JLENS Concept
(click to view full)

Experiences in Operation Iraqi Freedom demonstrated that even conventional cruise missiles with limited reach could have disruptive tactical effects, in the hands of a determined enemy. Meanwhile, the proliferation of cruise missiles and associated components, combined with a falling technology curve for biological, chemical, or even nuclear agents, is creating longer-term hazards on a whole new scale. Intelligence agencies and analysts believe that the threat of U.S. cities coming under cruise missile attack from ships off the coast is real, and evolving.

Aerial sensors are the best defense against low-flying cruise missiles, because they offer far better detection and tracking range than ground-based systems. The bad news is that keeping planes in the air all the time is very expensive, and so are the aircraft themselves. As cruise missile defense becomes a more prominent political issue, the primary challenge becomes the development of a reliable, affordable, long-flying, look-down platform. One that can detect, track and identify incoming missiles, then support over-the-horizon engagements in a timely manner. The Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor (JLENS) certainly looked like that system, but the Pentagon has decided to end it.

The JLENS System: This is Not Your Grandpa’s Barrage Balloon

Radar: height matters.
(click to view full)

In Air Defense Artillery Magazine, Major Thomas J. Atkins sums up the 2-aerostat JLENS system:

“The JLENS system consists of four main components: the aerostats, the radars, the mooring station and the processing station. The [2] aerostats are unmanned, tethered, non-rigid aerodynamic structures filled with a helium/air mix. The aerostats are 77 yards long (three-fourths of a football field) and almost as wide as a football field. The aerostats must be large enough to lift the heavy [volume search or fire control] radars that provide the system’s extended range. The radars are optimized for their separate, specific functions, but weigh several tons each. The surveillance radar searches very long distances to find small radar cross-section tracks before they can threaten friendly assets. The fire control radar looks out at shorter ranges than the surveillance radar, but provides highly accurate data to help identify and classify tracks while providing fire control quality data to a variety of interceptors. The two aerostats are connected to the ground via tethers through which power and data is transmitted. The tethers enables the aerostats to operate at altitudes of up to 15,000 feet and contain power lines, fiber-optic data lines and Kevlar-strengthened strands surrounded by an insulated protective sleeve. The tethers connect to mobile mooring stations that anchor the aerostats to the ground and control their deployment and retrieval. The mooring stations are connected to ground-mounted power plants and processing stations. The processing stations are the brains of the whole system. Each processing station contains an operator workstation, a flight-director control station, weather-monitoring equipment and a computer that controls radar functions and processes radar data.”

JLENS takes 5 days to go from transport configuration to full deployment, or to pack up. Once deployed, Raytheon says that JLENS’ radar can detect and target threat objects at a range of up to 340 miles/ 550 km, depending on the object’s size and radar/ infrared signatures. A 2013 test confirmed the ability to track short-range ballistic missiles in their boost phase.

Raytheon on JLENS

Once deployed, JLENS can work as part of the Joint Theater Air and Missile Defense (JTAMD) system of systems. When integrated with Co-operative Engagement Capability, JLENS can even serve as the linchpin of combined air defense frameworks. An elevated sensor such as JLENS can support ground based air defense units, such as Patriot, Aegis/Standard Missile and SLAMRAAM (ground-based AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles). In the All Service Combat Identification and Evaluation Team (ASCIET) ’99 exercise, a 15m aerostat was deployed with a Cooperative Engagement Capability relay on a mobile mooring station. This relay allowed the Army’s Patriot air defense system and the Navy’s AEGIS weapon system to exchange radar data. Other tests have involved SM-6 and AMRAAM missiles.

Development of missile options like the long-range infrared-guided NCADE missile, which can be mounted on long-endurance platforms like MQ-9 Reaper UAVs and possibly even added to the JLENS system, would add another potential dimension to the platform.

Additional equipment could offer commanders extensive communications relay capabilities, or even area surveillance of the ground. The JLENS program reportedly deployed a smaller 15 meter aerostat to Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. In late November 2003, the Army announced its intention to redeploy the Rapid Aerostat Initial Deployment (RAID) force protection aerostat from Afghanistan to Iraq. RAID, adapted out of JLENS via the Army Rapid Equipping Force, became its own program, involving both flying aerostats and fixed-tower configurations like GBOSS.

A privately-funded January 2013 test mounted similar equipment on a JLENS system, successfully demonstrating its ability to monitor humans walking near roads.

The JLENS Program

JLENS Infographic
(click to view full)

JLENS is currently managed as part of the Cruise Missile Defense Systems Project Office at Redstone Arsenal, AL. As of January 2007, Raytheon Company defined and finalized a $1.4 billion contract modification from the U.S. Army for full-scale JLENS system development and demonstration. Raytheon’s Integrated Defense Systems is responsible for the fire control radar and processing station, and work on the program will be performed at Raytheon sites located in Massachusetts, California, Texas and Maryland. TCOM LP, based in Maryland, will develop the 71M aerostat and associated ground equipment.

The US Army’s initial System Acquisition Report submission in 2005, following approval to proceed into System Development and Demonstration (Milestone B), placed the JLENS program’s total value over its lifetime at $7.15 billion. By October 2011, estimates to complete the program had reached $7.56 billion, with about $1.9 billion spent to create 2 demonstration systems. Another $634.1 million in R&D would be required to finish, followed by $5.2 billion in procurement funds to buy the other 14 systems. Back in November 2005, Raytheon VP for Integrated Air Defense Timothy Carey was excited:

“This is going to be one of our foundational programs over the next 10 to 20 years… As we try to grow the business here in New England, it’s important to have these programs that play out over a long period.”

He turned out to be half-right. It won’t be foundational. It will play out over a long time.

In January 2012, the FY 2013 budget proposal called for the cancellation for JLENS’ production phase. The 2 existing systems would remain, to be used for further testing and trialed in exercises, but funding would begin to taper off rapidly after 2013. Recent budgets have included:

FY 2008: $464.9 million, all Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation (RDT&E)
FY 2009: $355.3 million, all RDT&E
FY 2010: $317.1 million all RDT&E
FY 2011: $399.5 million, all RDT&E
FY 2012: $327.3 million, all RDT&E
FY 2013 request: $190.4 million, all RDT&E. This was actually a $34 million increase, to fund the Secretary of Defense directed COCOM Exercise extended test program.

The US Army was planning to field 5 Orbits (1 EMD and 4 Procurement) between FY 2013-2017, and a low-rate production decision was due in September 2012. Procurement would have run for another 10 years. Now it won’t, with just 1 demonstration system protecting Washington, and another in Strategic Reserve.

On the other hand, with border surveillance growing as a security concern amidst Mexico’s Cartel Wars, cruise missile defense still a weakness, and US military operating costs becoming a growing issue, the question is what the Pentagon proposes as a JLENS replacement.

JLENS: Contracts & Key Events

JLENS

December 2/15: Despite facing criticisms and ridicule over its runaway blimp incident in October, US lawmakers have put their faith behind the $2.7 billion JLENS missile defense system. The Los Angeles Times reported that all 35 members of the defense appropriations subcommittees in the House and Senate were in favor of continued funding of the program. The vote of confidence comes alongside a December 11 deadline by Congress to cut $5 billion from Obama’s proposed defense budget with some programs at risk. While the report may seem like good news for JLENS and manufacturer Raytheon, we’ll have to wait until after the vote to see if these blimps are too big (or expensive) to fail.

August 21/15: The Army launched a JLENS aerostat on Wednesday to increase cruise missile early warning coverage of the East Coast, joining one first launched in December last year. The unmanned, tethered platforms will complement each other through the operation of both broad-area and precision radar systems, providing an over-the-horizon early warning capability. Developed by Raytheon, the two Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor (JLENS) units are part of a three-year evaluation program to assess the capability of JLENS with NORAD’s early warning architecture.

Oct 13/14: NORAD. Deployment hasn’t begun yet, but Raytheon has completed a series of laboratory tests that demonstrated the ability to covert information from JLENS into a format that can be used by NORAD’s command and control system. Sources: Raytheon, “U.S. Army’s missile-fighting radar-blimp achieves critical milestone”.

June 27/14: Politics. The Washington Free Beacon reports that JLENS will be one of the items under discussion during House / Senate conferencing. The House’s 2015 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) slashed JLENS funding from $54 million to $29 million, while the Senate bill kept funding intact. If the Senators can’t bargain JLENS funding back, the House amount would stand:

“A cut will force the [Defense Department] to make some very hard choices. For example, they might have to decide between maintaining the system or integrating JLENS into the National Capital Region’s defense architecture,” one defense expert familiar with JLENS told the Free Beacon…. they might decide to partially integrate the system and just use one of the aerostats…. Those are all bad choices because they defeat the purpose of holding the exercise in the first place….” Sources close to the Senate Armed Services Committee, which did not support the House’s cut to JLENS, said that some GOP senators are moving to protect the system.”

It would appear that privacy advocates like the ACLU and EFF have their golden opportunity, if they want to crimp the program. Sources: Washington Free Beacon, “Congress to Cut Key U.S. Missile Defense System”.

June 26/14: Industrial. JLENS aerostat manufacturer TCOM’s is moving to broaden the scope of its Elizabeth City, NC facility from lighter-than-air manufacturing, assembly, and testing, adding a new Center of Excellence. That will expand the facility’s capabilities to include integration testing of platforms, payloads, sensors, etc.

The larger vision involves an East Coast center that offers unique opportunities for the U.S. and international governments to conduct testing and training on a range of LTA platforms and towers. The CoE will also serve to demonstrate complete turn-key ISR and communications solutions to a broad range of domestic and international customers. Sources: TCOM LP, “TCOM Launches Persistent Surveillance Center of Excellence at Company’s Manufacturing and Flight Test Facility (MFTF) in Elizabeth City, NC.”

June 24/14: Strategic Reserve. Raytheon announces that they’ve finished preparing 1 of the US Army’s 2 JLENS systems for storage in the Strategic Reserve. On the one hand, it isn’t operational. On the other hand, it becomes an item that combat commanders can request. System Design and Development formally ended in Q4 2013. The 2nd system is scheduled to participate in an operational evaluation at Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD in the fall. Sources: Raytheon, “Raytheon completes preparing JLENS radar for contingency deployment”.

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. With respect to JLENS, the total program cost now sits at $2.78212 billion, which is almost all R&D except for $40.51 million in military construction.

“In August 2013, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics approved the program’s revised acquisition program baseline, re-designated the program’s acquisition category and delegated milestone decision authority to the Secretary of the Army. The JLENS program satisfied developmental testing and evaluation requirements and is proceeding with plans to execute a 3-year operational combatant command exercise…. Site construction for the deployment of the exercise will begin at Aberdeen Proving Ground after the February 2014 construction contract award. The construction will involve completing aerostat pads, roads, operation and support facilities, and infrastructure. The initial system is expected to arrive at the exercise site location in June 2014 and initial capability delivery is expected for the surveillance radar in September 2014 and the fire control radar system in December 2014.”

Previous reports placed the pads, buildings, utilities and parking for each of the aerostats about 4 miles apart: one at Graces Quarters in Baltimore County, and one at G-Field in Harford County.

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). JLENS is included, and DOT&E says that expected reliability improvements haven’t panned out as promised. The system still doesn’t meet program requirements for Operational Availability, Mean Time to Repair, or Mean Time Between System Abort. This is both a hardware and a software problem; it can be made worse by poor weather that either reduces radar performance, or forces the aerostat out of the sky entirely.

The Fire Control Radar can support air defense engagements, and “demonstrated a limited target identification capability that partially met requirements and basic interoperability with other air defense systems.” On the other hand, the system still needs to improve non-cooperative target recognition, friendly aircraft identification capabilities, and target track consistency. Very limited budgets and very restricted testing have contributed to these issues.

Jan 16/14: Test deployment. Military officials didn’t get many attendees at a Baltimore County public meeting to explain JLENS, even though 71% of readers in a Washington Post article poll saw the deployment as a threat to privacy. The 2-aerostat system will be tethered 10,000 feet over the Edgewood Area of Aberdeen Proving Ground, and will be visible from downtown Baltimore on a clear day. The FAA will have to set up a “special use airspace” corridor for them during the 3-year test period.

Current JLENS plans involve only the airborne radar, which can spot objects in the air from North Carolina to the Canadian border, and objects on the ground from Virginia to New Jersey. The Army says that they have “no current plans” to mount the MTS-B long-range day/night camera turret that Raytheon deployed in a privately-funded Utah test (q.v. Jan 14/13). They also said that they didn’t intend to share information with federal, state or local law enforcement “but [the Army] declined to rule out either possibility.” Which is to say, their policy could change at any time, by bureaucratic directive. Sources: Baltimore Sun, “Officials present radar blimp plans for Aberdeen Proving Ground” | Washington Post, “Blimplike surveillance craft set to deploy over Maryland heighten privacy concerns”.

Aug 7/13: AMRAAM test. Raytheon announces a successful interception of a target drone by an AIM-120C-7 AMRAAM air-to-air missile, fired from an F-15E Strike Eagle fighter based on a Link-16 cue from JLENS. The July 17/13 intercept was successful, and represents the 1st test of JLENS against low-flying cruise missile targets, as well as the 1st test involving AMRAAM. Other tests have involved PATRIOT and SM-6 surface-to-air missiles.

Raytheon VP Air Warfare Systems VP Harry Schulte touts the firing as something that “enables the world’s most capable air-to-air missile to engage targets at the weapon’s maximum kinematic range.” This is technically true, but probably not operationally true, unless and until the USAF gets clearance to fire on targets based only on JLENS radar ID and Link-16 transmission. Outside the testing range, the fear of a catastrophic mistake creates Rules of Engagement that demand visual identification. Unless the JLENS radar picture is so good that it produces visual ID quality snapshots for transmission, that’s unlikely to change. JLENS would still be very useful in vectoring interceptors for a look, but any aircraft that gets a look won’t be firing at maximum kinematic range. Raytheon.

July 24/13: Testing. Raytheon announces that JLENS has finished a 6-week End User Test with the US Army, which included a stretch of 20 days of continuous operation and “a number of complex scenarios that replicated an operational environment.”

JLENS product manager Dean Barten is pleased, and says the next step involves deployment to Aberdeen Proving Ground for an operational evaluation. Deployment usually follows successful OpEval. Raytheon.

Feb 11/13: To Washington. The Washington Post reports that NORAD is working to integrate JLENS with the surveillance system over Washington, DC. The JLENS are expected to arrive by Sept. 30/13:

“A “capabilities demonstration,” as the test is called, is expected to last as long as three years. Its location is being withheld, pending notification of lawmakers and others.”

Jan 14/13: EO test. Raytheon continues to fund JLENS demonstrations, and touts a recent exercise that used the JLENS’ MTS-B day/night surveillance and targeting turret, despite heavy smoke from recent, naturally-occurring forest fires. While the MTS-B visually tracked targets, and watched Raytheon employees simulate planting a roadside land mine, the JLENS simultaneously tracked surface targets with its integrated radar system. Raytheon.

Dec 5/12: Testing. Raytheon continues to tout recent tests, including a recent exercise that used JLENS to simultaneously detected and tracked “double-digit [numbers of] swarming boats, hundreds of cars and trucks, non-swarming boats and manned and unmanned aircraft” all at once. Raytheon.

Oct 23/12: GAO. The Government Accountability Office releases a report on the 15 aerostat and airship programs underway at the Department of Defense. They estimate that $7B worth of spending has been allocated to this category, most of which was spent on R&D. JLENS and its peers see steep declines in their budgets beyond FY 2013.

The GAO by definition likes centralizated oversight, so they object to the lack of coordination between all these programs. Actually, that’s a pretty normal and even healthy state of affairs for new technologies.

Oct 5/12: Support. Raytheon in Andover, MA receives a $59 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract modification, covering JLENS support until Sept 28/13. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received by US Army Space and Missile Defense Command in Huntsville, AL (DASG60-98-C-0001).

JLENS attack scenario
(click to view full)

Sept 21/12: SM-6 test. JLENS is part of a test involving the new SM-6 naval defense missile. During the test, JLENS’ fire-control radar acquired and tracked a target that mimicked an anti-ship cruise missile, then Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) was used to pass the data on to the firing ship. The missile used that targeting data to move into range of its own radar, found the target, and destroyed it. Raytheon.

Sept 10/12: Boat test. Raytheon touts JLENS performance during a recent test at Great Salt Lake, UT, and makes the case for JLENS’ affordability. During the tests, JLENS simultaneously detected and tracked multiple speedboats, which simulated a real-world swarming scenario with a series of tactical maneuvers at low and high speeds. The test is a good argument for JLENS usefulness protecting key ports. As for affordability, Raytheon VP David Gulla says that:

“JLENS is affordable because during a 30-day period, one system provides the warfighter the same around-the-clock coverage that it would normally take four or five fixed-wing surveillance aircraft to provide… JLENS is significantly less expensive to operate than a fixed-wing surveillance aircraft because it takes less than half the manpower to operate and has a negligible maintenance and fuel cost.”

All true, but if the system is at less than 1/4 of reliability goals (vid. March 2012 DOT&E entry), many of these dollar savings disappear quickly.

April 30/12: JLENS/ PATRIOT test. The promised firing test takes place during an exercise at the Utah Training and Test Range. Raytheon says that:

“In addition to destroying the target drone, initial indications are that the JLENS-Patriot systems integration met test objectives.”

That will help make the case for JLENS as a very low operating cost option for cruise missile defense, but is it too late? Raytheon | Lockheed Martin.

March 30/12: GAO report. The US GAO tables its “Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs” for 2012. For JLENS, the report cites early problems with the fire control radar software, and the September 2010 destruction of a JLENS system, as key issues that have put the program behind. The JLENS program has also been affected by alignment with the Army’s Integrated Air and Missile Defense program. The IAMD program is aiming for a standard set of interfaces between systems such as JLENS and other sensors, weapons, and back-end command-and-control systems, in order to provide a common air picture for everyone. That forced the Army to extend the JLENS development phase by 12 months, which also drove up program costs.

The question is whether JLENS will proceed to production. With about $1.9 billion spent, the GAO estimates that the program needs $5.95 billion more to field all 14 twin-aerostat systems: $634.1 million in R&D, and $5.2 billion in procurement. A low-rate production decision is now due in September 2012, but the Pentagon’s 2013 budget proposals have put a cloud over that milestone. If they change their minds and go ahead, a full-rate production would be expected in November 2014, with procurement running until 2022.

March 2012: DT&E SE test report. The Pentagon’s Developmental Test and Evaluation and Systems Engineering FY 2011 Annual Report covers JLENS, noting the possible scenarios for the program and flagging reliability issues:

“One scenario is completion of the program of record resulting in low-rate initial production (LRIP), FRP, and full operational capability. The second scenario eliminates program funding starting in FY 2012 [DID: the direction of the Pentagon’s FY 2013 pre-budget submission], and the third scenario is to enter an operational exercise prior to an LRIP decision… The system entered DT&E with reliability less than the goal to meet reliability growth requirements. The estimated reliability prior to entering DT&E was approximately 15 hours mean time between system abort (MTBSA). The goal was to enter DT&E with 70 hours MTBSA.”

Feb 13/12: Mostly dead. The Pentagon releases its 2013 budget request, and leaves JLENS almost terminated, except for some forthcoming exercises. As Miracle Max knows, there’s a difference between “mostly dead” and “all dead.” The thing is, it takes a miracle to make the difference meaningful. JLENS is no longer listed in the programs by weapon system, but it does get an entry in the overview book. An excerpt:

“The Army will restructure JLENS and assume a manageable risk in Cruise Missile Defense, and subsequently rely on [DID: more expensive to operate] Joint aerial assets to partially mitigate any associated capability gaps. Additionally, this decision will allow more time for the Army and the Department to review total program affordability while the program conducts Combatant Commander exercises. The proposed savings in FY 2013 is $0.4 billion and totals $2.2 billion from FY 2013 – FY 2017.”

Jan 26/12: Budget cut. The FY 2013 budget under Secretary of Defense Panetta contains a raft of program cuts and delays, including the proposed “curtailment” of JLENS, “due to concerns about program cost and operational mobility,” as a program that was “experiencing schedule, cost, or performance issues.”

The phrasing of this statement is ambiguous at all levels. Why “curtailment” and not “terminate”, since that seems to be the intent? Disappointment about operational mobility also seem odd, given that the entire system was always meant to be a fixed aerostat that can be shifted with a bit of time and effort, in order to monitor a wide but high-value area. The US Army’s LEMV program is a mobile airship, but it isn’t designed to carry the same level of air and ground radar sensors, or cover the same area. Meanwhile, programs like the High Altitude Airship and ISIS describe future technologies that aren’t even close to fielding. Pentagon release | “Defense Budget Priorities and Choices” [PDF]

Jan 25/12: Testing, testing – my patience. Utah’s Deseret News [the correct spelling] reveals that JLENS is having testing problems with golden eagles, as well as local NIMBY(Not In My Back Yard) residents. The key problem involves approval to launch drones from Eskdale in Snake Valley, in order to test JLENS. In response, the Dugway Proving Ground has sought civil FAA permission to launch from its own property, and secured temporary approval for 6 flights in 2011. Problem 1 is that temporary approval will lapse soon. Problem 2 involves runaway bureaucracy:

“Because the launch site is technically changing from Eskdale to Dugway, the Army has to detail and gather public input to obtain a modified environmental assessment that will consider impacts to nesting golden eagles at Dugway as well as other potential impacts to wildlife… Launching from Dugway will necessitate a round-trip flight of the drones, which will still fly over the Snake Valley before returning to Army property, rather than a one-way launch of the plane from Eskdale… Sometime later this year, JLENS will conduct a live-fire exercise over the Utah Test and Training Range north of I-80 where a drone will be shot down by a Patriot missile after it is detected by one of the aerostats.”

Nov. – Dec. 2011: Testing. JLENS successfully completes its 1st set of tracking tests at the Utah Training and Test Range, tracking simulated low-flying cruise missiles, plus live UAVs, fighter aircraft, and moving surface targets on ground and water. It also demonstrated its ability to communicate Link-16 targeting data, and interface with IFF combat identification systems.

A live-fire Patriot missile test is expected in late 2012. In the meantime, testing continues in Utah and at White Sands Missile Range, NM. Raytheon release.

Dec 13/11: Infrastructure. Raytheon announces that they’ve established a JLENS test site at White Sands Missile Range, NM. 2012 is expected to see a Patriot missile firing, cued by JLENS. White Sands is the place for that.

Testing…
(click to view full)

July 25/11: Testing. Raytheon announces a successful JLENS endurance test at the Utah Training and Test Range near Salt Lake City. While 30 days is a program goal, Raytheon doesn’t say how long the test was for. A subsequent Oct 11/11 release touts a 14-day test.

April 14/11: Testing. Raytheon announces that the JLENS aerostat aloft at the Utah Test and Training Range has successfully demonstrated tracking targets of opportunity in Salt Lake City, Utah’s air space.

Feb 9/11: Testing. Raytheon announces that JLENS’ radar demonstrated its ability to transmit data from the aerostat at the Utah Test and Training Range, while deployed to an altitude of 10,000 feet. It all seems like baby steps, but that’s how these things proceed. Especially when dealing with a system that has to carry required power etc. up the aerostat’s tether.

Sept 15/10: PATRIOT. Lockheed Martin Corp. in Grand Prairie, TX receives a $7.1 million firm-fixed-fee and cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for “PAC-3 Integrated Fire Control.” Lockheed Martin representative confirmed that this contract is “for integration of the [Patriot] PAC-3 Missile Segment with the Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor [JLENS].”

Work is to be performed at Grand Prairie, TX; White Sands Missile Range, NM; and Chelmsford, MA, with an estimated completion date of Aug 30/12. One bid was solicited with one received (W31P4Q-10-C-0304; Serial #1936). See also FBO solicitation.

April 14/10: Testing. The US military launches 2 unmanned 233 foot JLENS aerostats about 80 miles west of Salt Lake City, UT. Several more tests are proposed for Utah later in the year, including over the remote northern portion of the Great Salt Lake and parts of the Snake Valley, which are remote and serve as good stand-ins for environments in Afghanistan.

Summer 2009 flight tests near Elizabeth City, NJ were limited to 3,000 feet, but the Utah tests will go up to 10,000 feet. Associated Press.

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 JLENS, it says:

“Although the JLENS design appears stable, the potential for design changes remains until the maturity of JLENS components have been demonstrated. For example, the JLENS program continues to define, develop, and design the mobile mooring station used to anchor the aerostat during operations. Although the mobile station is based on a fixed mooring station design, the program has yet to demonstrate its mobility. The mobile mooring transport vehicle is still being designed and the program office expects the survivability requirements for the vehicle to change. This may require the program to add armor to the vehicle. According to program officials, the combined weight of the mooring station and an up-armored vehicle would exceed the maximum allowed for roads in the United States and in a operational theater.

“…The cost and schedule of the JLENS program could be negatively affected by the Army’s [Integrated Air and Missile Defense] program… tasked with developing a standard set of interfaces between systems such as JLENS and other sensors, weapons, and… components to provide a common air picture. As part of the IAMD strategy, the Army plans to extend the system development and demonstration phase of the JLENS program by approximately 12 months and delay low-rate initial production until fiscal year 2012.”

March 26/10: Infrastructure. Walbridge in Detroit, MI won a $40.7 million firm-fixed-price contract to design & build 3 tactical equipment maintenance facilities (TEMFS) at 3 close but separate sites in Fort Bliss, TX. Supported projects will include a sustainment bridge, a JLENS aerostat battery, and a Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile battery.

Each TEMFS will provide a complex with repair and maintenance bays, equipment and parts storage, administrative offices, secure vaults, oil storage buildings, hazardous material storage, and other supporting facilities such as organizational storage buildings. Work is to be performed in Fort Bliss, TX, with an estimated completion date of Dec 30/11. Bids were solicited via World Wide Web, with 4 bids received.

Aug 25/09: Scheduled date for TCOM to fly a fully equipped JLENS 71M aerostat to 3,000 feet, in its first test flight. Source.

CEC Concept
(click to enlarge)

June 5/09: CEC. Science Applications International Corp. in St. Petersburg, FL wins a $5.6 million firm-fixed-price contract for the fabrication, assembly, and testing of compact solid state Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) antennas. These small, lightweight antennas would support mobile applications of the CEC system, including the Marine Corps Composite Track Network (CTN) and the U.S. Army’s Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor aerostat (JLENS). The contract includes options which, if exercised, would bring the cumulative value of this contract to $18.4 million.

Work will be performed in St. Petersburg, FL and is expected to be complete by June 2010. This contract was competitively procured through full and open competition via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online and Federal Business Opportunities websites, with 2 proposals received by the Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC (N00024-09-C-5213).

Nov 19/08: CDRR. Raytheon successfully passes critical design readiness reviews (CDRR) on its final 2 prime items, the surveillance radar (SuR) and the communications and processing group (CPG). These prime items are prerequisite to the overall JLENS Orbit CDR planned for later in 2008.

System testing is still scheduled to begin in 2010, with SDD program completion in 2012. Raytheon release.

JLENS moored
(click to view full)

March 31/08: PDR. Raytheon’s JLENS has successfully completed Orbit preliminary design review (PDR), which reviewed all aspects of JLENS design maturity. The decision clears the program to move ahead with detailed design, and JLENS system testing is scheduled to begin in 2010, with SDD program completion scheduled for 2012.

Each JLENS Orbit consists of 2 systems: a surveillance system and a fire control system, which includes a long-range surveillance radar and a high-performance fire control radar integrated onto a large aerostat. These are connected by cables to the ground-based mobile mooring station and communications processing group. Raytheon release.

PDR

March 4-6/08: The US Army reports that a group of Soldiers from Fort Bliss, TX have been brought to Raytheon in Huntsville, AL for early user assessment of the JLENS communication and control station. The 2nd early user assessment is scheduled in October 2008.

Neal Tilghman, a principal human systems engineer at Raytheon Warfighter Protection Center, says the goal is to get user feedback on the design concepts and layout of the JLENS communication and control station: “We’re in the early prototype stage and we want to head off any early issues, design concerns, in the early phase of the program…”

April 11/07: SFR. Raytheon announces that JLENS has completed a successful system functional review. The primary objective of the review was to ensure complete allocation of system level requirements to the various subsystems or prime items. The 3-day technical review evaluated system requirements and functions for each of the prime items, including the fire control radar, surveillance radar, processing station, communication system, and aerostat platform. This successful completion allows the program to progress to the preliminary design phase.

Nov 15/05: Raytheon announces “a $1.3 billion contract modification from the U.S. Army for system development and demonstration of the Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System (JLENS).”

Oct 20/05: Raytheon announces that JLENS completed a successful system functional review (SFR) in late September 2005. This technical review is the last major milestone for the technology development acquisition phase of the program, and marks the readiness of the program to enter the system development and demonstration (SDD) phase.

The primary objective of the SFR was to ensure complete allocation of system level requirements to the system prime items. The two-day technical review included an overview of the JLENS system and in-depth reviews of each of the prime items, to include the fire control radar, surveillance radar, processing station, communication system, and platform.

During SDD, all hardware, software and logistics support required to deploy the system will be developed and will undergo extensive testing to ensure the system meets its requirements.

June 23/05: Raytheon Co. in Bedford, MA received a $79.5 million modification to a cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for JLENS. Work will be performed in Bedford, MA and is expected to be complete by July 31, 2010. This was a sole source contract initiated on Dec. 29, 2004 by the US Defense Space and Missile Command in Huntsville, AL (DASG60-98-C-0001).

June 10/05: Sensors. FLIR Systems Inc. in Wilsonville, OR received the full delivery order amount of $32.9 million as part of a firm-fixed-price contract for FLIR Star SAFIRE sensors for the Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System. Work will be performed in Wilsonville, OR and is expected to be complete by March 31, 2006. This was a sole source contract initiated on June 6, 2005 by the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command in Huntsville, AL (W9113M-05-D-0002).

Note that this contract may actually be associated with the derivative RAID system. A subsequent award of this type made under this contract on Sept 26/06 refers explicitly to “StarSAFIRE Sensors for the Rapid Aerostat Initial Deployment System.”

Additional Readings & Sources

• Raytheon – JLENS.
• Defense Update – Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensors System.
• GlobalSecurity.org – Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor [JLENS].
• DID FOCUS – The USA’s RAID Program: Small Aerostats, Big Surveillance Time. Smaller system that spun out of JLENS, for use in a different ground-looking mission.
• DID (Nov 15/07) – Cruise Missile Defense Hits the USA’s Political Radar Screen.
• USAF (April 25/06) – Tactical recon paying dividends with TARS. Not JLENS, but it offers an interesting angle on ground-looking uses for systems like JLENS. As digital camera technology improves, the differences created by JLENS’ greater height will go away.
• Boston Globe (Nov 15/05) – Raytheon wins $1.3b Army pact.
• Air Defense Artillery Magazine (July-August 2005) – PDF of Magazine Issue. See “JLENS” (pp. 12-14). Good background on the JLENS system. Describes the very close call 1st Marine Expeditionary Headquarters had in March 2003 at Camp Commando, Kuwait, via a cruise missile attack that was not detected by defensive systems.
• Air Defense Artillery Magazine (April-June 2005) – PDF of Magazine Issue. The smaller RAID derivative is mentioned in a pair of articles covering Iraq and Afghanistan experiences: “1-62 Air Defense Artillery Writes Final Chapter of Its History” (pp. 27-30) and “How ADA Sentinel Teams Helped Restore Democracy to Afghanistan” (pp. 34-35).
• Army Communicator (Fall 2001) – JLENS reintroduces aerostats to the battlefield.

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

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
(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.

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.

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

December 3/15: Argentina has officially said adiós to the last of its serving Dassault Mirage fighters. A large-scale public air show on November 30 saw the fleet decommissioned after over forty years of service. The Mirage had been the jet of choice in Argentina since 1973, after the government was impressed by its capabilities when used by the Israeli Air Force during the Six Day War. The decommissioning will leave a hole in the Argentinian Air Force’s capability as a replacement for the aircraft has not yet been found. An earlier deal to purchase second-hand Kfir Block 60 fighters from Israel has been put on hold indefinitely amid issues over weapons systems and upgrades. The newly elected government of Maurico Macri will be responsible for obtaining replacement fighters subject to available funding.

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”.

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”.

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 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.

• Wikipedia – Argentine Air Force.

Background: Aircraft

• Airforce Technology – F-21 Kfir Fighter Jet, Israel. F-21 was the American designation for used Kfirs flown by its Aggressor training squadrons. Some private firms, like ATAC, still use it for this purpose.
• ACIG – Kfir C.10. In service with Ecuador and Colombia, and the base for the “Block 60”. Kfir C.12s don’t have the EL/M-2032 radar.
• DID – Cheetahs and Mirage 50s for Ecuador.
• DID – Pakistan & China’s JF-17 Fighter Program. If Britain blocks the Kfir sale, could they be setting themselves up for something worse?
• RAC MiG – MiG-29/MiG-29UB/MiG-29SE.
• Wikipedia – Dassault Mirage F1.

News & Views

• MercoPress (March 22/14) – The Falklands/Malvinas: Brazil’s next regional headache? Stability in the region has been a key goal for Brazil.
• Defense Update (Oct 6/13) – At 40 Years of age, Kfir Turns into a “Networked Fighter”. Kfir Block 60.
• Israeli Air Force (Sept 25/13) – Roaring Back. Includes information about Colombia’s C10/C12 upgrades, and makes vague references to the Block 60.
• Globes (Aug 6/13) – IAI selling upgraded Kfir jets for $20m.

RSAF F-16C/Ds
(click to view full)

In September 2013, Singapore confirmed its much-anticipated intent to upgrade its F-16C/Ds with improved radars and other changes. By January 2014, that was a published DSCA request. There’s no firm timeline just yet, but the proposal is part of wider-ranging military improvements underway in Singapore. It’s also seen as an early example to many other F-16 operators around the world, who respect Singapore’s as a discerning buyer and may wish to do the same thing.

That decision is expected to launch at least 2 fierce competitions. One will be between Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems. The other will be between Raytheon and Northrop Grumman.

RSAF: The Bigger Picture

F-5S on highway
(click to view full)

After the 2004 sale to Thailand of the RSAF’s initial handful of F-16A/B fighters, the RSAF became an all Block 52 force, built with fighters accepted between 1998 – 2004. Their planes aren’t entirely standard set. The long dorsal spine on many F-16Ds holds extra electronic countermeasures, and the planes reportedly carry a number of Israeli systems within, including DASH-III helmet mounted displays.

Singapore has about 14 F-16C/Ds based in the USA for training, and another 48 F-16C/Ds in Singapore at Changi AB and Tengah AB. Current plans indicate an intent to upgrade up to 60 planes at about $40.5 million per plane.

Basing will also change. In the near future, they plan to expand Changi and Tengah and consolidate around both facilities, while closing Paya Lebar AB. Paya Lebar’s F-15SGs, upgraded F-5S interceptors, and C-130 transports will go elsewhere, though the 40 or so F-5s are due for phase out in the near future.

RSAF F-16D-52
(click to view full)

There is some question as to whether the F-5s will be replaced, though a March 2013 announcement that Singapore would buy more F-15SGs seems to indicate at least partial near-term replacement. The rest of that question hinges on Singapore’s timeline for acquiring F-35s. If they’re bought soon, they’ll grow the fleet, effectively replacing the F-5S with some F-16C/Ds. If Singapore postpones their F-35 buy, they will pay less per plane, and the F-35s will become de facto replacements for the F-16+ fleet as they age out. Upgrading the F-16s might suggest to some that Singapore intends to delay the F-35s, especially since they recently elected to expand their F-15SG fleet instead of making an expected announcement about 12 F-35Bs. In his September 2013 statement, Minister for Defence Dr. Ng Eng Hen would say only that Singapore continues to evaluate the F-35’s suitability “in meeting our long-term security needs to further modernise our fighter fleet and replace our older aircraft.”

Other Changes

Aster-30
(click to view full)

Singapore’s consolidation into just 2 main air bases adds operational risk to their future fleet, but protection is also being improved. Beyond Singapore’s confirmed F-16 upgrades and new F-15SGs, new IAI Gulfstream G550 CAEW jets have improved their advance airborne warning.

On the ground, new mobile Spyder air defense systems from RAFAEL offer a more modern, longer-range complement to the legacy Rapier systems from Britain. At the top tier, MBDA’s long-range Aster-30 missiles will soon replace Raytheon’s MIM-23 I-Hawks on land, offering Singapore the ability to intercept short range ballistic missiles as well as aircraft, cruise missiles, etc. Singapore’s Formidable Class frigates already use a combination of Aster-15 and Aster-30 missiles, so the land-based Aster-30 buy will draw on an existing support network.

None of Singapore’s immediate neighbors can match this array, and Singapore’s qualitative advantage is large enough that it’s very unlikely anyone would test it. The city-state is extremely serious about its defense, with a long history of strong spending in this area. That well-known commitment, and the visibility of its strategic position, ensures that Singapore’s defense choices get attention far beyond their immediate neighborhood.

The Competitions

RACR
click for video

Singapore has a number of options with respect to their F-16s.

Contractor. First of all, Lockheed Martin and BAE can be expected to compete hard for the upgrade work. Lockheed Martin is the manufacturer, but Britain has picked up significant F-16 upgrade wins in the USA and around the world.

AESA. Then there’s the radar question. The new radars will use advanced AESA technology, improving range/ discrimination by 2x – 3x, offering entirely new modes of operation, and sharply reducing maintenance costs.

NGC’s SABR
click for video

Lockheed Martin recently announced that Northrop Grumman’s SABR radar would be the cornerstone of its F-16V offering, which was unveiled at the 2012 Singapore air show. The F-16V can be bought as an upgrade, or as new fighters. Modernized American and Taiwanese F-16s will also use SABR.

On the other hand, South Korea picked Raytheon’s RACR radar for their advanced F-16 upgrade, and Singapore already flies with related Raytheon AN/APG-63v3 AESA radars in its 20 new F-15SGs. If Singapore also picks RACR for its F-16s, in order to take advantage of common software and radar mode development, it will give Raytheon a significant and much-needed boost in the global F-16 refit competition.

There’s also the non-US option of using the Israeli ELM-2052 AESA, but the US reportedly took protectionist measures and threatened to cut off F-16 support if Israel introduced that radar to its own F-16s. Export to Singapore seems unlikely.

Contracts & Key Events

RSAF F-16D-52
(click to view full)

December 3/15: The US Department of Defense (DoD) has awarded a $914 million contract to Lockheed Martin to upgrade F-16 aircraft for the government of Singapore. The work is to be carried out at Fort Worth, Texas. The number of aircraft to be upgraded is unknown, but the DoD notified Congress that they had approved the sale of upgrades for 60 fighters in 2014. The Singapore Air Force announced earlier this year that it was planning a major overhaul of its current fleet, with enhancements including laser-designated JDAM munitions, air-to-air weapons, datalink capability and helmet mounted displays, in addition to an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar system.

July 6/15: Singapore’s Ministry of Defense (MINDEF) has released more information on its plans to upgrade the RSAF’s fleet of F-16C/D fighters. The upgrades will take place in phases from 2016 onward, with various capability enhancements planned. These include laser-designated JDAM munitions, air-to-air weapons, datalink capability and helmet mounted displays, as well as an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar system, as per a previous DSCA request. The AESA system is thought to be the Northrop Grumman AN/APG-83 Scalable Agile Beam Radar (SABR) system. Singapore announced its intention to upgrade its F-16s in 2013, with Lockheed Martin seemingly tipped to win the upgrade contract.

March 19/15: Lockheed tipped to win. Singapore is reportedly close to signing a contract with Lockheed Martin to upgrade its F-16s, after a cancelled deal with BAE in November. The country initially confirmed its intention to upgrade the fleet in September 2013.

Feb 10/14: Boeing? Boeing DSS VP for business development and strategy Chris Raymond says that Boeing would be interested in bidding, if Singapore were to open their F-16 upgrade program to competition. Boeing is an unlikely competitor, given their thin record servicing and enhancing global F-15 fleets. Raymond cites their experience with the QF-16 conversion, and with other fighter and aircraft upgrades. They could also leverage an existing relationship with the RSAF, supporting their F-15SG fighters and AH-64D Apache helicopters.

Lockheed Martin has indicated that NGC’s SABR radar is their preferred choice for upgrades, and for new-build F-16Vs. BAE is tied to Raytheon’s RACR via their South Korean experience. Boeing doesn’t have an official allegiance, but their in-production fighters both carry Raytheon AESA radars, and there’s a RACR variant for F/A-18A-D upgrades. Sources: Aviation Week, “Boeing Could Bid On Singapore F-16s”.

Sept 16/13: Singapore’s Minister for Defence Dr. Ng Eng Hen’s Parliamentary reply confirms that Singapore has picked MBDA’s Aster-30 as its upper-tier air defense system on land, and will upgrade their F-16s. The planes will be refitted with new electronics and systems, and the RSAF also plans to extend their service lives. Sources: Singapore MINDEF, “Reply by Minister for Defence Dr Ng Eng Hen to Parliamentary Question on Relocation of Paya Lebar Air Base”.

Additional Readings

• YouTube – New Lockheed Martin F-16V Singapore Airshow 2012 HD. By LMCO.
• DID – South Korea Looking to Upgrade its KF-16 Fighters. They picked Raytheon’s RACR AESA radar.
• DID – Import or Die: Taiwan’s (Un?)Stalled Force Modernization. Taiwan’s F-16s will carry Northrop Grumman’s SABR radar, picked for them by the USAF.
• DID – Singapore’s RSAF Decides to Fly Like An Eagle. In April 2013, it became clear that Singapore would grow their F-15SG fleet again, instead of buying 12 F-35Bs.

News & Views

• Fort Worth Star-Telegram (June 11/14) – At Alliance, BAE Systems challenges Lockheed on F-16 upgrades.
• Aviation Week (Feb 3/14) – Fast-Changing Trends In Asia Fighter Market
• DID (Sept 18/13) – Singapore’s Steps: Long-Range Aster-30 Defensive Missiles on Land & Sea.
• Lockheed Martin (Feb 15/12) – Lockheed Martin’s Fighting Falcon Evolves With New F-16V
• Defense News (March 22/10) – [F-5] Retirement or Replacement?
• DTI (Jan-Feb. 2008) – Target Acquisition: MAST Highlights Missile Defense Concepts. Says that the Formidable Class carries both Aster-15s and Aster-30s, along with the Herakles active radar and Sylver A50 launchers.

Guam
(click to view full)

Past base improvement efforts and other contracts related to the USA’s pacific territory of Guam include construction of an RQ-4 Global Hawk UAV complex for the Pacific Rim, and extensive base improvements/ expansion for Guam’s airfield and harbor. This article will shine a spotlight on contracts related to that territory from the beginning of FY 2007 onward. Military.com offers a broader article detailing the build up; it is useful as a frame for activities to date, and also as a context reference for our ongoing coverage (hyperlink below added to enhance context):

“The 2006 agreement between the United States and Japan to shift 8,000 U.S. Marines from bases in Japan to the island of Guam by 2014 is likely to have more far-reaching implications than just a change of address for some units of the Marine Corps’ III Marine Expeditionary Force (III MEF). The move is accelerating the return to prominence of Guam in the U.S. defense posture and fostering a higher level of cooperation among the U.S. armed forces in the Pacific region… Congress authorized $193 million in military construction funds for Guam in the fiscal year 2007 National Defense Authorization Act, a $31 million increase over 2006 funding. “Guam is likely to see between $400 million and $1 billion in military construction in military construction each year for a period of six to 10 years,” [Guam’s representative in Congress, Madeleine Z. Bordallo] said.”

That has held true.

Guam-Related Contracts

All contract coverage is from the beginning of FY 2007 to the present. Note that some Guam-related task orders are likely to be issued under existing contract vehicles, and may not be reported individually.

Relocating from…
(click to view full)

December 4/15:The US Department of Defense has released $309 million toward the construction of a new marine base in Guam. Contracts have yet to be awarded for the initial construction of the base and follows $1 billion already put forward by Japan for the base’s development. The funding follows a 2006 agreement between the two nations to relocate 5,000 US Marines and 1,700 of their dependents from Okinawa to Guam. The base and its support facilities are expected to cost $8.7 billion in total, and will see millions injected into the island’s local economy.

Oct 3/13: Japan – Guam. In a joint announcement, the US and Japanese governments declare that they’re revising the U.S-Japan defense guidelines that define their relationship. Realignment of US forces is a big part of that agenda, and the new agreement represents an important agreement regarding exact moves. Overall, about 5,000 Marines will shift to Guam, beginning in “probably the mid-2020s,” with abut $3.1 billion worth of financial support from Japan to offset the costs of that move. A signed protocol will formally revise the Guam International Agreement, and the Pentagon has pledged to release a cost breakdown that explains who pays for what.

Specifically, the realignment plan will relocate U.S. Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Futenma in the center of Okinawa’s Ginowan City, to a more remote area of the island. MCAS Iwakuni will become bigger, receiving a squadron of USMC KC-130 Hercules transport/tanker aircraft from Futenma, as well as “elements of the Navy’s Carrier Air Wing 5” from Atsugi Air Facility, and new USMC F-35Bs by 2017.

Other components include deployment plans for a 2nd TPY-2 ballistic missile defense radar in Japan, regional cooperation, and cooperation in areas like cyber-defense. The USA will also be introducing more of its newest weapons to Japan, including P-8A maritime patrol planes and Global Hawk UAVs. The Global Hawks will actually rotate in on a seasonal basis, from their primary base on Guam. Sources: Pentagon release | Pentagon transcript.

Japan relocation MoU

Naval Hospital
click for video

Sept 11/13: Tutor Perini Corp. in Sylmar, CA wins a $23.8 million firm-fixed-price task order under a multiple-award construction contract. They’ll perform major renovations of 60 existing housing units at Lockwood Terrace on Naval Base Guam, in order to bring them to current Navy standards. All funds are committed immediately from FY 2009, 2012, and 2013 USN family housing budgets.

Work will be performed in Santa Rita, Guam, and is expected to be complete by September 2015. Five proposals were received for this task order by NAVFAC Marianas, Guam (N62742-10-D-1312, #JQ02).

