aircraft to the ROKAF in 2006, and 1 per month afterward. Lockheed Martin release.

1st deliveries

2005 and Earlier

Testing milestones.

T-50 KAI-1
T-50: KAI-1
(click to view full)

Feb 11/05: The supersonic T-50 Golden Eagle advanced jet trainer has attained several significant technical milestones, including reaching maximum load factors (8g), maximum operating speed (Mach 1.3, design limit Mach 1.5), beginning stores separation testing (fuel tank jettison), and completing its second lifetime (lifetime = 8,334 flight hours) of structural durability testing. Lockheed Martin release.

Oct 26/04 – Jan 6/05: The T-50 Golden Eagle advanced jet trainer successfully completes aerial gunfire testing. A total of 10 test flights were conducted under a variety of flight conditions, including 3 supersonic flights. Testing included operation of the gun and ammo handling system, plus measurement of vibration levels and adequacy of the gun bay gas purging capability.

The tests used the 3rd Full Scale Development aircraft, the first in the A-50 lead-in fighter trainer (LIFT) configuration. The gun is a lighter weight, internally mounted 3-barrel version of General Dynamics’ standard 6-barrel M61 used by many fighters. It has a rate of fire of 3,000 rounds per minute, and the ammo system holds 205 rounds of ammunition. The gun will be used for both ground strafing and aerial gunnery training. Lockheed Martin release.

Feb 7/04: As part of the aircraft’s external stores testing, the first flight with external fuel tanks occurs. The 150-U.S. gallon, jettisonable fuel tanks are built by Sargent Fletcher of El Monte, CA. A single tank extends mission duration and range about 15-20%, and the three-tank configuration extends them by about 40%.

These external stores tests aim to verify the T-50 aircraft’s stability and control, flutter and handling qualities when loaded with fuel tanks, weapons, and other stores. Later flights will verify performance, store functionality and interfaces, and store separation. Approximately 280 sorties utilizing all 4 of the T-50 flight test aircraft are planned for external stores testing with external fuel tanks installed, and external stores flight testing will continue until the end of Full-Scale Development. The ROKAF is conducting the flight testing from Sacheon Air Base, South Korea. Lockheed Martin.

March 15/04: Lockheed Martin announces that the Republic of Korea Air Force (ROKAF) has begun engine air start flight testing of the T-50’s F404-GE-102 jet engine. Air start testing involves intentionally shutting down the engine in flight and restarting it, in order to verify the air start envelope and procedures. This effort is expected to include 15 flight tests over a 7-month period.

Dec 19/03: 1st orders. KAI receives a production contract from South Korea’s DAPA for 25 T-50 Golden Eagle supersonic advanced jet trainers. The undisclosed contract covers the aircraft, alternate mission equipment, integrated support, and production start-up costs. The aircraft will be built at KAI’s modern aircraft production facilities at Sacheon, South Korea, with Lockheed Martin as the principal subcontractor. The first production T-50 will be delivered in late 2005. Lockheed Martin adds that:

“The Korean government had earlier approved plans to purchase about 100 aircraft, half in the basic T-50 configuration and half in the T-50 Lead-In Fighter Trainer (LIFT) version. The T-50 LIFT version is designated the A-50 by the ROKAF and includes a multimode radar, an internal 20 mm cannon and… weapons… The 25 aircraft in the initial contract to KAI are all in the basic T-50 configuration. The remaining aircraft in the approved plan will be purchased in a follow-on contract.”

ROKAF order: 25 T-50s.

Nov 3/03: T-50 Flight testing with captive AIM-9 air-to-air missiles is initiated. Source.

July 29/03: F/A-50? Flight International reports that KAI has begun a study for a possible fighter version of the T-50, even as it finalizes production plans with Lockheed Martin in preparation for an expected order for the first 24 T-50s next month.

April 28/03: The T-50 Golden Eagle completes its 100th test flight, and reaches a speed of Mach 1.2 on the same day.

On April 25th, the airframe durability vehicle completed one lifetime of testing, equivalent to 8,334 flight hours, at the Agency for Defense Development testing laboratory in Taejon, South Korea. Testing continues on a second lifetime, which is expected to be complete in April 2004. Lockheed Martin.

Feb 19/03: Supersonic. The T-50 achieves supersonic flight for the first time. The milestone flight was accomplished on the No. 1 flight-test aircraft during the 60-minute flight from the air base at Sachon, South Korea. The top speed achieved was Mach 1.05 at an altitude of 40,000 feet. Full afterburner on the General Electric F404-GE-102 engine was used to accelerate to the target speed, then minimum afterburner was used to sustain the speed. Approximately one minute was spent in the supersonic regime.

“The aircraft accelerated through the Mach smoothly and quickly,” said Major Choong Hwan Lee, Republic of Korea Air Force test pilot for the flight. “I observed no adverse flight or handling characteristics. I was able to hold the target speed of Mach 1.05 with plenty of excess power available, so I have no doubt this aircraft will be able to achieve its maximum design Mach of Mach 1.5.” Lockheed Martin release.

Supersonic

Nov 25/02: The T-50 Golden Eagle advanced supersonic trainer reaches its stated operational ceiling of 40,000 feet during a test flight. All systems operate normally.

The actual maximum service ceiling for the T-50 is estimated to be 48,500 feet, the altitude where rate of climb is limited to 100 feet per minute at maximum power (full afterburner). Lockheed Martin.

Nov 8/02: The 2nd T-50 Golden Eagle advanced jet trainer successfully completes its 47-minute flight from KAI’s facility at Sachon, South Korea. Lockheed Martin.

Additional Readings

The T-50 Family

Competitors & Market

Competitions Covered

Viewing all 2675 articles
Browse latest View live