Sept 9/13: Small business qualifier Helber Hastert & Fee Planners Inc. in Honolulu, Hawaii wins a maximum $10 million firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity architect-engineer services contract for various locations worldwide, mostly in the Pacific and Indian Ocean areas. It’s heavily weighted toward environmental and advance site planning work at various government facilities within NAVFAC Pacific, including but not limited to Hawaii (40%), Guam (30%) and the Far East (30%).

Work is expected to be completed by September 2018. This contract was competitively procured via Navy Electronic Commerce Online, with 14 proposals received by NAVFAC Pacific at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii (N62742-13-D-0201).

Aug 15/13: HDR Engineering, Inc. in Honolulu, Hawaii wins a $10 million indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity architect-engineering contract for civil project plans and specifications within NAVFAC Pacific. It’s heavily weighted toward blueprints and construction management, including plumbing, within an area that includes but isn’t limited to Hawaii (80%), Guam (10%), and the Far East (10%).

Work is expected to be complete by August 2018. Fiscal 2012 Military Construction Planning and Design funds in the amount of $10,000 are obligated on this award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via Navy Electronic Commerce Online, with 11 proposals received by NAVFAC Pacific at Joint Base Pearl Harbor, Hawaii (N62742-13-D-0001).

Aug 6/13: The Guam MACC Builders Joint Venture in Honolulu, Hawaii wins a $20.2 million firm-fixed-price task order to improve Andersen Air Force Base (AFB), Guam. The project supports the relocation of US Marine Corps aviation units from Okinawa, Japan to Andersen AFB, and will include a water recycling system, direct fueling stations, and taxiways to connect the facilities to the adjacent apron and Taxiway Delta. All funds are committed immediately from FY 2009, 2012, and 2013 Navy construction budgets.

Work will be performed in Yigo, Guam, and is expected to be complete by July 2015. Four proposals were received by NAVFAC Marianas, Guam, under a multiple-award contract (N62742-10-D-1309, #JQ01).

July 1/13: The Jacobs and Architects Hawaii Joint Venture in St. Louis, MO wins a maximum $10 million indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity architect-engineering contract for design, engineering, specification writing, cost estimating, and related services within NAVFAC Pacific.

Work will be focused in Hawaii (55%), Guam (30%), and the Far East (15%), and is expected to be complete in June 2018. This contract was competitively procured via Navy Electronic Commerce Online, with 17 proposals received by NAVFAC Pacific at Joint Base Pearl Harbor, Hawaii (N62742-13-D-0004).

Feb 22/13: Honeywell Technology Solutions Inc., Colorado Springs, CO wins a $26 million firm-fixed-price contract to modernize the core electronics at Guam Tracking Station A-Side and Hawaii Tracking Station B-Side. The tracking stations provide on­orbit support for low earth orbiting and geosynchronous satellites over the Pacific.

Work will be performed in Guam and Hawaii, and is expected to be complete by Dec 31/15 using FY 29012 budgets. Space and Missile Command’s RNK at Los Angeles AFB, CA manages this contract (FA8806-13-C-0001)
http://wikimapia.org/5918734/Guam-Tracking-Station-GTS

Jan 28/13: Small business qualifier Chugach World Services, Inc. in Anchorage, AK receives a $31.4 million firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract modification, exercising option 4 for housing, change of occupancy, and housing maintenance services in Guam. $13.2 million is committed immediately, and the award brings the contract’s total to $130.8 million.

Work will be performed in various Naval and Air Force housing areas on Guam, and is expected to be complete by January 2014. NAVFAC Marianas, Guam manages the contract (N40192-09-D-9000).

Dec 12/12: DZSP 21 LLC in Philadelphia, PA receives a $90.4 million cost-plus-award-fee contract modification, exercising option 4 for Base Operation Support Services at Joint Region Marianas. The work to be performed provides for general management and administration services; command and staff (public affairs office); public safety; port operations; ordnance; material management; galley; facilities management and engineering services; sustainment, restoration and modernization; facilities services; utilities (electrical, wastewater, steam and demineralized water, and potable water); base support vehicles and equipment; and environmental.

$35.2 million is committed immediately, and the award brings the total contract to $745.8 million so far.

Work will be performed at various installations in the U.S. Territory of Guam, and is expected to be complete in December 2013. NAVFAC Marianas, Guam manages the contract (N40192-13-C-3001).

Nov 27/12: Small business qualifier Overland Federal, LLC in Ardmore, OK wins $14.1 million for a firm-fixed-price task order. The harbor work includes wharf strengthening, a mooring and berthing system, utilities and wharf storm drain systems, electrical and communication systems, demolition and reconstruction of a generator building, and site improvements to Apra Harbor at Naval Base Guam.

Work will be performed in Santa Rita, Guam, and is expected to be complete by June 2014. Three proposals were received for this task order, under a multiple-award construction contract manages by NAVFAC Marianas, Guam (N40192-10-D-2803, #0006).

Oct 23/12: Small business qualifier Quality Distributers in Tamuning, Guam receives a $96.6 million 3rd option year their firm-fixed-price, prime vendor, indefinite quantity food services contract. They’ll provide services to the US Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, federal civilian agencies, Department of Education, Department of Defense Schools, Child Development Centers, and Kwajalein Range Service.

The contract will run until Oct 23/13, and is managed by the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support group in Philadelphia, PA (SPM300-08-D-3210, PO 0047)

Oct 12/12: Hawaiian Rock Products in Mangilao, Guam receives a maximum $90 million indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract for airfield pavement construction at Andersen AFB, Guam. This goes well beyond the runways, to include roads, streets, highways, alleys, parking areas, etc.

Work will be performed in Yigo, Guam as task orders are issued, and is expected to be completed by October 2015. This contract was competitively procured via Navy Electronic Commerce Online, with 4 proposals received by NAVFAC Marianas, Guam (N40192-13-D-6001).

Ocean view
(click to view full)

Sept 18/12: Small business qualifier Bulltrack-Watts JV in Marysville, CA wins an $11.8 million firm-fixed-price task order covering repair and modernization of Sierra Wharf at Naval Base Guam. The project includes level III above and under water structural inspection, repairs to sheet piles, cathodic protection, concrete cap, mooring hardware, pavement, utilities and a telecommunication system.

Work will be performed in Santa Rita, Guam and is expected to be complete by January 2014. All contract funds are committed immediately, and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12. Four proposals were received for this task order under the existing multiple-award contract by US Naval Facilities Engineering Command in Marianas, Guam (N40192-10-D-2801, #0007).

July 9/12: Cazador Apparel, LLC in Anchorage, AK wins a $35.2 million firm-fixed-price contract for the construction services at the medical facilities in Agana Heights, Guam.

Work will be performed in Guam, with an estimated completion date of Aug 31/14. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with 5 bids received by the US Army Corps of Engineers in Little Rock, AR (W9127S-12-C-6003).

June 28/12: Dck-Ecc Pacific Guam, LLC in Harmon, Guam wins $30 million for a firm-fixed-price task order to build an Air Freight Terminal Complex at Andersen AFB, Guam, and add an addition and alteration to Building 19020. Building 19028 will be deolished.

Work will be performed in Yigo, Guam, and is expected to be complete by May 2014. Six proposals were received for this task order under the existing multiple-award contract by US Naval Facilities Engineering Command in Marianas, Guam (N62742-10-D-1308, JQ01).

April 27/12: Small business qualifier Guam Pacific International, L.L.C. in Tamuning, Guam, won a $10.2 million for a firm-fixed-price task order under a multiple award umbrella contract. They will build a combat communications transmission system facility, and a combat communications combat support facility, in the Pacific Air Force Regional Training Center at Andersen AFB.

Work will be performed in Yigo, Guam, and is expected to be completed by November 2013. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Six proposals were received for this task order by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command in Marianas, Guam (N40192-10-D-2800, #0006).

April 27/12: Small business qualifier Pacific West Builders in National City, CA won a $9.5 million a firm-fixed-price task order under a multiple award umbrella contract. They’ll design and build the Red Horse cantonment operations facility at Andersen AFB.

Work will be performed in Yigo, Guam, and is expected to be completed by October 2013. Five proposals were received for this task order by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command in Marianas, Guam (N40192-10-D-2810, #0003).

March 30/12: Small business qualifier Guam Pacific International, LLC in Barrigada, Guam wins $7.4 million for a firm-fixed-price task order under the multiple award construction contract. In this job, they’ll try to reduce the Navy’s onshore utility costs by “retro commissioning” 33 Andersen AFB buildings in support of the Navy’s energy conservation program.

Work will be performed in Yigo, Guam, and is expected to be complete by September 2013. All contract funds are obligated on this award, and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year on Sept 30/12. Six proposals were received for this task order by Naval Facilities Engineering Command in Marianas, Guam (N40192-10-D-2800, #005).

Feb 8/12: De-linking. The USA agrees to move ahead with unilateral relocation of an unspecified number of Marines to Guam, while Japan muddles around on the issue of the Futenma replacement facility promised on Okinawa. Recent reports have also indicated that the Marines’ pattern of Guam deployments may change, with more temporary rotations rather than permanent deployment to the Pacific region. As the Pentagon release put it:

“Both sides have agreed to delink the movement of Marines to Guam and resulting land returns south of [Kadena Air Base, home to the U.S. Air Force’s 18th Wing] from progress on the Futenma replacement facility,” Little said. “By doing this, we can work the details of and make progress on each effort separately, yet we remain fully and equally committed to both efforts.”… “No decisions will be announced until the details of the way forward are agreed upon by both countries,” [Pentagon press secretary George] Little added. “Therefore, right now, it’s premature to discuss troop numbers or specific locations associated with the relocation of Marines from Okinawa.”

See: Pentagon | US Department of State | AP | Pacific Business News.

Dec 19/11: DZSP 21 LLC in Philadelphia, PA receives a $90.8 million cost-plus-award-fee contract modification, exercising the 3rd option period for base operation support services at Joint Region Marianas, and bringing the total contract so far to $684 million. Work will include general management and administration services; command and staff (public affairs office); public safety (safety and contingency); port operations; ordnance; material management; galley; facilities management and engineering services; sustainment, restoration and modernization; facilities services; utilities (electrical, wastewater, steam and demineralized water, and potable water); base support vehicles and equipment; and environmental.

Work will be performed at various installations in the US Territory of Guam, and is expected to be complete in December 2012. US Naval Facilities Engineering Command in Marianas, Guam manages the contract (N40192-10-C-3000).

Dec 15/11: At a Foreign Policy Initiative event, Sen. McCain [R-AZ] discusses basing in Japan and Guam, citing the model of the future as the joint basing agreement with Australia near Darwin. Under that model, the USA doesn’t “have to build the hospital, the school, the family housing, but you go in and you have joint operations.” Following Congress’ move to freeze funding for US troop redeployment and re-examine basing plans, Japan has moved to reduce relocation funding in its own budget. With respect to this issue, he says that:

“We’ve put a pause on this whole realignment until we get an overall study of what we can do in the region. Again, this comes down to cost… [the realignment] was going to cost $6 billion. You know what the cost is now, and they haven’t turned a shovel? $16 billion. We can’t afford to do that.”

See: FPI, incl. full video | Stars & Stripes.

Nov 10/11: Guam invaded. Fire ants are always a risk when air and sea cargo are being moved. The can be ecologically devastating, and are almost impossible to eradicate. They’ve just been found by staff of the Guam Coconut Rhinoceros Beetle Eradication Project, at Primos Northern Hardfill for organic materials, on the back road to Andersen AFB.

Wasmannia auropunctata have an island-hopping campaign of their own in progress, and we’re hesitant to bet against them. PNC.

Nov 10/11: Small business qualifier Guam Cleaning Masters in Dededo, Guam wins a $7.1 million firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery / indefinite-quantity contract for grounds maintenance and tree trimming services at various United States military installations in Guam, as well as maintenance of storm drainage systems. This contract contains 2 option years, which could bring its total value to $22.2 million.

Work will be performed in Guam, Marianas Islands, and is expected to be complete by November 2012. $6 million are obligated on this award and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12. This contract was competitively procured via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online website, with 4 proposals received by NAVFAC Marianas, Guam (N40192-12-D-9008).

Nov 10/11: The military’s influence on Guam is felt in many ways, and many areas. Stars and Stripes covers $1.3 million in federal military and veteran assistance grants awarded by the US Department of Transportation. The money will be used to create a dispatch office and website for the transit system, as well as a physical disabilities center.

Oct 20/11: Wrangling is the US Congress moves the FY 2012 defense appropriations bill forward in the Senate. Concerns raised by Senate Armed Services Committee leaders Sen. Levin [D-MI] and John McCain [R-AZ] about the Guam buildup (vid. May 12/11 entry) are reflected in the bill, which would freeze funds until the Pentagon produces a master plan, and better cost estimates. The House appropriations bill does not include this provision, which would make any final “reconciled” bill the subject of negotiations between the 2 chambers. PNC.

Tough deployment.
(click to view full)

June 23/11: Hawaiian Rock Products in Mangilao, Guam wins a maximum $75 million indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract for paving construction services at government shore-based facilities in Guam. Work includes construction, alteration, repair, and/or maintenance of asphalt concrete roads, streets, highways, alleys, parking areas, and their associated sidewalks, curbs and gutters, guardrails, U-ditch, drainage pipe, traffic striping, pavement marking, etc. The scope of work may involve limited or modified designs to include sub-drawings and calculations.

Work on this contract will be performed in Guam, and is expected to be complete by June 2014. $25,000 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11. This contract was competitively procured via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online website, with 4 proposals received. US NAVFAC Marianas, Guam, manages the contract (N40192-11-D-2830).

June 23/11: US NAVFAC Marianas, Guam lets a multiple-award, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity construction contract for general construction services at federal and military facilities on Guam and outlying areas in the Pacific. It includes a base year and 2 option years, for a total of $30 million. Other incidental work required includes “any and all items and considerations necessary to insure a complete and usable final product.”

All work on this contract will be performed in Guam and outlying areas in the Pacific. The term of the contract is not-to-exceed 36 months, with an expected completion date of June 2014. Contract funds in the amount of $158,800 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11. This contract was competitively procured via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online website, with 11 proposals received. All winners qualify as small businesses:

• SD, JV in Dededo, Guam (N40192-11-D-2820)
  
• Glen/Mar Construction, Inc. in Clackamas, OR (N40192-11-D-2821)
  
• Legion Construction, Inc. in Chelmsford, MA (N40192-11-D-2822)
  
• LM2 Construction Co., Inc. in Anaheim, CA (N40192-11-D-2823)
  
• M-80 Systems, Inc. in Barrigada, Guam (N40192-11-D-2824)
  
• Starlight-Shintani-Greenwave, JV in Honolulu, Hawaii (N40192-11-D-2825)
  
• United Systems Servicing America, Inc. in Oxnard, CA (N40192-11-D-2826)

Each task order is competed among the winners. SD JV is being awarded task order 0001 at $98,800, for the repair of the outdoor deck at building 295, Top of the Mar, Nimitz Hill, Guam. Work is expected to be completed by October 2011.

June 6/11: Small business qualifier Guam Pacific International, LLC in Barrigada, Guam wins $7.5 million for a firm-fixed-price task order, under a previous multiple award construction contract, to build a combat communications operations facility at Andersen Air Force Base. They’ll build a reinforced concrete facility that will include a command section, offices, briefing/training rooms, administration area, mechanical and electrical spaces, communications, fire suppression/detection, intrusion detection system, environmental controls, utilities, pavements, parking, associated site improvements, hazardous material abatement, antiterrorism/force protection measures and archeological monitoring and all necessary supporting facilities for a complete and usable facility, incorporating sustainable design strategies and features.

Work will be performed in Yigo, Guam, and is expected to be complete by August 2012. US NAVFAC Marianas, Guam received 6 proposals (N40192-10-D-2800, #0003).

May 12/11: Core elements of the Guam relocation plan have attracted opposition from 3 key US Senators, as costs rise. The burden of moving 23,000 Americans (8,600 Marines plus families) to an island with only 180,000 people, by around 2014, means considerable off-base federal spending to improve infrastructure. The Senate Armed Services Committee’s Chair (Carl Levin, D-MI) and Ranking member (John McCain, R-AZ), and Jim Webb (D-VA, former Secretary of the Navy, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee for East Asia and the Pacific) are offering a joint alternative proposal. Guam-related elements include:

“The projected times are totally unrealistic. The significant estimated cost growth associated with some projects is simply unaffordable in today’s increasingly constrained fiscal environment. Political realities in Okinawa and Guam, as well as the enormous financial burden imposed on Japan by the devastation resulting from the disastrous March 2011 earthquake and tsunami, also must be considered…

Revising the Marine Corps force realignment implementation plan for Guam to consist of a presence with a permanently-assigned headquarters element bolstered by deployed, rotating combat units that are home-based elsewhere, and consideration of off-island training sites.

Examining the feasibility of moving Marine Corps assets at MCAS Futenma, Okinawa, to Kadena Air Base, Okinawa, rather than building an expensive replacement facility at Camp Schwab – while dispersing a part of Air Force assets now at Kadena to Andersen Air Base in Guam and/or other locations in Japan.”

The Senators are considering legislative moves. The US Navy has said that it remains committed to the May 2010 joint agreement, but the Senators can insert clauses in bills like military budgets. If the clauses survive reconciliation with the House, they could block funding, or make it conditional. Joint Statement | Stars and Stripes.

April 6/11: Tutor Perini Corp. in Sylmar, CA receives $73.2 million for a firm-fixed-price task order, to build an aircraft parking apron at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. The firm will build an MV-22 aircraft portland cement concrete parking apron, a hot mix asphalt apron replacement pavement, an aircraft rinse facility, an aircraft wash-rack facility, 3 direct fueling stations, and a towway with retaining wall.

Work will be performed in Yigo, Guam, and is expected to be complete by July 2013. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command in Marianas, Guam received 7 proposals for this task order, under an existing multiple-award contract (N62742-10-D-1312, #JQ01).

April 6/11: Small business qualifier Guam Pacific International, LLC in Barrigada, Guam receives a $9.1 million for a firm-fixed-price task order to build water and wastewater utility services to the North Ramp Area of Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. The firm will build a potable water distribution system, gravity sewer collection, and sewer force main that extends service to the North Ramp Area and connects to the existing gravity sewer system. The system includes fire hydrants, valves, sewer manholes, air/vacuum valves, wastewater metering, lift stations, and standby power generation.

Work will be performed in Yigo, Guam, and is expected to be complete by January 2013. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command in Marianas, Guam received 6 proposals for this task order, under an existing multiple-award contract (N40192-10-D-2800, #0002).

Jan 31/11: Small business qualifier Chugach World Services, Inc. in Anchorage, AK receives a $32.1 million firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract modification, exercising option year 2 for housing and change of occupancy operations and maintenance services at Naval Base Guam and Andersen Air Force Base Guam. The firm will maintain and repair family housing units, bachelor housing units, Navy Gateway Inns and Suites (NGIS; formerly Visitors Quarters), and provide any services, maintenance and change of occupancy maintenance in both vacant and occupied family housing units, bachelor housing units, and NGIS units. After this option is exercised, the total contract amount will be $65.6 million.

Work will be performed in various Naval and Air Force housing areas on Guam, and is expected to be completed by January 2012. US Naval Facilities Engineering Command in Marianas, Guam manages the contract (N40192-09-D-9000).

Dec 17/10: DZSP 21, LLC in Philadelphia, PA receives a $93.2 million cost-plus-award-fee contract modification, exercising the 2nd award option period of the current contract for Joint Region Marianas base operation support services. They have managed previous multi-year contracts of this sort, and work will be performed at various installations in the United States territory of Guam. It is expected to be complete in December 2011. After the award of this option, the total cumulative contract value will be $494.2 million.

DZSP will provide general management and administration services; command and staff for the public affairs office; public safety (safety and contingency) work; port operations; ordnance; material management; galley; facilities management & engineering services; sustainment, restoration and modernization; facilities services; utilities (potable water, waste water, electrical and steam and demineralized water); base support vehicles and equipment; and environmental work. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command in Marianas, Guam manages the contract (N40192-10-C-3000, P00022).

click for video

Sept 30/10: The Guam MACC Builders joint venture in Honolulu, HI wins an $86 million for firm-fixed-price task order under an existing multiple-award construction contract for Apra Harbor Wharf improvements at Naval Base, Guam. The goal is to allow cold iron berthing for “extended” transient ships, primarily the USMC/Navy Amphibious Readiness Groups and their escort ships.

Work will include wharf strengthening, concrete utilities trenches, partial replacement of the bilge oily waste transfer system, removal of deficient and deteriorated water distribution systems, installation of new ship connection risers and fire hydrants, installation of new low pressure compressed air system and risers, installation of new demineralized water system to ship connection riser, and new foam-filled fenders for ship berthing at Uniform and Tango Wharves (good thing they were mentioned in that order).

Work will be performed in Apra Harbor, Guam, and is expected to be complete by August 2013. US Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific in Pearl Harbor, HI received 7 proposals for this task order (N62742-10-D-1309, #0002).

Sept 21/10: The U.S. military gave final approval to the proposal to move over 8,000 Marines and their dependents from Okinawa, Japan, to Guam. Historical preservation and environmental regulations are delaying 2 key decisions, however.

The live fire range’s location is held up over the potential impact on the officially-designated historic village of Pagat. That facility may eventually go through, but meanwhile, the Marines will build 4 live fire ranges on Tinian to the NE, beginning in 2013-2014, for use by forces located on Guam. Between 200 and 400 Marines can be accommodated within a 1-week period on Tinian, 12 times a year.

The proposed new aircraft carrier dock in Apra Harbor is also held up, as the US Environmental Protection Agency demanded more time to study its effect on nearby coral reefs. US Navy Guam Record of Decision [PDF] | AP | Gannett’s Navy Times | Pacific Daily News | Radio Australia | Stars and Stripes | Saipan Tribune re: Tinian ranges | Pacific News Center re: Pagat | KUAM re: Pagat.

Sept 21/10: The Hawaiian Rock Products Corp. in Mangilao, Guam received a $7.3 for firm-fixed-price task order under a previously awarded indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract (FA5240-09-D-0001, #JQ41) for repairs to Taxiway C between Taxiway H and G Road at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. The work involves cold milling and removal of existing asphalt concrete pavement to a depth of approximately 5 inches at Taxiway C, 2 inches at the taxiway shoulders, and 5 inches for the section of hardstand aprons down to existing base course. They will also spread, grade, and compact to 1 – 2 inches leveling course.

Work will be performed in Yigo, Guam, and is expected to be complete by February 2011. Contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. One proposal was received for this task order by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command in Marianas, Guam.

Sept 8/10: The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Marianas, Guam, awarded 4 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity multiple award contracts, worth a total maximum of $50 million, for remediation services at various locations in Guam and the Pacific Ocean area. The 4 small business qualifiers are CKY in Hagatna, Guam (N40192-10-D-0004); Donaldson Enterprises in Waikoloa, HI (N40192-10-D-0005); Environet in Honolulu, HI (N40192-10-D-0006); and Unitek Environmental Guam in Barrigada, Guam (N40192-10-D-0007).

The work to be performed provides for munitions response and incidental environmental remediation at sites which potentially contain munitions and explosives of concern and material potentially presenting an explosive hazard. The maximum dollar value, including the base period and 4 option years, for all 4 contracts combined is $50 million. The term of the contracts is not to exceed 60 months, with an expected completion date of September 2015. These contracts were competitively procured via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online website, with 5 proposals received.

July 5/10: Military.com relays reports that US defense secretary Robert Gates has asked Japan to pay more for the relocation of 8,000 Marines from Okinawa to Guam, over and above the $6 billion committed, because of higher-than-expected infrastructure costs for sewage, electricity, and water services at the new base.

If you don’t ask, you don’t get. Still, Japan appears to be reaching the limits of its debt spending approach, and may not have many politicians who are eager to run in upcoming elections promising more spending on the American residents of Guam.

June 18/10: HDR Engineering, Inc. in Honolulu, Hawaii wins a maximum $7.5 million firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity architect-engineer services contract to prepare plans and specifications for civil/environmental projects in the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Pacific area of responsibility (AOR).

No task orders have been issued yet, but work is expected to be performed at various Navy and Marine Corps facilities and other government facilities within the NAVFAC Pacific AOR including, but not limited to Guam (30%); Hawaii (20%); US West Coast (CA, NV and WA, 20%); and other areas in the Pacific and Indian Oceans (30%). The term of contract is not to exceed 36 months, with an expected completion date of June 2013. This contract was competitively procured via the NAVFAC E-Solicitation Web site with 6 proposals received by NAVFAC Pacific in Pearl Harbor, HI (N62742-10-D-0009).

June 2/10: Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama resigns, supposedly over his recent retreat on a pre-election pledge to move American forces out of Okinawa entirely. North Korea’s sinking of the ROKS Cheonan has caused a lot of re-thinking in the region, and in truth, Hatoyama’s low popularity was seen as an obstacle to his party’s re-election chances. This makes it hard to tell how much of the reason for resignation is actually pretext, though the Okinawa issue did split his coalition. BBC | London’s Telegraph.

May 11/10: The Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Pacific in Pearl Harbor, HI awarded indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity design-build multiple award construction contracts to 7 companies for construction projects in Guam and other areas in NAVFAC Pacific area of responsibility (AOR). The maximum dollar value, including the base period and 4 option years, for all 7 contracts combined is $4 billion.

The 7 winners are:

• CNMS Joint Venture in Honolulu, HI (N62742-10-D-1306);
  
• Core Tech-AMEC-SKEC in Honolulu, HI (N62742-10-D-1307);
  
• DCK-ECC Pacific Guam Construction in Clairton, PA (N62742-10-D-1308);
  
• Guam MACC Builders Joint Venture in Honolulu, HI (N62742-10-D-1309);
  
• Hensel Phelps-Granite-Traylor Pacific Joint Venture in Greeley, CO (N62742-10-D-1310);
  
• Kiewit-Mortenson Joint Venture in Kapolei, HI (N62742-10-D-1311); and
  
• Tutor Perini Corp. in Sylmar, CA (N62742-10-D-1312).

DCK-ECC Pacific Guam Construction is receiving a $23.4 million task order (0001) for design and construction of the Torpedo Exercise Support Building and Consolidated Submarine Learning Center Training and Commander Submarine Squadron 15 headquarters facility at Polaris Point, Guam. Work for this task order is expected to be completed by November 2011. Work on the 7 contracts will be performed within the NAVFAC Pacific AOR, which includes Guam (80%), Hawaii (10%), Diego Garcia (5%), and other areas in the Pacific and Indian Oceans (5%). The term of the contracts is not to exceed 60 months, with an expected completion date of May 2015. These contracts were competitively procured via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online Web site, with 8 proposals received.

March 10/10: The Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Marianas, Guam, awarded indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, multiple award construction contracts to 6 small business qualifiers for new construction, renovation/modernization and routine repair/maintenance of government shore-based facilities in Guam. The dollar value for all 6 contracts combined is $100 million; the contracts contain, however, unexercised option periods which, if exercised, would increase the cumulative combined value to $500 million.

The 6 winners are:

• Guam Pacific International in Barrigada, Guam (N40192-10-D-2800);
  
• Bulltrack-Watts Joint Venture in Marysville, CA (N40192-10-D-2801);
  
• Niking Corp. in Pearl City, HI (N40192-10-D-2802);
  
• Overland Corp. in Ardmore, OK (N40192-10-D-2803);
  
• P&S Construction in Lowell, MA (N40192-10-D-2804); and
  
• Pacific West Builders in National City, CA (N40192-10-D-2810

Guam Pacific International is receiving a $13 million task order (0001) under the contract for the design and construction of a combat support vehicle maintenance facility at the northwest field area of Andersen Air Force Base in Guam. Work for this task order is expected to be completed by July 2011. Work on the 6 contracts will be performed in Guam, with an expected completion date of March 2015. These contracts were competitively procured via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online Web site, with 13 proposals received by NAVFAC Marianas, Guam.

March 3/10: DCK-ECC Pacific Guam Construction in Guam won a $21.4 million firm-fixed-price contract for the construction of a complete working substation, distribution feeders, and switching stations at Andersen Air Force Base. The contract also contains 9 unexercised options which, if exercised, would increase cumulative contract value to $24.5 million. Work will be performed in Yigo, Guam, and is expected to be completed by January 2012. This contract was competitively procured via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online Web site, with 7 proposals received by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command Marianas, Guam (N40192-10-C-1337).

Dec 17/09: DZSP 21, LLC in Philadelphia, PA receives a $88.2 million cost-plus-award-fee contract modification, exercising the 1st award option period of the current contract for for Joint Region Marianas base operation support services within the territory of Guam. They have managed previous multi-year contracts of this sort, and the option period will run from Jan 1/10 – Dec 31/10, but contract funds expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/10. After the award of this option, the total cumulative contract value will be $390.1 million. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command in Marianas, Guam manages the contract (N40192-10-C-3000, P00001).

Oct 14/09: Congress’ GAO Audit Agency releases report #GAO-10-72: Defense Infrastructure: DOD Needs to Provide Updated Labor Requirements to Help Guam Adequately Develop Its Labor Force for the Military Buildup:

“The Department of Defense (DOD) plans to increase its military presence on Guam from about 15,000 in 2009 to more than 39,000 by 2020 at a cost of more than $13 billion. The growth will create temporary construction jobs and permanent civilian jobs with the military, with contractors, and in the Guam community. GAO was asked to examine the extent to which DOD and the government of Guam have (1) planned for temporary construction labor requirements and the means to meet the requirements for building military infrastructure to support the force in Guam and (2) identified permanent federal and non-federal civilian jobs and shared this information so that Guam can develop its workforce to better compete for job opportunities.”

Sept 30/09: The Pacific Program-Design Management Services Joint Venture in Pasadena, CA received $6.4 million for task order #0008 under a previously awarded cost-plus-award fee, firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract (N62742-08-D-0009). It exercises option 1 for program management support services for various projects covered by the Defense Policy Review Initiative and other projects in the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Pacific area of responsibility (AOR), bringing the total contract to $20.9 million.

Work will be performed primarily in Guam (80%); Hawaii (10%); and may include work in the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands (7%); and locations anywhere in the Pacific and Indian Oceans (NAVFAC Pacific’s AOR, 3%); and is expected to be complete by Sept 30/10 (end of FY 2010). The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii manages the contract.

Sept 15/09: The PDI-HSW Joint Venture in Seattle, WA won a $13 million firm-fixed price contract to build a central utility plant at the Naval Hospital in Guam. Support facilities include a primary water distribution system, other required installed utility systems and modifications, sidewalks, and related site improvements. Work includes exterior reinforced concrete walls, windows, roofing, mechanical and electrical systems that are compatible with tropical environmental and seismic conditions.

Work will be performed in Guam, Marianas Island, and is expected to be completed by February 2011. This contract was competitively procured via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online website, with 5 proposals received by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific in Pearl Harbor, HI (N62742-09-C-1308).

Sept 11/09: Rome Research Corp. in Rome, NY won a $7.1 million modification (P00010) under a previously awarded firm-fixed-price with cost-reimbursable line items contract (N00604-08-C-0001), exercising option 2 for operation and maintenance support within Naval Computer & Telecommunications Station Guam. Work will be performed in Guam, and is expected to be complete by September 2011. Contract funds will expire before the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online and Federal Business Opportunities Web sites, with 3 offers received by the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center in Pearl Harbor, HI.

Aug 25/09: Core Tech International Corporation in Barrigada, Guam won a $13.9 million firm-fixed-price contract for the construction of a wastewater collection system upgrade at NAVBASE Guam, including replacement and rehabilitation of the aged sewer lift stations and sewer pipelines in the collection system of the Apra Harbor Wastewater Treatment Plant (AHWWTP), and installation of a modern monitoring and control system. The goal is to make maintenance easier, and improve capacity, and ensure proper functioning even in extreme conditions; pump station controls and emergency generators will be placed in structures hardened for typhoons.

Work will be performed in Agana, Guam, and is expected to be complete by September 2011. This contract was competitively procured via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online website, with 6 proposals received by NAVFAC Pacific (N62742-09-C-1306).

June 22/09: Chugach World Services, Inc. in Anchorage, Alaska won a $12.9 combination FFP/IDIQ base period contract ($5.1M firm-fixed price and $7.7M indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity) to perform housing operations and maintenance services and change of occupancy maintenance services in the U.S. Territory of Guam for the Commander, Naval Forces Marianas.

Work will be performed at various Naval housing areas on Guam and the base period is from June 2009 – December 2010, and contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured utilizing the Small Business Administration’s 8(a) small business program, and was advertised via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online website with 8 proposals received. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command in Marianas, Guammanages this contract (N40192-09-D-9000).

Read “Alaska Native Corporations: IGs and Issues” for some insight into their involvement, and growing weight in, US government small business contracts.

June 17/09: Multiple-award contract. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command in Marianas, Guam issues 10 multiple-award indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contracts to small business qualifier firms in Guam, covering the design and construction, renovation/modernization and routine repair/maintenance of government shore-based facilities in Guam. The contracts have a maximum total value of $50 million in the base period, but could rise to $400 million if all 4 option periods are exercised, and the maximum value of contracts are awarded in each period. The initial base period ends in June 2010. Winning firms include:

• Ace Builders LLC in Barrigada, Guam (N40192-09-D-2700)
  
• AIC International, Inc. in Hagatna, Guam (N40192-09-D-2701)
  
• BME & Sons, Inc. in Barrigada, Guam (N40192-09-D-2702)
  
• Fargo Pacific, Inc. in Hagatna, Guam, (N40192-09-D-2703)
  
• Keum Yang Corp. in Tamuning, Guam (N40192-09-D-2704)
  
• Modern International, Inc. in Tamuning, Guam (N40192-09-D-2705)
  
• Overland Corp. in Ardmore, Oklahoma (N40192-09-D-2706)
  
• Reliable Builders, Inc. in Tamuning, Guam (N40192-09-D-2707)
  
• Serrano Construction and Development Corporation in Dededo, Guam, (N40192-09-D-2708)
  
• Tumon Corp. in Tamuning, Guam (N40192-09-D-2709),

This contract was competitively procured via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online website, with 20 proposals received. These 10 winning contractors will compete for individual task orders under the terms and conditions of the awarded contract.

NB Guam
(click to view full)

May 28/09: Small business qualifier Reliable Builders, Inc. in Tamuning, Guam received a $10.5 million firm-fixed-price contract to repair and modernize Bachelor Quarters Building 580 ($4.2M); and Bachelor Quarters Buildings 581 and 584 ($6.3M) at Camp Covington, U.S. Naval Base Guam. Work includes the repair and alteration of Bachelor Enlisted Quarters (BEQ) to comply with BEQ construction standards as outlined in “MIL-HDBK 1036A Bachelor housing standards.” Renovation will utilize energy efficient plumbing, mechanical, and electrical fixtures/ equipment, and also includes seismic strengthening to resist major earthquakes, meet the 170-mph wind resistance criteria for Guam, and upgrade the fire protection system.

Work will be performed in Santa Rita, Guam, and is expected to be complete by October 2010. Funds are provided under the Obama stimulus package, a.k.a. “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.” This contract was competitively procured utilizing the Small Business Administration’s 8(a) Program, with 3 proposals received by The Naval Facilities Engineering Command Marianas, Guam (N40192-09-C-1322).

May 11/09: TEC, Inc. Joint Venture in Charlottesville, VA received a $27.8 million modification to exercise option #0003 under previously awarded firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract for architect-engineer and environmental planning services in Guam (95%), and in Hawaii, Saipan, and various locations in areas under the cognizance of the Naval Facilities Engineering Command Pacific (5%). The total contract amount after exercise of this option will be $37.2 million. The contract also contains 1 additional one-year option period which if exercised would increase cumulative contract value to $65 million.

Work is expected to be completed May 2010, but contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific in Pearl Harbor, HI manages this contract (N62742-06-D-1870).

April 30/09: Hensel Phelps Construction Co. in Greeley, CO won a $53.8 million firm fixed-price-construction contract for new Bachelor Enlisted Quarters at Naval Base Guam. The multi-story building will provide standard 1+1E room configuration, with 140 two-person rooms for 280 E1-E3 level personnel. The building will include central services within the module, plus spaces for mechanical, electrical, telecommunication, janitor, storage rooms, and vending and lounge areas. The project will also provide supporting utilities and facilities including a surface parking lot and paving and site improvements. Work will be performed on U.S. Naval Base Guam and is expected to be complete by May 2011.

This contract was competitively negotiated with 41 offers solicited via the Naval Facilities Engineering Command e-solicitation website, and 7 proposals received. by the US Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Marianas in Guam (N40192-09-C-1314).

Feb 13/09: The US military’s Transportation Command’s Directorate of Acquisition at Scott Air Force Base, IL issues a series of contracts for freight transportation to Guam and Hawaii, over the period from March 16/09 to the end of November 2009. The 4 contracts specify maximum amounts, and individual orders will be placed under their framework as needs arise. Winners include:

Pasha Hawaii Transport Lines, LLC of Corte Madera, CA received a $60 million fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract for sea and intermodal freight service between U..S. West Coast Ports to/from Hawaii. This contract was a competitive acquisition with 4 bids received (HTC711-09-D-0007).

Matson Navigation Co., Inc. of Oakland, CA received a $100 million fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract for sea and intermodal freight service between U.S. West Coast Ports to/from Hawaii, and U.S. West Coast Ports to/from Guam. This contract was a competitive acquisition with four 4 bids received (HTC711-09-D-0008).

American Roll-On Roll-Off Carriers of Park Ridge, NJ received a $40 million fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract for sea and intermodal freight service between U.S. West Coast Ports to/from Guam. This contract was a competitive acquisition with 4 bids received (HTC711-09-D-0009).

Horizon Lines, LLC, of Charlotte, NC received a $100 million fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract for sea and intermodal freight service between U.S. West Coast Ports to/from Hawaii, U.S. West Coast Ports to/from Guam, and Alaska Ports to/from Guam. This contract was a competitive acquisition with 4 bids received (HTC711-09-D-0010).

Feb 3/09: The TEC, Inc. Joint Venture in Charlottesville, VA received a $25 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to raise the maximum dollar value of an indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract that supports the relocation of the U.S. Marines Corps from Okinawa, Japan to the U.S. territory of Guam. After this modification, the total cumulative contract value will be $65 million.

Work includes Architect-Engineering (A-E) Services for Environmental Planning, and related technical services that include preliminary site assessment studies, feasibility assessments, and engineering services. Work will be performed in Guam, and is expected to be completed by May 2011. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, manages the contract (N62742-06-D-1870).

Jan 19/09: A flight of 14 F-22As deployed from their home base at Elmendorf AFB, Alaska arrive at Andersen AFB in Guam for a 3-month forward deployment. A second set of 12 F-22As arrives in Kadena, Japan from Langley AFB in Virginia.

One of the things the USAF will be paying attention to is the effect that the change from Alaska’s winter to Guam’s tropical climate will have on the aircraft. This difference seems trivial, but it has a variety of implications. The Raptor‘s stealth characteristics, for instance, are partly dependent on very smooth fits of its component parts. USAF re: Guam arrival | USAF re: deployment in general | Gannet’s Air Force Times | The Virginian-Pilot.

Dec 3/08: Sherlock, Smith and Adams, Inc. in Montgomery, AL received a $9.8 million modification to contract number N62742-01-D-0023, firm fixed task order #0003. The modification covers FY 2009 Hospital Replacement project at Guam Naval Hospital, Guam. Specifically, the firm will develop design documents for the new hospital including inpatient medical/surgical, labor and delivery care, acute/intensive care units, outpatient primary and specialty care clinics, emergency medicine, support functions, and medical logistics.

The project is called “Defense TRICARE Management Activity Military Construction Project 55918,” and this award brings the total cumulative value of task order #0003 to $15 million. Work will be performed in Guam, and is expected to be complete by January 2010. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific in Pearl Harbor, HI manages this contract.

Dec 11/08: DZSP 21 LLC in Philadelphia, PA receives a $72.7 million modification to a previously awarded cost plus award fee contract (N62742-05-C-3501), exercising the 4th option period for Base Operations Support (BOS) services in the Territory of Guam for the Commander, Naval Forces Marianas. Services will include general management and administration services; command and staff (public affairs office); public safety (safety and contingency); port operations; ordnance; galley; facilities management; sustainment, restoration/modernization; facilities services; utilities (potable water, wastewater, electrical, and steam); base support vehicles and equipment; and environmental services.

The current total contract amount after exercise of this option will be $285.4 million. Work will be performed at various installations in the U.S. Territory of Guam, and will continue until Dec 31/09, but contract funds will expire on Sept 30/09, at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command Marianas at Naval Base Guam manages the contract.

Nov 24/08: NAVFAC Marianas announces the 2nd increment of an $83.8 million firm-fixed price contract to the IBC/TOA Corporation Joint Venture based in Barrigada, Guam (see also March 26/08 entry). The new $43.8 million increment will be used to complete expansion of U.S. Naval Base Guam’s Kilo Wharf, used for ammunition. Cmdr. Matthew Suess, executive officer for NAVFAC Marianas:

“The extension is to accommodate the new T-AKE class of ammunition vessels, meet current seismic standards, and provide for containerized cargo operations with the installation of new crane rails.”

The project is scheduled for completion in 2010. US Navy release.

CV-63 into Apra Harbor
(click to view full)

Sept 25/08: Rome Research Corp. in Rome, NY received a $6.6 million firm-fixed-price with cost reimbursable line items contract for operation and maintenance support for facilities operating under Naval Computer & Telecommunications Station Guam.

Work is expected to be completed by September 2011. Contract funds in the amount of $489,176 will expire before the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was awarded competitively through Navy Electronic Commerce Online and Federal Business Opportunities, with 3 offers received by the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.

Sept 18/08: DCK Pacific Guam, LLC in Barrigada, Guam won a $15.4 million firm-fixed-price contract to repair and alter existing reinforced concrete facilities, to provide administrative offices for the Joint Region Marianas Headquarters at Nimitz Hill, Guam. The facilities will include administrative buildings and a generator building, and the contractor will build administrative spaces, operations center, and conference rooms for approximately 300 personnel. The contract also contains one option; if exercised, it would boost the contract’s value to $18.6 million.

Work is expected to be complete by March 2010. This contract was competitively procured via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online website, with 3 proposals received by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Marianas, Guam (N40192-08-C-1316).

Aug 20/08: Core Tech International Corp. in Tamuning, Guam received a $42 million firm-fixed-price contract to replace family housing units at Old Apra, Phase 2 in Naval Base Guam. This is a design-build project with performance and prescriptive requirements provided by the Government.

The family units will consist of single and duplex family housing units, but the housing units are also typhoon shelters with special construction criteria for reinforced concrete structures, exterior doors, windows and storm shutters that will meet the provisions for withstanding typhoon wind speed of 170 mph, Exposure D and Zone 4 seismic loading. They’re also designed for energy savings that could total as much as $600 per month per unit. See also: “Guam-Based Families to Move into New, Energy-Efficient Homes.”

The contract contains one option at $7.6 million which may be exercised within 180 calendar days, bringing the total cumulative value to $49.6 million. Work will be performed in Guam, and is expected to be complete by September 2010. This contract was competitively procured with 68 offers solicited and 4 proposals received by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii (N62742-08-C-1310).

June 23/08: Helix Electric, Inc. in San Diego, CA received a $52.7 million firm-fixed-price contract for the FY 2008 MCON P-494 of the Harden Electrical System at the Main Base in Agana, Guam. The contractor will design and build the primary electrical distribution system serving critical operational facilities on the main base, in order to mitigate damage caused by typhoons.

Work will be performed in Guam, and is expected to be complete July 2010. This contract was competitively procured with 48 proposals solicited and 6 offers received by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii (N62742-08-C-1305).

March 26/08: The IBC/TOA Corp. joint venture in Barrigada, Guam won a $40 million firm-fixed-price contract for an extension and necessary dredging to the Kilo Wharf at the Commander Naval Region Marianas Main Base, Guam. An additional $43.8 million will be funded upon the passage of FY 2009 Military Construction Appropriation Bill, making the total amount $83.8 million (see Nov 24/08 entry). The contract also contains one option which would bring the total cumulative value of the contract to $84 million.

Work will be performed in Guam, and is expected to be complete by March 2010. This contract was competitively procured with 60 proposals solicited and 5 offers received by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii (N62742-08-C-1301).

March 25/08: DCK Pacific, LLC in Honolulu, Hawaii received a $24.6 million firm-fixed-price contract for phase 1 of potable water system recapitalization at Naval Base Guam. They’ll replace existing water lines with larger sized lines, including miscellaneous water mains and line connections, replace gate valves with butterfly valves at the reservoirs, replace the altitude valves at the reservoirs, install pressure-reducing valves for water lines feeding the Sasa Valley, X-Ray Wharf and Polaris Point; and install zone water meters for various areas. The Navy Lake Pump Station will also see a lot of work, including a new emergency generator, a new concrete building, replacing vertical pumps with 500 horsepower horizontal / variable frequency drive pumps, and an air conditioned addition to the existing pump station building.

Work will be performed in Guam, and is expected to be complete by April 2010. This contract was competitively procured, with 23 proposals solicited and 6 offers received by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii (N62742-08-C-1307).

Jan 22/08: Squadron commander Maj. Mark Riselli, 509th Expeditionary Maintenance Operations types “Words from the Forward Operating Location“:

“Hafa Adai (greetings) from the Niner Forward Operating Location, Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. With three months of this deployment complete, we’ve succeeded in accomplishing many of our pre-deployment goals and have also fielded many additional taskings and projects with professionalism. As this bomber forward presence rotation marks the B-2’s third long duration deployment in fleet history, many 509’ers have had the opportunity to visit Guam – but, for those who have not yet done so, I’d like to share some quick & interesting facts about the island, recent military activity and finally share some deployed accomplishments…”

Jan 11/08: A ribbon-cutting ceremony marks the completion of upgrades to Bravo Wharf at Naval Base Guam, providing the capability to host the Navy’s new SSGN submarines. The $50.7 million military construction (MILCON) project was awarded to Black Construction Corp. in 2006, and entailed dredging of the channel and turn basin at inner Apra Harbor, strengthening of existing wharf foundations, extending the wharf to accommodate SSGNs, as well as upgrading the fire protection, lighting, anchoring and water distribution systems. The newly improved wharf can also accommodate ships as large as a CG-47 Ticonderoga class cruisers.

The capability to host and provide a complete range of shore services to the SSGN on Guam allows for longer-term submarine presence, as well as a more robust range of sub-surface mission packages available in the Pacific theater of operations. The project was executed and managed in Guam by NAVFAC Marianas, under former submarine officer Cmdr. Matt Suess.

A complimentary Alpha Wharf improvement adjacent to Bravo Wharf is scheduled to be completed in summer 2008. US Navy release.

Jan 10/08: The US military no longer sails its ships home every time it needs to swap crews – instead, it brings new crews to the ships. USS Ohio [SSGN 726] is completing the first underway period of a 1 year deployment to 7th Fleet, and is spending its time in the Western Pacific. On this day, the submarine arrived in Guam. Its original “Blue Crew” was relieved on Jan 11/08 by the follow-on “Gold Crew,” but will remain for about 3 weeks to put the sub in tip-top shape before the fully turn it over and fly home.

Ohio will treat Guam as its home base until have 3 crew swaps have passed; then it will return to its official home port in Bangor, WA. US Navy release.

Jan 4/08: GS 21 LLC of Hagatna, Guam received a firm-fixed-price contract modification for $6.3 million for supply and transportation services. At this time, all funds have been obligated by the 36th Contracting Squadron at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam (FA5240-06-C-0004-P000024).

January 2008: The US Air Force Association offers a very good profile of Guam’s importance, and of its future as a base for air, land, and sea forces. Read “Guam, All Over Again.”

Dec 27/07: DZSP 21 LLC in Philadelphia, PA received a $66.5 million option under a cost-plus-award-fee contract (N62742-05-C-3501) to exercise the 3rd option period for Base Operations Support services in the Territory of Guam for the Commander, Naval Forces Marianas. The work to be performed provides for, but is not limited to, general management and administration services; command and staff (public affairs office); public safety (safety and contingency); port operations; ordnance; galley; facilities management; sustainment, restoration/modernization; facilities services; utilities (potable water, wastewater, electrical, and steam); base support vehicles and equipment; and environmental.

The current total contract amount after exercise of this option will be $203.1 million. Work will be performed at various installations in the U.S. Territory of Guam, and is expected to be completed in December 2008. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii issued the contract.

Oct 15/07: Rome Research Corp. in Rome, NY received a $6.2 million firm-fixed-price with cost reimbursable line items contract for operation and maintenance support for facilities operating under Naval Computer & Telecommunications Stations (NCTS) Guam. This contract includes a base period and 3 one-year option periods that, if exercised, bring the total estimated value of the contract to $25.7 million. Work will be performed in Finegayan, Guam (90%) and Barrigada, Guam (10%), and is expected to be completed by September 2011. Contract funds will expire at the end of the fiscal year. This contract was awarded competitively through Navy Electronic Commerce Online and Federal Business Opportunities, with 3 offers received by the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii (N00604-08-C-0001).

Oct 5/07: Pacific Daily News publishes “Army unsure of its Guam needs.” It’s a good overview of US military plans and thought processes at this stage re: Guam expansion. At this stage, the US military is clear re: plans for the transfer of 8,000 Marines and their dependents from Okinawa, but the U.S. Army, which may create a base for 630 soldiers and their families to provide missile defense, but no decision has been reached.

Current plans for Guam have different branches of the service sharing bases, and the goal is to keep family and bachelor housing close to the bases and military services. The bases will also be designed to allow for future expansion, in order to prevent the type of encroachment that ended up creating so many problems in Okinawa.

A billion-dollar road linking military bases in northern and southern Guam has been proposed, but plans will not begin until at least one of the services says it needs that road for its operations. There has also been discussion re: placing the Army base near Barrigada, next to the existing Guam Army National Guard. Meanwhile, Dededo continues to be the most likely location for the Marines, and Andersen Air Force base continues to be the most viable option for Marine Corps aircraft.

The missile defense base will almost certainly be located elsewhere, and the military still has not found a viable location on military-held land for live-fire training. There isn’t a single location on Guam that will meet all of the military’s training needs, so the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas also is being considered.

May 14/07: The TEC, Inc. Joint Venture in Charlottesville, VA received a $30.4 million option under previously awarded firm-fixed price, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract (N62742-06-D-1870). it covers “architect-engineer services for environmental planning to support strategic forward basing initiatives and related technical services for projects and activities at various locations.”

Work will be performed predominantly in Guam (95%), and in Hawaii, Saipan, and various locations in areas under the cognizance of the Naval Facilities Engineering Command Pacific (NAVFAC Pacific) in Pearl Harbor, HI; other NAVFAC components; or other governmental agencies for which NAVFAC Pacific is tasked to provide assistance (5%). The exact location of individual efforts will be designated on individual contract task orders. Work is expected to be complete May 2008.

May 4/07: Black Construction Corporation in Barrigada, Guam, won a $42 million firm-fixed-price contract for the FY 2007 military construction of an aircraft maintenance and operations complex at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam for RQ-4 Global Hawk High Altitude, Long Endurance (HALE) UAVs. Work is expected to be completed May 2009. This contract was competitively procured, with 24 proposals solicited and 2 offers received by Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific, Construction Contracts Branch (N62742-07-C-1310).

The US made offers to create a multi-national pacific “pool” of RQ-4 Global Hawk UAVs, to be based in Guam and operated under an arrangement similar to NATO’s multinational E-3 AWACS fleet.

April 25/07: Small business qualifier Core Tech International Corp. in Tamuning, Guam received a $10 million firm-fixed-price contract for the FY 2007 Military Construction Upgrade Northwest Field Infrastructure, Phase I, Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. This contract was competitively procured with 31 proposals solicited and 6 offers received by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific, Construction Contracts Branch. Core Tech International Corporation is a small, woman-owned, Section 8(a), certified Small Disadvantaged Business, certified HUBZone firm (N62742-07-C-1309).

The scope of work includes the design and construction of upgrades to the existing water, wastewater, and electrical infrastructure systems at Northwest Field. Work will be performed in Guam on Andersen Air Force Base and is expected to be completed November 2008. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.

April 17/07: Watts Constructors, LLC in Honolulu, HI received $42.7 million under previously awarded firm-fixed-price design/build contract #N62742-06-C-1308 to exercise Option 1 (Phase II) to replace typhoon damaged homes at North Tipalao, Commander, Naval Marianas, Marianas Islands, Guam. The current total contract amount after exercise of this option will be $78.6 million. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Marianas in Guam issued the contracts.

Work to be performed includes the demolition, removal and disposal of 108 typhoon-damaged homes and construction of 103 new three-bedroom and 5 new four-bedroom family housing units with one-car garage, covered patio, privacy fencing, and exterior storage features, bus stop shelters, mailbox clusters, asphalt concrete road sections, concrete driveways, curbs, gutters, ramps, sidewalks, jogging paths, and bike/walkways, drainage and utility systems, recreational facilities; repair of concrete curbs and gutters; landscaping; provision of temporary utility connections for family housing units designated to remain; and incidental related work. Work will be performed in Guam, and is expected to be completed by May 2009.

April 09/07: Black Construction Corp. in Barrigada, Guam received a $42.1 million firm-fixed-price contract for replacement of 61 housing units at Old Apra, Naval Base, Guam. The work to be performed provides for the design, demolition, removal and disposal, and reconstruction of existing housing units and supporting facilities. The units consist of duplex housing units (28 total units) and 33 four-bedroom officer single detached housing units and supporting facilities.

Work will be performed in Santa Rita, Guam, and is expected to be completed by May 2009. This contract was competitively procured with 13 offers solicited and 2 proposals received. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific in Pearl Harbor, HI issued the contract (N62742-07-C-1306).

March 29/07: GFS Group in Hagatna, Guam received an estimated $7.5 million modification to previously awarded firm-fixed-price, indefinite-quantity and time and material contract (N40192-05-D-9005) to exercise an option for housing operations and maintenance services for various Naval Installation, Territory of Guam. The housing operation maintenance services to be performed include, but are not limited to, general management & administration services, family housing, bachelor housing and operation and maintenance of radon reduction.

Work will be performed at various naval housing in the Territory of Guam for the Commander, US Naval Forces Marianas, and is expected to be complete March 2008. This contract was competitively procured via the Naval Facilities Engineering Command e-solicitation website with 7 proposals received by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Marianas (Mod. P00003).

Dec 15/06: DZSP 21 LLC in Philadelphia, PA received $59.9 million to exercise option 2 under a previously awarded cost-plus-award-fee, awards option contract (N62742-05-C-3501) for Base Operations Support (BOS) services in the Territory of Guam for the Commander, Naval Forces Marianas. Work will be performed at various installations in the U.S. Territory of Guam, and is expected to be completed December 2007. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific in Pearl Harbor, HI issued the contract.

Work to be performed provides for, but is not limited to, general management and administration services; command and staff (public affairs office); public safety (safety and contingency); port operations; ordnance; galley; facilities management; sustainment, restoration/modernization; facilities services; utilities (potable water, wastewater, electrical, and steam); base support vehicles and equipment; and environmental. The current total contract amount after exercise of this option will be $132.5 million.

Additional Readings

• US Congress GAO (Oct 14/09, #GAO-10-72) – Defense Infrastructure: DOD Needs to Provide Updated Labor Requirements to Help Guam Adequately Develop Its Labor Force for the Military Buildup
• US Air Force Association Magazine (January 2008) – Guam, All Over Again. Excellent coverage of the basing issues and plans for Guam.
• Pacific Daily News (Oct 5/07) – Army unsure of its Guam needs. Good overview of US military plans and thought processes at this stage re: Guam expansion.
• Defense Technology International (April 27/07) – U.S. Strengthens Presence in Okinawa and Guam
• SeaPower Magazine, via Military.com (Jan 25/07) – Guam’s Return to Prominence

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

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

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

K-FX C-501: no.
(click to view full)

December 7/15: South Korea’s Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) has been accompanied by high level diplomats to discuss the KF-X fighter program with Lockheed Martin. The trip to the US follows the visit by Lockheed staff to Seoul last month to discuss the transfer of 21 technologies from their F-35 fighter jet. The inclusion of diplomats shows that Korea is looking to bolster their bargaining power amid the refusal to allow the transfer of four key technologies by the US government. DAPA claimed that they are capable of developing these four key technologies, but failure to secure the remaining 21 would be of serious consequence to the development of Korea’s own indigenous fighter.

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”.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

• Aviation Week – KFX Timeline. To 2013.
• Aviation Week (Feb 3/14) – Fast-Changing Trends In Asia Fighter Market
• Flight International (Oct 27/11) – IN FOCUS: South Korea outlines strategy for indigenous fighter.
• World Politics Review (Aug 13/10) – Global Insider: Indonesia-South Korea Joint Fighter Project (subscription). Says that KF-X will be based on KAI’s T-50, and aims to produce a fighter on par with the F-16C/D Block 50.
• Defense News (July 15/10) – Indonesia Joins South Korean Fighter Effort
• The Jakarta Post (July 12/10) – RI-S. Korea KFX cooperation: The second best option?
• Aviation Week (Sept 21/09) – A Generation 4.5 Fighter for the 2020s

Related Programs

• DID – Korea’s T-50 Family Spreads Its Wings. Some accounts have KF-X as an FA-50 derivative.
• DID – Korea’s F-X Multi-Role Fighter Buys: Phases 2 & 3. The ROKAF’s high-end fighter plans.

USMC KC-130J
(click to view full)

Special Operations Command’s AC-130H/U gunships can lay down withering hails of accurate fire, up to and including 105mm howitzer shells, in order to support ground troops.

The Marines also wanted heavy aircraft that could support their Leathernecks on the ground. The bad news was that the Corps could field about 45 KC-130J aerial tankers for the price of a 12-plane AC-130J squadron. Lighter options like the AC-27J “Stinger II” would probably tally similar costs, once R&D dollars were distributed among such a small fleet. Could the Marines change tack, and offer a modular weapon package that would let them arm their existing tankers as needed? Could armed KC-130Js offer limited fire support, while loitering over the battlefield and using their unique speed envelope to refuel helicopters and fast jets alike? The Harvest Hercules Airborne Weapons Kit (HAWK) program aims to do just that. It gives the USMC a far less capable convertible gunship option in Afghanistan, but the cost is about 2 orders of magnitude below a dedicated gunship fleet. Unsurprisingly, the next service to show interest in this concept was SOCOM itself.

Gunships R Us: Equipping The Hercs

The US Marines: KC-130J Harvest HAWK

AC-130H Specter
(click to view full)

The Marines’ initial Harvest HAWK plan is to field 3 kits, but the eventual plan is to have 3 roll-on/ roll-off kits per squadron. That would mean about 9 kits by 2011, and 12 kits when the last KC-130T aerial refueling squadron converts to KC-130Js after 2012. All USMC KC-130Js are expected to receive the wiring needed to carry the kits, which will be improved and refined over time.

Harvest HAWK Capability I involves a roll-on/roll-off set of surveillance displays and fire control electronics, plus “Blue Force Tracker” to keep tabs on friendly troops, and ROVER to communicate with them. Outside the cabin, a modular surveillance and targeting unit takes up the rear portion of the inboard left external fuel tank, or may simply be mounted below that tank as a surveillance turret. The sensor choice was said to involve 2 candidates. Lockheed Martin’s AN/AAQ-30 TSS, which is also used in the Marines’ AH-1Z attack helicopter and has been installed in some SOCOM AC-130s, won. L-3 Wescam’s popular MX-15 surveillance and targeting turret was the competitor, but competing against the Harvest Hawk’s integrator is not a promising position.

Harvest HAWK Capability II involves mounting an M299 missile rack for 4 AGM-114P Hellfires and/or up to 16 DAGR laser-guided 70mm rockets to the left wing, in place of the left-hand outboard aerial refueling pod. This leaves the left wing carrying the weapons and some fuel, while the right wing retains full aerial refueling capabilities. Capability IV (see below) was also moved up, and the 10-tube rear ramp “Gunslinger” system and precision weapons were effectively added to this increment.

After early testing for Capabilities I & II took place, initial orders and testing followed. Deployment to Afghanistan started in summer 2010.

M230 30mm
(click to view full)

Harvest HAWK Capability III involves a modular 30mm cannon linked to the fire control, which is expected to be rolled in and mounted in the troop door. Daniel Watters of The Gun Zone writes to say that the Marines’ choice of 30mm gun is interesting, and explains the tradeoffs:

“While the Mk 44 Bushmaster II [30x173mm] and M230 Chain Gun [30x113mm] are both nominally 30mm, their cartridges are very different…There is a major difference in size, power, and range. The Mk 44 Bushmaster II has already been adopted by the US Navy and USMC for other applications… The 30x173mm uses a heavier projectile with a larger explosive filling, and is fired at a higher velocity [which] should have a noticeable maximum range advantage. Perhaps it would be easier to fabricate a stable mount for the less powerful M230 than the Mk 44… M230 and its ammunition are also lighter and more compact.”

US Special Forces tried fitting 30mm cannon to their AC-130U “Spooky” gunships, but found that the gun’s accuracy level wasn’t suited to their missions. In response, they implemented a “retrograde” to their earlier 25mm and 40mm weapons. The Marines say that the 30mm cannon will suit their objectives. Time will tell, but either way, the lack of pinpoint-accurate, extreme-volume gunfire will be one of the principal differences between SOCOM’s AC-130s, and kit gunships like the KC-130Js or MC-130Ws.

Capability III has yet to even select a gun at this point, much less test and integrate one. According to US Navy NAVAIR: “…capability III [will begin] when funding becomes available.” ATK finalized a roll-on/off palletized kit for the GAU-23 cannon in mid-2012, which may help funding become available.

Viper Strike
(click to view larger)

Capability IV originally involved adding additional Standoff Precision Guided Munitions (SOPGMs) to the Harvest HAWK, but that got moved ahead to Capability II. They’re dropped out of a 10-tube “Gunslinger” launcher that fits on the rear ramp, but their future involves a new pressurized “Derringer Door”. That 10-tube launcher switches in for the regular paratroop door, allowing Harvest HAWK planes to drop weapons without depressurizing the cabin, and/or asking those inside to don oxygen masks.

Efforts were already underway to incorporate and test Northrop Grumman’s (now MBDA’s) GBU-44 Viper Strike laser/GPS-guided weapons on the KC-130Js, and they were under consideration by SOCOM for its AC-130s. Raytheon’s small “Griffin” missiles were also added. The rocket-powered Griffin B can replace Hellfires on an M299 launcher, on 3 for 1 basis. For the C-130 fleet, however, the unpowered, gravity-dropped Griffin A seems to be the mainstay. Other weapons are likely, especially from US SOCOM. One weapon they have confirmed funding for is Textron’s cylindrical 64-pound C-LAW, whose airburst devastates soft ground targets over an area the size of a football field.

Specifics regarding additional weapon plans are thin at the moment, but other options could conceivably include 81mm or larger mortars, using General Dynamics’ RCFC GPS guidance kits; tiny missiles like the NAVAIR/DRS Spike; and spinoffs from the explosion of small precision-guided bombs entering the market: Lockheed Martin’s Scorpion, MBDA’s Saber, etc. Later Harvest HAWK phases will reportedly add stations for Hellfire laser-guided missiles on both wings, instead of just the port wing. The M299 launchers would be mounted on the outside of the plane’s outboard aerial refueling pods.

US AFSOC: MC-130W Combat Spear/ Stinger II

MC-130W Combat Spear
(click to view full)

A similar effort is emerging from US Special Operations Command.

US Navy NAVAIR PMA-207 has been working with US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) to share information on Harvest Hawk, and a US SOCOM program is now converting its MC-130W Combat Spear aircraft along Harvest Hawk lines. Similar kits could also be fielded for SOCOM’s forthcoming HC-130J Combat King II and MC-130J Combat Shadow IIs, and they may even spread beyond that.

MC-130W. In the near term, their MC-130Ws are newly-converted C-130H aircraft, with 12 delivered as combat replacements from 2006-2011. MC-130W base roles include infiltration/ exfiltration of special operations teams, aerial refueling including combat search-and-rescue support, and psychological operations. Key additions above the based C-130H include a strengthened tail to cope with low-level drops; improved avionics and navigation that integrates GPS, AN/APN-241 radar, and AN/AAQ-38 Infrared systems; a full suite of top-of-the-line threat detection and countermeasures gear; and a communication suite that includes satellite communications with data burst, making it hard for enemies to locate the plane by tracking its transmissions. A UARRSI dorsal receptacle lets any boom-equipped aerial tanker refuel it in the air, while the MC-130W can itself act as a refueler for hose-and-drogue equipped aircraft or helicopters, using its Mk 32B-902E refueling pods.

The other difference from previous AFSOC gunships involved precision ranged weapons. MC-130Ws will have a 4-rail wing-mount for laser-guided AGM-114P Hellfire missiles or 70mm laser-guided DAGR rockets, and a 10-tube “Gunslinger” system that can launch small precision-guided weapons.

“Gunslinger”
(click to view full)

All 12 MC-130Ws will soon be converting to “Project Dragon Spear” aircraft, which add roll-on, roll-off kits featuring added sensors, communications systems, the Adaptive Carriage Environment (ACE), and weapons. Some sources refer to those as “AC-130W,” but the official USAF designation remains MC-130W.

Dragon Spear weapons will include a GAU-23 dual-feed 30mm gun with about 500 rounds, with the assembly bolted to the floor of the plane. It fires single shots or short bursts, instead of the “wall of lead” that’s associated with an AC-130H/U gunship, or the Vietnam-era C-47 “Puff the Magic Dragon” whose upgraded descendants still serve in Colombia and Indonesia.

The MC-130W represents an acquisition departure for SOCOM, who stood up its 1st Joint Acquisition Task Force in June 2009 to handle the initial MC-130W conversion and buy. The project had a minimum capability model in less than 90 days, and deployed a working aircraft within 18 months. The experience has gone well enough that SOCOM is reportedly considering using JATFs on other projects.

It has also led to a shift in mindset, wherein a government-owned “Precision Strike Package” will sit at the core of SOCOM’s new gunships.

AC-130J. Up to 32 new AC-130Js are now expected to serve alongside the 12 new AC-130W Dragon Spears, replacing existing AC-130H/Us. Initially, the AC-130Js will use roll on/off kits from the Dragon Spear project in an HC-130J airframe. Eventually, they’ll install their own “Precision Strike Package” that 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 read cargo door. It may eventually add a side-firing 105mm howitzer like existing AC-130H/Us, and AGM-114 Hellfire missiles like the Marines’ 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.

Contracts & Key Events

Unless otherwise indicated, these contracts are managed by US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD.

KC-130J-HH, Kandahar
(click to view full)

December 7/15: The US Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) and US Navy are to collaborate on the development of a laser mounted weapon for the AC-130 aircraft. The move comes as the Navy has been developing and researching energy directed weapons with their Laser Weapon System, which saw deployment aboard the Afloat Forward Staging Base USS Ponce last year. The lasers success will be the basis for a cooperation between the two branches, and how this can aid the development of a similar system for aircraft. The AC-130 will conceivably see a miniaturized version of the one used on the USS Ponce, and possess both offensive and defensive capabilities. It is hoped the lasers will help gunships disable enemy systems and improve identification of targets on the ground. This would avoid incidents such as the bombing of the Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan in October.

Nov 3/14: KC-130J USMC Plan. The USMC’s Aviation Plan to 2030 [PDF] has its own entry for the KC-130J Harvest Hawk, which currently uses AGM-114P2A Hellfire, AGM-176B Griffin, and GBU-44 Viper Strike precision weapons:

“MROC Decision 19-2012 reduced the total kit inventory objective from 9 kits to 6 kits with 3 kits each going to 2d MAW and 3d MAW. A total of 10 aircraft are modified to employ the Harvest Hawk kits with 5 modified aircraft in 2d MAW and 5 modified aircraft in 3d MAW. Beginning in 2015, the mission kit will receive sensor and fire control system upgrades to address system obsolescence and eliminate deficiencies, while sustaining relevancy through transition from P2A hellfire to the P4 Hellfire.”

2017 will kick off a slew of improvements, from the Software Reprogrammable Payload (SRP) radio replacement; to Hellfire missile upgrades as noted above; to a switch from the AAQ-30 TSS surveillance and targeting turret used on USMC AH-1Zs, to the MX-20 used on Navy P-8A sea control aircraft. It will also begin to replace the Fire Control Station with a Mission Operator Pallet like the AC-130J’s. Blue Force Tracker battlefield management is already on board the Harvest Hawks, and its Link-16 aerial counterpart will begin retrofits in FY 2018, along with other fleet-wide C-130J Block 7.0/8.1 upgrades like Mode 5 IFF, GPS approach capability, ADS-B (out), RNP/RNAV, and a new flight management system. FY 2019 will see the beginning of JAGM missile integration, offering a dual-mode radar/laser-guided option beside the laser-only AGM-114P4 Hellfire.

AC-130J
(click to view full)

May 22/14: AC-130 Upgrades. At the annual SOFIC conference, SOCOM’s systems acquisition manager for standoff precision-guided munitions, Erich Borgstede, says that they are just beginning to fit AGM-114 Hellfire missiles on the AC-130W/Js. They’ve also developed a laser-guided small diameter bomb [SDB-I is a 250 pound GPS-only weapon] that will be fielded this summer.

“According to slides presented at the briefing, SOCOM is also looking at the potential of using helmet mounted displays, digital map upgrades, and using mobile devices to help do mission planning in the near future.”

Those changes would also apply to their HC/MC-130 fleet. Sources: Defense News, “SOCOM soon getting more capable, deadlier Ospreys and C-130s”.

March 28/14: AC-130W support. Sierra Nevada Corp. in Sparks, NV receives a sole-source $14 million firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for contractor logistics support of the AC-130W’s precision strike package. Contractor logistics support employees also deploy with aircraft in support of special operations Missions.

$10.9 million is committed immediately, using FY 2014 O&M funds. Work will be performed at Cannon Air Force Base, NM, and is expected to be complete March 31/15. The USAF Life Cycle Management Center’s Special Operation Forces Contracting Division, at Robins AFB, GA manages the contract (FA8509-14-C-0001).

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).

The AC-130J 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. 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. This was also concerning:

“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.

June 4/13: AC-130J Sub-contractors. The AC-130J Ghostrider will be equipped with a configuration of QinetiQ’s enhanced LAST lightweight composite armor. Protection will depend on how much they use, and LAST’s aerial density is 37 kg/m2. Protection up to 7.62mm armor piercing is the minimum useful level, and seems to be the AC-130J’s standard. SOCOM could certainly justify higher levels, especially in critical areas, but they’d rather make the weight tradeoffs in an airplane that’s already packed with heavy gear. Jane’s adds that:

“A total of 37 AC-130J aircraft will replace AFSOC’s eight ageing AC-130H platforms, a significant increase from the 16 originally planned. It is understood that the procurement of the additional platforms will allow the 12 AC-130W Dragon Spear/Stinger II platforms currently performing gunship duties to revert back to their baseline MC-130W Combat Spear [multi-role] configuration.”

Sources: QinetiQ NA, “QinetiQ North America’s LAST Armor to Protect C-130 Aircraft” | IHS Jane’s, “New armour for AC-130J gunships”.

March 20/13: Hellfire? US SOCOM fixed-wing PEO Col. Michael Schmidt (USAF) confirms that they’re looking to add AGM-114 Hellfire II missiles to the AC-130W’s “Precision Strike Package,” using F-15 racks mounted on the AC-130W’s hard points. Money has to be found in the budget, but he’s confident that it will happen at some point.

Since the AC-130J Ghostrider will initially be fielded with the same Precision Strike Package, AC-130W integration could end up extending to the new fleet. Sources: Defense Tech, “Air Force set to arm AC-130W with Hellfire missiles”.

Dec 20/12: AC-130W Support. Sierra Nevada Corp. in Sparks, NV receives a $7.9 million contract modification for “logistics support of the Precision Strike Package on the AC-130W aircraft, Stinger II Program.”

The location of the performance is Cannon Air Force Base, NM. Work is expected to be completed by Dec 31/13. The AFLCMC/WIKAA at Robins AFB, GA manages the contract (FA8509-12-C-0001, PO 0006).

“Derringer Door”
(click to view full)

Aug 27/12: G-CLAW. Textron Defense Systems announces a cooperative research and development agreement (CRADA) with U.S. Special Operations Command’s Program Executive Office – Fixed Wing, focused on Textron Defense Systems’ Guided Clean Area Weapon (G-CLAW). The GPS-guided cylinder will be integrated into SOPGM launch tube dispensers, and receive flight and weapon safety certifications. From there, Textron Defense Systems and USSOCOM will conduct inert and live-fire demonstrations from a tactical carrier aircraft such as the MC-130W Dragon Spear. Integration activities will culminate in an end-to-end, live-fire demonstration.

The 64-pound CLAW was actually designed as a safe sub-munition for cluster bombs, like the GPS-guided CBU-105 Sensor Fuzed Weapon. Instead of releasing hockey-puck shaped guided explosives to take out tanks, the entire tube is a weapon, whose air-burst is lethal to troops and unarmored vehicles over an area the size of a football field. A number of safety features ensure that it never becomes an unexploded ordnance hazard.

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 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.

July 9/12: MC-130W. ATK announces that a rapid prototyping effort has created a modified variant of their Mk44 Bushmaster Automatic Cannon for MC-130W Combat Spear aircraft. The 30mm gun is now officially known as the GAU-23, and uses ATK’s PGU-46/B High Explosive Incendiary (HEI) ammunition for its missions.

ATK adds that in June 2011, the U.S. Air Force announced the conversion of 12 of its MC-130W Combat Spear aircraft to the Dragon Spear configuration.

The US Marines may also be interested, now that the technology is mature (vid. Aug 17/11). The MC-130W Dragon Spear will bolt the GAU-23 in, but ATK has developed a Roll-On/Roll-Off (RO/RO) pallet and weapons mount for use on other aircraft, like the USMC’s KC-130Js.

May 2012: Naming. The MC-130W Dragon Spear is renamed the AC-130W Stinger II, while the AC-130J picks up the designation “Ghostrider”. Sources: USAF Fact Sheets.

May 14/12: Lockheed Martin in Marietta, GA receives an $18.4 million firm-fixed-price contract that buys 3 Harvest HAWK sets, and pays to modify 7 KC-130Js with Harvest HAWK installations.

Work will be performed in Palmdale, CA (90%), and Marietta, GA (10%), and is expected to be complete in June 2014. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12. This contract was not competitively procured, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2304c1. US Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity (N00019-12-C-0094).

April 16/12: Viper Strike. MBDA announces that its GBU-44/E Viper Strike scored “multiple direct hits”, after being launched from the KC-130J’s new “Derringer Door” during developmental testing at China Lake, CA. Viper Strike also proved out its new fast attack software load, designed to improve performance against time sensitive targets.

Feb 23/12: Derringer Door. US NAVAIR announces successful testing and fielding of a Harvest HAWK “Derringer Door” pressurized launcher, which will be used instead of the “Gunslinger” system on future aircraft. The 10-round set replaces the plane’s paratrooper door, and lets the plane launch small precision-guided munitions like Griffin, without depressurizing the cabin and forcing the crew to use oxygen gear. By freeing up the cargo ramp, it also lets KC-130J Harvest HAWKs continue to perform cargo missions, while keeping the weapon launcher on board.

Like the rest of the Harvest HAWK kit, the Derringer Door system is removable.

Nov 7/11: KC-130J-HH stats. Inside the Navy reports [subscription] on Griffin usage in Afghanistan:

“Less than a year after first introducing it to the fleet, the Marine Corps has already used the Harvest Hawk… to fire 74 Hellfire and 13 Griffin missiles… while also providing intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, a Marine aviation official said here recently.”

KC-130J Harvest HAWK
at FOB Dwyer
(click to view full)

Aug 22/11: Viper Strike. Northrop Grumman announces an unspecified additional contract to deliver “multiple” GBU-44 Viper Strike GPS/laser guided mini glide bombs to the Joint Attack Munition Systems (JAMS) Project Office at Redstone Arsenal, AL. Deliveries will begin in 2011, for eventual integration onto the KC-130J Harvest Hawk. See also June 2/10 entry.

All the Viper Strike munitions on Harvest Hawk will now carry the latest software load, which greatly enhances the weapon’s effectiveness against moving targets. In recent testing at China Lake, CA, Viper Strike scored multiple hits against moving vehicles in various scenarios.

Aug 17/11: KC-130J-HH. The USMC is looking at upgrading its KC-130Js for better close-air support to address known limitations (vid. July 28/11 entry). Maj. Richard Roberts told National Defense magazine the addition of a 30mm GAU-23 cannon to Harvest Hawk is again under consideration, which if confirmed would let the program meet its Capability III milestone. The possibility of this graft was reviewed back in 2009, but the integration tech was deemed too immature back then.

According to National Defense, as of last month the 1 Harvest Hawk deployed in Afghanistan had fired 42 Hellfire and 11 Griffin missiles and identified 8 IEDs. A 2nd unit will soon be rotated in so that the 1st one can be used for training purposes.

July 28/11: KC-130J-HH. The USMC discusses Harvest Hawk operations, noting that the Harvest Hawk contingents don’t yet have close-air support experience, so the Marines are drawing fire-control officers from its F/A-18 Hornet fighter, AV-8B Harrier II fighter, and AH-1 Cobra attack helicopter units. With respect to the aircraft’s usage:

“One Harvest HAWK flew for about 10 hours and fired its entire compliment of Hellfire missiles during combat operations in Afghanistan, March 14. An F/A-18 Hornet can only fly for an hour and thirty minutes without tanker support, according to [VMGR-252 fire control officer Capt. Thane A.] Norman. “Currently, we have a Harvest HAWK temporarily assigned to our detachment with 2nd MAW (Fwd.),” said [VMGR-252 commander Lt. Col. Charles J.] Moses. “It provides coverage for eight to 10 percent of joint tactical air requests in their area of operations, which is a significant number considering it’s only a single aircraft.”

Feb 25/11: MC-130W. Sierra Nevada Corp. in Sparks, NV receives a $22.3 million contract modification for interim contract support under the Dragon Spear program, to help provide and install precision strike packages in 12 MC-130W Combat Spear aircraft. At this time, $10.4 million has been committed by the WRALC/GRUKA at Robins AFB, GA (FA8509-10-C-0013; PO0003).

Feb 8/11: MC-130W & lasers. Defense News quotes SOCOM chief Adm. Eric Olson, who says the MC-130W Dragon Spear went from concept to flying with a minimum capability in less than 90 days, and deployed in 18 months. It has already deployed to Iraq, and is now flying in Afghanistan. Defense News adds that:

“The four-star admiral also touted a system used in Afghanistan that involves an “airborne-mounted overt laser that projects a beam that illuminates a spot on the ground.” Commanders “are finding more and more uses for an illuminated spot on the ground,” he said. “It can prevent fratricide, it can cause people to muster against a target, it can have a powerful psychological effect if you are standing in the beam.” SOCOM officials are currently building tactics, techniques and procedures for the system.”

While Adm. Olson was not specific, C-130s are certainly natural platforms for that kind of system.

Feb 4/11: KC-130J-HH stats. Marines of Marine Aerial Refueler Transport Squadron 352, Detachment A, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing (Forward), are preparing to return from a 6-month deployment at Camp Leatherneck, Afghanistan to their home at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, CA. VMGR-352’s KC-130J Super Hercules aircraft performed a number of transport and aerial refueling missions, while pioneering the “Harvest HAWK” kit’s use on the front lines.

Overall VMGR-352 crews completed 7,852 sorties and reached 7,897 flight hours. They also tracked 25,190 assault support requests, 65,815 additional passengers and 23,629,371 pounds of cargo. The Harvest Hawk completed 93 sorties, flew more than 565 hours and completed 191 joint tactical airstrike requests. USMC.

Nov 23/10: KC-130J-HH Action Report. Official report of a USMC KC-130J Harvest HAWK supporting 2 squads of Marines with India Company, 3rd Bn., 5th Marines. The squads ran into an attempted ambush, and the USMC explains what happened after that:

“The Marines immediately began firing at the enemy and gained superior firepower. The fight intensified as Marines were under fire from medium-machine-gun and small-arms fire. The Marines then played their trump card, calling in 60 mm and 120 mm mortars and close air support. An UH-1 Huey and an AH-1W Super Cobra fired hundreds of rounds, and a KC-130J ‘Harvest Hawk’ fired a Hell-Fire Missile. Artillery Marines played their part as well, firing multiple GPS-guided shells. The firefight lasted about two hours and killed an estimated 8-10 enemy fighters, said 1st Lt. Stephen Cooney, the executive officer with India Company, 3rd Bn., 5th Marines.”

MC-130W
(click to view full)

Sept 24/10: MC-130W. L-3 Communications TCS, Inc. in Warner Robins, GA receives a $29.4 million contract which would modify up to 4 MC-130Ws to install a precision strike package. At this time, no funds have been committed by the WR-ALC/GRUKA at Robins Air Force Base, GA (FA8509-20-C-0027).

Sept 21/10: MC-130W. L-3 Communications TCS, Inc. in Warner Robins, GA adds $15.8 million to a previous contract to install the Precision Strike package in 8 MC-130Ws. That’s on top of $45.2 million that had been committed before, raising the contract to $61 million. The WR-ALC/GRUKA at Robins Air Force Base, GA manages this contract (FA8509-09-C-0037; Action Under PZ0001).

Sept 14/10: MC-130W. Sierra Nevada Corp. in Sparks, NV receives a $12.5 million contract which will provide consoles for integration onto MC-130W aircraft. At this time, all funds have been committed by the ASC/WISS at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH (FA8629-09-C-2445).

June 17/10: Scorpion drop. One of Lockheed Martin’s Scorpion precision glide-bombs is successfully flight tested in a 5,000 foot drop from a C-130. The small glide bomb uses a combination of GPS/INS and semi-active laser (SAL) guidance to hit a target 1.65 miles away, at Yuma Proving Ground, AZ. These Scorpion weapons have already been used in combat by CIA drones, but the C-130 test is new.

Scorpion was developed under the Small Smart Weapon program, which began in 2006. It’s just 21.5″ long and 4.5″ wide, with a range of up to 10 miles if it can glide from altitude. The system is modular, and the front guidance section will be switchable between a human-directed laser seeker, self-guiding imaging infrared (IIR) matched to pre-programmed target sets, or semi-autonomous millimeter wave radar. The warhead section is also a module, with multiple options. Overall weight is under 35 pounds. The weapon is carried by fitting up to 3 Scorpions on a conventional Hellfire rail, or up to 2 in a tube launcher. Lockheed Martin release | Scorpion product page | CBS News | Tactical Life | Washington Post | Comparison with Hellfire II.

June 3/10: MC-130W. Sierra Nevada Corp. in Sparks, NV receives a $20.9 million contract to provide interim contractor support of MC-130W modifications to install “a precision strike package” in support of US SOCOM’s “Project Dragon Spear.” At this time, $10 million has been committed by the 580th ACSG/GFKAA at Robins Air Force Base, GA (FA8509-10-C-0013).

June 2/10: Viper Strike. Northrop Grumman announces a contract to deliver 65 SOPGM/ GBU-44 Viper Strike munitions to the Joint Attack Munition Systems (JAMS) Project Office, within the Program Executive Office Missiles and Space at Redstone Arsenal, AL. The Viper Strikes will be delivered in 2010, for integration onto the KC-130J Harvest Hawk.

March 25/10: SOCOM Plans. Aviation Week DTI reports that U.S. Special Operations Command will base its future AC-130J gunship on the government-owned “Precision Strike Package” design used in the MC-130W. The February 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review will replace 8 AC-130H Spectre gunships with 8 new “AC?130Js,” based on the C-130J, instead of the earlier model C-130H that forms the core of the MC-130W. Another 8 AC-130Js will be added on top, giving SOCOM 17 AC-130U Spookys, 12 MC-130W Combat/Dragon Spears, and 16 AC-130Js.

SOCOM officials also hope that a modular design will let them easily add new capabilities to the fleet in future, creating what US SOCOM Deputy Acquisition Director James Geurts describes as “a family of precision strike capabilities that we can port onto different [Special Operations Forces] platforms.” The difference between SOCOM’s approach and the USMC’s Harvest Hawk will involve a greater emphasis on precision strike, instead of suppression.

Specific AC-130J requirements are still in flux, but FY 2011’s budget asks for $9.9 million in initial funding. The first serious funding is reportedly slated for FY 2012.

March 17/10: KC-130J-HH. A Harvest HAWK equipped KC-130J from USMC VMGR-352 squadron “The Raiders” arrives at NAVAIR’s Patuxent River, MD facilities from Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, CA for testing. Source.

Jan 29/10: MC-130W. Sierra Nevada Corp. in Sparks, NV receives a $32.7 million contract to provide consoles for integration onto the MC-130W “Combat Spear” aircraft. At this time, the entire amount has been committed by the 667th AESS/SYKA at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH (FA8629-09-C-2445).

Nov 17/09: MC-130W Gun. ATK announces a $20 million contract to:

“…provide 30mm PGU-46/B High Explosive Incendiary (HEI) ammunition for the ATK-produced Mk44 30mm cannon on the multi-role, MC-130W Combat Spear gunship, which will support operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command (SOCOM) Contracting Office at Wright Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio awarded the contract.”

It would seem that AFSOCOM has made its 30mm gun choice. ATK will produce the ammunition at the company’s facilities in Radford, VA and Rocket Center, WVA. Deliveries will be complete in December 2010.

M299 on KC-130J
(click to view full)

Sept 30/09: KC-130J-HH. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. in Marietta, GA receives a $21.3 million modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-09-C-0053) for 2 Harvest HAWK capability I and II kits for the Marine Corps KC-130J aircraft. Work will be performed in Palmdale, CA, and is expected to be complete in December 2010. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, which is technically this very day.

June 4/09: Gunslinger. An AFSOCOM pre-solicitation notice [FedBizOpps MS Word format | WIRED Danger Zone] discusses one option for mounting precision guided weapons on the MC-130Ws:

“The goal for Gunslinger is to have 10 or more Standoff Precision Guided Munitions (SOPGMs) loaded and ready to fire in rapid succession, reload in flight, and not modify the SOPGMs or their Common Launch Tube (CLT). The Gunslinger system must be interoperable with the Government’s SOPGM Battle Management System (BMS)… If only one qualified source responds the Government reserves the right to issue a sole source contract to that qualified source.

The Air Armament Center Capabilities Integration Directorate (AAC/XR) proposes to procure Gunslinger System Engineering which will include; design and ground demonstration of the Gunslinger system using a surrogate aircraft provided by the Government or a contractor provided mock up representative of the MC-130W. The design is allowed to include both permanent and removable portions. The installation as designed shall not prevent the aircraft from performing the cargo/transport mission when the removable portion is not in place. The permanent portion shall maintain cabin pressure when the removable portion is installed as well as when it is not installed. The time to install and uninstall the removable portions shall be minimized. The goal is less than five (5) minutes. The contractor shall develop an aircraft modification package with drawings and supporting data for installing the Gunslinger system and submit it to the aircraft OSS&E authority for approval to proceed with the aircraft modification.”

May 15/09: AFSOCOM’s analogues. Gannett’s Air Force times reports that Air Force Special Operations Command’s plan to buy 16 C-27Js under the Joint Cargo Aircraft program, for conversion to AC-27J Stinger II gunships, has fallen apart with the removal of Army C-27J funding in the FY 2010 budget.

In response, they’re investigating a “Plan B” that would add roll-on, roll-off kits to its MC-130W Combat Spear fleet. The MC-130W program began in 2006 to replace combat losses of the MC-130E/H Combat Talon, but it’s based on converted C-130H models, rather than new “J” version of the Hercules.

May 8/09: HH R&D. 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.

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: SOCOM PSP 360. The USAF is also interested in this concept, 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).”

Additional Readings and Sources

Background: Projects & Aircraft

• FedBizOpps solicitation (April 13/09) – Harvest Hawk modification to KC-130J Aircraft. The initial solicitation involves 3 kits, and adds “As the sole source designer, developer, and manufacturer of KC-130J aircraft, LM is uniquely qualified to meet the United States Marine Corps (USMC) summer 2009 deployment schedule.”
• Lockheed Martin – KC-130J Super Tanker
• USAF Fact Sheet – AC-130H/U Gunship
• USAF Fact Sheet – AC-130W Stinger II. Formerly the MC-130W Combat Spear/ Dragon Spear. Aircraft cost lists around $150 million: $108 million for the fully equipped plane + $39 million for the PSP weapon package. The PSP lists ATK’s 30mm GAU-23/A cannon, Boeing’s GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb, and Raytheon’s AGM-176 Griffin-B missile.
• USAF Fact Sheet – AC-130J Ghost Rider. Will include a 105mm gun as well as the PSP. “The first AC-130J aircraft is scheduled to begin developmental test and evaluation in January 2014. The first squadron will be located at Cannon Air Force Base, N.M., while other locations are to be determined. Initial operational capacity is expected in fiscal 2017 and the last [37th] delivery is scheduled for fiscal 2021.”

Background: Associated Equipment & Weapons

• Lockheed Martin – TSS
• Jane’s – Lockheed Martin AN/AAQ-30 Target Sight System (TSS) (United States)
• L-3 Wescam – MX-15Di
• DID – A Spookier Spooky, 30mm at a Time. That was the idea, anyway.
• ATK – M230 30mm Chain Gun Automatic Cannon
• Designation Systems – Boeing/Lockheed Martin (Rockwell/Martin Marietta) AGM-114 Hellfire
• DID Spotlight – Raytheon’s AGM-176 Griffin Mini-Missiles.
• DID Spotlight – GBU-44 Viper Strike: Death From Above
• Defense Update – Griffin Small Tactical Munition. Griffin and STM are actually 2 separate weapons. Explains the difference between Griffin A (used on the MC-130W) and Griffin B.
• Lockheed Martin – Scorpion. Small precision glide weapon similar to NG’s Viper Strike and Raytheon’s Griffin. No longer listed on the Products page.
• DID – Mortars from Aircraft? The Shadow Knows… Small RQ-7 UAVs could soon carry GPS-guided mortars, and other weapons.

Competitors

• DID – Pocket Gunship: From AC-XX to the MC-27J Praetorian. Italy is the 1st customer, after US SOCOM declined.
• DID – Jordan’s Pocket Gunships: Converted CN-235s. The buy was announced at IDEX 2011, and could create a light gunship analogue to SOCOM’s proposed AC-27Js.

News & Views

• Strategy Page (Feb 16/11) – Gunships Come Out Of The Darkness.
• Defense News (Feb 8/11) – SOCOM Moved Quickly To Create Daytime Gunship.
• NDIA National Defense (August 2010) – Special Operations Aviators Gear Up for Aircraft Upgrades .
• Aviation Week DTI (March 25/10) – Socom Refines AC-130J Gunship Plans.
• Flight International (April 2/09) – US Marine Corps plans to convert KC-130J tankers into gunships.
• Aviation Week (Aug 18-25/08) – Marine Gunship.
• Gannett’s Marine Corps Times (April 24/08) – Corps weighs gunship firepower options.

UCAS-D/ N-UCAS concept
(click to view full)

The idea of UAVs with full stealth and combat capabilities has come a long way, quickly. Air forces around the world are pursuing R&D programs, but in the USA, progress is being led by the US Navy.

Their interest is well-founded. A May 2007 non-partisan report discussed the lengthening reach of ship-killers. Meanwhile, the US Navy’s carrier fleet sees its strike range shrinking to 1950s distances, and prepares for a future with fewer carrier air wings than operational carriers. Could UCAV/UCAS vehicles with longer ranges, and indefinite flight time limits via aerial refueling, solve these problems? Some people in the Navy seem to think that they might. Hence UCAS-D/ N-UCAS, which received a major push in the FY 2010 defense review. Now, Northrop Grumman is improving its X-47 UCAS-D under contract, even as emerging privately-developed options expand the Navy’s future choices as it works on its new RFP.

N-UCAS: Programs & Potential

X-47B concept
(click to view full)

In early 2006 the future of DARPA’s J-UCAS program seemed uncertain. It aimed to create Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles (UCAV) for the USAF and Navy that could approach the capabilities of an F-117 stealth fighter. Boeing’s X-45C was set to face off against Northrop Grumman’s X-47B Pegasus, the program had demonstrated successful tests that included dropping bombs, and aerial refueling tests were envisioned. J-UCAS was eventually canceled when the services failed to take it up, but the technologies have survived, and the US Navy remained interested.

Like the F-117, a UCAV’s self-defense would involve remaining undetected. While UCAVs can theoretically be built to execute maneuvers no human pilot could handle, the pilot’s awareness of surrounding events would be quite limited. The X-47B isn’t being designed to do what the type inherently does poorly, but to do what the type does inherently well: be stealthier than manned aircraft, and fly reliably on station for days using aerial refueling support.

If Northrop Grumman or emerging competitors can overcome their technical and operational challenges, and if UCAV reliability lets them match the 2-3 day long mission profiles of Northrop Grumman’s RQ-4 Global Hawks, the US Navy would receive the equivalent of a carrier-borne F-117 stealth fighter, with improved stealth and no pilot fatigue limits. That would open up entirely new possibilities for American carriers.

If aerial refueling support is present behind the front lines, an N-UCAS wing could easily sally forth to hit targets thousands miles from their host carrier, while pilots inside the ship fly in shifts. The X-47s would fly a much shorter distance back to aerial tankers as needed, and only return to the steaming carrier several days later, or when their weapons had been used up. As a concrete example, in an emergency a carrier could launch UCAVs as it left Gibraltar at the gate of the Mediterranean, then fly them to the Persian Gulf and keep them on patrol using USAF aerial refueling tankers, all the while steaming to catch up. As the carrier got closer to the Arabian Sea off of Oman, the UCAVs would get more and more loiter time over their target area, and the “chainsaw” would get shorter and shorter.

First Step: UCAS-D / X-47B

Concept no more
(click to view full)

N-UCAS (Naval Unmanned Combat Air System) is the US Navy’s broader umbrella initiative to define/develop/produce a fleet of unmanned, carrier based strike and surveillance aircraft. The UCAS-D demonstration program is a subset of that initiative. If the demonstrations go well, the Navy may progress to an Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) program.

In July 2007, Northrop Grumman’s X-47B Pegasus beat Boeing’s X-45C to win the UCAS-D development contract. Northrop Grumman’s Aug 3/07 release describes their mission as:

“The UCAS-D effort will mature critical technologies, reduce unmanned air system carrier integration risks and provide information necessary to support a potential follow-on acquisition milestone.”

Translation: show us that this can work, and demonstrate carrier-based launches and recoveries of a tailless, autonomous, “LO-relevant” aircraft. “Low Observable relevant” means that its outer shape must reflect stealth requirements, but without any of the operational stealth coatings and other expensive measures. That makes sense, since UCAS-D is only about aerodynamics and control. Eventually, follow on programs like UCLASS will have to test stealth as well, but UCAS-D will be about the basics.

UCAS-D has 2 big technical challenges. One is safe, reliable flight and landings in carrier-controlled airspace, for a stealth aircraft that may not always be visible on radar. Testing appears to be working, and combined manned/ unmanned evolutions have begun. The other big challenge is successful and safe aerial refueling.

Next Step: UCLASS

Phantom Ray

Northrop Grumman’s UCAS-D team hopes that by completing the UCAS-D funded demonstration phase, they’ll be able to offer an inherently conservative service a proven UCAV option, with a more complete set of advanced capabilities than privately-developed or late-moving competitors.

The USA’s Naval Aviation Master Plan currently includes provisions for a Navy UCAS (N-UCAS) around 2025. If UCAS-D work goes very well, and the US Navy follows through on its shift toward an X-47B-class UCAV that can be used for limited missions, pressure will build for much earlier deployment. There are already indications of pressure along those lines, and the UCLASS RFI sets a goal of fielding a limited capability UCAV on board American carriers by 2018 or so.

Barring continued and substantial pressure from above, however, the level of cultural shift required by the naval aviation community is likely to slow down any deployment of advanced UCAVs on board ships. That is already happening to UCLASS, which has seen its strike role shrink while the Navy publicly talks about making surveillance its main mission. That would be less threatening to future manned aircraft programs, but it may not be the best use of UCAV technology, and the Navy is already finding itself at odds with Congress on this score. A priority on surveillance also shrinks the need for stealth, which would give General Atomics’ conventional airframe design a big advantage over its 3 tailless flying wing competitors.

Predator C
click for video

If and when the US Navy proceeds with a full Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle deployment program, the X-47 will have competitors. The 3 additional recipients of initial UCLASS study contracts include:

General Atomics. They were the first competitor out of the gate, expanding their jet-powered Predator C “Avenger” research program to include a carrier-capable “Sea Avenger” as well.

Boeing. Boeing already makes F/A-18 Super Hornet naval fighters, and their privately-developed X-45 Phantom Ray UCAV stems from the same DARPA J-UCAS program that produced the X-47B UCAS-D. Northrop Grumman designed their X-47B for carrier operations from the outset, but Boeing developed their X-45C without those compromises, so carrier operations will require added work.

Lockheed UCLASS
click for video

Lockheed Martin. This concept comes out of their famed Skunk Works facility, which produced planes like the F-117 Nighthawk stealth fighter. Their work also builds on internal efforts like Polecat UAV, and classified programs like the RQ-170 UAV. They also seem to be making a push to leverage their strength in back-end command and control systems as a selling point, while partnering with control system specialist DreamHammer.

UCAS-D: Program & Team

The first X-47B Pegasus UCAS-D (AV-1) was scheduled to fly in December 2009, but that was pushed back to Q1 of CY 2010, and finally ended up taking place in February 2011. It conducted series of detailed flight envelope and land-based carrier integration and qualification events at Edwards AFB, CA, then returned to NAS Patuxent River, MD to begin land-based carrier landing trials.

AV-2, which is equipped with full refueling systems, was expected to make its first flight in November 2010, and begin testing autonomous aerial refueling (AAR). Early 2011 saw the AV-2 airframe pass static and dynamic load tests, but AV-2’s flights were delayed until AV-1 finishes its own tests, in late 2011, and didn’t take off until November 2011. It began carrier-related testing in 2012, and launched for the 1st time in May 2013. Full launch and landing circuits, and aerial refueling tests, are still on the horizon.

Its first landing was initially set for late 2011, but the firm now talks about some time in 2013. Once autonomous aerial refueling demonstrations begin, the Navy intends to achieve both probe & drogue (USN style) and boom/receptacle (USAF style) refuelings.

Northrop Grumman’s facility in Palmdale, CA is the final assembly site for the X-47B, and the industrial team also includes:

UCAS-D: Northrop Grumman’s X-47B

X-47B 3-view
(click to view full)

UCAVs currently have no real situational awareness of the airspace around them, which makes them sitting ducks for any attack that doesn’t use radar guidance, and isn’t picked up by their radar warning receivers. Even an alerted UCAV currently has few options but to try and change course. That may work against ground threats, but mobile aerial opponents will simply follow and kill them. Their best defense is not to be found. Their best option if found is to make it hard to keep a radar track on them, or to vector in enemy aircraft. This may be why high-end strike UCAVs like the Boeing X-45 Phantom Ray, European nEUROn, British Taranis, and Russian MiG SKAT all use the maximum stealth configuration of tailless subsonic blended wing bodies with shielded air intakes, and attenuated exhausts.

The X-47B’s modified flying wing design and top-mounted air intake reflect this orientation. By removing the pilot and opting for sub-sonic speeds, Northrop Grumman is able to field a design that looks like a more advanced version of its B-2 bomber. Instead of a straight flying wing like Boeing’s competing X-45C, however, their engineers opted for a cranked wing that improves landing characteristics on carrier decks, and makes it easy to use carrier-borne aircrafts’ classic “folding wing” design for improved storage in tight spaces.

This UCAV may be a short plane, but it’s not a small one. The X-47B’s 62.1 foot wingspan rivals the Navy’s old F-14s, and is wider than a Navy F/A-18 Hornet or even a larger Super Hornet. Because of its foreshortened length, however, its storage “spot factor” relative to an F/A-18C Hornet (“1.0”) is just 0.87.

Target and strike
(click to view full)

Pratt & Whitney Canada JT15D-5C turbofan engine powered previous X-47 models, but the UCAS-D will adopt Pratt & Whitney’s F100-PW-220U, a modified variant of the engine that powers American F-16 and F-15 fighters. Subsonic requirements and carrier-based employment changed the engine’s imperatives: it will produce less thrust than its F100 counterparts (just 16,000 pounds), in exchange for efficiency improvements and better protection against the corrosive salt-water environment.

Efficiency matters to this platform. Unrefueled X-47B range is expected to be between 1,500 – 2,100 nautical miles, with a maximum payload of 4,500 pounds. The standard payload is expected to be a pair of 2,000 pound JDAMs, but the weapon bay’s ultimate size and shape will determine its ability to carry other options like strike missiles, JSOW glide bombs, a pair of 4-bomb racks for the GPS-guided Small Diameter Bomb, the forthcoming Joint Air-Ground Missile, etc.

Sensors are currently to be determined, as they aren’t really the point of UCAS-D. Any Navy strike platform is expected to have an advanced SAR radar with Ground Moving Target Indicator (SAR/GMTI), conformal electro-optic day/night cameras, and ESM (Electronic Support Measures) equipment that helps it pinpoint and trace back incoming electromagnetic signals. Given the X-47B’s design’s inherent strengths of stealth and long endurance, additional modules or payloads for tasks like signals collection must surely be expected.

Naval UCAVs: Contracts and Key Events

See also “Boeing to Advance UAV Aerial Refueling” for background and updates regarding unmanned aerial refueling test programs in the US military – which now include UCAS-D/ N-UCAS.

Unless otherwise indicated, The Naval Air Systems Command Patuxent River, MD manages these contracts.

March 30/16: The US Government Accountability Office (GAO) has published its annual report on the the Navy’s Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) program, as authorized by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. By analyzing the DOD budget for FY 2017 and speaking to program officials, the GAO found that the U.S. Navy has begun to develop modifications to existing shipboard systems to support the UCLASS’ latest iteration – Carrier Based Aerial Refueling System (CBARS). As with the UCLASS program, CBARS will include an air system segment, an aircraft carrier segment, and a control system and connectivity segment.

March 16/16: The US Navy has announced plans to “descope” the stealth requirement from the development carrier-based aerial system (CBARS). This will allow the tanker to be capable of firing missiles and dropping munitions. Dubbed the MQ-25 Stingray, the descoping marks yet another alteration to the program which had initially started out as the Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) program before a drastic U-turn took it away from ISR activities to that of refueling role. However, according to Vice Adm Joseph Mulloy, deputy chief of naval operations for integration of capabilities and resources, the addition of greater weapons capabilities will not see the Stingray spying, with destroying targets and refueling remaining its main mission.

March 7/16: The decision to convert the Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) program to an aerial refueling tanker under the Carrier Based Aerial Refueling System (CBARS) may require a new competition. Michael Novak, the Deputy Director of the Unmanned Maritime Systems Office under the office of the Chief of Naval Operations said that higher ups in the Pentagon were considering the change to allow all four companies that participated in the earlier UCLASS competition to be able to refine their proposals and “hit the mark for the CBARS.” The decision rests with the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) on what the next step for the tanker will be.

February 2/16: Initial plans to have the US Navy’s latest unmanned jet weaponized seems less likely, as plans seem to have shifted towards a tanker role. The long deferred Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) program was recently provided enthusiastically with $350 million by Congress. However, this was given on the understanding that the jet would be developed for full integration into carrier air wing operations – including strike operations – and possess the range, payload, and survivability attributes as necessary to complement such integration. No mention had been made about the need for unmanned aerial tanking capability. Instead the jet could be developed under the little known Carrier-Based Aerial-Refueling System (CBARS) aimed at producing an unmanned carrier-based aerial tanker, able to refuel other planes low on gas without risking a pilot. Strike capabilities would feature in a future variant of the aircraft.

October 1/15: Both House and Senate armed forces committees have agreed to fund the development of UCLASS unmanned aircraft in the draft FY2016 NDAA bill, in addition to more Tomahawk cruise missiles, F-35B Joint Strike Fighters for the Marines and F/A-18E/F Super Hornets for the Navy. The draft bill also includes for the provision of a fourth MQ-4C Triton UAV.

April 20/15:
The X-47B UCAV currently being developed by Northrop Grumman, has conducted successful aerial refueling from a KC-707, the first time the demonstrator has completed this difficult test set. Additionally, the US Office of Naval Research recently successfully tested the ability of UAVs to “swarm”, sharing information in flight with some autonomy, as part of its LOCUST program.

Feb 4/15: FY 2016 budge shelves UCLASS until 2023.
Even (theoretically) busting through sequestration, the 2016 Administration budget for the Navy opts to push UCLASS off to 2023.

The new schedule has an RFP released in FY 2016, with an award in Q2 2017 and first flight milestone in Q3 2020. Initial capability wouldn’t arrive until 2023. Where UCLASS was to originally get $669 million in FY 2016, the final document allowed it only $135 million.

X-47B UCAS-D
(click to view full)

Sept 10/14: UCLASS. The UCLASS team has integrated the latest iteration of Common Control System (CCS) software, which is the 1st to use the latest Navy Interoperability Profile (NIOP). This iteration forms the baseline for all future UCLASS control software, and Cmdr. Wade Harris is the Control System and Connectivity (CS&C) lead. They’re currently testing this software with an air vehicle simulator based on the MQ-4C Triton.

Ron La France is the UCLASS integration lead, and system-level testing of the control station and connectivity segment, carrier segment, and air system segment in the lab is next. That’s hard enough. Meanwhile, the program team is working with 72 programs of record, 22 program offices, 6 program executive offices and 3 systems commands. No wonder this stuff is slow and expensive; in fairness, a carrier deck can’t afford screwups, and there are a lot of moving parts to consider. Sources: US Navy NAVAIR, “Navy integrates ‘common’ software into next-generation unmanned carrier-based system”.

Aug 29/14: UCLASS. So much for that Sept 10/14 DAB meeting. US Navy Cmdr. Thurraya S. Kent now says that:

“Defense officials will be including [Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS)] in its ISR portfolio review to be conducted in conjunction with the normal budget review process this fall… Determination regarding the release of the UCLASS RFP will be made based on the results of this review.”

It appears that the Navy itself is divided between its initial view of UCLASS as an ISR asset with secondary aerial tanker and low-threat light strike capabilities, vs. a stealthy and refuelable high-threat strike platform that’s designed to radically extend the carrier’s offensive reach. Sources: USNI, “UCLASS RFP Delayed Again Following Pentagon Meeting”.

Aug 27/14: Testing. X-47B testing aboard USS Theodore Roosevelt [CVN 71] draws to a close. The UCAV flew with manned aircraft for the first time (q.v. Aug 17/14), continued flying and landing tests, performed a night time shipboard flight deck handling evaluation to see how the sailors dealt with that, and collected flying quality and recovery wind condition data to evaluate how the aircraft responds to wake turbulence during approach and landing. Sources: US Navy NAVAIR, “X-47B achieves new set of firsts aboard USS Theodore Roosevelt”.

Aug 19/14: UCLASS. USNI reports that US NAVAIR is about to release their UCLASS RFP at long last, with a final signoff expected on Sept 10/14 by the Defense Acquisition Board. The specifications are still secret this time, so it’s hard to have an intelligent public discussion beyond the public data of 14 hours ISR endurance, 1,000 pound payload, or 2,000 mile strike mission with 500 pounds payload.

It is interesting that many American sorties over Iraq these days are surveillance missions, though using Navy fighters for that is a fiscally stupid thing to do. Sources: USNI, “NAVAIR ‘On the Precipice’ of Releasing UCLASS RFP, Pentagon Review Set For Sept. 10” | USNI, “Navy: Most Carrier Sorties Over Iraq Are Surveillance Missions”.

X-47B & F/A-18F

Aug 17/14: UCAS-D & F/A-18F. The Navy continues taking next steps, operating an X-47B alongside manned F/A-18C and F/A-18F fighters from the same carrier at the same time:

“The first series of manned/unmanned operations began this morning when the ship launched an F/A-18 and an X-47B. After an eight-minute flight, the X-47B executed an arrested landing, folded its wings and taxied out of the landing area. The deck-based operator used newly developed deck handling control to manually move the aircraft out of the way of other aircraft, allowing the F/A-18 to touch down close behind the X-47B’s recovery.”

This seems easy, but “de-confliction” is really dangerous. Sources: US Navy, “USS Theodore Roosevelt Conducts Combined Manned, Unmanned Operations” | Foxtrot Alpha, “Video Of X-47B & F/A-18 Carrier Ops Shows The Future Of Naval Aviation” | Washington Times, “Navy’s X-47B drone completes ‘key’ carrier tests alongside F/A-18 Hornet”.

July 31/14: UCLASS. USNI reports that the shift in UCLASS requirements wasn’t budget-driven, it was politically driven based on a program that doesn’t exist yet:

“In particular, the change in UCLASS from a deep strike stealthy penetrator into the current lightly armed intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) focused aircraft was – in large part – to preserve a manned version of the F/A-XX replacement for the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, several Navy, Pentagon and industry sources confirmed to USNI News.”

It wouldn’t be the first time something like this has happened. The usual outcome is the elimination of a useful capability now, without really protecting the future program. Another trap could snap shut if the Washington Business Journal turns out to be correct, and the Navy decides to keep the specifications poorly defined, in order to give themselves more flexibility. What that usually gives you, is more cost. Sources: USNI, “UCLASS Requirements Shifted To Preserve Navy’s Next Generation Fighter” | The Guardian, “Carrier-based drone offers way forward for US navy – subject to squabbling” | Washington Business Journal, “Could UCLASS end up as the Pentagon’s next runaway program?”.

May 6/14: Politics. House Armed Services Committee (HASC) chair Buck McKeon [R-CA] is proposing to add $450 million to fund 5 EA-18Gs and their equipment in the FY 2015 budget, instead of the 22 on the unfunded priorities list. The committee’s proposed changes would also preserve all F-35 funding, while cutting the Navy’s unmanned UCLASS R&D budget in half to $200 million. Sources: Flightglobal, “House bill promotes EA-18G and U-2S, but hits UCLASS” | Reuters, “Boeing, backers to fight for funding for 22 Boeing jets”.

May 4/14: RFP leak? Shawn Brimley of the center-left Center for a New American Security discusses the recent classified UCLASS RFP. Something must have leaked:

“But last month the Navy instead reportedly issued classified requirements for UCLASS to deliver intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. Instead of creating a drone that can carry missiles or other strike power into enemy airspace, defense contractors have been told to submit proposals for an aircraft designed to fly around the aircraft carrier for 12 to 14 hours delivering persistent surveillance over uncontested airspace, with a light strike capability to eliminate targets of opportunity.”

Within the known set of contenders, this RFP would give General Atomics a significant advantage, but it would also remove most of the UCAV’s ability to operate in contested environments. Stealth at a level required for contested environments isn’t a bolt-on, it’s a fundamental design choice that affects most other choices. There’s a set of trade-offs between various capabilities and reasonable cost (q.v. Feb 13 – April 2/14), but one can legitimately wonder why the job description Brimley describes requires a new program of any kind. The MQ-4C Triton and RQ-4B Block 40 Global Hawks will already perform that reconnaissance role, and if light strike is also required, the MQ-9 Reaper could just be navalized. Sources: Defense One, “Congress’s Chance to Fix Aircraft Carrier Drones”.

April 30/14: Politics. The House Subcommittee On Seapower And Projection Forces discusses H.R. 4435, the FY 2015 National Defense Authorization Bill. Title II addresses UCLASS directly, and prohibits UCLASS contracts until the Pentagon has produced a review of the report that examines the carrier wing’s capabilities against surveillance-strike complexes by 2025-2035, including both manned and unmanned components. That actually misses one of a UCAV’s biggest benefits, which is the strike range they offer with aerial refueling. The report may not change much, but the committee does say that:

“The committee believes that current UCLASS Air System Segment requirements will not address the emerging anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) challenges to U.S. power projection that originally motivated creation of the Navy Unmanned Combat Air System (N-UCAS) program during the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), and which were reaffirmed in both the 2010 QDR and 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance. In particular, the disproportionate emphasis in the requirements on unrefueled endurance to enable continuous intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) support to the Carrier Strike Group (CSG), a capability need presumably satisfied by the planned acquisition of 68 MQ-4C Tritons…. appears unsupportive of the 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance for the United States to “maintain its ability to project power in areas in which our access and freedom to operate are challenged.”

….Finally, the committee is concerned with multiple aspects of the proposed UCLASS acquisition strategy, including: insufficient time and funding for contractors to mature their designs in support of a full-scope Preliminary Design Review, due in part to late-developing and still-evolving air system performance requirements; the additional risk to the program associated with the Navy’s decision to abandon the precision landing system developed and successfully tested during the UCAS-D effort; and the potential risk associated with NAVAIR developing the UCLASS Mission Control System internally.”

April 10/14: UCAS-D Testing. The X-47B conducts its 1st night flight. Sources: US NAVAIR, “Photo Release: X-47B completes night flights”.

April 10/14: UCLASS GA. General Atomics’ modified Sea Avenger UAV appears to have grown larger since initial designs were released, with an internal bay and 4 wing hardpoints, including an option for buddy refueling tanks. The key question for the company will be the UCLASS stealth requirements. If they’re focused on ISR and strike missions in defended airspace, requiring good stealth scores in the C, X, and Ku bands, the Sea Avenger probably can’t compete. If the requirements focus on missions in relatively unthreatened airspace, inherent efficiencies in the Sea Avenger’s design sharply improve its chances. Sources: USNI, “General Atomics Shows Off Company’s UCLASS Option”.

April 9/14: UCAS-D Recognition. The X-47B program is awarded the aerospace industry’s annual Robert Collier trophy for 2013. Sources: US NAVAIR, “Navy’s X-47B program receives aviation honor”.

April 8/14: UCLASS. Speaking at the Sea, Air and Space 2014 expo, NAVAIR PEO unmanned aviation and strike weapons Adm. Mat Winter says that the US Navy expects to release a classified UCLASS draft RFP before the end of April. Sources: USNI, “Classified UCLASS Draft Request for Proposal Due at End of April”.

Feb 13 – April 2/14: UCLASS. Nailing down the UCLASS requirements has been the Navy’s biggest headache throughout, and even at this late date, competing visions are still problematic enough to delay the RFP. One is reminded of legendary Skunk Works chief Kelly Johnson:

“Starve before doing business with the damned Navy. They don’t know what the hell they want and will drive you up a wall before they break either your heart or a more exposed part of your anatomy.”

The core design issues are straightforward. One, more payload = more size = more cost. Two, different UCAV sizes force a choice of specific marinized jet engines, which will have specific fuel consumptions. If gal/nmi isn’t good enough, that means more fuel, which means more payload, and see #1. Engine choice also affects stealth and size directly, since efficient high-bypass turbofans have large diameters, and you have to design around that. Finally, stealth itself costs money, and creates airframe designs that are difficult to change later.

The Navy’s requirements (q.v. June 26/13) effectively impose a $75 million per UCAV cost cap, but “we want it all” letters from House ASC Seapower subcommittee chair Randy Forbes are likely to force costs to $100+ million if its recommendations are adopted. In-air refueling capability is critical for any UCAV, but adding maximum stealth and payload to the request is what breaks the deal. This may be one of those cases where a limited program with a less expensive platform is what’s really called for, in order to allow the Navy to figure out how they can best use the technology first. Sources: Scribd, Rep. Randy Forbes UCLASS Letter || USNI, “Cost Will Drive UCLASS Designs” | “Requirements Debate Continues to Delay UCLASS RFP”.

April 1/14: UCLASS. The Navy has been discussing the potential use of UCLASS as an aerial tanker platform for some time now. They aren’t talking about forward use during strikes. Rather, they’re focused on orbits around the carrier that can top off planes in the landing circle.

The Navy currently uses F/A-18E/F Super Hornets for that job, configured with buddy refueling tanks. Those missions eat up fully 20% of the fighters’ missions, consuming limited airframe flight hours for an expensive asset. All because the Navy foolishly retired its S-3 Vikings when they still had more remaining airframe life than a new Super Hornet. The coming COD carrier cargo aircraft competition may provide a different solution to this problem, via an upgraded C-3 Viking or the V-22’s roll-on refueling pallet. That’s good, because there probably won’t be enough UCLASS drones to do this job and perform their own missions. Sources: USNI, “UCLASS Could Be Used as Tanker for Carrier Air Wing”.

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. They peg the UCLASS program at $3.7 billion, and express concern about using a “technology development” program as a procurement program, which would bypass formal systems development requirements and move directly into production in 2020. A development contract is expected in FY 2014, but:

“UCLASS is critically dependent on the development and fielding of the Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS), a global positioning system that guides aircraft onto an aircraft carrier. Navy officials expect UCLASS to hold a preliminary design review – including the air vehicle, carrier, and control segments – in May 2014 based on JPALS test progress. However, the Navy still considers JPALS one of its top risks for UCLASS.”

March 4-11/14: FY15 Budget. The US military slowly files its budget documents, detailing planned spending from FY 2014 – 2019. The future UCLASS program is slated to consume $2.937 billion through FY 2019, all of which will be R&D money due to the program’s structure.

Feb 13/14: UCLASS Air-to-Air? The Navy is thinking broadly about UCLASS, which is good as long as it doesn’t screw up the specifications. Director of air warfare Rear Adm. Mike Manazir talks about the potential to use the UCLASS’ payload bay as a missile magazine. It wouldn’t have independent targeting capability, but datalinks with fighters like the missile-limited F-35C would allow remote firing, with guidance provided thereafter by manned fighters.

It’s the right kind of thinking, but unlikely to see much use for 3 reasons. One is that the UCLASS will be subsonic, with very limited ability to avoid enemy fighters. That’s a nice way of saying that they’d be expensive sitting ducks if enemy aircraft can get a firing solution on them, even as the number of missiles on board makes them a priority target. Another potential issue is that asking internal launchers to handle a wider variety of weapons (q.v. Nov 21/13) generally drives up costs, and may compromise optimal weapon configurations for the strike role. On a less likely but more catastrophic level, one hopes there’s no software exploit that might allow others to issue those kinds of firing commands. Sources: USNI, “Navy’s UCLASS Could Be Air to Air Fighter”.

Feb 4/14: UCLASS. The FY 2014 defense budget bill added some new demands on the UCLASS program, but they won’t stop the Navy from running it as a technology demonstration project that goes straight into operational production.

Programmatic updates, and annual GAO review of the program, are normal. What will change is the number of UAVs bought during the TD Phase, which is capped at 6 instead of the planned 24. The Navy says that they can handle Milestone B approval with 6, which was never really in doubt. What does change is the ability to field what’s effectively an operational capability straight out of the TD phase. Sources: USNI, “Navy: Congressional Oversight Will Not Slow UCLASS Program”.

Nov 21/13: UCLASS. The UCLASS weapons debate isn’t solved yet, though the Navy seems to be leaning strongly toward a primary surveillance and targeting role, since that would be a new addition to the carrier air wing. UCLASS/UCAS-D requirements officer Cmdr. Pete Yelle says that:

“Weapons requirements will be defined in the final proposals. It is up to the vendors to come back with proposals and leverage what is available”…. The UCLASS will be able to work operations over land and water using EO/IR, or electro-optical/infrared sensors, FMV or full-motion video and eventually a fifth-generation AESA radar, Yelle said.”

Full Motion Video is part of most EO/IR systems these days. As for the AESA radar, that can mean a wide array of solutions, and a significant range of expense. The question is how far one wants to go. Just surface scans? Surface scans plus periscope detection capabilities, to partially replace the retired S-3 Viking’s role? Or a full fighter radar for air and ground surveillance, with specialized capabilities added as software? Each choice leads to different cost ranges, and potential commonalities or divergences with other fleet assets.

On the weapons front, some capability for persistent surveillance and strike seems like an obvious addition. What’s available includes Paveway laser-guidance, JDAM and Small Diameter Bomb GPS, and DAMTC dual-mode laser/GPS bombs. Depending on a given UAV’s internal mechanics, compact anti-ship missiles and even AIM-9X air defense weapons could also become an option, but that tends to add complexity and cost to the system. Sources: Defense Tech, “Navy Plans to Arm UCLASS with JDAMs”.

Nov 10/13: Flying again. The X-47B is back at sea, flying from the decks of the USS Theodore Roosevelt [CVN 71]. US Navy, “X-47B Operates Aboard Theodore Roosevelt”:

“The aircraft performed precise touch and go maneuvers on the ship to generate data that characterizes the environment in close proximity of the carrier flight deck. In addition, the aircraft took part in flight deck handling drills, completed arrested landings and catapult launches. Mission operators monitored the aircraft’s autonomous flight from a portable command and control unit from Theodore Roosevelt’s flight deck during each of its 45-minute flights.”

History made
click for video

Aug 28 – Sept 6/13: AAR. A Calspan Learjet has been modified with a non-functioning aerial refueling probe, and X-47B UCAV hardware and software for navigation, command and control, and vision processing. Its challenge? To fly behind an Omega K-707 tanker, and demonstrate its ability to hold correct positions and operate with the installed systems. Testing went well.

The next step will using the kind of digital messaging and navigation processes that were demonstrated by the UCAV’s recent carrier landings, with Rockwell Collins TTNT datalink, and Precision Relative GPS (PGPS) algorithms. The final goal? A complete autonomous rendezvous, approach, plug, and safe separation. No fuel will be transferred to the Learjet, which isn’t equipped to receive it anyway, but the ability to fly that kind of evolution is enough challenge all by itself. People in the military overuse the phrase “game changer,” but a technology that could allow continuous 72+ hour missions and trans-ocean control from a carrier would indeed justify that description. Sources: US NAVAIR, “Navy autonomous aerial refueling tests underway”.

Aug 14/13: UCLASS. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD offers each of the UCLASS study participants another $15 million firm-fixed-price contract for their preliminary design review assessment work. Each firm has $4.75 million committed to it immediately, and work is extended until June 2014. Too bad the core requirements are still in flux. The winners include:

• Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. in El Segundo, CA (N00019-13-C-0140).
  
• Lockheed Martin Corp. in Palmdale, CA (N00019-13-C-0141).
  
• Boeing in St. Louis, MO (N00019-13-C-0142).
  
• General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. in Poway, CA (N00019-13-C-0143).

Aug 12/13: UCLASS. Aviation Week reports that the US Navy is having a hard time with the specifications for their UCLASS program RFP, which will be delayed into September 2013.

The biggest question is how much stealth the drone requires. Despite recent manufacturing advances, like the radar-absorbing materials baked right into the F-35’s composite skin, more stealth tends to make planes more expensive to buy and to maintain, while dropping their endurance and payload. On the other hand, current drones would have a very short life expectancy against advanced air defense systems, which creates a gap outside of the military’s unknown “black” programs.

Aviation Week reports that Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin are emphasizing stealth, while General Atomics and Boeing are willing to raise the radar cross-section somewhat in exchange for payload and endurance. General Atomics’ Sea Avenger, with its winged body and tail, does seem to fit this description. On the other hand, Boeing’s X-45 Phantom Ray is a tailless flying wing design, just like its NGC and Lockheed competitors. If Boeing is really prioritizing range and payload, it means they’re changing their base platform. Aviation Week: “Uclass: How Much LO is Enough?”

Aug 7/13: UCAS-D: Keep flying. It seems that the X-47Bs aren’t done flying yet. Instead of mothballing them as planned, the US Navy wants to keep them flying into 2015, and deploy to carriers 3 more times. Up to 3 more carriers will be fitted with compatible equipment, and Congress may get its wish to have the aerial refueling tests restored and completed by October 2014. The most important test will involve full integration with a 70-plane carrier air wing for several weeks, which would create a different level of comfort within the Navy for unmanned aircraft.

Despite past weapon drops under the J-UCAS program, The Us Navy doesn’t expect to conduct any of those with the X-47 UCAS-D. NAVAIR’s Capt. Jaime Engdahl repeated that refusal a couple of times a week later, at the AUVSI conference.

Continued flying will also give Northrop Grumman additional opportunities to work on its UCLASS design, and ensure that the Navy gets comfortable with its evolution. David Axe correctly points out that the last situation similar to this one involve Lockheed Martin’s X-35 design, which was chosen to become the F-35. DoD Buzz: “Navy: X-47B Drone Won’t Be a Killer” | USNI News: “NAVAIR: X-47B to Fly Again” | War Is Boring: “Navy’s Big Surprise: Carrier Drone to Make a Comeback”.

July 2/13: UCLASS. Lockheed Martin touts a recent UCLASS demonstration at NAVAIR, but their focus is on back-end and Common Control systems, rather than the UCAV itself. Lockheed Martin:

“Using an open architecture framework integrated with DreamHammer’s Ballista [DID: link added] drone control software and Navy compliant software protocols, a single operator managed multiple UAS platforms [including Lockheed Martin’s UCLASS concept] simultaneously. The team also used the new Navy Cloud capability to demonstrate control of the ISR sensors and fully integrate the data into one complete mission picture. The team then used this picture to rapidly re-task and re-route the UAS assets. In addition to using DreamHammer’s Ballista drone control software in this UCLASS demonstration, Lockheed Martin is teamed with DreamHammer Government Solutions in pursuit of the upcoming Navy Common Control System contract.”

June 28/13: JPALS/N-UCAS. Engility Corp. in Mount Laurel, NJ receives a $12.5 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract, exercising an option for engineering services in support of the Joint Precision Approach and Landing Systems (JPALS) and the Navy Unmanned Combat Aerial Systems programs. JPALS is a ground or ship-based system that adds extra precision to GPS, and is used to help land aircraft. It’s a critical enabler for naval UAVs like UCAS-D, UCLASS, etc.

$4 million in FY 2013 RDT&E funds are committed immediately. Services to be provided include requirements definition and analysis; prototyping; test and evaluation; technical assistance; system analysis; engineering; software development, integration and maintenance; test data acquisition; reduction and analysis; technical logistic support; configuration management; training support; and program and project management.

Work will be performed in St. Inigoes, MD (95%); Providence, RI (3%); and Chicago, IL (2%); and is expected to be complete by in January 2014 (N00421-12-C-0048).

June 26/13: UCLASS. “The Navy has outlined the specifications for the Unmanned Carrier Launched Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) in a requirements document obtained by USNI News.” the key numbers are:

• Carrier and JALN-M network compatible, with take-off and landing in Sea State 3 (4′ waves) minimum, and SS7 (29′ waves) maximum.
  
• Able to conduct a strike mission at 2,000 nmi.
  
• Able to conduct 2 surveillance orbits at 600 nmi radius around the carrier, or 1 at 1,200 nmi radius.
  
• 3,000 pound payload, including day/night optical surveillance comparable to an MQ-9, plus a surface scanning radar including GMTI moving object tracking.
  
• At least 1,000 pounds of that payload can be existing carrier weapons.
  
• Enough stealth for surveillance missions in lightly contested areas.

Those requirements will be difficult to meet already. Now add a number of added requirement being floated at present, and ongoing disputes about how much stealth etc. is necessary. Sources: USNI, “UCLASS By the Numbers”.

May 17/13: Touch and Go. The X-47B UCAS-D follows its catapult launch with a touch-and-go landing on USS George W. Bush [CVN 77], which tests its ability to fly precision approaches to a moving target.

A touch-and-go doesn’t trap the wire, but throttles the engine to full and takes off again. Carrier-based planes have to be able to do that if they miss the wire and pull a “bolter,” which is a guaranteed way to get harassed by your fellow pilots. Not sure what you do to a UAV. Perhaps the Navy can offer a rotating pool of drone software programmers, available for friendly abuse via secure video conference. US NAVAIR | US Navy.

Carrier launch
click for video

May 14/13: Carrier launch. An X-47B UCAS-D is maneuvered into position on deck, and launched from USS George W. Bush [CVN 77]. The US Navy, Northrop Grumman et. al. hail it as a revolutionary milestone. We’ll grant that launching amidst the busy, complicated, and dangerous goings-on of a carrier deck is unlike any land-based challenge. It’s a difficult task for humans, and a difficult task for computers to do with human help.

Having said that, this isn’t the complete circuit. It’s the next logical step after on-ship deck tests (vid. Nov. 26/12) and land-based catapult launch (vid. Nov 29/12). We’ve said before that they won’t have a revolution on their hands until they can do the complete circuit: maneuver, launch, fly a circuit, and land. The next revolution after that will involve aerial refueling. When they do these things, we’ll join the chorus. US NAVAIR | Northrop Grumman.

May 6/13: Trap. The X-47B UCAS-D demonstrator successfully traps the wire as it lands at NAS Patuxent River, MD’s shore-based catapult and arresting gear complex. Northrop Grumman.

April 12/13: Support. FBO.gov:

“This synopsis provides notice of the Government’s intent to solicit a proposal on a sole source basis from Sierra Nevada Corporation, 444 Salomon Circle, Sparks, NV for work providing support in troubleshooting, problem resolution, and anomaly investigation associated with the Precision Global Positioning System (PGPS) as part of the existing Unmanned Combat Air System-Demonstration (UCAS-D) Program. This request for proposal will be issued in accordance with the terms and conditions of Basic Ordering Agreement (BOA) N00421-10-G-0001.

This acquisition is being pursued on a sole source basis under the statutory authority 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1), as implemented by Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 6.302-1, only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements.”

April 7/13: UCLASS. Lockheed Martin finally unveils their Skunk Works’ UCLASS design, which combines elements of their RQ-170 Sentinel stealth reconnaissance UAV with technologies from the F-35C for carrier operations, weapons use, etc. Overall, the design looks quite a bit like Boeing’s X-45C Phantom Ray. LMCO UCLASS Page | YouTube video.

March 26/13: UCLASS. NAVAIR indicates through a presolicitation that it plans to go ahead with follow-on Preliminary Design contracts to all 4 UCLASS study contract vendors (Boeing, General Atomics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman – vid. June 23/11), and continue the Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike program.

The contracts are expected by the summer of 2013, supporting up to 2 years of work on the UAVs, datalinks for communications and control, and the carrier operations segment. They’re expected to carry each design to the Preliminary Design Review by Q3 2014, and support post-PDR design maturation and follow-on engineering. The next step after that will be the selection of 1 winner, and UCLASS initial operational capability within 3-6 years. FBO | Defense Update.

Dec 21/12: Aerial Refueling. Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. in San Diego, CA receives a $9.7 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract modification for Autonomous Aerial Refueling (AAR) demonstration activities in support of the N-UCAS program. Services will include completion of Delta Critical Design Review (DCDR), surrogate testing with manned aircraft, preparation for the X-47B demonstration, travel, and support technical data for the AAR demonstration activities.

Work will be performed in Manhattan Beach, CA (70%) and Patuxent River, MD (30%), and is expected to be complete in December 2013. All contract funds are committed immediately (N00019-07-C-0055).

Nov 29/12: Testing. An X-47B is launched using a land-based naval steam catapult, at NAS Patuxent River, MD. The releases are full of words like “historic,” but DID just doesn’t see it. Lots of UAVs have been launched by non-steam catapults, steam catapult technology isn’t new, and this isn’t a launch from an actual ship. It’s just a test to verify that the X-47B’s landing gear, body structure, and software, which were designed from the outset to handle the rigors of a steam catapult launch, can indeed do so. A milestone, yes, but a minor one.

When an X-47B is launched from an actual ship, and recovered aboard, that will be historic. Ditto for successful aerial refueling. US NAVAIR | Northrop Grumman.

X-47B deck tests
click for video

Nov 26/12: Testing. An X-47B air vehicle arrives by barge from Naval Air Station Patuxent River, MD, and is craned aboard the USS Harry S. Truman [CVN 75] for deck handling tests aboard the ship.

One suspects that civil airspace certification for high-end drones can’t happen soon enough for NAVAIR and the US military. US NAVAIR.

Nov 15/12: Testing. Northrop Grumman announces that its UCAS-D team has successfully completed initial onshore trials of the Control Display Unit (CDU), a new wireless, handheld controller used for carrier-deck maneuvering. Tests were basic: control engine thrust; roll forward, brake and stop; nose wheel steering; and maneuver the aircraft efficiently into a catapult or out of the landing area following a mock carrier landing.

On-ship deck trials are next.

Nov 6/12: NASIF Testing. US NAVAIR discusses testing at the “N-UCAS Aviation/Ship Integration Facility.” If NASIF didn’t exist, the Navy would have to use an aircraft carrier for this sort of testing, and it can’t afford that. Hence the NASIF building, stocked with Primary Flight Control (PriFly), Landing Signals Officer (LSO), Carrier Air Traffic Control Center (CATCC) and Mission Control Element (MCE) equipment.

The UCAS-D program uses the facility for system integration of new equipment, and UAV/manned surrogate demonstration events. Events like final Human Systems Integration (HSI) modeling and simulation testing for sailors from USS Carl Vinson and USS Abraham Lincoln.

Instead of using the current method of controlling multiple aircraft with radar displays and voice radio, the event tested their ability to send and receive digital instructions to and from aircraft, in addition to using voice instructions. This capability is absolutely required for UAV, but it will also help manned fighters, whose 60-second landing spread includes a final 20 seconds of enforced controller silence. If the controllers can communicate with everyone else by text while a pilot lands, that’s a big step forward.

The controller teams showed they could handle it over about 20 test scenarios, which progressed from relaying UAV commands to a UAV mission operator for entry, to direct communication with the simulated UAV and more automated systems.

X-47B, Edwards AFB
(click to view full)

Aug 20/12: UCLASS. NAVAIR awards a small $440,315 firm-fixed-price delivery order to Rockwell Collins, for Phase II of the ARC-210 UCLASS feasibility study with JPALS.

ARC-210 radios are used to communicate with UAVs over UHF, and their software may need fine-tuning to work with UCLASS for all of the Navy’s requirements (N00019-08-G-0016-0076). Contract: FBO.gov.

Aug 13/12: UCLASS. Naval Air Systems Command releases a Request for
Information to evaluate the Draft Mission Effectiveness Analysis (MEA) Tool developed by the UCLASS Program Office. In practice this is a spreadsheet fed with warfare analysis models, where the user can input UAV parameters for comparative assessment (N00019-12-P7-ZD235).

The RFP should come in the fall with a down-select to a single design in 2016 aiming for IOC in 2020. The spreadsheet is classified SECRET/NOFORN. FBO.gov | Flight International.

Early July 2012: Testing. Members from the UCAS-D carrier integration team engage in extensive software testing aboard USS Harry S. Truman [CVN 75], talking to fleet air-traffic controllers and air-department personnel about the usability of the new software, and lessons learned. Land-based X-47B tests will continue at Patuxent River, MD, and the goal is a carrier landing in about a year. US NAVAIR.

June 14/12: UFO-G. US NAVAIR indirectly confirms that the wrapped object spotted on a truck in Kansas was UCAS-D AV-2 (vid. June 6/12 entry), being trucked across the country from Edwards AFB, CA to NAS Patuxent River, MD for the next phase of flight tests. Easier than getting the civil flight waivers, I guess.

June 8/12: JPALS. L-3 Service, Inc. in Mount Laurel, NJ receives a $12.5 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for engineering services in support of the precision GPS Joint Precision Approach and Landing System, and the Navy’s UCAS-D program. The 2 are highly connected, of course, since UCAVs will need to depend on precision GPS, in order to land on carriers (vid. the July 2/11 test). JPALS will also help manned fighters.

Services to be provided include requirements definition and analysis, prototyping, test and evaluation, technical assistance, system analysis, engineering, software work, test data acquisition, reduction and analysis, technical logistic support, configuration management, training support, and program and project management. Work will be performed in St. Inigoes, MD (95%); Providence, RI (3%); and Chicago, IL (2%). Work is expected to be complete in October 2012. This contract was not competitively procured, pursuant to the FAR 6.302-1, by the US Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division in Patuxent River, MD (N00421-12-C-0048).

June 6/12: UFO-G. From the Augusta (KS) Gazette:

“This morning several Butler County Sheriff officers and KDOT personnel escorted a flatbed trailer entering Augusta from the south on US Highway 77 and headed east out of town on US Highway 54. Traffic was backed up coming in and going out of town. At first glance the strange-shaped cargo cloaked in industrial-strength shrink wrap appeared to be a saucer, but an unidentified KDOT worker advised it was an X-47B Combat Drone coming from Texas and en route to an unknown destination.”

Operating unmanned jets in US civil air space is a bit of a problem, which may help to explain the decision to ship it by road. Kansas is a rather roundabout route from Texas to Patuxent River, MD, but it is more of a straight line from California.

Jan 21/12: Testing. NAVAIR/AFRL’s AAR program completes a series of ground and flight tests that began in November 2011, using a Calspan Learjet surrogate with X-47B hardware and software, and a Omega Air Refueling K-707 aerial tanker. The tests included simulated flight demonstrations of both boom/receptacle (USAF) and probe-and-drogue (Navy & European) aerial refueling techniques, but no fuel was actually transferred, and Calspan’s Learjet wasn’t equipped for that anyway. The tests were all about correct positioning and coordination, beginning at a position 1 nautical mile from the K-707, and allowing autonomous guidance to move the Learjet into the 3 air-air refueling positions: observation, contact, and re-form.

Navy UCAS program manager Capt. Jaime Engdahl says that the next big step will involve using the actual X-47B. The team plans to conduct 2 more surrogate test periods before a planned refueling demonstration with the X-47B in 2014. NAVAIR | Northrop Grumman.

Nov 22/11: AV-2 flies. The fully-equipped UCAS-D demonstrator #AV-2 takes off for the 1st time at Edwards AFB, CA. That’s about a year late, but AV-1’s issues had to be ironed out first.

With 2 flying UCAVs, the program is expected to move AV-2 to NAS Patuxent River, MD by the end of 2011, and begin testing carrier landing technologies in 2012. That will include GPS-guided precision approaches to the carrier, arrested landings and “roll-out” catapult launches at land-based test facilities; and flight testing of new precision navigation computers and guidance/ navigation/ control software recently installed on both aircraft. The new suite of hardware and software is designed to let the X-47B land safely on a moving aircraft carrier deck. AV-1 will continue testing at Edwards AFB, with a focus on finding its flight limits. Northrop Grumman.

Nov 7/11: Aerial refueling. Inside the Navy reports [subscription] that the US Navy will be expanding the X-47B’s planned aerial refueling capability, to autonomously refuel while in flight with both USAF Air Force and USN aerial tankers.

The USAF uses KC-135s and KC-10s, but many of the KC-135s need to place an attachment on the refueling boom, in order to refuel probe-carrying aircraft. The US Navy has KC-130 Hercules aerial tankers, and its F/A-18E/F Super Hornets can become “buddy refuelers” with special wing tanks.

“Look ma, no hands!”
(click to view full)

July 18/11: Northrop Grumman Systems in San Diego, CA receives a $25 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract modification for UCAS-D autonomous aerial refueling technology maturation and demonstration activities. They’ll provide “air systems, air vehicle segment, and mission management segment requirements definition; integration planning and verification planning; and definition of certification requirements and approach.”

Work will be performed in San Diego, CA, and is expected to be complete in December 2012. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-07-C-0055).

May 16/11: Northrop Grumman announces that it has picked up awards from the USAF Flight Test Center at Edwards AFB, CA, including Flight Test Team of the Quarter (above candidates like the F-35) for its X-47B/UCAS-D aircraft.

April 25/11: Sub-contractors. ARINC Engineering Services, LLC in Annapolis, MD receives a $9.7 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for technical and engineering services in support of the Joint Precision Approach and Landing Systems (JPALS) and Navy Unmanned Combat Aerial Systems (N-UCAS) programs. The 2 are related, as JPALS precision GPS-driven approach is a natural fit with the landing needs of a carrier-borne UCAV.

Work will be performed in Lexington Park, MD (80%), and St. Inigoes, MD (20%), and is expected to be complete in October 2011. This contract was not competitively procured by the US Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division in Patuxent River, MD (N00421-11-C-0034).

March 28/11: UCLASS. US NAVAIR issues a Broad Agency Announcement regarding UCLASS, in solicitation #N00019-11-R-0031:

“The Naval Air Systems Command seeks proposals which conceptually demonstrate that a UCLASS system can provide a persistent Carrier Vessel-Nuclear (CVN) based Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) and strike capability supporting carrier air wing operations in the 2018 timeframe. In order to identify and explore available trade space… The program anticipates leveraging existing, deployed Department of Defense (DoD) systems to launch, recover, and control the air vehicle, transfer data in support of time critical strike operations, and conduct persistence ISR operations. The ongoing Unmanned Combat Air System-Demonstration program will inform UCLASS development and provide technology risk reduction for Unmanned Aircraft (UA) integration into carrier environments.”

March 14/11: Testing. A US Navy/Northrop Grumman Corporation test team issues a report stating that 5 weeks of dynamic load testing on X-47B air vehicle 2 (AV-2) demonstrated its ability to handle the stresses, strains and dynamic loads associated with carrier catapult launches and arrested landings, and air-to-air refueling. AV-2 is the X-47B airframe that will be equipped for air-to-air refueling tests.

The tests themselves finished on Jan 24/11, a week ahead of schedule. NGC AV-2 manager says they included 8 design conditions, including a 3-G symmetrical pull up, a 2.4G rolling pullout, and turbulence during aerial refueling; and 5 conditions expected to occur on the ground, including takeoff and landing tests involving the nose gear and tail hook. To conduct the tests, engineers bonded pads to 200 points on the airframe surface, and then pushed and pulled on those pads using hydraulic jacks to simulate various static and dynamic load conditions. Northrop Grumman.

March 1-4/11: Testing. The X-47B UCAS-D makes its 2nd and 3rd of 49 planned flights at Edwards AFB, CA. Testers are working to expand the flight test envelope in terms of air speeds, altitudes and operating weights, while testing key systems. Major concerns at this point include its flight control system’s ability to handle unpredictable crosswinds and turbulence at all speeds, the accuracy of its flush-mounted air data testing instruments, and engine performance. NGC.

Feb 15/11: UCLASS. General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. announces success in wind-tunnel tests of its Sea Avenger model, intended to validate its new wing’s low-speed handling characteristics. a key wind tunnel test on a model of its jet-powered Sea Avenger Predator C variant. The new wing is also designed to increase aircraft dash speeds, which is an interesting engineering combination.

GA-ASI President Frank W. Pace touts the 90-hour, 8-day test at the San Diego Air & Space Technology Center, as a classic example of his firm’ push to invest in early development, ahead of customer requirements for a UCLASS type system. The firm’s past history with the MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper backs up his boast.

Feb 7/11: Sub-contractors. Lockheed Martin touts their own involvement in the X-47B program, which mostly revolves around low observable (stealth) design and aspects of aerodynamic edges, inlet lip and control surfaces, and an all new arresting hook system. Al Romig is the current VP of Advanced Development Programs for Lockheed Martin Aeronautics, and the firm completed delivery of its UCAS-D hardware in December 2009. Lockheed Martin will continue to support further UCAS-D flight testing, as well as carrier flight operations.

UCAS-D 1st flight
(click to view full)

Feb 4/11: First UCAS-D flight. The flight took off at 14:09 PST (GMT -0800) at Edwards AFB, and lasted 29 minutes, flying between 180 – 240 kt and climbing to 5,000 feet with landing gear down at all times, while executing racetrack patterns. It provided test data to verify and validate system software for guidance and navigation, and aerodynamic control of the tailless design. The flight follows airframe proof load tests, propulsion system accelerated mission tests, software maturity and reliability simulations, full system taxi tests, and numerous other system test activities that happen before any 1st flight.

Eugene Fly had made the first landing on a stationary ship on Jan 18/1911, but a 100th anniversary flight for X-47B #AV-1 wasn’t possible. Some of items that delayed this flight from original expectations in late 2009 included propulsion acoustic and engine-start sequencing issues, an asymmetric braking issue uncovered during taxi tests, and a last-minute maintenance issue with an auxiliary power generation system.

Testing continues. Aircraft AV-1 will remain at Edwards AFB for flight envelope expansion before transitioning to Naval Air Station Patuxent River, MD, later in 2011, where they will validate its readiness to begin testing in the maritime and carrier environment. Meanwhile, the refueling-ready AV-2 has completed its design limit load tests up to 130% with no test anomalies, showing that it’s able to withstand g-loads encountered during aerial refueling. It won’t begin its own tests until AV-1’s initial tests are done, which is currently planned for late 2011. The program is currently preparing the X-47B for carrier trials in 2013. US Navy | NGC release | Bullet points, images & video | Aviation Week.

1st flight

Feb 2/11: USAF opportunity? Defense news quotes Col. James Gear, director of the USAF’s Remotely Piloted Aircraft Task Force, on the future of its UAV fleet. Despite a big commitment to the MQ-1 Predator, the MQ-9 Reaper caused a major mid-stream shift in plans. Col. Gear cites some existing issues with the MQ-9, which could leave it open to a similar shift.

The Reaper does not fare well in icing conditions, and is also not considered survivable against anti-aircraft systems. The issue of jam and snoop-proof data links, and trace-back and verification of signal origins, has also been a live question during the MQ-1 and MQ-9’s tenure. The “MQ-X” that replaces it will have to do better on all 3 counts, and the USAF also wants it to be easily upgradeable via switch-out modules. The Colonel believes the resulting UAV will end up being common with the US Navy’s carrier-based UCLASS requirement, as the 2 services are cooperating closely. That could give Northrop Grumman’s funded X-47B N-UCAS an edge over Boeing’s privately developed X-45 Phantom Ray. It could also offer a boost to General Atomics’ Predator C/ Sea Avenger.

Manned and…not
(click to view full)

July 19/10: UCLASS. General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. touts its jet-powered Predator C Avenger UAS as “ready for deployment” under programs like the British RAF’s SCAVENGER, or as the MQ-X successor to the USAF’s MQ-9 Reapers. The Avenger family’s avionics are based upon the Predator B/MQ-9 Reaper, and the plane features both radar and optical sensor options, plus a variety of internal weapons loads up to 2,000 pound Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM).

Ready for deployment” is stretching things a bit. The Predator C series first flew in April 2009, “tail one” is currently averaging 2-3 flights a week, and flight tests were recently transferred from GA-ASI’s Gray Butte Flight Operations Facility in Palmdale, CA, to Naval Air Station (NAS) China Lake, CA. GA-ASI Aircraft Systems Group President Frank Pace does describe some results as “exceeding our expectations,” including excellent agreement between advance engineering and flight tests, and fuel burn rates up to 10% better than predicted models. The UAV reportedly uses a Pratt & Whitney Canada PW545B engine, which also powers the Cessna Citation XLS business jet.

May 3/10: UCLASS. General Atomics announces that it has submitted its “Sea Avenger” as a potential candidate for UCLASS airborne surveillance and strike requirement. Their UCAV is based on their jet-powered, 44-foot long and 66-foot wingspan “Predator C Avenger,” which can fly at 400 knots for up to 20 hours, and operate up to 50,000 feet. Design changes include a highly fuel-efficient engine and inlet design, a Lynx SAR ground-looking radar, retractable electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) sensors and a 3,000 pound capacity internal weapons bay, and folding wings. The structure can accommodate carrier suitable landing gear, tail hook, drag devices, and other provisions for carrier operations.

Developed on company funds for near-term military use, the base Predator C Avenger is continuing through its planned test program, with a 2nd aircraft currently under development and expected to be complete by the end of 2010. General Atomics.

March 19/10: UCLASS RFI. The US Navy issues a Request for Information for a (UCLASS). The RFI indicates that the Navy is looking to move ahead with full unmanned combat aircraft earlier than its original plans.

“The Navy is interested in information on carrier based, low observable (LO) Unmanned Air Systems (UAS) concepts optimized for Irregular and Hybrid Warfare scenarios, capable of integrating with manned platforms as part of the Carrier Air Wing (CVW) by the end of 2018 to support limited operations in contested scenarios. The UAS should enhance situational awareness and shorten the time it takes to find, fix, track, target, engage, and assess time sensitive targets. This RFI is intended to determine the existence of sources that can provide a limited inventory of systems capable of being operated by fleet Sailors and performing the above mentioned Navy UAS mission.”

The UCLASS concept involves 4-6 UAVs that could perform both intelligence/ surveillance/ reconnaissance (ISR) and strike missions in contested airspace, that are able to fly for 11-14 hours without refuelling. Industry reportedly expected the navy to release a UCLASS RFP in early 2011, and interested parties beyond Northrop Grumman include General Atomics (Sea Avenger), and reportedly Boeing (X-45 Phantom Ray) as well. See: FedBizOpps RFI | Flight International | Jane’s.

March 17/10: Leadership. Janis Pamiljans, previously vice president and program manager of Northrop’s KC-30 aerial refueling tanker bid for the USAF, takes over from Scott Winship as vice president of N-UCAS related efforts. Pamiljans also has worked as a program manager on the F/A-18 and F-35 strike fighter programs.

Aviation Week points out that this is just one of several corporate moves, which seem to be aimed at freeing people up to participate in “black” (classified) programs, and develop a next-generation stealth aircraft for reconnaissance and long-range strike. Aviation Week | Defense News.

March 2/10: Leadership. Capt. Jeff Penfield takes over the Navy’s X-47B program office, replacing Capt. Martin Deppe. Source.

Feb 18/10: Predator C. Don Bolling, a Lockheed Martin senior business development manager, hints that General Atomics’ Predator C has a customer, and isn’t just a privately funded effort. He tells a media source that General Atomics Aeronautical Systems is interested in “Global Hawk-like” payloads for high altitude surveillance on its jet-powered Predator-C Avenger UAV, putting efforts to install the F-35 fighter’s Sniper pod-derived electro-optical targeting system (EOTS) on hold.

The shift was reportedly at the request of a customer, which made the report news because the Predator C wasn’t known to have a customer. The USAF already flies Global Hawks, and export approvals for the EOTS and Predator C would be an involved process. The most likely guess as to the customer would be the CIA, which does operate UAVs of its own, or US Special Operations Command. Flight International.

Feb 13/10: Testing. The US Navy announces that N-UCAS team members are underway with USS Abraham Lincoln [CVN 72] to test the integration of existing ship systems with new systems that will support the X-47B in carrier-controlled airspace. The team is testing X-47B software integration by using a King Air turbo prop “surrogate” aircraft taking off and landing from shore, but approaching the carrier and performing the various procedures associated with systems like Prifly, CATCC, LSO, etc. The digital messages from shipboard controllers receive “wilco” (ACK) responses to verify receipt.

Additional developmental testing later this year, will involve testing the software integration using an F/A-18 surrogate aircraft, to more closely emulate the X-47B’s flight.

Feb 4/10: Navy plans. Defense News reports that the N-UCAS program is slated to receive a $2 billion boost over the next 5 years, and seems set to follow the RQ-4 Global Hawk procurement model, rather than remaining a demonstration aircraft.

The RQ-4 Global Hawk was an advanced development program that was moved to the front lines after the 9/11 attacks, and became a fully operational platform. The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review featured a tilt away from technology demonstrator status, and toward an X-47 UCAV that can perform surveillance and/or strike roles. That would let the Navy field operational UCAVs much sooner, and allow them to field a capability that could be similar but superior to the USAF’s current RQ-170 Sentinel/”Beast of Kandahar” stealth UAV. Those exact capabilities remain a matter for discussion, however, as Navy Undersecretary and UCAV advocate Bob Work points out:

“There is a lively debate over whether or not the N-UCAS demonstrator should result in a penetrating, ISR strike bird, or be more of a strike fighter… That debate has not quite been resolved. Having this extra $2 billion added to the budget is going to help us resolve that debate.”

Jan 26/10: Aerial refueling. Northrop Grumman Integrated Systems Sector in San Diego, CA received an $11 million not-to-exceed modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for autonomous aerial refueling technology maturation and demonstration activities in support of the Navy UCAS-D.

Work will be performed in El Segundo, CA (60%) and Rancho Bernardo, CA (40%), and is expected to be complete in November 2010 (N00019-07-C-0055).

Jan 17/10: Testing. First low-speed taxi test of an X-47 N-UCAS. Source.

Dec 22/10: Delay. Trouble with engine start sequencing and propulsion acoustics will now reportedly delay the X-47B’s December 2009 flight to sometime in the first 3 months of 2010. Gannett’s Navy Times | Defense Update.

Nov 25/09: Aviation Week reports that the X-47 UCAS-D system demonstrator is experiencing “propulsion acoustic and engine-start sequencing” issues, which will require additional testing and push its 1st flight to 2010.

The US Navy reportedly says UCAS-D is still on track for sea trials in 2012, but Northrop Grumman has placed a “moratorium” on press interviews for UCAS-D – never a good sign.

Nov 2/09: Navy plans. The Brookings Institute’s 21st Century Defense Initiative hosts Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead, who discusses the U.S. Navy’s use of new technologies, and its development and integration of unmanned systems. Excerpts:

“I would say that where we can make some significant breakthroughs us just in the organizing principles and in the way that we approach the unmanned systems. The idea of being able to disembark or embark long-range unmanned air systems for example changes the nature in which we can run flight decks, changes the nature of the carrier air wing configurations as we move into the future.

…I would also say that I am often struck that as we talk about unmanned systems we’ve really become enamored with the vehicle itself and there has been very, very little discussion and arguably little work on something that makes it all work together and that’s the network and the architecture of the network, how the information will be moved, what are the redundancies that you would have in place, and what are the common protocols that are going to be required as we move into the future.”

See WIRED Danger Room | Brookings Institute and full transcript [PDF]

Oct 6/09: Sub-contractors. GE Aviation announces that it has delivered the first fully-dressed X-47B UCAS-D landing gear to Northrop Grumman Corporation. “Fully-dressed” landing gear is designed to meet or exceed all U.S. Navy carrier landing requirements for a fully loaded UCAS-D aircraft. GE Aviation says that its combined systems make it the largest non-partner equipment supplier to the X-47B, but the landing gear effort had partners of its own:

“Due to the demanding mission profiles required for this advanced carrier platform, the landing gear system incorporates the latest technology advancements in steering control from Parker Hannifin as well as anti-skid braking systems from Goodrich Corporation.”

UCAS-D load testing
(click to view full)

Aug 11/09: Updates. AUVSI 2009 event reports indicate progress on several fronts from the UCAS-D program.

Flight International reports that an F/A-18D Hornet test plane with be modified to carry X-47B avionics and software, then used as a test bed to develop a fully integrated aircraft/carrier auto-landing system. The Navy is hoping to perform manned but “hands-off” approaches and landings on an aircraft carrier within 2 years, though that aspect remains to be decided.

Meanwhile, Shephard reports that number of USAF personnel will begin arriving at NAS Patuxent River as observers to PMA-268, the Navy UCAS Program Office. The planned air-air refueling demonstration was apparently the catalyst for USAF interest, and the second test aircraft (AV-2) is being built with full internal refueling systems on board.

July 29/09: Load testing. Northrop Grumman announces a successful series of static and dynamic proof load tests, designed to ensure that the UCAV will be able to stand up to aircraft carrier launches, recoveries, and other associated stresses. For these torture tests, over 200 electro-hydraulic assemblies were attached to the major components of the X-47B, whereupon pressure was applied to simulate desired conditions. The 2-month effort included progressive structural, functional proof and calibration tests to verify the integrity of all flight control surfaces, major structural load paths, main landing gear structure, and the tailhook assembly.

The 2nd aircraft is currently being assembled, and will begin proof load tests later in 2009. UCAS-D aircraft will also undergo parallel engine integration and taxi tests through fall 2009, in preparation for first flight and aircraft carrier trials. Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems VP and UCAS-D program manager, Scott Winship, cited that unforgiving environment, then promised that:

“The X-47B was built for these conditions, and as the results of the rigorous proof test show, the design of the aircraft is structurally sound for all aspects of carrier operations.”

Jan 12/09: Aerial refueling. Jane’s confirms that the X-47 UCAS-D program will begin aerial refueling tests performed in 2010, using surrogate aircraft.

Dec 9/08: Aerial refueling. Aviation Week quotes UCAS program manager Scott Winship, as part of a report that that Northrop Grumman will modify the second X-47B UCAS-D to allow autonomous aerial refueling (AAR) using both U.S. Navy probe-and-drogue and U.S. Air Force boom-and-receptacle methods. The U.S. Navy has announced plans to award the company a sole-source contract to support the demonstration of AAR capability by 2013, under UCAS-D’s parallel technology-maturation phase.

Boeing is currently leading a team including X-47B partners Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin for the 4-year second phase of a parallel Air Force Research Laboratory program. Winship says the X-47B could be used to provide a “graduation exercise” for the AAR effort.

Nov 19/08: Aerial Refueling. Boeing in St Louis, MO received a $49 million cost plus fixed fee contract as the automated aerial refueling Phase II integrator. At this point, $1.2 million has been obligated. The Air Force Research Laboratory at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH manages this contract (FA8650-09-C-3902). Read “$49M for Boeing to Advance UAV Aerial Refueling” for an explanation of the importance to the UCAS-D and similar programs.

July 14/08: Sub-contractors. Pratt & Whitney announces a $54 million contract from Northrop Grumman to develop and integrate the X-47 UCAS-D’s engine and exhaust system. The Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-220U engine will power the UCAS-D, providing up to 16,000 pounds of thrust while operating in a maritime environment, including carrier deck operations.

Just another day
at the office…
(click to view full)

August 1/07: UCAS-D. Northrop Grumman Integrated Systems – Western Region in San Diego, CA received a $635.9 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for the Unmanned Combat Air System CV Demonstration Program (UCAS-D). Work will be performed in Rancho Bernardo, CA (38%); El Segundo, CA (29%); Palmdale, CA (13%); East Hartford, CT (7%); Jupiter, FL (2%); Nashville, TN (2%); Hazelwood, MO (1%), and various locations within the United States (8%), and is expected to be complete in September 2013.

The purpose of the UCAS-D is to demonstrate critical CV suitability technologies for a stealthy air vehicle in a relevant environment [DID: i.e naval/ aircraft carriers]. Expected deliverables include trade studies, analyses, software, reports and flight test data. This contract was competitively procured through a request for proposals; 2 firms were solicited [DID: that would be Boeing and NGC] and 2 offers were received (N00019-07-C-0055). See also Northrop Grumman’s Aug 3/07 release.

UCAS-D contract.

Sept 28/05: As part of DARPA’s J-UCAS program, Northrop Grumman Corporation’s X-47B conducted a successful simulated exercise at the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division in China Lake, CA. It demonstrated the simultaneous control of 4 of its X-47B unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) during U.S. Navy aircraft carrier operations. See Dec 9/05 NGC release.

Using a surrogate aircraft which represented one X-47B, 3 additional simulated X-47B aircraft were successfully controlled during several flights using advanced mission-management software and air traffic control procedures currently used by Navy aircraft carriers. The air traffic controller provided standard commands to a single mission operator, who in turn ensured all four aircraft safely operated within the simulated carrier’s airspace. The controller had to demonstrate the ability to guide all 4 aircraft through approach, wave-off and traffic pattern procedures, while accomplishing proper spacing and air traffic de-confliction. The mission operator had to be able to monitor the entire process to ensure proper command response, and advise the controller on aircraft response or performance limitations.

This was one of many tests undertaken as part of J-UCAS. It is reproduced here for its ongoing relevance to the UCAS-D program.

Additional UCAV Readings

UCAS-D/ N-UCAS

• Air Force Technology – X-47 Pegasus Naval Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV-N), USA.
• Northrop Grumman – X-47B UCAS.
• Northrop Grumman Review Online (2007) – The United States Navy’s Unmanned Combat Air System Demonstration (UCAS-D) Program.
• Rockwell Collins, via SLDINFO – Tactical Targeting Network Technology and Connectivity [PDF]. TTNT’s very low latency, join on the fly networking is important for UCAV safety-of-flight, especially around carrier decks.
• DID – Game-Changer: USA Developing UAV Aerial Refueling. Automated Aerial Refueling is the key to unlocking the UCAV’s full potential.
• Center for Strategic & Budgetary Assessments (June 18/08) – Range, Persistence, Stealth, and Networking: The Case for a Carrier-Based Unmanned Combat Air System [PDF].

News & Views

• USNI (Aug 21/14) – Essay: The Legal and Moral Problems of Autonomous Strike Aircraft. Technically, the UCLASS is not autonomous, its human operator has to trigger the attack. The question is whether that’s ultimately feasible in an anti-access, high-jamming environment.
• Washington Business Journal (Aug 19/14) – Could UCLASS end up as the Pentagon’s next runaway program?
• Breaking Defense (Aug 5/14) – Crunch Time For UCLASS: USD Kendall, Rep. Forbes, & The Requirements Fight.
• James Hasik (Dec 3/13) – Manning the Unmanned: Cultural Experimentation for the Coming Drone Fleet.
• James Hasik (Aug 15/13) – Range and payload: further thoughts on the US Navy’s approach to the UCLASS program.
• James Hasik (Aug 13/13) – Just how ambitious should be the requirements for the US Navy’s new drone?.
• NDIA National Defense (July 2013) – Fight Begins Over Navy’s Armed Drone Program .
• WIRED Danger Room (April 11/11) – Navy Wants Its Drone to Land on a Carrier With a Mouse Click.
• Military.com (Aug 14/07) – Will Drones Work on Carriers? Describes the process of launching and landing UCAVs on a carrier. You may be surprised to learn how much of this is already automated in America’s manned fighters.
• Center for Strategic & Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) Backgrounder (May 10/07) – The Unmanned Combat Air System Carrier Demonstration Program: A New Dawn For Naval Aviation? [PDF].
• AFA Air Force Magazine (November 2005) – Will We Have an Unmanned Armada.
• AFA Air Force Magazine (June 2005) – Toward an Unmanned Bomber.

UCAV Programs

• DID FOCUS Article – nEUROn UCAV Project Rolling Down the Runway (updated). nEUROn is a 6-nation European project that aims to create a UCAV with capabilities that resemble J-UCAS, but do not currently include carrier operations. It has moved into Phase 2.
• Air Force Technology – Taranis Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV) Demonstrator, United Kingdom. Not tackling carrier operations at this point.
• DARPA – J-UCAS program. J-UCAS died shortly after being transferred to the Air Force and Navy.
• Air Force Technology – X-45 J-UCAV Joint Unmanned Combat Air System, USA. The X-47B’s competitor for the UCAS-D follow-on program, and fellow J-UCAS participant.
• DID – Ride on the Ray: Boeing’s X-45 UCAVs. Boeing has restarted it with corporate funding.
• AIN (May 17/13) – China’s ‘Sharp Sword’ UCAV is Spotted Taxiing .
• Northrop Grumman Analysis Center, presentation to the 3rd Joint-Industry Forum (Feb 16/05) – Joint Unmanned Combat Air System and US Military Transformation shows [PDF].

Su-30, armed
(click to view full)

There have been a series of reports from a number of sources that Venezuela has finalized a deal with Russian arms manufacturers. Those reports have now shifted the total from $1 billion to around $3 billion, and expand its focus beyond Su-30MK2 (Mnogofunktzionniy Komercheskiy 2-seat) long-range multi-role fighters and various Russian helicopters to include other equipment as well. The final deal is reportedly still being negotiated.

Russian deals are extremely non-transparent, and often there are conflicting reports with no official confirmation of announced reports or additional details released. Based on news reports from various sources, however, here’s what DID can tell you about the likely shape of the deal and the nature of the equipment in question, aside from the USA’s predictably futile requests that Russia not go through with the sale.

DID’s coverage today includes updated information regarding the deal, and adds sources that have emerged sicce this article was first published on July 24, 2006. The latest news is the claimed crash of a Mi-35 – but DID explains why that story may be problematic…

• Venezuela-Russia 2006: Deal, Updated
  
• The Fighters: Sukhoi’s Su-30MK2s
  
• The Helicopters: Plans for 33 Coming to Fruition?
  
• Venezuela-Russia 2006: Follow-on Events & Milestones [NEW]
  
• Appendix A: DID Analysis & Op/Ed (July 31/06)
  

Veneuela-Russia 2006: Deal, Updated

“You want WHAT!?!”

The Vedomosti business daily quotes Rosoboronexport’s CEO Sergei Chemezov claiming that Venezuela would sign deals worth $3 billion. On top of an expected deal to buy at least 24 Russian Sukhoi-30 jets, reports said Chavez will buy helicopters (up to 53 helicopters has been suggested), surface-to-air missiles and possibly even a submarine.

Kommersant’s hilarious July 28, 2006 article “The Kalashnikov Buyer” is an instructive tale of cultural mismatches at the highest levels of diplomacy. It also includes additional details re: the structure of Venezuela’s weapons purchases:

• 38 Russian military helicopters for $484 million, deal signed on July 15 (38 + 15 previously-ordered = 53). Types not broken down, but a RIA Novosti article on July 31 cited them as Mi-17V5 and Mi-35Ms only – no more Mi-26s;
• 24 Su-30MK planes, deal signed on July 17 (RIA Novosti would later say Su-30MK2 on July 31).

Kommersant adds:

“A high Kremlin source said that new shipments of weapons were discussed at yesterday’s talks. “Work in that direction is continuing,” the source said.

It can be suggested with great confidence that they are now talking about medium-range ballistic missiles. In addition, Venezuela dreams of conquering space. Chavez considers it his duty to launch the first Venezuelan into space (as if he wouldn’t go himself). Russian specialists understandably want it to be a commercial launch but, unfortunately, it will be a political decision.”

While DID respects Kommersant’s superior local sources, we would suggest that armored vehicles, surface-air missiles, and submarines are far more likely buys. Russia has learned a thing or two about medium range ballistic missiles and Latin American countries over the last century, and is unlikely to repeat the experience. Nor is it wise to sell a potentially lucrative repeat buyer the defense procurement equivalent of a hara-kiri kit.

The Fighters: Sukhoi’s Su-30MK2s

FAV Su-30MK2
(click to view full)

DID has covered Venezuela’s thwarted $100 million attempt to upgrade its 1980s-vintage F-16s with more modern systems, which failed thanks to US pressure on Israel to abandon the sale. Long before that setback, however, Venezuela had also been talking about buying Russian fighters. Most speculation concerned the MiG-29, but some reports mentioned the much larger, longer-range, and more expensive Su-30s. There was even some talk about Chinese J-10s. Meanwhile, as DID pointed out, spare parts were still being delivered to keep its F-16A/B fleet operational.

While reports vary, it seems apparent that Venezuela has now bought between 24-30 Su-30MK2s, a multi-role 2-seat variant with substantial air-air and air-ground capabilities. The Su-30MK2 is not the most advanced Russian fighter developed; it lacks the canard foreplanes or thrust vectoring of more advanced variants like India’s Su-30MKI, or Sukhoi’s new variants the SU-34 strike aircraft or Su-37 fighter that are waiting for procurement orders. Having said that, Su-30MK2s as a base platform are the equal of China’s most advanced Su-30MKKK2s, and equal to or better than most Su-30 variants currently serving in Russia.

DID would add that the likely contract value is over $1 billion, as these aircraft traditionally sell for about $60 million per aircraft, and support deals also factor in. A sale of 24 aircraft at $60 million each is $1.44 billion all by itself. Hopefully, future reports will bring some clarity to this aspect [N.B. They are beginning to, suggesting that the purchase will be more like $3 billion].

SU-30MK2 Ordnance –
from Sukhoi
(click to view full)

One-one-one, and with other things being equal (both of which rarely apply in tactical situations), the SU-30s match up well against US aircraft. Where the US “teen series” fighters like the F-16, F-18 and F-15 are built around 1970 designs, the Sukhoi jets are late 1980s designs that apply many of the lessons from America’s teen series aircraft, plus some of their own twists. The result is an improved airframe with a large and capable radar and a higher-performance design; one capable of unique maneuvers and remarkably adaptable to modernization via canards, thrust vectoring, and other advanced features. Indeed, Sukhoi’s fighters have become the baseline against which most twin-engine western fighters are measured. Their only major weakness is the design’s inherent lack of stealth.

In air-to-air combat, many observers[1] consider the SU-30 to be superior to both the F/A-18 and F-15 variants, on even footing with the Rafale, outclassed by the Eurofighter, and very much outclassed by the stealthy F-22A. In terms of air-ground combat, however, their range, payload, and performance means their only western equal may be the F-15E+ Strike Eagle variants, with the F-22A excelling the Su-30s in specific missions like air defense suppression but unable to carry their weight or versatility of armament.

With that said, one should add that the fighter sale is only the first part of any military capability. Venezuela’s Su-30 fleet will depend on advanced missiles like the short-range AA-11/R-73 Archer and long-range AA-12/R-77 ‘AMRAAMski’ to give it real air-air punch – modern SU-30s include the ability to fire the R-77s in addition to the older R-27/AA-10 Alamo. In the strike role, possession of smart bombs and missiles (esp. antiship missiles) will make a significant different to the fighters’ full striking power. Paying attention to whether or not Venezuela buys those “ancillaries,” therefore, is as important as the aircraft sale itself.

The Helicopters: Plans for 33 Coming to Fruition?

AEV Mi-17V5
(click to view full)

In 2005, Venezuela signed a $201 million contract for 15 Russian helicopters. According to Novosti, the deal consisted of 6 Mi-17 (probably Mi-17v5) “Hip” armed troop transports and 8 Mi-35M2 “Pirana” armored helicopter gunships. The Piranas are a modernized version of the “Mi-24 Hinds” used by the Soviets in Afghanistan, with a Venezuelan name and improved day/night capabilities, avionics, and weapons. One super-giant Mi-26T “Halo” transport and cargo helicopter was also included.

According to MosNews, Army commander Gen. Raul Baduel said in April 2006 that the military planned to buy a total of 20 Mi-17s, 10 Mi-35s and 3 super-giant Mi-26T helicopters from Russia. “This year, we should have 15 helicopters of the 33 that are expected in our country,” Baduel reportedly told state television. This was close, but Moscow Defence Brief would later report that:

Mi-35M Pirana
(click to view full)

“[On the eve of a July 2006 state visit] a new contract for 18 helicopters was signed, including 14 Mi-17B5, two Mi-35M and two Mi-26T. In addition, it appears as though another contract for the delivery of 20 Mi-17, including two VIP versions, was agreed upon. The cost of all 38 helicopters amounts to $484 million. Thus, the total size of Venezuela’s helicopter programs, which includes the delivery of 40 Mi-17, 10 Mi-35M and three Mi-26T amounts to $685 million.”

With many reports of the fighter deal also referring to “30 helicopters” and only $1 billion given as the deal figure, DID considers it likely that the deal actually involves buying the additional 14 armed Mi-17V5s, 2 Mi-35 gunships, and 2 Mi-26T machines to round out Venezuela’s purchase target [N.B. newly-reported deal figures of $3 billion may change this assessment, and there are reports of 38 new helicopters in the deal].

AEV’s Mi-26T
(click to view full)

The Mi-26T is the world’s largest helicopter, with a 20-tonne (44,000 pound) capacity that matches a C-130 Hercules medium transport plane. It is excellent for handling oversize loads, and some Russian and Ukranian Mi-26s have even been contracted by US CENTCOM to perform missions that need their unique capabilities. Venezuelan Mi-26Ts could well find infrastructure-related employment in the country’s oil and gas industry, or on the 6,000-8,000 mile Latin American pipeline that occupies Chavez’ fancies.

Of course, a quick conversion also allows this helicopter to carry up to 80 troops, or a mix of troops and small armored vehicles. It just can’t carry them to the same kinds of ranges managed by smaller American choppers like the CH-47 Chinook, because a helicopter its size with Russian engines drinks fuel like there’s no tomorrow. The addition of up to 4 external fuel tanks can offset this problem, however, and if there’s one thing Venezuela has in abundance, it’s oil.

Veneuela-Russia: Follow-on Events & Milestones

Mi-35M
(click to view full)

March 31/16: Negotiations between Venezuela and Russia over a deal for 12 Su-30 have come to conclusion. Moscow has sent an offer for the sale, and an answer is expected shortly according to Anatoly Punchuk, deputy head of the Russian Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation. Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro had announced his intention to purchase the aircraft last November. The fighters will fill a multitude of roles, including anti-drug trafficking missions, particularly against those coming from neighboring Colombia.

December 10/15: Russian officials have expressed concern over future arms deals with Venezuela after a landside victory for Venezuela’s opposition party in recent parliamentary elections. The Democratic Unity Coalition (DUC) won 112/167 seats in the national assembly which will allow for the opportunity to introduce a challenge to President Nicolas Maduro’s ruling Socialist PSUV party. Ties between Venezuela and Russia have been growing since the rise to power of Hugo Chavez in 1999, who has been one of the USA’s main opponents in the region. The new supermajority held by the DUC may see Maduro’s plans to purchase 12 more Su-30 fighter jets from Russia in jeopardy. Venezuela is Russia’s second largest weapons buyer, spending $2 billion between 2010-2014.

November 2/15: Venezuela’s Defense Minister has confirmed that the country will purchase a dozen Su-30 fighter-bombers from Russia in a deal worth $480 million, confirming reports in September that the country’s President Nicolas Maduro was planning such an acquisition. The Venezuelan Air Force already operates 23 Su-30MK2s, with Maduro also stating that he intends to replace one of the fighters lost to a crash in September in addition to the twelve new aircraft. Venezuela is a substantial market for Russian hardware, with the Sukhois in service procured as part of a $3 billion arms sale in 2006.

September 23/15: Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro is reported to be planning a purchase of a dozen Su-30 fighters, along with equipment from China. The Venezuelan Air Force operates 23 Su-30MK2 multirole fighters, following a crash of one of these last week. Speaking at a ceremony to mark the loss, Maduro stated that he would talk with Vladimir Putin to acquire a replacement for the lost Su-30 as well as the twelve new fighters. The aircraft in service were procured from Russia as part of a $3 billion arms sale, following a refusal by then-President George Bush to sell replacement parts for the country’s fleet of F-16s.

May 4/09: A helicopter crash, kills all on board, leaving a death toll of 18 Venezuelan soldiers that includes Brig. Gen. Domingo Alberto Feneite. Reports describe the helicopter as an Mi-35, and say that the local military base lost contact shortly after mid-day. The military helicopter crashed near the town of El Alto de Rubio, near the Colombian border. Associated Press.

The problem with the story is that 18 troops would be far, far above the Mi-24/35 type’s generally understood troop capacity of 8. It would be around the maximum for the Mi-17V5 model in hot conditions, however, and photos clearly show that Venezuela has armed those machines as well. If reports referred to an “attack helicopter,” and unwarranted assumptions were made, the mistake is conceivable.

In a country like Venezuela, of course, darker explanations for such mistakes are also possible.

Aug 3/08: AHN reports that “At least 24 Russian-made Sukhoi-30 fighter jets were delivered to Venezuela on [this day] as part of the country’s defense capability build-up.”

Dec 21/06: A Rosvertol release appears to confirm the figure of 10 Mi-35s and 3 Mi-26s:

“A batch of helicopters consisting of four combat Mi-35M and one multi-purpose transport Mi-26T helicopters is ready to be sent to Venezuela. Four Mi-35M helicopters (upgrade of Mi-24(35) type helicopters which have perfectly recommended themselves in more than 30 countries of the world) were delivered to this Latin American country in July 2006…Helicopters produced by Rostvertol Plc (Rostov-on-Don, Russia) will be sent to the Republic of Venezuela according to the earlier signed contracts. In total, ten Mi-35M and three Mi-26T helicopters will be delivered. Also, Venezuelan specialists passed flying and technical training and obtained appropriate certificates.”

Nov 30/06: According to MosNews, the first 2 Venezuelan SU-30s are delivered on this day to the Luis Del Valle Garcia naval base in Barcelona, some 230 km (145 miles) east of Caracas. Hat tip to DID reader Vincent van neerven.

Appendix A: DID Analysis & Op/Ed (July 31/06)

COPE India 2004: SU-30K,
F-15C, Mirage 2000
(click to view full)

Russia and Venezuela had already signed earlier contracts for Russian helicopters, and a $54 million contract for the supply of more than 100,000 AK-103 rifles (an AK-47 Kalashnikov variant), and on licensed production in Venezuela of the rifles and ammunition. With this new procurement, however, Chavez is taking his relationship with Russia to the next level while acquiring a suite of capabilities expressly designed to intimidate neighbouring states.

The San Francisco Chronicle quotes Carlos Mendoza, who was Venezuela’s ambassador to Russia until last year and is now an adviser to Venezuela’s Central Bank. He noted that Russia is investing $1 billion in an aluminum plant in southeast Venezuela, that Russian companies are investing heavily in Venezuelan oil and gas fields, and that if Chavez dream/fantasy of a 5,000 mile pipeline through South America were to become a reality, Russia’s expertise with long-distance pipelines would likely play a role. In terms of the broader strategic relationship:

“There is no ideological affinity, because Russia nowadays certainly embodies capitalism at its most savage… But Putin is one of the spokesmen for the cause of multipolarity, and Venezuela hopes that Latin America becomes one of those poles… I don’t know the secrets of the (bilateral) military negotiations, because those are conducted through other channels, but Russia is a key element of Venezuela’s ambitions to become a global player on many levels.”

The question is what “global player” means, not only in larger geopolitical terms but also on the regional level.

MiG-29OVT, aka. MiG-35
(click to view full)

The order provides some answers via its choice between MiG-29 and SU-30 aircraft. A posture that sought to defend Venezuela above all else would arguably have been better served by buying a larger quantity of MiG-29 lightweight fighters – perhaps even the new thrust-vectoring, multi-role MiG-29OVT/MiG-35 – for the same amount of money. This would still have given Chavez the best combat aircraft in Latin America, with the ability to carry the same sophisticated air-air armament as the SU-30s, and greater air-air combat capabilities than any carrier-borne US fighter. The ability to conduct precision attacks locally would be retained, but MiG-29s have an operational range that would restrict their ability to carry out long-range attacks, as well as limiting their carrying capacity on missions outside of Venezuela’s territory. This would have made for a more clearly defensive and hence regionally stabilizing force.

Instead, Chavez chose to buy fewer aircraft, but with the capability to launch long-range strikes carrying much larger amounts of ordnance. The SU-30MK2 has up to 6 hardpoints for strike weapons (each of which can potentially hold more than one weapon, depending on type), and the Russians claim that its range is 3,000km/ 1,800 miles on internal fuel. This will not be a stabilizing force in the region, especially given many of his neighbors’ complaints of hostile Venezuelan meddling in the region’s internal affairs, and efforts to export revolution to their countries.

AEV Mi-17V5 & Paras
(click to view full)

The helicopters are also an important factor, but their importance lies inward. Even after this purchase, Venezuela lacks the transport capability and combat punch to conduct ground operations at a distance that go beyond guerilla warfare. Nor would helicopters serve well against a full-fledged opponent like the USA. Helicopters’ mobility and versatility make them a critical component of counter-insurgency operations, however; and when its 33 aircraft buy is complete, Venezuela will have what is arguably the best and most heavily-armed helicopter force in the region.

This is a two-edged sword: on the one hand, it can provide a welcome capability to a major oil exporter that allows it to protect its infrastructure with rapid-reaction forces. On the other hand, this assortment of Russian helicopters (and especially the Mi-35s) make it nearly perfect as a pocket force for the violent and decisive crushing of civil unrest. Much depends on one’s evaluation of Chavez and his intentions, and on how he has dealt with dissent in Venezuela and met his obligations to democracy and liberty.

SU-30MK2 on runway
(click to view full)

With other concerns preoccupying the USA, however, Latin America is no longer seen as important strategic terrain. Which means that many of these issues are likely to be left to the region itself to sort out.

Whether Chavez’ moves will trigger regional counter-moves, or even a local arms race, remains to be seen. Brazil’s military is showing growing concern over Chavez’ moves, especially given his meddling in Bolivia where Brazil gets a significant percentage of its natural gas. Brazil’s temporarily-shelved fighter modernization program in particular may represent an excellent bellwether in terms of regional reaction – giving observers one more reason to follow that competition closely.

UPDATE: Brazil went on to revive its F-X fighter program, and double its defense budget. Colombia also undertook significant modernization, and spending in the region generally is on the upswing.

FOOTNOTES

fn1. Many of these assessments are based in part on a mid-1990s British DERA(Defense Evaluation Research Agency) study, though the performance of SU-30s against US aircraft in COPE India 2004 and COPE India 2005 has tended to strengthen those general views. In all cases, however, one must stress again the sheer number of variables involved, the imprecision of any estimate, and the importance of situation and other factors beyond just the aircraft themselves when attempting to determine relative advantage.

Additional Readings & Sources

• Sukhoi Company – The Su-30MK2 Double-Seat Fighter
• Sino Defence – SU-30MKK/MKK2 Multirole Fighter Aircraft. SU-30MKK2s are the most modern fighters in China’s arsenal, and have improved anti-ship capabilities that include the ability to carry the supersonic Kh-31/Kh-17A Krypton anti-ship missile.
• GlobalSecurity.org – SU-30MK
• Air Force Technology’s “Projects” section is also good place to go for data on various fighters, including the SU-30MK… but DID believes some of their information confuses India’s unique version with the class as a whole, and is wrong.
• Air force Technology – Mi-24P (Mi-25 and Mi-35) Hind Attack / Transport Helicopter, Russia
• Sino Defence – Mi-17 Multirole Helicopter. Unlike other summaries, it includes details re: the newer Mi-17V5 version.
• SAORBATS – Proyecto “Pemon,” Mi-17-V5 del Ejercito de Venezuela. In Spanish; has lots of good photos of the Venezuelan Mi-17V5s.
• Rostvertol – Mi-26t Transport Helicopter
• DID – Brazil Embarking Upon F-X2 Fighter Program. And doubling its defense budget, including an Mi-35 buy of their own.
• DID – Colombia’s Defense Modernization
• DID (Nov 11/07) – Russia Looks to Triple Arms Exports to Venezuela. To about $12 billion; other deals are said to be in the pipeline.
• Moscow Defense Brief #1 (7) 2007 – The Venezuela Contracts. Includes Algeria in the overall Russian arms & policy overview.
• RIA Novosti (July 31/06) – Weapons for Venezuela: Nothing personal. Cites the 38 helicopters as Mi-17V5 and Mi-35M, and the fighters as SU-30MK2s.
• Kommersant (July 28/06) – The Kalashnikov Buyer. Very illuminating and at times quite funny in its personal profiles of Chavez & Putin’s interactions. MRBMs?!? Uh, ask the Cubans about that one…
• Reuters (July 27/06) – Russia’s arms sales to Venezuela may total $3 billion
• Novosti (July 27/06) – Venezuela’s Chavez hopes for Russia aid to build $20bln pipeline
• Voice of America (July 25/06) – US Urges Moscow to Reconsider Venezuela Arms Deal
• M & C News (July 25/06) – Venezuela’s Chavez pursues arms deals in Russia, Belarus (Roundup)
• RIA Novosti (July 24/06) – Russia signs $1bln aircraft contract with Venezuela-Ivanov
• Brazil’s DEFESA@NET (July 23/06) – Brasil-Venezuela: Relaciones peligrosas. “Babelfish” translation available via a link on the page. Brazilian defense planners and various political sectors are beginning to take notice of Venezuela’s new arms purchases and activities, and concern is growing.
• San Francisco Chronicle (July 23/06) – Chavez forging his own links: Venezuelan president makes arms deal with Russia, strengthening his agenda to counterbalance U.S. influence
• Agence France Presse (July 20/06) – Russia Breaks Into Venezuela with Fighter Sales: Newspaper. Places the deal at 24 SU-30MK2s.
• Interfax (July 19/06) – Yesterday in Brief for July 19, 2006
• MosNews (April 4/06) – Venezuela to Buy 30 More Russian Helicopters, Eyes Combat Fighters
• DID (Feb 14/06) – Love on the Rocks: CASA’s $600M Venezuelan Plane Sale In Heavy Turbulence
• DID (Jan 19/06) – US Tech-Transfer Laws Freeze Spain-Venezuela Aircraft Deal. They would also freeze Brazil’s planned sale of Super Tucano aircraft, which can be used as trainers but also make fine counter-insurgency aircraft – for instance, in Colombia’s battles against FARC narco-terrorists et. al. Columbia accuses Chavez of supporting FARC, a charge he naturally denies.
• DID (Nov 22/05) – F.I. Looks At Latin American Arms Market, Sees Venezuelan Buildup. That’s their forecast for the next decade, anyway; the rest of the market is forecast to be relatively quiet during this period, unless things change.
• DID (Oct 26/05) – US Roadblocks re: the Venezuela-Israel F-16 Upgrade: Politics or Protectionism?
• Aviation Week & Space Technology (May 24/02) – Su-30MK Beats F-15C ‘Every Time’ In a set of USAF simulations, using a specified set of tactics that include taking a shot with a BVR missile and then turning into the “clutter notch” of the F-15’s radar.

(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 & 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

Excel
download

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:

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

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.

Rocket test

April 3/16: The US Navy has given Bell-Boeing Joint Project Office $151 million to start development work on the CMV-22B, the naval variant of the V-22 Osprey. The new plane will be used a as a carrier onboard delivery plane. Work included in the contract involves adding new radios, a public address system, and extra fuel tanks to the new tilt-rotor variant by the manufacturer, and it is expected that the Navy will be placing orders by the end of next year.

March 1/16: The USAF Special Operations Commander Lt. Gen. Bradley Heithold wants three more V-22 Ospreys before the product line ceases. 51 aircraft are already being funded through fiscal year 2016, however three more have been suggested as extra attrition reserves. According to budget documents, there are no further plans to procure the aircraft in fiscal years post 2016, so any additional orders would need to be added quickly before the end of production. Having four aircraft in attrition reserve as back-ups when an aircraft goes down will ensure that AFSOC forces are flying at its capacity of at least 50 airplanes well into the future, Heithold said.

January 20/16: Testing of a new blade for the V-22 Osprey is to take place after the current rotor blades fitted to the aircraft were deemed too labor intensive to manufacture. The new prop rotor blade has been designed as part of the manufacturer Bell’s Advanced Technology Tiltrotor (ATTR) program, which aims to reduce production costs for the aircraft. The test has been derived from ongoing development work on the next-generation V-280 with flight testing of the new modified components due to last between 2017-2018.

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.

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].

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

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”.

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 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 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).

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.

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 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 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.

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.

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 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 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)

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 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).

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: 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.

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 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).

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: 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 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.

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 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.

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).

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 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.

(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 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 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.

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).

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.

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 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

• NAVAIR – V-22 Program Office
• USAF Fact Sheets – CV-22 Osprey
• Bell Helicopter – The Bell-Boeing V-22
• Boeing – V-22 Osprey
• How Stuff Works – V-22 Osprey
• Rolls Royce – AE 1107C-Liberty engine.
• DID – BAE’s Turret to Deploy in CV-22s, MV-22s. Refers to the MGS/ IDWS.
• BAE Systems, via WayBack – RGS V-22 turret briefing from AUSA 2007. Press release: “a” [PDF] | RGS Data Sheet [PDF] | Slides [PDF] | Briefing video [Windows Media, dead link] | Live fire testing video [Windows Media WVX, dead link].

YouTube – V-22?????IDWS. Drop-down minigun and sensor turret.

Reports

• DID Spotlight – V-22 Osprey: A Flying Shame? Includes links to all of the other reports below, and more.
• US GAO (March 30/10, #GAO-10-388SP) – Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs. Includes a rundown of the V-22’s ongoing issues, in the V-22 section.
• CSBA Testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (June 23/09) – The Future of the MV-22 Osprey [PDF].
• US GAO (June 23/09, #GAO-09-692T) – V-22 OSPREY AIRCRAFT: Assessments Needed to Address Operational and Cost Concerns to Define Future Investments
• US GAO (March 30/09, #GAO-09-326SP) – Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs. Includes a rundown of the V-22’s ongoing issues, in the V-22 section.
• US Congressional Research Service (updated March 13/07) – V-22 Osprey Tilt-Rotor Aircraft [Full http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL31384.pdf]. Very fair. Catalogs all of the program’s travails in detail, and presents the arguments both for and against the V-22 Osprey well.
• Center for Defense Information (2006) – V-22: Wonder Weapon or Widow Maker? [PDF]. Contains the most detailed and specific set of allegations to date concerning the V-22.
• The Pentagon, Office of Operational Test and Evaluation, Office of the Director (September 2005) – V-22 Osprey Program: Report on Operational and Live Fire Test and Evaluation (OT-IIG) [PDF]

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…

S-3B
(click to view full)

During its 35 years of service, the Viking proved itself so versatile that its mission was called simply “Sea Control.” Conceived primarily for anti-submarine warfare (ASW) against Soviet submarines with long range anti-shipping cruise missiles, the S-3A entered service in 1974, and received a number of upgrades over their lifetimes. Roles filled included anti-submarine warfare, mine warfare, electronic reconnaissance and analysis, over-the-horizon targeting, surface surveillance, missile attack, and aerial refueling.

The USN’s Viking fleet was phased out in 2009, and their tanker and land attack missions were taken over by F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets. Fleet-borne anti-submarine capabilities now depend on slower and shorter-range helicopters like the MH-60R, despite global submarine proliferation and the growing range and lethality of submarine launched missiles. That brings the Vikings’ era to a close… or does it?

The US Navy’s Vikings

S-3 Variants

S-3B Viking launch
(click to view full)

A total of 187 S-3As were built (8 test and 179 operational aircraft) between 1971 and 1978, and several S-3 variants were fielded.

The US-3A Carrier Onboard Delivery aircraft, capable of carrying 4,250 pounds of cargo, fielded 7 aircraft from 1976 onward. It never replaced the C-2 Greyhound turboprops, but it did serve until the 1990s as a supplement. Lockheed Martin is about to try again in the 21st century with a modified C-3 version, whose big advantage would be the ability to carry an entire F-35 jet engine inside, without dis-assembly. Capacity would reportedly be 10,000 pounds of cargo or 28 passengers, with an advanced cargo handling system and loading ramp design taken from the C-130J Super Hercules. The C-3 would have a probe for mid-air refueling, and it would be able to carry buddy bods that would convert it to an aerial tanker.

Aerial refueling would turn out to be one of the jet’s most significant roles. Development of a KS-3A tanker variant began in 1979, and though it was never produced, it did prove the concept of “buddy tanking” (aerial refueling using a wing-mounted pod).

The significantly improved S-3B was developed in the early 1980s to counter quieter Soviet submarines, identify targets and carry standoff weapons. An S-3B prototype flew for the first time in September 1984, and served for almost 3 decades. It was often used as a buddy tanker within the carrier’s landing pattern, topping up fighters so they could remain aloft and land safely. The Navy removed the acoustic ASW and aerial mining systems in 1999 as part of the Cold War drawdown, but S-3s still served as surveillance, surface warfare, and aerial tanker platforms after that. At the height of combat operations during Operation Iraqi Freedom, S-3 crews transferred nearly 8 million pounds of fuel to Coalition aircraft.

The 16 ES-3A Shadows were designed for fleet electronic surveillance, and the first mission capable Shadow flew in May 1991.

Viking Funeral

NAVY ONE, Landing
(click to view full)

During Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Viking fleet showcased some new capabilities. An S-3B from VS-38 carried out the first S-3 combat attack mission, disabling Saddam Hussein’s ocean-going yacht with a laser-guided AGM-65 Maverick air-to-surface missile. Other S-3s added targeting pods and flew convoy overwatch, and an S-3B from VS-35 became the first aircraft to take on the Navy One call sign when it carried former President George W. Bush to the USS Abraham Lincoln [CVN-72]. In 2004, however, the Navy decided to save money by reducing the types of aircraft it operated. That decision spelled the eventual end of both the swing-wing, long-range F-14 Tomcat fighter and the S-3 Viking fleet. Front-line service concluded in 2007 with the aircraft’s last carrier deployment, and the aircraft was formally retired from service in January 2009.

Analysis of the S-3s shows that their average safe airframe life is a very high 23,000 flight hours, and organizational improvements have made a difference to the S-3’s projected availability and maintenance costs. Under the S-3 Integrated Maintenance Program (IMP) that ran from 2001-2007, Lockheed Martin and Navy personnel worked side-by-side to perform scheduled depot maintenance and repairs on the S-3s. The program began as a way to shrink the backlog at Naval Aviation depots, and IMP increased S-3 aircraft operational availability by 53%, while reducing maintenance tasking by 47% and lowering costs. A total of 149 aircraft were processed through the IMP inspections, and nearly all of the aircraft were redelivered to the Navy on or ahead of schedule.

Over its career, the Viking served with 18 Navy squadrons and accumulated approximately 1.7 million flight hours. Civilian variants of its GE TF34 engines are still employed on popular regional jets, and the aircraft itself remains well suited for its array of missions. New-build S-3s that added a MIL-STD-1760 databus, modern electronics, and updated wiring and networking, would be perfectly capable of continuing those missions for the USA and interested allies.

The last active American aircraft will be based at NASA Glenn Research Center near Cleveland, OH. These 4 S-3B Vikings performing aircraft icing research missions. Another 4 S-3Bs remain in Navy service to provide range surveillance at the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division in Point Mugu, CA.

USNI reports that of the 91 S-3Bs placed in storage, 87 could be restored to service, with an average of 9,000+ safe flight hours left on the airframes.

Contracts and Key Events

S-3Bs, refueling
(click to view full)

April 4/16: Lockheed Martin hopes to have South Korea’s purchase of the S-3 Viking approved in June. Seoul’s purchase of the maritime patrol and and submarine hunter is also acting as a barometer for other countries, including Vietnam, and two other nations. The comments were made by the company’s director of maritime patrol programs, Clay Fearnow at this year’s FIDAE 2016 expo in Chile. Renewed interest in the plane by South Korea, as a supplement to its order of P-9 aircraft, has given it a new lease on life since the 2009 divestment by the US Navy.

October 21/15: Lockheed Martin wants to resurrect the S-3B Viking anti-submarine warfare aircraft for the South Korean Navy. The company submitted a proposal detailing how a dozen former US-Navy S-3Bs could be refurbished – including a new, digital metalic anomaly detector and other ASW equipment – from stockpiles still maintained in long-term storage in Arizona. Lockheed Martin has floated the idea of reinvigorating S-3Bs before, pointing to the aircraft’s long endurance, sizeable payload and durability, as well as the 10-12,000 flight hours remaining on the S-3Bs currently in storage.

April 2014: Lockheed Martin will be pitching a C-3 Viking variant as the US Navy’s next Carrier On-board Delivery aircraft. There are 91 S-3s sitting in the AMARC “Boneyard,” and the 87 that could be restored to operational status have an average of 9,000 safe flight hours of life left on them.

The Navy’s big problem is transporting the F-35B/C’s F135 engine, so Lockheed Martin proposes to build brand new widened fuselages that could carry the entire engine intact, complete with modern avionics and an advanced cargo handling system/ loading ramp design taken from the C-130J Super Hercules. They’d reuse the retired S-3B fleet’s motors, wings, tail, control surfaces and other components in order to save costs. Cargo capacity would be 10,000 pounds with up to 28 people on board, at speeds that neither the V-22 nor an upgraded C-2 could match.

In addition, the S-3s would retain their ability to act as aerial tankers, using buddy refueling pods on the wings and taking advantage of their own long cruising endurance and refueling probes. The US Navy has been using F/A-18E/F Super Hornets in this role since the Vikings retired, and it’s currently eating 20% of the advanced fighters’ flight hours. In effect, they’ve been mortgaging their offensive future to create illusory cost savings in the present. A C-3 Viking would let the Navy stand some or all of the Super Hornets down from that role.

A new “C-2D” derived from the new E-2D Hawkeye airframe wouldn’t be able to solve this refueling problem. As for the V-22, it has been testing a refueling pallet, but its unpressurized internal hold has size limits that would force the F135 engine to be broken into modules, with some of them underslung for low-range carriage in good weather only. V-22s would offer commonality with the USMC, but they’re expensive at $70 million or so each, with very high operating and maintenance costs that have been the subject of alarming GAO reports. Perhaps reviving the 1980s idea of a modified US-3A isn’t so crazy after all.

Jan 29/09: The US Atlantic fleet disbands its last S-3B squadron, VS-22.

Sept 27/07: Rockwell Collins Government Systems in Cedar Rapids, IA received $6.8 million for firm-fixed-price order #5078 under a previously awarded basic ordering agreement to purchase 170 AN/ARN-153 Receiver transmitters used on the US Navy’s S-3 Viking and EA-6B Prowler aircraft. Work will be performed in Cedar Rapids, IA, and is expected to be complete November 2008. This contract was not competitively procured by the Naval Inventory Control Point in Philadelphia, PA (N00383-06-G-002G).

Nov 3/06: Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. in Marietta, GA received an $8.9 million modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract. It exercises an option for engineering and logistics services in support of S-3B Viking carrier-borne aircraft. Services to be provided include in-service engineering, integrated logistics support, integrated maintenance program for aircraft depot-level scheduled maintenance, and material oversight. Work will be performed in Marietta, GA and is expected to be complete in September 2007. The Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD issued the contract (N00019-06-D-0002).

Dec 2/05: Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. in Marietta, GA received an $10.1 million modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract. It exercises an option for engineering and logistics services in support of S-3B Viking carrier-borne aircraft, including inspection and maintenance of up to 23 S-3Bs.

Work will be performed in Jacksonville, FL and is expected to be complete in September 2006. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured by the Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD (N00019-06-D-0002).

Additional Readings

• US Navy Fact File – S-3B Viking detection and attack of submarines aircraft.
• Lockheed Martin – 100 Years: S-3 Viking.
• Global Security – S-3B Upgrades. There were several waves.
• AMARC Exprience – Lockheed S-3 Viking. AMARC, aka. “The Boneyard,” is where the S-3s are stored.
• Foxtrot Alpha (April 9/14) – Lockheed Wants To Bring The S-3 Viking Back From The Dead.
• USNI (April 1/14) – Lockheed Pitching Revamped Viking to Fill Carrier Cargo and Tanking Roles.

Vikhrs & rocket pod
(click to view full)

Russia is looking to place another one of its iconic military firms back on a firm footing, handing a RUB 13 billion (about $402 million) contract for Vikhr-1 missiles to the financially-troubled Izhmash JSC.

The 9K121/ AT-16 Vikhr (trans. “whirlwind”) is a laser beam-riding missile, with a fragmentation sleeve that contains dual High-Explosive Anti-Tank (HEAT) warheads to defeat reactive armor. That’s combined with a proximity fuze to give the Vikhr area-effect, anti-tank, and anti-aircraft capabilities. Beam-riding guidance offers tactical disadvantages vs. semi-active laser guidance, including lack of handoff capability, less versatile terminal attack modes, and slower response vs. multiple targets. On the other hand, it’s considerably cheaper, and its backward-facing sensors are more resistant to countermeasures.

SU-25SM up top
(click to view full)

The Vikhr is described as being significantly cheaper than the USA’s Hellfire, whose AGM-114R variant costs about $150,000 per missile. Even at that price, the Russian order would buy almost 2,900 missiles. At the lower end, American APKWS laser-guided rocket sections with simpler sensors cost about $28,300. This contract value would buy over 13,500 of those.

The Vikhr equips Kamov’s Ka-52 Alligator scout/attack helicopter, and fixed-wing SU-25T/TM/SM close-support jets. Given the above cost parameters, and Russian pricing, a range of 6,000 – 10,000 missiles seems likely for this order. That’s a good stock of about 36 missiles per platform at the mean, based on the projected size of Russia’s Ka-52 (140) and SU-25SM (80) fleets by 2020.

Rostec subsidiary OJSC Izhmash in Izhevsk, Russia has been around since 1807. The Kalashnikov family of rifles remains their most famous weapon, and private American purchases account for 28% share of Izmash output, making them almost as important as Russian orders. Izmash produces a wide variety of weapons, from rifles, to guided artillery shells like the Krasnopol, to sportsman’s knives and cutlery. They have even been manufacturing motorcycles and cars.

That kind of scattergun focus hasn’t been enough to stop them piling up a debt load of RUB 3 billion (about $93 million). Izmash is about to be merged with the nearby Izhmekh company, whose iconic product is the Makharov pistol. They’ll be consolidated under the Kalashnikov brand.

Updates

April 7/16: Kalashnikov Concern announced that it has completed delivery of the Vikhr-1 laser guided anti-tank missile to the Russian Armed Forces under the state defense procurement plan. The contract is estimated to be worth $191 million, and is part of a large-scale Russian rearmament program aimed at modernizing 70% of its military hardware by 2020. The company was created in 2013 as a merger between the debt ridden Kalashankov rifle manufacturer Izhmash and the nearby Izhmech company.

Additional Readings

• Airwar.RU – 9?121 ????? (?) [in Russian]
• Wikipedia – 9K121 Vikhr
• ITAR-Tass (July 22/13) – Izhmash to manufacture Vikhr-1 guided missiles for Russian defence ministry
• RIA Novosti (July 22/13) – Kalashnikov Gun Maker Lands $400 Mln Missile Contract
• DID – Russia’s Military Spending is Jumping – But Can Its Industry?

Yak-130
(click to view full)

A February 2006 report noted that a $4 billion arms sale was brewing between Algeria and Russia involving fighter aircraft, tanks, and air defense systems, with the possibility of additional equipment. Those options came through the following month, as a high-level Russian delegation in Algeria closed up to $7.5 billion worth of arms contracts. The Algerian package remains post-Soviet Russia’s largest single arms deal. As an instructive comparison, annual Russian weapons export orders from all customers were just $5-6 billion per year in 2004 and 2005.

Reuters South Africa quoted Rosoboronexport chief Sergei Chemezov as saying that “Practically all types of arms which we have are included, anti-missile systems, aviation, sea and land technology.” The actual contents of that deal were murky, though DID offers triangulation among several sources to help sort out the confusion. A number of these deals have evolved over time, and other public-source information has helped to sharpen the picture a bit. The subsequent crash of Algeria’s MiG-29 deal, and its ripple effects, are also discussed.

The Algerian Package: What’s the Big Deal?

Absent any confirming releases by Rosoboronexport, reports regarding this deal have varied. Russia’s ITAR-Tass, for instance, initially reported that Algeria would buy 40 MiG-29 fighters, 20 Sukhoi-30 fighters and 16 Yak-130 training planes as well as 8 S-300 PMU2 Favorit rocket systems and about 40 T-90 tanks. This was the composition most often reported in the press, but it doesn’t come close to a $7.5 billion dollar deal.

A better and more detailed report came from Vedomosti, and later from the June 2006 issue of Moscow Defense Brief (MDB). Other sources have also helped to sharpen and clarify certain equipment numbers and costs. What follows is a composite picture, built up from ITAR-Tass and subsequent reports.

Aircraft

SU-30MKA
click for video

44 Su-30MKA Flanker 2-seat multi-role fighters. Up from 28.

DID’s earlier report, MDB’s June 2006 update, and Defense News’ February 2008 report, all agreed on the numbers: 28 planes for $1.5 billion. A follow-on deal in 2010 eventually replaced the MiG-29s with 16 more SU-30MKAs. If all reported MiG monies were simply shifted without further payment, it would place the total Flanker deal at $2.8 – $3.3 billion for 44 fighters.

Accounts of this variant, with some saying that it’s similar to the advanced canard-winged SU-30MKI/M delivered to India and Malaysia, while others cited it as a generic SU-30MK export model. Pictures and other reports settled the issue: it’s a canard-winged SU-30MKM variant. The SU-30MKI/M series adds new avionics, full thrust vectoring, and canard wings to the basic SU-30 design, among other enhancements. The Algerian SU-30s are closer to the SU-30MKMs, using Thales’ avionics and a French Damocles targeting and surveillance pod.

Algeria reportedly took delivery of its first 3 fighters between December 2007 and January 2008. As of March 2008, 6 fighters had been delivered, before deliveries were suspended over payment disputes related to the MiG-29s. By November 2009, all 28 of the original batch had arrived. The rest should have all been delivered by the end of 2012.

34 MiG-29SMT Fulcrum lightweight multi-role fighters.

MDB updated the order to include 28 MiG-29SMT fighters and 6 two-seat MiG-29UBT aircraft (28+6=34), and noted this segment as $1.8 billion, of which $300 million will go back as a trade-in for 36 of Algeria’s existing MiG-29s, to be resold to third countries. A February 2008 Defense News report agreed on the number and composition, but described this segment as a $1.3 billion contract.

The MiG contract was eventually canceled, in favor of more SU-30 fighters.

16 Yak-130 Mitten combat trainers and light attack aircraft.

DID’s earlier report had noted the Yaks as an additional option, with the possibility of up to 50 aircraft. They will complement/ replace Algeria’s older L-39 ZA Albatros aircraft from Czechoslovakia. MDB reports 16 Yak-130s, for a total of $200 million, an assessment later confirmed by Air Inrternational News at Farnborough in July 2006.

Moscow Defense Brief added that while the content of the options is not known, it is likely that 12-20 more MiG-29SMT fighters and 14-16 more Yak-130 trainers would be purchased if the options are exercised. The MiG options certainly won’t be exercised, but the Yak-130 options might be.

Helicopters. In 2013, Algeria added a separate deal for 42 Mi-28NE attack helicopters. These have a much slimmer and more dedicated profile than the Mi-24s Algeria currently flies.

According to Vedomosti, other contracts in the package included:

Ground Forces

AT-13 Metis-M ATGM

300 T-90S main battle tanks. For tanks, the ‘S’ designation signifies an export version ($1+ billion).

MDB agreed, and believed that the first 40 tanks will be delivered in 2006. In July 2006, however, an Algerian representative reportedly noted to Jane’s that the figure was actually 180 tanks. A February 2008 Defense News report put the number at 185, which has been repeated by Russian media in 2012. Those same media reported a follow-on 120-tank order, reportedly completed in autumn 2011 for $470-$500 million. Which makes 305 tanks, for over $1 billion.

Upgrades of 250 T-72 main battle tanks (over $200 million). Not mentioned by MDB, or Defense News.

AT-13 Metis-M wire-guided and AT-14 Kornet semi-automatic laser beam-riding anti-armor guided missiles.

Both missile types can also be fitted with thermobaric warheads for devastating anti-personnel effects within buildings, caves, etc. This component was also mentioned by MDB, and a February 2008 Defense News report gives a figure of 216 Kornet-E missiles. This figure seems low based on comparable TOW-2 missile requests from similar countries, however, especially given Algeria’s ongoing civil war. 216 AT-14 launchers is more likely, with an undetermined number of missiles and the AT-13s still unaccounted for. These numbers remain very unclear.

A February 2008 Defense News report mentioned 8 Krasnopol laser-guided artillery shells as part of the deal.

This would barely cover basic testing needs, but testing before buying might be well advised. India has identified serious defects with its Krasnopol shells.

Air Defense

S-300PMU2 Favorit
radar & launchers
(click to view full)

30 self-propelled M1 Tunguska gun/missile systems for low-level, short-range air defense and light fire support (up to $500 million, disputed).

Each 34t tracked M1 vehicle carries 8 short range 9M311-M1 (SA-19 Grison) missiles. Range is from 15 – 6,000m for ground targets, and 15 – 10,000m for aerial targets. They’re coupled with pair of twin-barrel 30mm cannon that have a maximum firing rate of 5,000 rounds per minute and a range of 3 km against air targets, or 4 km against ground targets. A target acquisition radar and target tracking radar, optical sight, and digital computing system guides these weapons, with a detection range of 18 km and a tracking range of 16 km. MDB mentioned these systems as well, but put no specific value on them.

If it is in fact the M1 Tunguska, Algeria would join its neighbor and sometime rival Morocco. Who signed a December 2004 contract for 12 Tunguska systems. On the other hand, A February 2008 Defense News report claimed that the Algerian contract covered 38 Pantsyr S1/SA-22 truck-mounted mobile gun/missile systems instead. Each carries 12 “97E6” missiles, which appear to be advanced SA-19/9M311 derivatives, and a pair of 30mm cannon. The Pantsyr S1 offer slightly longer reach against air targets vs. the Tunguska M1 (12km vs. 10km), and has also been ordered by Jordan, Syria, and the UAE.

8 of Russia’s advanced S-300 PMU-2 Favorit anti-air missile systems (aka. SA-10E, $1 billion).

MDB agrees with the number and figure, but Defense News put the number at 4; the range is thus 32-64 launchers.

According to eDefense Online, a S-300PMU2 Favorit battalion is equipped with a 30N6E2 fire-control radar, a 96L6E target-acquisition and designation radar, 8 launchers (5P85SE), and a set of 48N6E2 missiles (4 per launcher) with a range of 200 km against aircraft and 40 km against ballistic missiles. Each battalion complex is designated 90Zh6E2. The system can engage 6 targets at a time with up to 12 missiles using its own 96L6 target-acquisition radar, at altitudes ranging anywhere from 35 feet (10m) off the deck to 90,000 feet (27km). The 83M6E2 regimental command and control system adds to these capabilities, and can support a mass engagement of 36 targets at a time.

Navy

Steregushchy Class
(click to view full)

The deal also reportedly includes unspecified work on Algeria’s navy. According to Haze Gray, Algeria’s Russian combatant ships include 2 Kilo Class submarines, 3 Koni class frigates, 3 Nanuchka class corvettes, and 11 Osa I and II Class missile boats (which may not be operable). Most entered service between 1975-1985, with the most modern ship being a Kilo Class sub that entered service in 1988. Repairs and upgrades had already begun on a limited basis during the 1990s, but more extensive refurbishment and upgrades are likely to be necessary.

By 2006, Algeria had bought 2 new Kilo Class submarines. By 2013, they had also bought 2 modified Stergushchy Class corvettes, and were reportedly looking for 2 more submarines.

Structuring the Deal: Anatomy of a Euro-Squeeze

Tunguska M1 LLAD
(click to view full)

The biggest issue hanging over the deal was a $4.7 billion debt outstanding from past purchases of Soviet arms. As the next section notes, buying advanced Russian arms is nothing new for Algeria. UPI notes that the logical question arose: if there was no money to pay the debt, how would Algeria pay for all of this new equipment?

Enter Russia’s energy sector, in the persons of LUKoil CEO Vagit Alekperov, Gazprom chief Alexei Miller, and Igor Makarov of independent gas producer Itera. UPI believes the final arrangement is that Algeria will give gives Russian companies access to oil- and gas-rich regions, with the proceeds split between the producer and the Algerian government. The Algerian government is then bound to immediately transfer the revenues to Russian arms manufacturers, until such time as the debt is paid off.

Meanwhile, OPEC member Algeria develops more of her energy reserves, and the projects create local employment in the bargain. Indeed, the St. Petersburg Times reports that an $80 billion, 5-year program is underway aimed at boosting growth and drawing more investments to Algeria as it recovers from an extremely bloody civil war. That war against the Wahhabist/Salafist al-Qaeda affiliate GSPC and other Islamist terrorist groups has lasted over a decade and is still ongoing, but government successes over the last few years have sharply reduced the size of the threat.

The Morocco Times notes that Algeria has the world’s seventh-largest natural gas reserves with 4.55 trillion cubic meters, and is the world’s fourth-biggest gas exporter after Russia, Canada and Norway at 60 billion cubic meters per year. Russia, meanwhile, is the number one gas exporter to Europe, with about 26% of the market. By coordinating its export policies with number three exporter Algeria (about 10% of the European market), Russia may be able to increase its leverage within Europe, complicate the EU’s efforts to diversify its sources of supply, and leverage that improved position into greater participation in and influence over Europe’s pipeline projects.

That prospect looked good in 2006, anyway. Since that date, the growth of “fracking” techniques to extract natural gas from shale has changed the global energy picture. While some European countries are choosing to sit on their reserves, Poland isn’t one of them, and should soon find itself acting as a major gas provider for the continent. Their own especial fear of dependence on Russia is expected to ensure the required commitment. They will eventually be joined by Greece and Israel, who discovered huge offshore gas fields between Cyprus and Israel, and have begun cooperating with an eye to joint European exports. Russia is playing a smart game on that front, but no matter how the situation is played, supply and demand will govern deals. The reality is that each new player increases the difficulty of market control, and Russia’s prospects of achieving it are dim.

Contracts and Key Events

April 11/16: Algeria has upped its orders of Mi-28NE helicopters from the eight initially reported in January to 42, according to a Russian newspaper. A further 19 of the “Night-Hunter” helicopters will also make their way to Iraq. The helicopters have recently seen action in Syria battling Islamic State militants, and it has been said that the radio-electronic jamming systems on board easily suppressed man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS) deployed against them by the insurgents. With interest being expressed from over half a dozen nations spanning from Latin America to South East Asia, the helicopter is certainly selling itself well during its recent military activity.

March 4/16: Russia and Algeria are expected to sign an agreement for 12 Su-34 fighter-bombers by the end of 2016. Russian news source TASS reported that contracts on the deal were waiting on approval of export licenses. Negotiations on the deal were opened last November, and could also be extended to a larger purchase of up to 40 of the aircraft. When the deal is confirmed, it will cement Algeria as manufacturer Sukhoi’s best customer in the region following last September’s order of 14 Su-30 fighters. The North African nation already operates 44 Su-30 aircraft.

January 4/16: After eight years of negotiations, Algeria seems to have formally ordered Su-34 fighters from Russia. The procurement is said to be for about twelve of the aircraft’s export variant, the Su-32, to replace the aging MiG-25s in service. The announcement was made in an interview with director of Novosibirsk Aircraft Production Association, Chkalov Sergey Smirnov.

September 14/15: Algeria is ordering an additional fourteen Su-30MKI multirole fighters from Russia to supplement the 44 already in service with the Algerian Air Force. Algeria is an important export customer for the Russian defense industry, with the North African country ordering a significant number of attack and transport helicopters last June. The Indian Air Force also operates the Su-30MKI, with the IAF suffering a high crash rate among its fleet in recent months. This latest deal is thought to value approximately $420 million, with deliveries expected between 2016 and 2017.

August 20/15: Russia intends to deliver another pair of Mil Mi-26T2 heavy lift helicopters to Algeria later this year, with another two following in early 2016, according to Russian media reports. The first two helicopters were delivered to the North African country in July, with reports indicating that a second contract – covering eight further helicopters of the type – is likely to complete deliveries by the end of 2017, bringing the total of heavy lift helicopters operated by Algeria to 14. The Mi-26T2 re-entered series production in May, with Algeria also reported to be ordering attack helicopters from Russia.

Mi-28N
(click to view full)

June 12/14: Mi-28s. Rosvertol’s 2013 annual report contains a number of interesting details regarding its orders. Algeria [foreign customer 012] ordered 6 Mi-26T2 ultra-heavy lift helicopters on June 26/13, and 42 Mi-28NE attack helicopters on Dec 26/13.

Mi-28NEs are dedicated attack helicopters, without the secondary transport capabilities of Algeria’s 36 Mi-24 Mk.IIIs. This order makes Algeria the type’s 2nd export customer after Iraq (15), but they are the type’s largest customer. Unless prospects in Egypt [customer 818], Turkmenistan [customer 795], or Uzbekistan [customer 860] really step up, they’re likely to remain so. Sources: Rostvertol PLC, “Annual Report ‘Rosvertol’, ZA2013 Year | LiveJournal bmpd [in Russian, incl. photos].

Mi-28NE attack & Mi-26T transport helos

June 7/13: RIA Novosti offers an update on Russian criminal prosecution of people involved in the canceled Algerian MiG-29 sale. There have been consequences, but…. it’s Russia.

The Moscow city court just handed down a 4-year suspended sentence to former Rezon director general Mikael Kazaryan. Rezon is charged with selling MiG outdated equipment, amd covering it up with forged certificates and tags. In earlier proceedings, Aviaremsnab head Musail Ismailov had 2 years added to his 5.5 year sentence, giving him 7.5 years for ripping off the Polish and Algerian air forces. May 2012 saw another 3 people convicted, with one sentenced to 5 years in prison, and the others fined.

On the other hand, this is Russia. MiG’s former First Deputy Director General Sergei Tsivilev, and his deputy Oleg Fadeyev, both escaped sentencing in December 2012, on grounds that the 6-year statute of limitations for their offense had expired. If you start too late, then yes, that happens. RIA Novosti.

March 11/13: UPI offers some snapshot updates of Algeria’s arms imports, which extend beyond Russia and look set to grow, thanks to a 14% increase in their 2013 military budget. $10.3 billion isn’t huge by some standards, but it’s enough to keep the new acquisitions coming, and the oil and gas revenues underpinning that budget seem stable.

“Delivery of the Su-30MKA aircraft, worth $1 billion, should have been completed at the end of 2012 by Rosoboronexport, Russia’s state arms exporter.

Delivery of the last of 120 T-90 tanks under a $470 million 2006 contract is still under way. Delivery of 180 T-90s under an earlier contract was completed in 2009.

Algiers is also looking for two Project 636 advanced variants of the SSK Type 877EKM Kilo class submarines. These diesel-electric boats are stealthier than the Algerian navy’s four Kilos delivered in 1988 and 2010.”

Beyond its initial umbrella buy covered here, Algeria has ordered 2 Stergushchy (Project 20382 Tiger export variant) corvettes from Russia. Beyond Russia, 2011 saw an order for an Italian San Giorgio Class LPD derivative and associated landing craft. 2012 saw Algeria buy 2 German Meko A200 frigates and 6 Super Lynx helicopters, along with a reported agreement to purchase up to 1,200 of Rheinmetall’s Fuchs armored personnel carriers, which came through later in 2014. There’s even a reported purchase of 3 light frigates from China pending, depending on whom one asks.

T-90 tank
(click to view full)

Feb 14/12: Tanks! Russian media report that Algeria has added another 120 T-90 tanks to its orders, at a cost of $470-500 million, bringing its total fleet to around 305. Russia media sources attribute the buy to the Arab Spring’s toppling of nearby regimes, but a closer look shows that a fleet of 305 T-90s is about what Algeria was initially expected to order. This may just be the completion of their planned buy, with an added push from external events.

Meanwhile, Russia is reportedly moving to upgrade its T-72 tanks as a cheaper alternative to new T-90s, while the army awaits a new tank design. Which means they’re looking to sell T-90 production abroad:

“In 2009, Russia’s defense export giant Rosoboronexport completed the delivery of 185 T-90C tanks to Algeria… in the fall of 2011, Algeria signed another contract with Russia for the delivery of 120 brand new Russian tanks, the Vedomosti newspaper wrote with reference to its sources at Rosoboronexport and Russian Technologies… In 2011, the Russian Defense Ministry stopped purchasing T-90 tanks… Instead, the Russian tanks will be delivered abroad. Russia will soon catch up with China on the sales volume of this hardware. In the summer of 2011, Russia signed a contract with Turkmenistan for the delivery of 20 T-90C tanks. Russia is also in talks with Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Indonesia.”

120 more T-90 tanks

Sept 1/11: Yak-130. Algerian pilots training at the Irkutsk Aviation Plant’s airfield perform their 1st first solo flights, following 3 months of training and over 100 flights with Irkut crews. Irkut says they’ve also been training Algerian engineers and technicians on the Yak-130 aircraft, as Algeria prepared to induct the planes. JSC Irkut.

June 21/10: SU-30s. Arabian Aerospace reports that Russia is selling Algeria another 16 SU-30MKAs:

“The Algerian additional order was negotiated earlier this month by Rosoboroneksport which said additional prospects for the aircraft in the region are possible… The Su-30MKA is a variant based on India’s Su-30MKI and Malaysia’s Su-30MKM developed by Sukhoi OKB and Irkut and produced by the Irkut Aircraft Production Association plant in Irkutsk. The Su-30MKA features French avionics, including the Thales Damocles laser designation and targetting pod, but is said to be closer to the Su-30MKI than the Su-30MKM.”

That last appears to be based on a RIA Novosti report that wasn’t worded entirely clearly; the MKM is itself an MKI variant whose biggest modifications involve the replacement of Indian and Israeli avionics and onboard equipment with French and Russian equipment, much as the Algerians have done.

June 2/10: Deliveries. Russia’s RIA Novosti:

“Russia will supply Su-30 Flanker fighters and Yak-130 Mitten trainer/light attack jets to Algeria in 2011, the deputy head of the Russian Federal Service for Military Technical Cooperation, Vyacheslav Dzirkalin, said. “The delivery of Su-30s and Yak-130s [to Algeria] is due to begin next year, this is no military secret,” Dzirkalin said. Earlier in April, the head of Russian Technologies state Corporation, Sergei Chemezov, in an interview with the Novaya Gazeta weekly said Russia would ship to Algeria “a party of modern Russian fighters” at a price of about $1 billion. Dzirkalin did not specify the number of aircraft to be delivered to Algeria.”

Back in 2006, Moscow Defense Brief had said that the Algerian contract contained an option for another 14-16 Yak-130 trainer and light attack planes. Irkut’s December 2009 release announcing delivery of all Algerian Yak-130s would strongly indicate that more deliveries would involve an option order. The first batch of SU-30MKAs have already finished delivery as well, but more deliveries would be expected in 2011 as part of the reported MiG-29 substitution deal.

Dec 22/09: Irkut Corporation announces in passing that “The Irkut Corporation concluded the contract with Algeria on delivery of Yak-130 and carrying out its contractual obligations.”

June 15/09: Yak-130s. Russia’s RIA Novosti quotes Irkut head Oleg Demchenko at the Le Bourget airshow in Paris:

“We will have a contract with Russia’s Defense Ministry for 62 aircraft, and we will supply 16 Yak-130 planes to Algeria… Demchenko said the first Yak-130 to be delivered to Russia’s Air Force in July is undergoing flight tests in the city of Nizhny Novgorod on the Volga. “The first two planes from the Algeria contract are in the final assembly,” Demchenko said. Demchenko also said Irkut would complete the delivery of Su-30 Flanker-C [DID: the base SU-30 type] fighters to Algeria in 2009.”

May 13/09: SU-30s. The World Tribune reports that:

“A key element in the project has been the Algerian procurement of 180 T-90 MBTs from Russia. In 2008, the last of the tanks arrived in Algeria, with deployment expected later in 2009… Algeria was also said to have received most of its order of Su-30MK fighter-jets. SIPRI said Algeria has acquired 18 out of 28 Sukhois. The next stage of the Russian military modernization project would focus on naval platforms. Algeria has ordered two Project 636 Kilo-class submarines from Moscow.”

Jan 13/09: MiG-29s. RIA Novosti quotes “a Russian Defense Ministry source”, and says that Russia’s Air Force will receive Algeria’s 34 MiG-29 SMT and MiG-29 UBT fighters later in 2009, and induct them into service. Note that the picture used with RIA Novosti’s story is of a MiG-29K, the carrier-based variant that has been sold to India.

Aviation Week adds that the Russian government has signed a RUB 20 billion (about $615 million) agreement to buy the 28 MiG-29SMTs, and is negotiating for the 2-seat MiG-29UBTs, while making plans to fold RAC MiG into its United Aircraft Corporation alongside Sukhoi.

Czech MiG-29
(click to view full)

May 28/08: MiG-35s? Russia’s RIA Novosti quotes MiG Corp. CEO Anatoly Belov as saying that:

“We are currently in negotiations on delivering our fighter aircraft, including MiG-35s, to Algeria.”

The MiG-35 is the most modern variant, with full thrust vectoring for supermaneuverability and the possibility of an AESA radar. It is currently in the running for India’s MMRCA competition, but is not in service anywhere yet. As for Algeria’s delivered MiG-29SMTs, RIA Novosti reports that:

“The aircraft were eventually returned to Russia in April this year and following additional tests could go in service with the Russian Air Force.”

A same-day report quotes Irkut’s head Oleg Demchenko at the Berlin Air Show ILA2008″

“We have a contract with Algeria to supply 16 [Yak-130] aircraft… We are planning to start deliveries in January 2009.”

May 15/08: Fighter switch? The Russian daily Kommersant reports that Algeria may be prepared to settle for 14-16 extra SU-30 fighters from NPK Irkut, instead of the MiG-29s. The financial issues have yet to be worked out, however, including the fate of Algeria’s $250 million down payment and any extra costs created by substituting the larger Sukhoi aircraft.

Feb 28/08: Despite assurances earlier this week, the SU-30MK deal is feeling the after-effects. Kommersant reports that Russia has postponed deliveries of Su-30 fighters after Algeria failed to transfer payment for 28 aircraft in early February, per the contract. Algeria froze all payments under military contracts with Russia in October 2007, and has said the freeze would not be lifted until Russia takes back 15 MiG-29 fighter jets whose quality is in dispute. RIA Novosti | Algeria’s El Khabar | Forbes | StrategyPage, incl. other security developments in Algeria this month.

See also Reuters April 1/08 op-ed article “Algeria spat shows challenge to Russian arms sales.”

Rafale factor?
(click to view full)

February 2008: Rushin’ for refunds. On Feb 18/07, the Russian newspaper Kommersant reported that after paying $423 million under the arms package:

“For the first time in the history of Russian military cooperation, a foreign customers is returning a military hardware purchase. Last week, an agreement was signed on the return of 15 MiG planes acquired by Algeria in 2006 and 2007. …Kommersant has learned that proposed returning the planes immediately, that is, before the president’s visit to Moscow, “on the basis of an oral agreement,” with documentary formalities to be taken care of later. However, according to a source in the United Aviation Construction Corp., the Federal Service for Military-Technological Cooperation, Rosoboronexport, the MiG Corp. and the Algerian Air Force signed an official agreement on the return of the planes to Russia… The contract will not be completely renounced, however, according to a UACC source. He said that Algeria was being offered more up-to-date MiG-29M2 or MiG-35 models or nonaviation hardware in exchange. The cost of one MiG-29M2 or MiG-35 is $5-10 million higher than of a MiG-29SMT. A Kommersant source in the aviation industry says that the lot of Su-30MKI(A) models for Algeria may be increased.”

The report set of a firestorm of coverage, and more than a little bit of speculation, including reports that the entire $7.5 billion arms deal was in danger of renegotiation. A few reports even spoke of cancellation.

The official complaint regarding the MiG-29s is that technical problems led to deeper investigations, whereupon the Algerians concluded that the planes included used/older parts from the 1990s, as well as new-build parts. The Russians have essentially admitted this; Defense News quotes a Russian official who said the parts were not used, but “produced in the late 1990s and stored since then.” This is actually a very plausible story. Russia’s 1990s economic crash, and accompanying defense budget crash, would certainly have left a number of work-in progress assemblies available. During this period, it’s also true that MiG-29 exports have been very slow due to the popularity of rival Sukhoi’s larger SU-30 family. The official also said that “Russian technicians were fixing the problems – all of which were minor and technical – in Algeria.”

The use of stored parts may not necessarily lead to technical problems by themselves; indeed, American aircraft are regularly returned to flying condition and front-line service after prolonged storage at AMARG in the Arizona desert. Poor Russian storage procedures could create legitimate technical issues, however, and so could poor craftsmanship generally. The latter is a real and acknowledged problem for the Russian defense industry (vid. Appendix B).

Even so, few observers seem to be taking the situation at face value. Nikita Petrov noted in his RIA Novosti Op/Ed that: “Off the record, Russian arms exporters maintain that before being sent to the south Mediterranean coast, the fighters were approved by Algerian experts. They also checked them up upon arrival in the country, and even started flying them. How can they now complain of defects, used spare parts or rusted units?”

One set of speculations and reports from anonymous sources has Algeria switching the MiG order for more Yak-130 trainer/light attack aircraft, more advanced MiG-29 variants, or more SU-30MKAs. This would be a fairly straightforward adjustment within the contract, and offers the least disruption to the current deal. Other speculations are more involved, and more consequential. Along those lines, number of speculations have been advanced as the real reasons behind the cancellation. Many of them are quite interesting:

• As is true in Saudi Arabia and other middle eastern countries, arms deals involve middlemen who take a cut of the proceedings. The selection of those middlemen ties into tribal politics, and connection to different political groups and clans. Intrigues involving these factions can easily boil over into defense acquisitions. For instance:
• Algerian President Bouteflika intends to seek a third term. Russian defense analyst Nikita Petrov notes in his RIA Novosti Op/Ed that “A competing clan is represented in the security forces of that country. They are using the crisis of the Russian planes to weaken the position of Ahmed Gaid Salah, who is loyal to the president.”
• Another set of speculations concerns France, who retains surprisingly good ties to Algeria given their mutual history. The French had been working hard to sell Algeria Rafale fighters – and after they lost, they kept working to counter Russia’s 2006 energy squeeze play. New President Sarkozy has apparently stepped up the diplomatic offensive, and one set of speculations from various sources involves energy and/or fighter deals with France that would end up redefining the Russian contract.
• Andrew Brooke of the International Institute for Strategic Studies even adds China to the mix, noting that they are willing to undercut its rivals to break into the valuable North African arms and energy market.
• One piece of information helping to fuel speculation re: outside influences is the fact that in August 2007, the Algerian Minister of Energy announced the discontinuation of an MoU between Russia’s Gazprom and the Algerian company Sonatrach. This ended the legal cooperation agreement to produce hydrocarbons and liquefied natural gas in Algeria, though negotiations to resurrect it are ongoing.

May 2007: Algeria begins refusing deliveries of MiG-29 SMTs, demanding that Russia take back the first 15 aircraft it had delivered and citing the “inferior quality” of certain components and units. Source. Defense News reports that each of the 15 jets had been flown 80 to 90 hours by this time.

Appendix A: Algeria’s Appetite for Advanced Arms

MI-24 Hind
(click to view full)

This level of advanced equipment is not altogether surprising. In 1999, Algerian President Abdel Aziz Boutefliqa announced a new military policy aimed at modernizing Algeria’s army and shifting it toward a modernized, professional force. Yet military observers would note that modern equipment is hardly new to the Algerians.

Algeria had been a client for Soviet arms throughout the Cold War, and country data notes that they typically received and operated some of Russia’s most advanced export equipment. The ANP was one of the first armies outside Eastern Europe to be equipped with the T-72 tank. Algeria also received the BMP-1 and BMP-2 infantry fighting vehicles, MiG-23 Flogger and MiG-25 Foxbat fighters, Mi-24 Hind attack helicopters, modern rapid-firing artillery, and SA-2 and SA-3 air defense missile systems.

Armed SU-24 Fencer
(click to view full)

Algeria currently flies the lightweight MiG-29 Fulcrum fighter, and a previous UPI story noted that Algeria received 18 SU-30MK multi-role fighters in 2005, along with a $120 million deal for 22 of Russia’s SU-24 Fencer tactical bombers that proved so popular in Chechnya. In 1999, Algeria also became one of the first customers for Russia’s Smerch-M 300mmm multiple rocket launcher system.

In many ways, therefore, this purchasing wave is simply a continuation of what Algeria’s military government is used to. Even so, there is one important way in which this proposed deal would represent a break with the recent past.

Moscow Defense Brief magazine editor Ruslan Pukhov noted to The Moscow Times that after the Soviet Union’s breakup, Algeria’s military contracts largely switched to firms in Belarus and the Ukraine. We’d add that rather than dealing with Russian firms, Algeria even worked closely with South Africa’s ATE Aerospace to upgrade its Mi-24 Hind attack helicopters with new avionics, sensors, weapons, and logistics infrastructure. the result was the fully-modernized “Mi-24 Superhind Mk3“.

“This [$4 billion] contract will be Russia’s triumphant return to North Africa,” said Pukhov. “In the coming years, Algeria will account for 20% of Russian’s arms exports, while China and India will plummet from 70% to 50%” as a result of saturated markets and diversification of those of those countries’ arms sources.

Appendix B: Russia’s Arms Industry Woes

Coming as it does around the same time that its major export client India appears to be slipping away, and is in very prominent negotiations with Russia over a bungled refit of the aircraft carrier Gorshkov, the Algerian return serves to underscore a very real issue for Russia’s defense industry.

Fast-rising prices for gas, oil, and key metals like titanium have made Russia’s government cash-rich again, but that may not be enough. The complete defense budget collapses of the 1990s may have left Russia a lasting legacy – and made its current situation a canonical example of what happens when you damage your industrial base. Russian defense analyst Nikita Petrov explains, in a February 2008 RIA Novosti Op/Ed:

“…the Algerian experts are right when they talk about a drop in quality of Russian arms exports. This is openly admitted by top-ranking officials in charge of the Russian military-industrial sector… At a recent Academy of Military Sciences conference, Putilin said that “although the enterprises of the military-industrial sector have increased their turnout by more than 14% (military production went up by 19.1%, and civilian by 7.6%), some of them are simply unable to fulfill state-awarded contracts. Moreover, they cannot even use the allocated funds…” …Highly qualified personnel have come close to retirement age. Machines and technologies are becoming obsolescent – capital equipment in the defense industry is more than 30 years old. Major technologies have been lost, usual contacts severed, and the required raw materials and equipment are in short supply. The price of energy… greatly exceeds the deflators fixed by the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade. Graduates of technical colleges are reluctant to work in the defense industry. Salaries are rather low, and career opportunities cannot compete with those in the oil and gas industry… Before, young people were not drafted if they worked at a military plant called a mailbox. Now this benefit does not exist… technical vocational schools no longer exist…”

This isn’t the first time RIA Novosti has covered these issues. Nikita Petrov again, this time from a January 2007 RIA Novosti article:

“In the last few months, defense factories have expanded production by 14.1%, boosting military-equipment and civilian output by 19.1% and 7.6%, respectively. Nevertheless, some of them are simply unable to fulfil the state defense order and to effectively spend federal-budget allocations… Only 36% of strategic defense enterprises are solvent, while another 23% are tottering on the verge of bankruptcy… The lack of qualified personnel and up-to-date production equipment will inevitably impair product quality. In fact, India, Algeria and some other countries are beginning to file quality claims [emphasis DID’s]… Since 1992, not a single state defense order has been fulfilled completely and on time.”

All this despite a 2008 official Russian defense budget of 800 billion rubles ($32.6 billion), rising to RUB 900 billion/ $36.7B in 2009 and RUB 1.1 trillion/ $45B in 2010. But money alone won’t instantly provide production lines with the required tools, some of which must be bought abroad. Or produce technically qualified graduates from thin air to operate them. Or fix the gap between real and official prices, including poorly-set energy cost adjustments. Or handle the property right issues and state interference that prevent the creation of efficient holding companies, and make it very difficult to restructure the assets and production of the holding companies that are created.

Recovery from that situation will take more than just cash. It may even take more than time.

Russia’s policy of non-interference with its customers use of military equipment is giving them an opening on the military export front, and steadily rising arms export totals (about $6 billion in 2005, about $7 billion in 2007) back that up. But the opportunity can, and will evaporate quickly if a consensus grows that an exporter cannot deliver reliably or at acceptable quality levels.

Continued domestic defense spending may eventually begin to fix some of the problems with Russia’s defense industry, if it is coupled with political will. Even that happy scenario may not be enough to fix its export reputation, however, unless improvement comes rather more rapidly.

Appendix C: Additional Readings & Sources

• DID – Russia’s Military Spending Jumping – But Can Its Industry? Expanded, updated version of Appendix B.

News & Views

• DID (June 19/14) – Fox Among the Hans: Algeria’s Big Fuchs APC Order. They ordered 980 German 6×6 wheeled APCs. Germany is also a significant arms supplier, including 2 MEKO A200 frigates.
• defenceWeb (Nov 14/12) – Algeria increasing military spending. With a heavy focus on naval assets.
• Bloomberg (June 22/12) – Gazprom Biggest Loser as Shale Gas Upends World Markets. The premise of the Algerian deal looks increasingly outdated.
• ISN (Nov 17/09) – Arming the Maghreb. Discusses recent and prospective North African arms purchases in Libya, Morocco, and Algeria. ISN is a project of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology’s Center for Security Studies (ETH Zurich’s CSS), and is jointly funded by the Swiss Department for Defence, Civil Protection and Sport (DDPS) and ETH Zurich.
• Reuters (April 1/08) – Algeria spat shows challenge to Russian arms sales [dead link].
• Defense News (Feb 25/08) – Algeria Wants To Return MiGs: Fighter Tiff May Sink $8B Arms Sale – and Energy Deal.
• Flight International (Feb 25/08) – Algeria returns ‘faulty’ MiG-29s.
• StrategyPage (Feb 25/08) – The Bandit King to the Rescue. Of al-Qaeda in North Africa; the article has interesting information re: leadership changes, the ongoing civil war in Algeria, and the spillover elsewhere. Mentions the MiGs in passing.
• UPI (Feb 25/08) – Analysis: European defense contracts. Includes 2007 Russian arms export figures. Reportedly $7 billion, of which $6.2 billion went through government-controlled Rosoboronexport, who has an estimated order backlog between $25 billion and $32 billion. Divides as 52% aircraft & helicopters, 21% weapons and land equipment, 10% air defense systems, and 8% navy.
• Kommersant (Feb 20/08) – Putin Orders to Buy More Modern Aircraft for Defense. Looks like he’s got 15 to start…
• RIA Novosti, Nikita Petrov Op/Ed (Feb 19/08) – Returning fighters, Algerian style. Very interesting rumors, and adds much more definite information re: the Russian defense industry and its quality issues.
• Moscow Times (Feb 19/08) – MiG Denies Algeria Jets Deal in Trouble.
• RIA Novosti (Feb 18/08) – Algeria to return 15 MiG aircraft to Russia over inferior quality.
• Kommersant (Feb 18/08) – Algeria Lays Down Russian Arms.
• RIA Novosti (Jan 9/07) – Russian defense industry still faces problems. Points out, inter alia, that: “The management of the Novosibirsk Aircraft Plant had promised to supply six, rather than two, Su-34 bombers in late 2006.” Other items in the report are also highly relevant to the larger remarmament picture, including production difficulties, paper factories, and insolvency levels within the industry.
• Moscow Defense Brief #1 (7) 2007 – The Venezuela Contracts. Includes Algeria in the overall Russian arms & policy overview.
• Moscow Defense Brief #2 (6) 2006 (June 2006) – The Algerian Deal.
• Moscow Defense Brief #2 (6) 2006 (June 2006) – Risk Factors of the Delivery of Russian Arms to Algeria. Their conclusion? “…it should be emphasized that the likelihood of the successful implementation of the Russian-Algerian arms deal is very high. But in order to ensure this result, Russia should work closely not only with the Algerian General Staff, but with its oil and gas lobby as well.”
• Vedomosti (March 13/06) – Russian arms trade freed from “Sino-Indian ghetto” – expert.

S304, KNM Uthaug
(click to view full)

Norway’s 6 Ula Class/ U210 diesel-electric submarines were commissioned from 1989-1992, and play an important role in their overall fleet. The 1,150t design combined German design, sonar, and torpedoes with a French Thomson-CSF (now Thales) Sintra flank array sonar. Integration happens through a Norwegian Kongsberg combat system, which has become a mainstay for German submarine types. The U210s are a bit on the small side compared to more modern diesel-electric boats, but they remain well suited to Norway’s long coasts and narrow fjords.

The Ula Class has received a number of upgrades since 2006. A new combat system, added cooling for warm water operations, upgraded periscopes, sonar improvements, TADIL-A/Link 11 communications, etc. Even so, the continuous cycle of compression and release inherent in submarine operations will make operations past 2020 a risky proposition. Norway wants to keep a submarine fleet, and by the end of 2014 decided it would need new boats to do so.

Contracts & Key Events

HNoMS Utsira

April 11/16: As Norway continues its search for a cooperation partner for its submarine procurement, it has narrowed down the manufacturers who will carry out the task. The yards shortlisted by Oslo are France’s DCNS and Germany’s ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS). Both companies have worked with and supplied systems to the Norwegian Navy over the last number of decades. While several other submarine yards, including Saab’s Kockums yard in Sweden had also applied, they lost out to Western Europe’s two largest submarine manufacturers.

April 8/16: A joint submarine procurement between Norway and Poland is not imminent despite ongoing talks on the matter. While Oslo is looking to proceed with a joint procurement of a submarine fleet, the final shape of the program, the number of vessels it plans to acquire, and with whom to cooperate still needs to be decided. Poland, in the midst of a nationalist fervor removing any military equipment stemming from the Cold War-era, is looking to acquire three new submarines to replace its aging Kobben-class subs, due to be decommissioned in 2021.

September 10/15: Norway and Poland are engaged in talks over a possible joint procurement of submarines, according to Norwegian press reports. As Norway debates how best to go about replacing its fleet of Ula-class subs, the Poles are reportedly seeking out European partners for a joint acquisition. The Polish Navy requires three new boats to enter service in the mid-2020s, with the Netherlands eyed as another possible partner. The Norwegian Ministry of Defence decided in December 2014 that the Ula-class subs would have their lives extended to 35 years – out to 2020 – with the replacement program currently in a project definition phase.

Dec 03/14: Planning. Norway’s Ministry of Defence delivers the decision it had promised it would make in 2014. Ula class submarines will be kept operational for an additional 5 years, but their life won’t be extended beyond a total of 35 years, as doing so was ruled out as too expensive. So there is going to be a new procurement, and a partnership with other countries is explicitly favored by the ministry to do so while minimizing project risk and costs.

A project definition phase will now take place for the next two years since the number of submarines or budget haven’t even been defined yet. Delivery should start to take place in the mid 2020s.

June 10/14: Go Dutch? The Netherlands has determined that an overhaul of its locally-designed Walrus Class submarines doesn’t make financial or operational sense, after a 20-25 year service life. They need new boats, but can’t afford to replace all 4, and their submarine industry died after Chinese pressure killed a sale to Taiwan. The solution? Present an initial plan this year, and go Dutch:

“As a result of the current budget constraints, the Dutch MoD is looking for an international partner to increase economy of scale and reduce costs of ownership in a new submarine programme. ‘We are open to discuss the whole spectrum from training to logistics,’ [CO Submarine Services Capt. Hugo] Ammerlaan said.

While the MoD is currently exploring a variety of options it sees Norway as a potential partner for co-developing and building submarines.”

That’s an interesting assessment. Norway isn’t a strong design/build partner, though Kongsberg’s combat system is often used in German U-boats, and well proven. Really making this work probably requires at least one more major partner, be it French (Scorpene), German/Italian/Korean (U2xx), or Swedish (A26). Spain’s S-80 was part of the Sept 11/12 RFI, but its severe weight issues have derailed development and made it a very unlikely candidate. Sources: Shephard Maritime Security, “UDT: Dutch MoD advances submarine replacement”.

May 6/14: Update. The Norwegian Ministry of Defence hasn’t issued its final recommendation yet on the Ula submarines, but they still expect to do so in 2014. To date:

“National and international expertise has been engaged in producing inputs to the process. ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems in Germany have recently completed an extensive study on extending the lifetime and maintaining the relevance of the Ula-class, beyond 2020. In addition, Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace, various original equipment manufacturers and other suppliers have contributed with information. Furthermore, other navies have provided in-depth information on their experience from similar processes. The company British Maritime Technology (BMT) is tasked to review technical aspects and risks related to a life extension program. BMT’s experience from similar analyses will contribute significantly to the overall analysis on the feasibility of such a program.”

Sources: Norwegian Ministry of Defence, “Evaluation of a potential service life extension of the Ula-class is being finalized”.

Nov 16/12: The Plan. A newspaper report prods Norway’s Ministry of Defence into clarifying the current status of its submarine program. They’re trying to decide between a further life extension of the current Ula Class, a replacement program, or some combination of the two. This process is expected to present its recommendations in 2014.

The chosen solution will form the basis for a project definition phase, before any investment project is presented for the Norwegian parliament in 2017. Norwegian MoD.

Nov 15/12: Rear Admiral Jan Gerhard Jæger (ret.) tells Aftenposten that modernizations may not be enough to keep the U210 Ula Class competitive. Money quote: “Norway currently has equipment that can be used to trace these submarines. Consequently, we must reckon with the fact that others also possess this.” The Foreigner.

Oct 3/12: Minister of Defence Anne-Grete Strøm-Erichsen speaks to the 2012 Army Summit, and talks about “The economic turmoil – implications for security and defence policy.” Some excerpts:

“When I left the Ministry in 2009, we hoped the financial crisis to have reached its peak… I think no one would disagree that since then things have got worse… we are witnessing a severe debt crisis with long term effects, particularly in the European economy. We need to prepare ourselves to be in this dire situation for the long haul. It will most likely dominate European politics for years to come. We experience an unprecedented economic crisis which over time has morphed into a crisis of social cohesion and confidence.

“…What I am suggesting is that we once again have to consider strategic and more traditional challenges. We have to reflect about the possibility of symmetric threats… If you are a defence minister it tends to be much easier to cut investments than bases or camps, simply because it does not have the same social effect in the short run… My fellow defence ministers are fully aware of this pitfall. If you make cuts in your investments budget the problems will not emerge in 2012 or 2013, but rather in 2017 or in 2025. Similarly, the immediate effect of reducing the budget for training and exercises is not critical. What you obviously risk is less agile, less prepared forces further down the line.

What makes these challenges even more daunting is the constant need for military transformation. There is a danger that several European Allies may have choose to postpone the restructuring of their military organisations…”

2007 – 2011: The Norwegian Ministry of Defence studies whether Norway should continue to have a requirement for a submarine capability after 2020. This isn’t an idle question; their neighbor Denmark looked at the issue recently, and decided to scrap their underwater fleet.

The study concludes that no other system would be able to replace the capability offered by a modern fleet of submarines, and that Norway still needs this capability. Source.

Additional Readings

Note that the ship prefix used by Norway’s own navy is “KNM,” for “Kongelig Norsk Marine.” The English counterpart is “HNoMS,” for “His/Her Norwegian Majesty’s Ship.” DID uses them interchangeably.

• Norwegian Armed Forces – Equipment Facts: Navy
• Wikipedia – Ula class submarine
• DID (Jan 16/12) – Kongsberg to Upgrade Norwegian Submarine Combat Systems

KC-135: Old as the hills…
(click to view full)

DID’s FOCUS articles cover major weapons acquisition programs – and no program is more important to the USAF than its aerial tanker fleet renewal. In January 2007, the big question was whether there would be a competition for the USA’s KC-X proposal, covering 175 production aircraft and 4 test platforms. The total cost is now estimated at $52 billion, but America’s aerial tanker fleet demands new planes to replace its KC-135s, whose most recent new delivery was in 1965. Otherwise, unpredictable age or fatigue issues, like the ones that grounded its F-15A-D fighters in 2008, could ground its aerial tankers – and with them, a substantial slice of the USA’s total airpower.

KC-Y and KC-Z buys are supposed to follow in subsequent decades, in order to replace 530 (195 active; ANG 251; Reserve 84) active tankers, as well as the USAF’s 59 heavy KC-10 tankers that were delivered from 1979-1987. Then again, fiscal and demographic realities may mean that the 179 plane KC-X buy is “it” for the USAF. Either way, the KC-X stakes were huge for all concerned.

In the end, it was Team Boeing’s KC-767 NexGen/ KC-46A (767 derivative) vs. EADS North America’s KC-45A (Airbus KC-30/A330-200 derivative), both within the Pentagon and in the halls of Congress. The financial and employment stakes guaranteed a huge political fight no matter which side won. After Airbus won in 2008, that fight ended up sinking and restarting the entire program. Three years later, Boeing won the recompete. Now, they have to deliver their KC-46A.

Boeing’s KC-46A, and Its Team

KC-46A concept
(click to view full)

KC-46A Pegasus production takes place in 2 phases: the 767-2C, and then the militarized KC-46A modifications.

There are still a number of things we don’t know, though more details have emerged since Boeing won the competition. The first step is to build a 767 on the commercial production line with a cargo door and freighter floor, an advanced flight deck display borrowed from its new 787, body tanks, and provisions for aerial tanker systems. Initial Boeing graphics featuring upturned winglets on the wingtips are no longer part of the design, but Pratt & Whitney’s 62,000 pound thrust PW4062s remain their engine choice. This is the 767-2C, and it receives an FAA 767 amended Type Certificate.

The 767-2C is militarized in a separate finishing center by adding aerial refueling equipment, an air refueling operator’s station that includes panoramic 3-dimensional displays, and threat detection/ countermeasures systems. The resulting KC-46A receives an FAA 767 Supplemental Type Certificate given to substantially different variants, and must also receive USAF certification that clears the way for full acceptance.

Boeing’s refueling boom is derived from the KC-10’s AARB, but adds 3-D viewing and a slightly higher fuel offload rate of 1,200 gallons/min. The centerline and wing-mounted refueling pods will now come from Cobham plc’s Sargent Fletcher, who was also partnered with Airbus for this feature. Unlike the A330 MRTT’s systems, however, the KC-46A’s wing refueling pods still need to finish testing on the 776-2C. The USAF will buy 46 wing sets for its fleet, which will allow multi-aircraft (multipoint) aerial refueling when installed.

KC-46A cargo capacity lists as 65,000 pounds, in a mix of up to 18 cargo pallets, 114 passengers, and/or 58 medical stretcher slots.

Fielding a tanker built after the 1960s allows the USAF to include a number of new systems, which would be too costly to retrofit into the existing KC-135 fleet. The net effect is to make its KC-46As front-line refuelers. The cockpit and exterior lighting are night-vision compatible for covert rendezvous. Advanced communications and secure datalinks are big steps forward for the fleet, and their classified feeds will be used by specialized ESTAR and TCS systems designed to route the tanker away from threats. NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical) protection will allow the planes to operate in contaminated environments, while EMP hardening reduces the effects of high-frequency radiation bursts on all those new solid-state electronics. On a more prosaic level, radar warning systems, infrared defensive systems, cockpit armor, and fuel tank ballistic protection will all be welcome.

KC-46A Industrial Team

Boeing’s KC-X 1.0 Team

Boeing’s industrial team has slowly announced itself over many months since the award. American KC-46A content has been touted as high as 85%, with British firms picking up much of the balance. Boeing reportedly looked hard for supply chain savings in Round 2, though, in order to lose less money with its under-cost bidding strategy.

That KC-46A design is a big change from KC-X round 1, whose KC-767 Advanced used a 767-200ER fuselage; a 767-300F freighter wing, landing gear, cargo door and floor; and a 767-400ER’s flaps and flight deck (derived in turn from the 777). A new design fly-by-wire boom with remote viewing would expand the tanker’s effective refueling airspace, and offload more fuel. Engines would be 2 Pratt & Whitney PW4062s, with 62,000 pounds of thrust each, instead of the KC-767A/J’s 60,200 pound CF6-80C2s.

Some of the suppliers also changed, as Boeing progressed from the canceled KC-767 lease deal, to KC-X, to its final design in Round 2:

Boeing’s production line had also progressed. Near the end of the KC-X bidding, Boeing added civilian 767 orders to keep its production line going. That was enough to create a cushion if KC-X faced further challenges and issues, but the reality is that civilian 767 production looks set to end soon. The US military will soon become the 767 production line’s sole support.

KC-X: The Program

A March 2012 GAO report summed up the risk driving the KC-46A program, and the current state of the USAF’s tanker fleets:

“According to the Air Force, the national security strategy cannot be executed without aerial refueling… the KC-135 Stratotanker, is over 50 years old on average and costing increasingly more to maintain and support. With… more than 16,000 flight hours on each aircraft, the KC-135s will approach over 80 years of age when the fleet is retired as projected in the 2040 time frame. In 1981, the Air Force began supplementing its fleet of KC-135s with [59] KC-10s… that transport air cargo and provide refueling. Much larger than the KC-135, the KC-10 provides both boom and hose and drogue refueling capabilities[Footnote 4] on the same flight and can conduct transoceanic missions. The KC-10s now average about 27 years of age with more than 26,000 flight hours on each, and their service life is expected to end around 2045.”

The $7.2 billion October 2012 development cost estimate includes $4.9 billion for the aircraft development contract and 4 test aircraft, $0.3 billion for the aircrew and maintenance training systems, and $2 billion for other government costs and some risk funds. The total procurement cost estimate of $40.46 billion in base-year dollars buys 175 production aircraft, initial spares, and other support items as priced in contract options.

Cost estimates as of April 2014 are stable, with an estimated $1.6 billion to cover other government costs like program office support, test and evaluation support, contract performance risk, and other development risks. That includes the cost of test flights, which will sometimes feature operational military aircraft of various kinds to act as receivers.

An accompanying military construction estimate of $4.2 billion includes the projected costs to build aircraft hangars, maintenance and supply shops, and other facilities to house and support the full 175-plane KC-46 fleet at up to 10 main operating bases (McConnell AFB, KS is MOB1), 1 training base at Altus AFB, OK; and the Oklahoma City Air Logistics Complex depot.

The KC-46A Development Phase: Budgets, Splits, & Dates

KC-46 development

The Pentagon’s latest Selected Acquisition Report estimates a total KC-46A development cost of $5.615 billion, which would actually be $1.221 billion over the KC-X EMD phase’s original Target Cost of $4.394 billion. Fortunately for the USAF, they structured the contract so they can’t pay more than $4.7 billion, and the overall bid cost to the US government for development plus production remains below Airbus’ bid.

Here’s how it works:

• Up to the $4.898 billion ceiling, the contract split for amounts over the $4.394 billion base price is 60/40. The difference is $504 million, so the government would pay $302.4 million ($4.696 billion total), and Boeing would pay about $201.6 million.
• Costs above the $4.898 billion ceiling are all Boeing’s responsibility.

Current estimates show that there’s almost no chance of coming in under the ceiling. Boeing’s current cost estimate is $5.164 billion, which would raise its private liability for the cost increases to $467.5 million (201.6 + all 265.9 over the ceiling). If the government program manager is right, Boeing’s liability rises to $918.6 million (201.6 + all 717.0 over). The difference matters to Boeing, but the Pentagon doesn’t have to care which EMD Phase figure is correct, or how much higher EMD costs go. Their costs are set, at $4.7 billion, though actual dollars will be a bit higher due to inflation etc.

That’s if, and only if, the USAF doesn’t start asking for design changes. If they do, that would trigger a cycle of charges over and above the agreed contract.

As of December 2012, schedule planning looked like this:

Concurrence concerns

The USAF has maintained its Q4 FY 2015 (summer 2015) goal for a successful Operational Assessment and Milestone C decision, and this remains the official target. Success which would clear the way for 2 firm-fixed-price Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) lots to deliver the initial 19 aircraft. Full-Rate Production options would follow beginning in FY 2017 as a firm-fixed-price contract with some adjustments for outside circumstances, and a not-to-exceed cap. The USAF will be assessing the possibility of breaking out the engines as a separate government procurement in FRP, instead of having Boeing provide them.

As Airbus predicted when the contract was awarded, however, Boeing has admitted to trouble meeting these development milestones. The schedule will need to be changed, but there’s no official replacement schedule yet.

The schedule may need to incorporate other changes as well. The Pentagon’s own DOT&E testers have doubted proclaimed Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) dates (Q3 FY 2016 – Q1 2017) for some time. Beyond technical issues that have slowed the new design, testing must avoid revealing significant problems.
Initial Operational Capability (IOC) was pegged for August 2017, with Full Operational Capability (FOC) expected by August 2019, but USAF Air Mobility Command is no longer giving official target dates.

The program as a whole is expected to end by 2028.

The KC-46A Production Phase: Risks & Numbers

KC-10 & F/A-18C

The current program calls for Boeing to begin delivering KC-46As to the USAF by 2015. Unfortunately, the KC-46A is too different from previous KC-767A models sold to Japan and Italy, so it will need its own development, testing, and certification time. That’s why Airbus and program skeptics have always doubted that Boeing could deliver 18 certified, fully developed and tested planes by 2017. Boeing disputes this, but the Pentagon’s own DOT&E office added weight to those concerns in its 2011 reports, which declared the KC-46A’s test program “not executable.” That continues to be a concern.

Beyond basic integration and certification considerations, a March 2012 GAO report cites 6 key technical risks to the program:

1. Weight limits. The KC-46A is close to its limit, and any more growth will start to take away fuel capacity, while increasing fuel burn rate. As of December 2013, Boeing remains confident that they will remain under the maximum take-off weight of 204,000 pounds.

2. New wing refueling pods. The KC-46’s pods will be redesigned to reduce buffeting of the aircraft’s wing, and change the way the refueling hose exits the pod. Still a technical risk as of December 2013.

3. 3-D display for the boom operator.

4. Threat Correlation Software. Used to help plot safe routes, along with the…

5. ESTAR software.

6. ALR-69 Radar Warning Receiver integration. Issues like figuring out precise placement, and antenna design, make fitting a large aircraft more challenging than many people expect.

Problems with these or other systems could delay the program further, and some of these issues could also make certification harder or longer. Even so, the actual risk that set the development program back wasn’t any of these. It was the need to redesign certain wiring sections for military-grade shielding requirements and mandatory separation distances.

Meanwhile, the USAF plans to respond to continued budget cuts by removing their existing KC-10 heavy refuelers entirely, adding tremendous risk by removing their inherent boom/hose versatility, and leaving no tanker alternative if the KC-135s develop a serious problem.

Fleet Risks

Over the longer term, plotting even a 3-year production delay against planned deliveries and KC-135 retirements never drops the medium tanker fleet much below present levels. The initial drop is slight, and the same final figure is reached in 2030 instead of 2027. On the other hand, RAND’s 2006 Analysis of Alternatives for KC-X highlighted a very different risk, which needs to be understood:

“The current (December 2005) assessment of the flight-hour life of the KC-135 fleet and the expected future flying-hour programs together imply that these aircraft can operate into the 2040s. It cannot be said with high confidence that this is not the case, although there are risks associated with a fleet whose age is in the 80- to 90-year range. It can also not be said with high confidence that the current fleet can indeed operate into the 2040s without major cost increases or operational shortfalls, up to and including grounding of large parts of the fleet for substantial lengths of time, due to currently unknown technical problems that may arise. The nation does not currently have sufficient knowledge about the state of the KC-135 fleet to project its technical condition over the next several decades with high confidence.”

In English, nobody knows if an airplane fleet that’s already 50 years old will remain safe, or avoid unforeseen mechanical or structural problems, because there’s no previous example of what they’re trying to do. Those kinds of sudden “age-out” problems recently grounded the USAF’s F-15A-D fleet for several months, and led to the unexpected retirement of almost 1/4 of the fleet. If anything similar happens to the KC-135, the USAF’s planned number of aerial tankers may not resemble its actual future fleet.

This risk, and the potential absence of the KC-10, is exactly why the KC-X program has been the USAF’s #1 priority. On the other hand, it’s an equally good reason not to trust the USAF’s own rosy projections for its future fleet size. The graph below shows how this kind of scenario could play out. In DID’s hypothetical example, we used actual data to the present day, plus all planned reductions in the USAF’s 2011 plan. Fleet problems lead to the forced retirement of 1/3 of the remaining fleet in 2021 over safety and cost-to-fix issues, followed by a second mechanical issue or budget crisis that grounds another 55 planes in 2029. The KC-10 fleet is not part of this calculus at all.

The USA’s looming fiscal entitlements crisis will begin to bite in earnest post-2020, and the pattern of cuts in the USA and in other countries shows a marked tendency to simply retire platforms with significant maintenance costs. KC-135 per-hour flight costs are already increasing, and a fleet that also needed expensive refits or fixes would be a prime target for future cuts. Here’s what this scenario looks like:

Finally, DID believes that there will be no KC-Y or KC-Z, so the timing of KC-135 problems and retirements isn’t critical. Any serious problems in the KC-135 fleet could create a similar end-point, even if the drops happened after 2030.

KC-46A Export Prospects

IAI’s KC-767 MMTT

Once the KC-46As do enter service, they will join Italy’s KC-767A (4) and Japan’s KC-767J (4) small KC-767 fleets. Both customers have experienced long delivery delays while Boeing has worked to iron out technical problems, and their KC-767s will have a number of key differences from the KC-46A. Japan’s boom-equipped KC-767s were delivered form 2008-2010, but Italy’s aircraft with hose-and-drogue systems were only accepted in February 2011.

That’s one option, if Boeing will produce the planes.

The KC-46A’s schedule and dwindling civil 767 production are problematic for export orders, because the USAF will be Boeing’s sole focus until the EMD Phase is done in 2017 – or later. Countries that need aerial tankers before 2019-2020 will need to look elsewhere. Boeing declined to bid on India’s aerial tanker RFP, for instance. There’s also a customer commitment issue. Should customers accept the KC-767A, which is certified and in service, or wait for the KC-46A, and hope it’s on time?

Airbus sees this lock-up as an opportunity to add to its A330 MRTT customer list, of course, signing customers like India, Qatar, and Singapore. Ironically, the other big beneficiary may by Israel’s IAI Bedek, whose inexpensive KC-767 MMTT conversion of used Boeing freighters already has customers in Colombia and Brazil.

As of June 2013, Boeing was reportedly pursuing prospects for up to 20 aerial tanker exports. If so, they have been quiet pursuits. The next big opportunity will be in South Korea.

KC-X: Contracts & Key Developments

Boom assembly

April 13/16: Despite development setbacks and a recent Milestone C demonstration hiccup, Boeing believes that it can deliver 18 operational KC-46 Pegasus tankers within six months instead of the original 14. The plan has been labelled “optimistic” in a new report by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO). While the GAO notes that most of the issues have been amended successfully, the recent problems seen in the aircraft’s centerline drogue system and wing aerial refueling pods may make this optimistic projection nothing but wishful thinking.

April 5/16: The otherwise fast pace of the KC-46A’s aerial refueling demonstration phase has started to run into difficulty. Testing on refueling of Boeing’s C-17 heavy cargo lifter has resulted in higher than expected boom axial loads, caused by two large aircraft flying in line. This bow-wave effect has subsequently caused the system to indicate that the loads were too high to begin passing fuel. Subsequent delays caused by the issues have resulted in scheduled trials of the A-10 attack aircraft being pushed back, and any further issues may impact a low-production rate decision due to be made at the end of May.

March 24/16: The Defense Contract Management Agency has expressed its “low confidence” in Boeing’s ability to deliver the KC-46A on time. Delivery of the tanker to the USAF is expected by August 2017 and is currently in the process of undergoing its Milestone C Demonstrations. Despite this, the agency now believes Boeing can only deliver the 18 KC-46As by March 2018, and there is a possibility that the new date might not be achievable either.

March 7/16: Boeing’s second KC-46A aerial refueling tanker has made its first flight. The aircraft will be used to test mission system avionics and exterior lighting before moving onto sharing the air refueling effort with the first KC-46. With a second fully configured tanker, Boeing can move through “receiver certification” for 18 aircraft types a lot more quickly. At present, the KC-46 has already demonstrated functionality with the Lockheed Martin F-16, Boeing F/A-18 and refueling from a Boeing KC-10.

February 26/16: Despite a successful start to the KC-46 Milestone C demonstrations, Boeing is still under pressure to keep to its tight window to have 46 of the tankers operational by August 2017. The original schedule is at present eight months behind after a number of setbacks, and leaves little room for error until the delivery deadline. While funding of the program and technical difficulties are not a contributing factor, it’s feared that the Air Mobility Command (AMC) won’t have sufficient time for the 767-2C-based tankers to declare initial operational capability on schedule.

February 24/16: The KC-46 is halfway through its six aerial contact tests as part of the program‘s “Milestone C” demonstrations. The tanker has now successfully demonstrated all three of its major fuel systems after being successfully topped up by another KC-10 aircraft. The February 16 test follows the refueling of a F-16 and F/A-18 over the last number of weeks, and keeps the program right on track for a low-rate initial production decision in May. The three remaining tests will involve probe-and-drogue testing with a US Navy AV-8B Harrier II jump jet, followed by boom refueling of a Fairchild Republic A-10 and Boeing C-17.

February 16/16: Testing of the refueling capabilities of the KC-46 tanker has hit another target with the successful refueling of an F/A-18 fighter. This follows its first ever refueling flight on January 24, where it successfully refueled an F-16. While the first test utilized the tanker’s refueling “boom,” a rigid, telescoping tube that an operator on the aircraft extends and inserts into a receptacle on the receiving aircraft for fuel transfer, the F/A-18 test was the program’s first usage of the KC-46’s hose and drogue system. Located on both the plane’s wing and centerline, the hose and drogue system enables the KC-46 to refuel smaller aircraft such as the F/A-18 with up to 400 gallons of fuel per minute. All tests are part of the program’s Milestone C demonstration before a low-rate initial production decision is made later this year.

February 11/16: An Israeli news source has reported that the US government has cleared the sale for two of Boeing’s newest KC-46A Pegasus aerial refueling tankers to Israel via the security assistance package. The Pentagon had originally put a pause on selling new aircraft to Israel, initially offering them older models. However, Israel has been insisting on the latest multi-mission tanker with the deal only approved upon the completion of the nuclear deal with Iran. The tanker sale could have become a point of contention for Tehran as its specs allow for a range of 7,350 miles with in-flight refueling. With an average price tag of $188 million each, the addition of Israeli system modifications will see each aircraft cost a quarter of a billion dollars.

January 26/16: The USAF and Boeing have reached an important milestone in the development of the KC-46 tanker after it successfully carried out a mid-air refueling of an F-16 jet. Prior to the refueling, both had checked a number of test points during the flight, with a successful demonstration necessary before Boeing can enter the plane into low rate production. The USAF has ordered 176 of the tankers to replace their KC-135 Stratotankers with the first eighteen of the tankers needed to be operational and ready to go by August 2017.

October 26/15: In a not unexpected decision, the Japanese Defence Ministry has opted to buy three KC-46A Pegasus tankers, marking the first international sale of the aircraft, which is still in development. The three new aircraft will bolster the JASDF’s fleet of four KC-767s, with each of the new aircraft thought to value $173 million. The KC-46As are slated for fielding in 2020, with the Boeing bid fending off competition from Airbus’ A330 MRTT. Elsewhere in the region, South Korea selected the Airbus design in July, signing a contract for four A330-MRTTs.

October 23/15: The KC-46A Pegasus tanker EMD-1 development aircraft has arrived at Edwards AFB for two weeks of work, including Ground Effects and Fuel Onload Fatigue tests. The latter involves learning more about how the aircraft operates when taking on fuel from another tanker, such as a KC-135 or KC-10, while Ground Effects testing collects data to incorporate into the aircraft’s simulator. The other development aircraft (EMD-2) deployed its refuelling boom for the first time in October, with EMD-1’s maiden flight in September.

October 12/15: The KC-46A Pegasus tanker has deployed its refuelling systems for the first time, including its boom, hose and drogue systems. The tanker performed its first flight in September, following a delay in August. Boeing is working towards an initial operating capability – which will see 18 KC-46A and support available for operations – by August 2017.

October 9/15: Two Air Force pilots have been cleared to fly the KC-46A Pegasus tanker, which performed its first test flight in late September. The pilots will be used for military certification of the aircraft, which is also required to pass FAA regulations. The Air Force is eventually scheduled to receive 179 KC-46A tankers under a contract awarded to Boeing in February 2011; the fixed-cost nature of the contract means that Boeing has been forced twice to absorb development costs, with the Air Force’s costs capped at $4.9 billion.

September 28/15: A fully-configured KC-46A tanker completed its first flight on Friday, a month later than scheduled owing to the chemical mix-up in early August. The program is a year behind schedule, the first flight is a rare positive sign for a program hit by cost spikes and schedule delays, with Boeing scheduled to deliver 18 aircraft in August 2017.

September 18/15: With Airbus walking away from the competition earlier this month, the Japanese Defense Ministry has reportedly selected the Boeing KC-46A to supply the country’s next generation refuelling tanker. Price negotiations are now scheduled, with the number of tankers the Defense Ministry plans to procure not yet determined. Boeing lost out in South Korea to the Airbus A330 MRTT in July.

September 17/15: The first KC-46A tanker is expected to fly on 25 September, following a year-long delay. The trouble-hit tanker has become a headache for Boeing, which has been absorbing increasing development costs through a firm-fixed contract signed in February 2011 which capped Air Force costs at $4.9 billion. The most recent setback resulted from an accident involving the insertion of chemicals into the aircraft’s refuelling system in early August, pushing the tanker’s schedule back by a month.

August 19/15: The mistake earlier this month involving the accidental insertion of chemicals into the fuel system of the KC-46A tanker has officially delayed the aircraft’s first flight by a month. The tanker will now see its first flight in late-September or early October, with the program’s original timetable calling for this flight to have taken place last year, with this pushed back to April and then again to late August, before this latest setback.

July 1/15: South Korea has selected Airbus’ bid to supply the country’s Air Force with four refueling tankers, beating competitors Israel Aerospace Industries and Boeing for the $1.07 billion program. The winning bid – the A330 MRTT – dashed Boeing’s hopes of securing its first export order for the KC-46A, which saw a strong dollar raise its bid price compared with a weakened euro for the European bid. The four tankers are scheduled for delivery in 2019.

June 10/15: NAVAIR has been slamming missiles into the side of its KC-46 tankers as part of Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division survivability testing at the Weapons Survivability Laboratory. The tests used – among other sensors – ten high-speed cameras to capture the impact of the test missiles, themselves specifically designed to inflict maximum possible damage to the aircraft. The Air Force intends to buy 179 of the tankers to replace approximately a third of the current tanker fleet, which consists principally of KC-135 Stratotankers.

April 24/15: Tinker Air Force Base (Oklahoma) has been named as one of four potential locations to base the Air Force’s fleet of new KC-46A refueling tankers, alongside Seymour-Johnson Air Force Base (North Carolina), Westover Air Reserve Base (Massachusetts) and Grissom Air Reserve Base (Indiana).

Jan 26/15: Flight test. Boeing conducted a flight test from Payne Field in Everett, Washington. The four-hour flight was uneventful, but well-documented.

Dec 10/14: spares. Boeing is awarded a not to exceed $84.5M undefinitized contract action modification (P00054) to previously awarded contract FA8625-11-C-6600 for 4,880 production support equipment items and 6 production spare parts. Work will be performed at Seattle, WA, and is expected to be completed by June 30, 2016. $9.5M in FY14 aircraft procurement funds and $32.2M in FY15 aircraft procurement funds are being obligated at the time of award.

Dec 03/14: wiring. Boeing Dennis Muilenburg told investors during a conference organized by Credit Suisse that wiring problems that had led to delays and charges (q.v. Sept 17/14) were now “resolved and closed out.”

Dec 01/14: Training. The USAF intends to finalize its Maintenance Training System (MTS) RFP in January 2015. The draft, released back in September, is found under solicitation IDN-KC-46-MTS.

Nov 24/14: Personnel. The Air Force Personnel center announces that the aircrew of 41 officers and enlisted members from the active force, Reserve and National Guard have been selected to staff initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E).

Nov 19/14: Schedule. The USAF publicly admits what KC-46A program watchers already know: Boeing is essentially out of schedule margin to deliver the 767-based KC-46As on time by 2017. The USAF is still describing the contract as “achievable,” but so many things have to go right that this isn’t a smart bet for outside observers. The USAF won’t really say anything else until disaster is certain, though, because the admission will make the service look bad (q.v. March 4/11). Sources: Reuters, “US Air Force sees challenges on Boeing KC-46 tanker program”.

Oct 16/14: Delays. Boeing finally admits that the KC-46A’s program schedule will have to be changed. They don’t know how many milestones will need adjustment, but they’re still holding to the idea that they’ll have 18 KC-46As delivered by August 2017.

Can they avoid proving Airbus’ March 4/11 prediction that Boeing would deliver late? It’s hard to see how Boeing’s on-time promise adds up now, given significant GAO and DOT&E concerns that the testing program as proposed is too compressed and can’t be executed (q.v. April 11/14, Sept 17/13). Boeing gets to try convincing Pentagon acquisition officials with an official submission early in 2015, and the USAF will then conduct its own “schedule risk assessment” to examine Boeing’s assumptions.

Most ways of speeding up programs involve spending more money, though that tends to have diminishing returns past a certain point. The program’s official cash reserve is expected to run dry in March 2015, but the USAF’s costs are capped, so it’s likely that Boeing will wind up spending more private funds on KC-46A development. Sources: Bloomberg, “Boeing Seeks Revised Schedule for U.S. Aerial Tanker”.

Workers saluted

Sept 17/14: Flight delay. First flight for the KC-46A is in question due to the same wiring bundle technical issues that forced Boeing to take an additional $272 million Q2/14 charge on the program (q.v. July 23/14). USAF spokesman Ed Gulick:

“We are disappointed with Boeing’s current KC-46 production challenges and their inability to meet internal production milestones, but we do not see anything of great concern and are confident they will overcome the issues,” said Gulick in a statement to Puget Sound Business Journal. “The KC-46 program’s technical and cost performance are on-track; Boeing has met every contractual requirement to date.”

The baseline 767 has about 70 miles of wiring in the design, and the need for redundancy in certain systems pushes the 767-2C to 120 miles, including shielding requirements and mandatory separation distances for safety reasons. The redesign will address these issues, but it sideswipes plans for concurrent installation in the 4 test aircraft currently under construction. Given the program’s known issue with compressed test schedules (q.v. April 11/14), they had better be ready by April 2015. Sources: Aviation Week, “First Flight for KC-46 Tanker Platform Slips Further” | Puget Sound Business Journal, “Air Force ‘disappointed’ in Boeing tanker delays; issues cost Boeing millions”.

Sept 15/14: Training. The USAF issues a Draft Request for Proposal (DRFP) for the KC-46 Maintenance Training System (MTS) Program. It consists of various specific component trainers, e-learning materials, and Training System Support Center build-outs. Sources: FBO.gov, “KC-46 Maintenance Training System, Solicitation Number: IDN-KC-46-MTS”.

July 23/14: Cost. During a Q2 analyst conference call, Boeing CEO Jim McNerney says that they’re absorbing a $272 million unexpected charge related to problems with KC-767 wiring harnesses:

“We bid the EMD (engineering manufacturing and development) contract for the tanker aggressively, with zero margin, with planned profitability in the production phase. Despite our disappointment in encountering these challenges, the issues are well understood, and no new technology is needed to solve them…. We have a wet fuel lab, a lighting lab, those have all been put in place to de-risk the program. We have a wet lab where we are running fuel through pumps and valves to validate that on the ground.”

Sources: Boeing, “Boeing Reports Second-Quarter Results and Raises 2014 EPS Guidance” | Puget Sound Business Journal, “Boeing: We can fix Air Force tanker problems without new technology”.

July 14/14: Cost. The KC-46A development phase could end up costing Boeing more than expected. That may concern Boeing executives, but the USAF won’t pay any more and doesn’t care:

“Defense Undersecretary Frank Kendall told reporters late on Sunday that Boeing was performing “satisfactorily” on the KC-46 tanker program, but several events – including water damage caused by a sprinkler malfunction at the company’s Everett, Washington plant – meant costs were higher than expected.”

Boeing says that they’ll be able to cut costs with their testing approach. We’ll see. Sources: Reuters, “AIRSHOW-Boeing may face higher than expected costs on KC-46 tanker”.

June 30/14: South Korea. Boeing confirms that they’ve formally offered South Korea the KC-46A tanker being developed for the USAF, rather than the KC-767 model that’s already in service with Japan and Italy. They tout the KC-46A’s quick-conversion main deck cargo floor, but in the face of North Korea’s WMD arsenal, and ability to target ROKAF bases with missiles, they make a point of mentioning that:

“Unique among tankers, the KC-46 can operate in chemical, biological and nuclear conditions, features cockpit armor for protection from small arms fire, and can also operate from a large variety of smaller airfields and forward-deployed austere bases.”

Sources: Boeing, “Boeing Offers Next-Generation KC-46 Tanker in Republic of Korea Competition”.

June 4/14: Infrastructure. The Ross Group Construction Corp. in Tulsa, OK wins a $17.5 million firm-fixed-price contract with options, to built the KC-46A Fuselage Trainer Flight Training Center and the Fuselage Trainer at Altus AF, OK. Option 4 for sidewalks and landscaping, and Option 5 for additional concrete parking stalls, are exercised at time of contract award. Altus AFB was recently chosen as the KC-46A’s main training base (q.v. April 23/14), and already operates in that capacity for the KC-135 fleet.

The estimated completion date is Oct 5/15. Bids were solicited via the Internet, with 7 received by the US Army Corps of Engineers in Tulsa, OK (W912BV-14-C-0015).

May 29/14: Infrastructure. MEB General Contractors in Chesapeake, VA wins an $8.4 million firm-fixed-price contract for construction services to alter the KC-46A apron fuels distribution system and supporting facilities at McConnell AFB, KC, and to relocate fuel vents/valves at the 3-bay hangar and 2-bay hangars.

All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2014 military construction budgets. Work will take place at McConnell AFB (KC-46A MOB1), with an estimated completion date of Dec 3/15. Bids were solicited via the Internet, with 2 received. The US Army Corps of Engineers in Kansas City, MO manages the contract (W912DQ-14-C-4010).

Flight Simulator

April 23/14: Basing. The Pentagon announces that McConnell AFB, KS will be is the KC-46A’s active duty-led MOB1 Pegasus main operating base. McConnell won because swapping in 36 KC-46As for 44 KC-135s involved the lowest military construction costs, and the base is located in a high-demand area. McConnell was also seen as “an ideal central location for the new KC-46A Regional Maintenance Training Center.” It beat Fairchild AFB, WA (2 KC-135 Sqns), Grand Forks AFB, ND (1 KC-135 Sqn), and Altus AFB, OK, all of whom will continue to operate KC-135s.

By default, Altus AFB, OK will continue in its FTU tanker training role, which it already performs for the KC-135. Advantages to keeping it in a training role include co-location with both tanker and heavy receiver aircraft for training purposes, and “considerably fewer” new construction requirements vs. McConnell. Altus will begin receiving KC-46A planes in 2016.

The Air National Guard MOB2 base (q.v. Jan 9/13) remains undecided, and will be picked in summer 2014. It will be 1 of Forbes Air Guard Station, KS (whose chances have probably dropped); Joint-Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, NJ; Pease Air Guard Station, NH; Pittsburgh International Airport Air Guard Station, PA; and Rickenbacker Air Guard Station, OH. The winner will begin receiving planes in 2018. Sources: Pentagon, “Air Force Announces Bases to House New Tanker Refueling Aircraft”.

Basing: MOB1 & FTU picked

April 11/14: GAO Report. The US GAO tables “KC-46 Tanker Aircraft: Program Generally on Track, but Upcoming Schedule Remains Challenging“. Flight testing is scheduled to begin in June 2014 for the 767-2C, and in January 2015 for the KC-46, but it will be a bit of a squeeze making that:

“The KC-46 program has made good progress to date—acquisition costs have remained relatively stable, high-level schedule and performance goals have been met, the critical design review was successfully completed, and the contractor is building development aircraft. The next 12 months will be challenging as the program must accomplish a significant amount of work and the margin for error is small. For example, the program is scheduled to complete software integration and the first test flights of the 767-2C and KC-46. The remaining software development and integration work is mostly focused on military software and systems and is expected to be more difficult relative to the prior work completed [which is generally on schedule]. The program’s test activities continue to be a concern due to its aggressive test schedule. Detailed test plans must be completed and the program must maintain an unusually high test pace to meet this schedule. Perhaps more importantly, agencies will have to coordinate to concurrently complete multiple air worthiness certifications. While efficient, this approach presents significant risk to the program. The program office must also finalize agreements now in progress to ensure that receiver aircraft are available when and where they are needed to support flight tests.”

The GAO and the Pentagon’s DOT&E group continue to believe that Initial Operation Test & Evaluation should be pushed back 6-12 months, in order to train aircrew and maintenance personnel and verify maintenance procedures. The USAF isn’t convinced yet, and knows that this move would delay the entire project for a similar period. Furthermore, the testing schedule itself is so concurrent that any problems found during test are almost certain to create delays to the program as a whole. One technical area that could still bite them involves “lingering instability in…. the centerline drogue system and wing aerial refueling pod,” but Boeing hopes to fix that before flight testing begins.

Finally, as of December 2013, the original $354 million program reserve budget has just $75 million (21.1%) left, leaving the program at risk of running out before testing begins. As long as the USAF doesn’t change the design, however, that’s Boeing’s problem.

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 KC-46 Tanker program comes in for praise in a couple of areas. One has to do with the “should-cost” method for the final product, which will reportedly save $6.8 billion over the total program, with $6.4 billion listed as already realized. The other area that drew praise was the program’s use of all 4 best practices for development programs: (1) identifying key product characteristics; (2) identifying critical manufacturing processes; (3) conducting producibility assessments to identify manufacturing risks; and (4) completing failure modes and effects analysis to identify potential failures and early design fixes. Boeing should be motivated to do all that, because their contract makes them fully responsible for any fixes required in early production aircraft.

Costs remain almost identical to initial estimates, so far. The bad news is that test boom production has been delayed by almost a year due to design changes and late parts, but Boeing hopes to have it ready in time for initial KC-46A flight testing in January 2015.

March 4-11/14: FY15 Budget. The US military slowly files its budget documents, detailing planned spending from FY 2014 – 2019. The KC-46A program’s revised totals are reflected in the article’s charts, and the USAF has worked hard to protect the program. What’s interesting is the program’s schedule. It hasn’t been changed officially, but Air Mobility Command isn’t giving an official Initial Operational Capability date.

Previous years had listed budgets for spares, but those have effectively been revised. A contractor service agreement for the initial planes will see also spares bought as part of the procurement budgets, until the USAF takes over all maintenance itself.

Jan 16/14: Industrial. Boeing has begun assembling the 4th and final KC-46A test aircraft, and says that the program remains on track to deliver the initial 18 tankers to the Air Force by 2017. According to the current schedule, the 1st flight of a KC-46 test aircraft will take place at mid-2014 without its aerial refueling systems, followed by the first flight of a full KC-46A tanker in early 2015.

The first delivery of a production aircraft to the Air Force is planned for early 2016, but of course that depends on things going well during testing. Official reports to date have been skeptical, so no matter how things turn out, someone is about to be proved wrong. Sources: Boeing, “Boeing Starts Assembly of Final KC-46A Test Aircraft”.

Nov 5/13: Infrastructure. URS Group Inc. in Mobile, AL receives a $13 million firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery contract for architect-engineering services to support USAF KC-46 beddown in the continental United States. The 767 is closer in size to the KC-135, which means that it needs fewer infrastructure changes than the A330/ KC-45.

There will still be facilities and features to build (q.v. FBO.gov, Oct 2/13). Estimated completion date is Nov 14/18, with work location and funding determined with each order. Bids were solicited via the internet, with 57 received by the Army Corps of Engineers in Mobile, AL (W91278-14-D-003).

Oct 22/13: Industrial. Boeing announces that assembly of the 3rd aircraft and 2nd boom are underway. They sound confident that manufacturing of the initial batch of 4 aircraft remains on track to be completed by Q3 2014.

This would be good news for their USAF client, and would also help the company make its case in South Korea (q.v. Aug 7/13), where parliament is about to review whether to proceed with a competition for 4 tankers to be delivered in 2017-19. Sources: Boeing, Oct 22/13 release.

Oct 2013: Basing. Public hearings scheduled at the end of the month in Kansas and Oklahoma are postponed on October 11 because of furloughs at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) during the government shutdown. As of Oct 23, a new date for the hearings had not yet been released. Meanwhile the Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC) and the US Army Corps of Engineers are preparing infrastructure work: AFCEC | Industry Day | Sources Sought.

KC-46A and B-2
(click to view full)

Sept 17/13: Testing. KC-46A program executive Gen. John Thompson offers a bit of clarity regarding testing plans. The first 4 planes will be split between the commercial 767-2C baseline, which is set to fly in January 2014, and 2 fully converted KC-46A tankers, which won’t fly until June 2015. Civil certification is an important precursor to the military supplemental certification (q.v. May 31/13), and the 767-2Cs will eventually become KC-46As to support initial operational test and evaluation.

Thompson sounds very confident about the intensive testing schedule, but then, he needs to. Past GAO and DOT&E reports have flagged it as a program risk (q.v. Jan 17/13, Feb 27/13), and have even called the test plan “not executable” (Jan 17/12). Sources: NDIA Magazine, “Newly Designed KC-46 Aerial Refueling Tanker to Undergo Strenuous Testing”.

Aug 7/13: South Korea. Yonhap reports that South Korea may acquire 4 aerial refueling tankers by 2019. It seems to be at the discussion level rather than a firm decision. If it proceeds, Boeing’s KC-46A and Airbus Military’s A330 MRTT are seen as the logical contenders, and the 2019 date makes the KC-767 a viable possibility.

The A330’s challenge is that, unlike Australia, South Korea’s zone of action doesn’t really need the A330’s range and size. That will make the extra expense problematic. It’s also worth noting that South Korea already has significant defense relationships with Israel’s IAI. That could create an opening for IAI’s much cheaper K-767 MMTT option, which is also on offer to Singapore. Sources: Yonhap News, “Air Force to acquire 4 aerial refueling tankers by 2019”.

July 3/13: Sub-contractors. Fleet Canada Inc. in Fort Erie, ON receives its 1st order from Boeing, for sub-assemblies of the KC-46A Camera and Boom Fairings. The contract is issued as part of Boeing’s industrial offset requirements for various Canadian defense buys, including the C-17A airlifter and CH-47F Chinook helicopter. Fleet Canada.

June 26/13: production. Boeing announces that production of the first aircraft has begun. The USAF’s Critical Design Review (CDR) will start in July 2013, as announced last year. Beyond that, the company is forecasting the following milestones:

• First aircraft assembly: Nov. 2013-January 2014
  
• First flight: 2015
  
• First delivery: 2016
  
• Delivery of the first 18 aircraft by August 2017

June 16/13: Exports. Boeing told reporters that Boeing is engaged in talks with several export prospects in Asia and the Middle East, for a total of 20 potential units. The company’s defense and civilian arms are working together to be able to make the aircraft available for sales abroad by 2017. Bloomberg | DoD Buzz.

May 31/13: Certification process. Boeing will seek FAA certification in 2 phases: first there is one for the commercial 767-2C aircraft, then a supplemental one for the military modifications to the commercial aircraft.

In March 2012, the GAOlisted the fact that Boeing planned to pursue some parts of these 2 certifications in parallel as a risk factor. John Howitt, the program deputy manager, told AIN that this is addressed with joint technical planning and work, even though the 2 certifications are separate from an administrative perspective. Sources: AIN.

May 1/13: Training. Berkshire Hathaway company FlightSafety Services Corp. in Centennial, CO wins a $78.4 million fixed-price-incentive-firm and firm-fixed-price contract to design, develop, and build the KC-46 aircrew training system, including delivery of courseware and simulator-based training systems. FlightSafety will design and manufacture the KC-46, Boom Operator, and Part Task Trainers at its 375,000 square foot simulation facility in Oklahoma; the first device is scheduled for delivery in February 2016.

FlightSafety is no newcomer to this role, with operations at 15 U.S. Military bases that include Flight School XXI; Training systems for the KC-10 Extender, C-5 Galaxy, C-17 Globemaster, AFSOC’s HC-130P Combat King, and the V-22 Osprey tiltrotors; and Contractor Logistics Support for the T-6 JPATS and T- 37/38 trainers. The KC-46A contract pays $1 million initially, with the rest to be paid over time, including additional production and operations options that could raise its value beyond $78.4 million. Warren Buffett will be glad to hear that.

Work will be performed at Broken Arrow, OK and St. Louis, MO and is expected to be complete by 2026 if all options are exercised. This award is the result of a competitive acquisition, with 5 offers received by USAF Life Cycle Management Center/WNSK’s Simulators Division (FA8621-13-C-6247). See also USAF | FlightSafety International.

April 17/13: Sub-contractors. ITT Exelis announces a contract from Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN) to supply its anti-jam N79 CRPA (Controlled Reception Pattern Antenna) GPS antennas, for use with Raytheon Navshield and Advanced Digital Antenna Production equipment on the KC-46A. Work will be performed in Bohemia, NY.

April 13/13: Restructure at peril. USAF AMC commander Gen. Paul J. Selva reiterates the KC-46A’s #1 priority status for the Air Force, and warns about the effects of restructuring this contract:

“…because we have a firm fixed-price contract for the development of that airplane, if we allow ourselves to get into the position where we don’t have the funds to pay for the initial development of the airplane, that contract gets reopened…. We’ll pay more…”

Probably. Boeing bid hundreds of millions of dollars below development cost to win KC-X, but 2 years into the contract, the US military’s ability to switch to Airbus is more limited. They’d have to delay their #1 priority program, while creating a lot of opposition in Congress. There are creative ways to charge more in total, and Boeing would be well placed to negotiate a few in any restructuring.

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 KC-X, it’s pretty much steady as she goes, hewing more or less to previous plans.

Total reductions from FY 2014-2017 are around $182 million compared to FY 2013 plans, but a fixed-price contract is going to have to reach the agreed total regardless. Current budgets show just $3.173 billion allocated for RDT&E from FY 2011 – 2018, but the USAF is near-certain to owe $4.7 billion for the EMD phase.

April 7-10/13: Basing. As the USAF prepares to make decisions about where to base its KC-46s, communities are competing. The catch is that there are really 2 initial competitions, and they’re mutually exclusive (q.v. Jan 9/13 entry). Grand Forks Herald | Lawton Constitution | Wichita Eagle.

Feb 27/13: GAO Report. The GAO’s annual in-depth look at the KC-46 program is out. The good news is that after 28% ($1.4 billion) in development work, the program costs and schedule haven’t changed much. The CDR is still scheduled for July 2013, albeit with some risks. The USAF and Boeing are evaluated as managing the project well, and have added the ability to track progress toward key aircraft performance goals.

Concerns fall into 3 areas: financial reserves, weight, and software. The GAO is one of several agencies that think flight testing and certification will need to take about 6 months longer, and the boom refueling system is changing a bit, but those are secondary risks right now.

The development contract set aside about 7% ($354 million) in reserves, and 2 years into a 7-year development program, 79.6% of those reserves have been spent, leaving less than $72 million to cover an expected $3.5 billion in work. Some of the issues driving this spending aren’t resolved yet. As we explained above, the government’s costs won’t change if this problem isn’t solved, but GAO is worried about technical problems growing and creating schedule issues.

Projected weight is now expected to exceed the KC-46’s target weight, and each pound above target reduces fuel payload by 1 pound. Extra weight could also affect operating requirements for takeoff, mission radius, and landing. The program has a mitigation strategy in place, and further weight reduction initiatives can create tradeoffs in areas like durability and cost.

Software is a good news/bad news story. They’ve cut total software development by 40%, but code reuse will be less than planned (52% vs. 76%), which means new and modified software has doubled to 48% from 24%. That means more work overall and more testing, though program officials are claiming that schedules won’t be affected.

Feb 22/13: KC-135Rs retiring. After more than 50 years of service and 22,500 flying hours, the 1st operational re-engined KC-135R Stratotanker retires from service, and heads to AMARG’s “boneyard” at Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ. KC-135R #61-0312 first flew as a KC-135A on Aug 14/62, and was re-engined into a KC-135R on June 27/85.

This plane’s retirement is budget-driven, as 1 of the 16 scheduled KC-135 retirements in FY 2013. On the other hand, the KC-135 Program Office at Tinker AFB, OK used the Fleet Health Analysis Tool to pick the aircraft. Joey Dauzat, 97th Maintenance Directorate KC-135R sortie generation flight chief, discussed KC-135 usage patterns, which will become much more relevant if something happens to the KC-X program:

“[KC-135Rs] assigned to Altus Air Force Base fly approximately 1,820 sorties per fiscal year, which averages out to 91 sorties per aircraft…. Flight hours are approximately 7,030 hours per fiscal year, which averages out to 351 flight hours per aircraft. All sorties are required to have [refueling booms] on them, so every sortie flown is a boomer training sortie.”

Feb 2/13: A USAF presentation to Congress says that if sequestration takes effect, the KC-46A program may need to be restructured, along with the F-35 fighter and MQ-9 Reaper Block 5. Flight International.

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 USAF has bought 2 767-200s for live fire testing, and is planning the survivability assessment, including LAIRCM tests. They do have one major concern:

“The ALR-69A RWR [radar warning receiver] was selected as Contractor Furnished Equipment by Boeing; however, integration and performance on the KC-46A are high risk. DOT&E recently completed an assessment of the ALR-69A RWR on the C-130H1 and assessed it as not effective, but suitable, in a separate classified report dated October 22, 2012. Not only do these effectiveness problems require correction, but the system is required to improve its geo-location capabilities as compared to the demonstrated C-130J capability.”

DOT&E also has some technical issues with the overall testing plan. The 750 hours of operational testing over 5.5 months can establish effectiveness, but getting 76% confidence of suitability (maintainability) would need 1,250 hours. This was also pointed out in last year’s report, and it will need to be worked out one way or another.

Jan 9/13: Basing. The USAF announces KC-46A initial basing candidates, while stressing that losing bases will continue to operate KC-135s. The USAF doesn’t mention this, but the FTU training and MOB1 operating base awards are mutually exclusive: you can win one, but not both. There’s no overlap at all with the ANG’s MOB2 locations, so those have to be separate. Candidates include:

Formal Training Unit: Altus AFB, OK vs. McConnell AFB, KS. Altus already performs the FTU role for the KC-135. Winner begins receiving planes in 2016.

Active Duty Main Operating Base (MOB 1): One of Altus AFB, OK (KC-135 FTU); Fairchild AFB, WA (2 KC-135 squadrons resident); Grand Forks AFB, ND (1 KC-135 squadron resident), and McConnell AFB, KS (4 KC-135 squadrons resident). Winner begins receiving planes in 2016.

Air National Guard MOB 2: One of Forbes Air Guard Station, KS; Joint-Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, NJ, Pease Air Guard Station, NH; Pittsburgh International Airport Air Guard Station, PA; and Rickenbacker Air Guard Station, OH. Winner begins receiving planes in 2018.

Oct 16/12: Industrial. Boeing opens the KC-46 Boom Assembly Center on schedule at Boeing Field in Seattle, WA. Boom assembly marks the program’s shift to production from design activities, and the 1st fly-by-wire boom is scheduled to enter testing during Q3 2013 at Boeing Field’s System Integration Labs. Boeing.

‘Paper airplane’ risks?
(click to view full)

Sept 12/12: Industrial. Boeing opens System Integration Lab 0 at Boeing Field, 3 weeks ahead of schedule. SIL 0 will be used to test commercial avionics and software for integration into the KC-46A Tanker. Another 3 SILs will open at Boeing Field and a 5th will open in Everett, WA by the end of 2013.

Boeing Field is also slated to house the program’s Boom Assembly Center, and the Finishing Center. The Finishing Center is scheduled to open in late 2013, and will be used to install military hardware and software onto the commercial 767-2C airframe. Boeing.

July 27/12: Sub-contractors. Eaton Corp. announces a supplementary contract from Boeing, which adds the aerial refueling pump system, the aerial refueling boom nozzle, and various airframe and aerial refueling system valves and fuel/ actuation components. See also June 18/11 entry.

June 13/12: Industrial. Boeing VP and KC-46 program manager Maureen Dougherty talks about moves Boeing is making since the announcement that it was closing the Wichita, KS facility. That closure creates added risk, but Boeing is sticking to its estimates and trying to offset it.

Three systems integration laboratories (SILs) will be located at Boeing Field in the southern part of Seattle, WA, but they won’t be operational until fall 2012. Flight testing, a full lab replica of the entire KC-46 fuel architecture, and the finishing center’s 2 workstations will also be there. They’ve also begun wind tunnel testing with Cobham regarding the shape of the plane’s refueling pods, a move that underlines the developmental nature of key items. Aviation Week.

May 14/12: Initial bases. The USAF decides that the KC-46A’s formal training unit (FTU) and first main operating base (MOB 1) will be led by active duty units, while MOB 2 will be led by an Air National Guard (ANG) unit. That may be one way to ease the transition. Many ANG pilots fly for commercial carriers, and many of those carriers already operate 767s.

Exact basing decisions will be based on location, capacity, environmental issues, and cost. The USAF plans to table a preferred base and shortlist for the active-duty FTU and MOB 1 in December 2012, so the environmental impact grind can begin and the base can begin receiving aircraft in FY 2016. The ANG-led MOB 2 is expected to get its preferred base and shortlist in spring 2013, and receive aircraft in FY 2018. USAF.

May 8/12: Sub-contractors. BAE Systems announces a contract from Boeing to develop and build the KC-46A’s Actuator Control Unit (ACU), which processes commands to control the aerial refueling boom.

Engineering and development work on the program will be conducted in Endicott, NY with manufacturing at the BAE Systems facility in Ft. Wayne, IN.

March 27/12: Engine contract. Boeing formally signs a contract with Pratt & Whitney’s Military Engines division for up to 368 PW4062 engines (179 planes + 10 spares). It’s a private sub-contract, however, and the parties won’t discuss its value. Suffice to say that the cost of modern jet engines makes this a 10-figure contract, once all engines are ordered.

The 62,000 pound thrust PW4062 is the highest thrust model in Pratt & Whitney’s PW4000-94″ commercial engine family, which powers MD-11, early-model 747, and 767 aircraft. It’s offered for commercial freighter and military tanker applications. Pratt & Whitney.

March 26/12: GAO Report. The US GAO audit office releases report #GAO-12-366, “KC-46 Tanker Aircraft: Acquisition Plans Have Good Features but Contain Schedule Risk.” It cites “broad agreement that KC-46 schedule risk is a concern,” and especially cites overlap among development and production work. The USAF disagrees, citing FAA certification for the First Flight of the baseline 767-2C in June 2014, and promising 60% of FAA certification and military developmental flight testing before Milestone C production approval in August 2015. On the other hand, the GAO has usually been right about these risks, and the USAF has been wrong – most recently in the F-35 program.

Key information has been fed into other parts of this article, but this excerpt deserves especial attention:

“According to program officials, a change in system requirements, although unlikely… could increase the Air Force’s exposure to additional costs… the biggest risk to the KC-46 program is the Department’s ability to minimize changes to the contract… DOD has demonstrated limited ability to maintain stable requirements and limit changes to program technical baselines on previous complex weapon system programs, and that minimizing such change is essential to the success of the KC-46… any engineering or contract changes affecting system requirements or having the potential to impact program cost, schedule, and performance baselines must be approved by the Air Force Service Acquisition Executive in consultation with the Secretary and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force… Program officials maintain that… pricing will likely stay intact as long as the contract is not opened to negotiate modifications. […]

Boeing has to correct any deficiencies in the KC-46 discovered during the development program… on the four development test aircraft and all production aircraft… at no additional cost to the government. In addition, there is a special contract provision that requires each aircraft to demonstrate a certain fuel usage rate before the government accepts the aircraft. If any aircraft burn fuel above this rate, Boeing is required to propose a corrective action at no cost… if Boeing cannot meet the required usage rates, there are contract provisions allowing for a decrease in the amount paid to Boeing.”

March 7/12: Air Mobility Command chief General Raymond Johns at a House Armed Services Committee hearing:

“We continue to execute the program to cost and schedule baselines we established, along with Boeing.”

A Preliminary Design Review is scheduled later this month. Bloomberg.

March 7/12: Basing plans. From the USAF’s FY 2013 Force Structure Changes [PDF]:

The Air Force is currently developing requirements for the first two KC-46 bases, and expects to approve basing criteria in Spring 2012, identify candidate installations in Summer 2012, select preferred and reasonable alternatives by the end of calendar year 2012, and make final decisions in 2013.”

The Air Force expects aircraft deliveries to these first 2 bases in FY16. The next round of basing decisions is planned for FY14 at the earliest.

Feb 13/12: RDT&E budget. The Air Force asks for $1.8 billion in RTDE funds for fiscal year 2013 as part of the President Budget. This would be the peak of planned research and development spending on the program over 2011-2017, at 27% of the total. Air Force budget justification [large PDF].

Air Mobility Command (AMC/CC) has not yet determined an Initial Operational Capability (IOC) date, while Full Operational Capability (FOC) is expected approximately 24 months after IOC. The Air Force schedule as of December 2011 plans to reach Milestone C in Q4 FY15. These plans have been incorporated into the program briefing, above. See next entry below on the various risk assessments made about that schedule.

Jan 17/12: DOT&E doubters. When Airbus lost the contract, they placed 2 markers. One was that Boeing couldn’t deliver to their claimed price, and that has proven true (vid. Nov 27/11 entry), though their bid remains lower than Airbus. The other was that Boeing wouldn’t be able to make the delivery schedule, and the US Defense Department’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation’s FY 2011 Report adds weight to that belief. The report backs their position up with hard numbers, and bluntly concludes that “the KC-46 test program is not executable.”

To support that claim, DOT&E notes that military testing with past large aircraft averages under 30 flight hours per plane, per month. The Boeing/USAF TEMP schedule plans 42 FHPM, for flights that are “more specialized, higher risk, and more resource-intensive than FAA certification.” Worse, their planned 15% re-fly rate for military test items is even farther off; the 737-derivative P-8A, which is considered to be a successful program, has a current re-fly rate of 45%. Correcting to past averages adds 4 months to the 17-month testing schedule. DOT&E believes that even then, the 750 operational flight test hours aren’t enough, and 1,250 would be more realistic. That takes the testing schedule from 21 to 25 months.

Other serious omissions cited include no time for correction of discrepancies and/or deficiencies discovered during developmental testing, and no provision for the refueling boom control algorithm changes and/or procedural modifications that have been required for other new aerial refuelers. The report doesn’t say so, but the net takeaway is that Boeing is very likely to be late with its promised 2017 delivery. The USAF responded to Gannett’s Air Force Times with partial disagreement:

“The Air Force respects the opinions of the Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation, but does not agree with its assessment that the KC-46 test program is ‘not executable’… The Air Force does acknowledge that Boeing’s overall KC-46 program schedule is considered medium risk, in part due to its aggressive flight-test schedule.”

Nov 27/11: EMD Overage rises again? Maybe. Media reports tout a figure of $500 million over maximum cost, but a breakdown says otherwise. The Pentagon’s latest Selected Acquisition Report reportedly gives a program manager’s estimate of $5.3 billion, which would actually be $1.2 billion over the KC-X EMD phase’s original target cost. Up to $4.9 billion, however, the government pays $600 million more, and Boeing pays $400 million. Costs above that are all Boeing’s responsibility. Boeing’s current estimate is $5.1 billion, which would raise its liability to $600 million (400 + all 200 overage). If the government program manager is right, Boeing’s liability rises to $800 million (400 + all 400 overage), while its overall bid cost to the US government for development plus production remains below Airbus’.

The SAR report in question appears to be an advance copy, as there has been no public release yet. It allegedly says that KC-46A engineering, manufacturing and development are “progressing well with no significant technical issues.” Given the figures above, that must be a relief to Boeing’s management. As for the Pentagon, it doesn’t have to care which EMD Phase figure is correct, since their costs are now known: $4.5 billion ($3.9 billion + $600 million). Above $4.9 billion total split costs, they aren’t paying for anything, and the estimate spread shows that there’s almost no chance of coming in under $4.9 billion. Bloomberg News.

KC-X options
(click to view full)

Sept 13/11: Sub-contractors. AmSafe Industries, Inc. announces that it will supply 9g-rated barrier nets, and stationary and movable smoke barriers, specifically designed for the USA’s new KC-46A 767 aerial tankers. AmSafe is a global leader in this sort of technology; they’re also known as the makers of Tarian cloth armor that can stop enemy rockets.

Deliveries of the KC-46A internal barrier systems are expected to begin in 2015, and could be worth more than $45 million for all 179 planned aircraft.

Sept 13/11: Sub-contractors. BAE Systems’ Attendant Control Panel (ACP) for Boeing’s new civilian 737 interior will be migrating to the KC-46A. The touch-screen, networkable panel is designed to control a variety of interior functions such as lighting, drinking water, and waste tanks. Prices were not revealed. Work on the KC-46A tanker touch-screen cabin control systems will be conducted in Johnson City, NY, and Fort Wayne, IN. BAE Systems.

September 2011: Sub-contractors. Vol. 16, #4 [PDF] of Rockwell Collins’ internal Horizons magazine, whose “Refueling Innovation” article discusses their development of the KC-46A’s flight controls and refueling systems.

The stereoscopic Remote Vision System, which will display the refueling operation on both standard and 3-D screens, apparently drew on internal experience that included the Mars Rover, UAVs, and a remotely-operated bomb-disposal robot. Overall, the article cites ruggedization of components, and information fusion from the wide array of sensors and datalinks, as the 2 key engineering challenges. TSAS, which emerged from the latter challenge, is even being tested on Android OS smartphones and tablet computers.

Aug 24/11: IBR. The U.S. Air Force completes an interim baseline review (IBR) for the KC-46A.

IBRs provide mutual understanding of risks inherent in contractors’ performance plans and management systems, and outline what resources are needed to achieve program goals. This IBR had to be complete within 7 months of contract award, which would be Sept 24/11. The next major milestone is the Critical Design Review, which is scheduled to happen by September 2013. Aviation Week.

July 14/11: Politics. Sen. John McCain [R-AZ], the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, sends a letter to the Pentagon that calls Boeing’s KC-X EMD bid “completely unacceptable”. His issue is that any increases between KC-X’s EMD target cost (revealed as $3.9 billion), and the $4.9 billion ceiling cost are split between Boeing (40%) and the USAF (60%). The net result is that Boeing’s lowball bid costs taxpayers an extra $600 million beyond their bid, and Boeing itself $700 million. Even that reported bid price still leaves Boeing lower than Airbus’ overall price, however, which was $2 billion higher for the combined EMD phase and subsequent production of 13 initial jets.

On the other hand, the practice of lowballing bids in order to secure contracts, then raising the real costs afterward, is correctly seen as toxic. The result is grave difficulty in budget planning, as other programs are sacrificed or compromised in order to pay for widespread overcharges.

In fairness to Boeing, it’s worth going back to the original contract bids. Reports right after the February 2011 award had EADS Airbus bidding $3.5 billion for the EMD phase, while Boeing had bid $4.4 billion for the EMD phase alone. That means the USAF knew of about $500 million beyond its target costs from the outset, for an aircraft that had not been fielded or tested yet, and involved more development work than EADS’ offering. That means added risk of future increases, but the swiftness of these cost revisions strongly suggests that they were known beforehand. Actual costs for Boeing’s EMD phase are currently $5.2 billion, and the amount of the cost breach tends to lower confidence in Boeing’s ability to meet the contract schedule, a point that was also raised by Airbus after the award.

The question is whether Sen. McCain’s opposition will have any effect at this point in time. That may seem unlikely, but then, it also seemed unlikely when he opposed the original KC-767 lease deal post-9/11. McCain release | Bloomberg.

June 24/11: Costs. Bloomberg reports that Boeing’s KC-X bid is going to be $300 million over the KC-X cost ceiling, which it reveals as $4.9 billion. Because it’s a fixed-price contract, Boeing is solely responsible for those extra costs.

According to Bloomberg, a USAF statement from Lt. Col. Jack Miller said that the USAF was told after the contract award that: “it proposed a ceiling price that is less than its actual projected cost to execute the contract… There is no legal barrier that prohibits pursuing a below-cost proposal strategy and Boeing’s met all rules.”

Recall that the Feb 24/11 contract award said only that Boeing’s Engineering & Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase contract was “over $3.5 billion.” Subsequent reports had Boeing’s EMD phase bid at $4.4 billion, vs. EADS Airbus’ $3.5 billion. On the other hand, the total bids for EMD + 4 planes, and another 14 planes of initial production, was reportedly $20.6 billion for Boeing, vs. $22.6 billion for Airbus – who called Boeing’s bid an “extreme lowball.” If Bloomberg’s report is true, we now have an idea what Boeing was willing to pay, in order to prevent Airbus from setting up a production line in America, and to keep the 767 alive as a military export and commercial option.

June 22/11: After months of refusing to divulge details, Boeing announces major suppliers for its KC-46A team, and confirms the tanker’s fuel capacity at 212,000 pounds, with an offload rate of 1,200 gallons per minute. The KC-46 Tanker team will include more than 800 suppliers in more than 40 states and support approximately 50,000 total U.S. jobs. Major suppliers have been added to the article’s industrial teams section.

June 19/11: Sub-contractors. Raytheon announces orders from Boeing supply digital radar warning receivers, and digital anti-jam GPS receivers, for the KC-46 tanker. Its AN/ALR-69A is an all-digital radar warning receiver designed to work with both fighters and large aircraft, and its technical architecture will speed up signal identification amidst cluttered environments.

The digital anti-jam GPS receiver, with its multielement controlled reception pattern antenna, integrates both reception and high performance digital anti-jam capabilities into a single product.

June 18/11: Sub-contractors. Eaton Corp. announces a Memorandum of Agreement with Boeing to supply hydraulic and fuel distribution subcomponents, cargo door electro-mechanical actuation systems, hydraulic system components, electrical sensing and control devices, and cockpit controls over the life of the KC-46A program.

June 7/11: KC-46A details emerge. Flight International reveals more about the KC-46A, while outlining what we still don’t know, 3 months after one of the largest contracts in USAF history.

For starters, it’s based on a cargo variant. At over 188,000 kg/ 414,470 pounds, the 767-2C’s maximum takeoff weight is about 20,000 pounds heavier than the 767-200ER, making it even heavier than the stretched 767-300ER that Boeing rejected for Round 1. The 2C is slightly stretched itself, at 6.5 feet longer than the 200ER, with a cargo floor and door. Beyond this, the winglets, 787-based cockpit large display system, auxiliary fuel tanks and provisions for tanker systems, and more powerful Pratt & Whitney 4062 turbofans are all known changes from the 200ER.

To find out if Boeing has made any other changes from the basic 767-200ER, outsiders will reportedly have to wait until Boeing completes a USAF system requirements review, and an integrated baseline review.

May 6/11: Sub-contractors. Marshall Aerospace announces that they had been picked in 2010 to supply the KC-46A’s integrated Body Fuel Tanks, and that Boeing’s win has resulted in an initial contract for the design, certification and manufacture of an initial batch of development tanks. They expect production orders for “more than 650” tanks to follow over a 15 year period, in order to equip the KC-X program’s 179 aircraft, with a total value exceeding GBP 100 million.

Marshall Aerospace has previous experience producing integrated Body Fuel Tanks for Boeing, including the 747, 777, and the 737-derivative P-8A Poseidon programs. Boeing has refused to discuss its Round 2 partners, but Marshall appears to have elbowed Round 1 partner Sargent Fletcher aside for this role.

March 11/11: Aviation Week outlines what we still don’t know about the KC-46A. We still don’t know the actual development phase price. We still don’t know the plane’s configuration, either, which makes it impossible to evaluate the likelihood that Boeing can deliver on time. Excerpts:

“Neither the U.S. Air Force nor Boeing have stated what exactly “over $3.5 billion” means for the KC-46A development contract… [Boeing tanker VP Jean] Chamberlain acknowledged on the company’s Feb. 24 telecon post-win that this is “concurrent development” meaning flight test and developmental activities are taking place as the first aircraft are being built…Thanks to the three-time restructured F-35 development program, the term “concurrent development” has become a bit of a dirty word among some in Pentagon circles… There are a few things we do know: Somehow Boeing is putting a digital 787 cockpit into an analog 767 aircraft and there is a modified KC-10 boom to meet the gallon-per-minute offload requirement. But, we don’t know what the design entails in terms of risk reduction on the platform or on the mission systems. Finally, we don’t even know officially that work has begun on this contract. Neither USAF nor Boeing will confirm.”

March 4/11: No protest. EADS North America chairman Ralph Crosby expresses disappointment at the press conference, but says that EADS could not have undercut that “extremely lowball bid,” submitted to keep Airbus from securing a US production site. The company “will not take any action that could further delay the already overdue replacement of the Air Force’s aging tanker fleet… Much is promised by our competitor, whom we congratulate. However, should they fail to deliver, we stand ready to step in with a proven and operating tanker.”

More precise figures come from the US AFA’s report of the conference:

“…Crosby revealed – based on an hour-long debrief from the Air Force last week – that the price difference between the companies’ bids was 10 percent. Boeing bid $20.6 billion and EADS $22.6 billion on initial development and initial production of their respective KC-46A and KC-45 tankers… He expressed doubt that Boeing will be able to deliver all 18 aircraft by 2017 as called for… because Boeing will not have its first flight-test-worthy KC-46A ready until 2015. [Crosby] also revealed that EADS’ estimated cost for engineering and manufacturing development on the KC-45 – which the company would have modestly revised from the existing design – was $3.5 billion, while Boeing bid $4.4 billion for EMD on its design, which has not flown.”

The fixed price contract means that if Boeing fails to deliver, most of the financial risk is theirs. That leaves the USAF with the operational risk, if they can’t hold Boeing to its performance commitments. Read: EADS North America | Reuters | US Air Force Association | Warner Robins Patriot.

March 3/11: Flight International:

“Newspaper Les Echos published a small article four days after the contract award noting that the USAF’s decision on tankers will make it “very difficult” for Paris to purchase the General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper unmanned air vehicle, which is competing against the EADS Talarion and a Dassault/Thales/Indra consortium offering the Israel Aerospace Industries Heron TP.”

The French do make another choice, at first, but costs and delivery times eventually do force them back to the MQ-9. See “Apres Harfang: France’s Next High-End UAV” for full coverage.

Feb 28/11 – March 1/11: Debriefing session with EADS North America. Meanwhile, the government and Northrop Grumman/EADS still have not reached a legal agreement on the canceled KC-45 contract. Aviation Week.

KC-46A concept
(click to view full)

Feb 24/11: Boeing wins Round 2. The “KC-46A” win surprises many aerospace analysts, who expected an EADS win based on leaks that EADS had scored better in the USAF’s models, and expectations they could price their planes lower. The Pentagons says that both candidate aircraft met all required criteria, but Boeing’s adjusted price was over 1% less than Airbus’. That meant the USAF did not consider various “non-mandatory” bonus criteria, which could only have made a difference of up to 1%.

Note that these are adjusted prices. Rep. Norm Dicks [D-WA], for example, claims credit for successful pressure to change the USAF’s costing model from 25 years of expected fuel costs to 40 years, which he boasts cost Airbus “billions of dollars” in the respective calculations.

As a result, Boeing in Seattle, WA receives a fixed price incentive firm contract valued at “over $3.5 billion” for the KC-X Engineering and Manufacturing Development phase, which will deliver 18 of their KC-46A aircraft by 2017. The ASC/WKK at Wright Patterson AFB, OH, will manage this contract (FA8625-11-C600). A newly opened assembly line in Everett, WA will build the tankers, including all the military modifications to the airframe, right alongside commercial 767 airliners, rather than shipping 767s elsewhere for military modifications. This approach was pioneered by the 737-based P-8A Poseidon sea control aircraft program, and will now be extended to the KC-46A.

By comparison, the Feb 29/08 award to EADS & Northrop Grumman (FA8625-08-C-6451) would have involved 4 test KC-45 aircraft for $1.5 billion, plus 5 production options for up to 64 aircraft at up to $10.6 billion. Over 18 aircraft, that leads to a “base plus averaged” total of $3.819 billion. US DoD | Boeing release | Boeing feature w. video | EADS North America || Agence France Presse | Bloomberg | Chicago Mag | CNBC | DoD Buzz | Defense News | Flight International | Seattle Post Intelligencer.

Boeing wins KC-X EMD with 767-based KC-46A

Feb 14/11: The Pentagon releases its FY 2012 budget request, which includes $877.1 million in development funding for the KC-X program. The FY 2011 request for $863.9 million is still in play as well, however, thanks to the 111th Congress’ failure to pass a FY 2011 budget.

The 112th session of Congress is dealing with the FY 2011 budget as H.R. 1, and could explicitly delete KC-X funding if its disagreements with the USAF run deep enough. The other option would be more passive, and involves continuing all FY 2011 spending at FY 2010 levels. A “2010 Redux” option would be a problem for KC-X, because that would give the program just $14.9 million to work with. On the other hand, a passive approach by Congress would allow to USAF to “reprogram” some funds from elsewhere into KC-X, whereas an explicit rejection would not.

Feb 8/11: Turbulence ahead for EADS. The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reports that Daimler plans to sell its stake in EADS when a consortium agreement expires in June 2012, in order to focus on its car manufacturing business. If they do, the move will have large ripple effects, which is why the news has provoked meetings at the highest levels of Germany’s government.

Daimler already dropped its stake in EADS from 22.5% to 15%, in a 2007 deal brokered by the government with a German bank consortium. Germany has since tried but failed to find a long-term German investor to take over the banks’ 7.5% stake, in order to keep the long term German-French shareholder balance at 22.5% each. The banks agreed to extend the current arrangement to 2013, and France’s Lagardere media group is looking to sell its own 7.5% stake at some point after 2012, but Daimler’s planned departure revives that issue of shareholder balance as a near-crisis. A German replacement firm with deep enough pockets, technical expertise, and enough of an interest in aerospace may not exist. Deutsche Welle.

Jan 27/11: Italy. The Italian Air Force’s accepts the 1st of 4 delayed Boeing KC-767A tankers at Pratica di Mare AB near Rome. This KC-767 is registered as MM 62229, and will now enter a series of evaluations and other activities before being placed into operational use. There have been a number of issues with Italy’s tankers, so their acceptance is important to Boeing. Flight International.

KC-30 & F-16s
(click to view full)

Dec 13/10: Team EADS. Britain’s 1st A330 MRTT performs the type’s 1st fuselage-mounted hose-and-drogue aerial refueling dry contacts, using an F/A-18 Hornet fighter. Airbus Military. The 1st wet refueling took place on Jan 21/11, transferring over 6 tonnes of fuel at an altitude of around 15,000 feet, and at speeds from 250 – 325kt. AirTanker.

Cobham’s belly-mounted 805E FRU (Fuselage Refueling Unit) is part of the proposed USAF KC-45’s 4-point refueling system, which shares the 2 removable digital underwing hose-and-drogue refueling pods with FSTA aircraft, but also adds a fly-by-wire ARBS boom for UARRSI dorsal receptacles. Both the belly-mounted FRU and underwing hose-and-drogue refueling pods share the same modular architecture, and all 4 systems are controlled from the Remote Aerial Refueling Operator (RARO) console in the cockpit.

Dec 1/10: Delay. USAF Lt. Gen. Mark Shackelford, the military deputy from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition says that the final KC-X award will take until 2011, instead of being announced in November 2010. The USAF release adds:

“Air Force officials have said the KC-X source selection process will continue despite a mistake in November, where a limited amount of identical source selection information was provided to both KC-X offerors concerning their competitor’s offering… The information concerned was limited to a single page of non-proprietary data on a CD that did not include any offeror-proposed prices… Air Force officials have analyzed the information that was actually accessed by one of the offerors and have taken steps to ensure that both competitors have equal access to this information.”

Oct 19/10: Tanker analysis. Iris Independent Research releases their KC-X competition white paper, “9 Secrets of the Tanker War.” One entirely unsurprising conclusion: KC-X’s 179 planes are it, and there will be no similar-sized KC-Y or KC-Z buys for at least 2 decades, if ever.

Given demographic and fiscal realities in the USA, that strikes us as a very safe prediction. Iris release | Full paper [PDF] | DoD Buzz.

Oct 6/10: No Antonov. The US GAO dismisses US Aerospace’s KC-X protest, leaving just Boeing and EADS. The core of the decision revolves around whether the bid was late, hence ineligible. The ruling that it was late offers an effective primer on bid delivery planning:

“In partially dismissing USAI’s protest, we concluded that, while many of USAI’s complaints were potentially relevant to the protester’s proposition that its messenger was understandably confused as to the location for submitting USAI’s proposal, such complaints did not support USAI’s allegations of intentional agency misconduct… it was USAI’s decision – not that of the Air Force – to have its messenger arrive at Wright-Patterson AFB entry gate 19B with less than an hour remaining before proposals were due; it was USAI’s decision not to seek advance agency approval for its messenger to be admitted to the AFB; and it was USAI’s decision not to confirm in advance the precise location of, and directions to, the building at which proposals were to be received. Based on our review of the protest allegations and the record submitted, we concluded that USAI’s allegations of intentional agency misconduct were insufficient to warrant further consideration…”

See: GAO statement | GAO B-403464 decision | Washington Post.

Oct 6/10: Team EADS. Airbus Military obtains A330 MRTT military certification from Spain’s Instituto Nacional de Tecnologia Aerospacial (INTA), which follows the European Aviation Safety Agency’s (EASA) civil Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) awarded earlier in 2010. The first 2 A330 MRTTs conducted more than 280 flights as part of the certification process, in addition to another 170 by A310 demonstrator aircraft.

As one can see by the number of flights involved, certification is an under-appreciated roadblock in the military delivery process. Fortunately certification in one jurisdiction makes subsequent certifications either much easier or unnecessary, depending on a jurisdiction’s standards and decisions. The INTA certification clears the way for Airbus Military to deliver Australia’s KC-30As, later in 2010, but the USAF would insist on its own certification process. Airbus Military | Agence France Presse | Australian Aviation | The Australian | Le Figaro [in French] | Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

AN-70
(click to view full)

Sept 15/10: Early reports leak out that the WTO is about to find that Boeing’s aircraft have also been the recipients of illegal subsidies. Since Boeing had been pushing the subsidy point hard in Congressional debates, a finding of that sort would be significant. It will certainly make for a more difficult argument on Boeing’s part, both because the political argument becomes less clear, and because the USAF’s decision to exclude WTO issues from the competition becomes more defensible. Boeing remains on the offensive, arguing that:

“If today’s reports are accurate that some $3 billion of the EU’s claims were upheld by the WTO… the ruling… confirms that European launch aid to Airbus stands as the single largest and most flagrant illegal subsidy in the aerospace industry. Nothing in today’s public reports on the European case against the U.S. even begins to compare to the $20 billion in illegal subsidies that the WTO found last June that Airbus/EADS has received (comprised of $15 billion in launch aid, $2.2 billion in equity infusions, $1.7 billion in infrastructure, and roughly $1.5 billion in targeted research support). Nor are there seemingly any violations requiring remedy approaching the scale of remedy required of Airbus/EADS… Neither do the public reports suggest that Boeing’s traditional market based approach to financing new aircraft development will need to change; a distinct contrast…”

WTO cases DS 353 (vs. Boeing) and DS 316 (vs. Airbus) | Boeing | EADS North America | European Union | Agence France Presse | The Australian | Bloomberg | India’s Economic Times | Reuters | London Telegraph | UPI.

Sept 14/10: Team EADS. A pair of Australian KC-30A tankers hook up and transfer fuel at 1,200 gallons per minute through the A330’s boom. That figure meets the USAF’s maximum requirement, something Boeing has yet to do in the air. EADS North America Chairman Ralph D. Crosby, Jr. also went on the offensive with regard to fuel economy:

“In any likely Air Force operational scenario, Boeing’s concept tanker will cost 15% to 44% more, measured on the basis of fuel burned per gallon of fuel delivered.”

See: EADS KC-45 Now | Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

Aug 4/10: No Antonov. US Aerospace/ Antonov is disqualified for late submission. Aviation Week quotes Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell:

“The proposal was late and by law we are not allowed to consider it. We are considering two proposals and U.S. Aerospace is not one of those being considered.”

The magazine adds that:

“According to an industry executive, the company’s messenger arrived at the Wright-Patterson AFB gate at 1:30 p.m. July 9 (30 minutes before the deadline) and was denied entry, given bad directions and told to wait by Air Force personnel. As a result, the Air Force stamped the proposal received at 2:05 p.m.”

On Aug 2/10, U.S. Aerospace filed a bid protest with the Congressional Government Accountability Office, citing “unreasonable” conduct by the USAF. The firm’s bid had reportedly revolved around an “AN-112” based on the 4-engine AN-70 turboprop transport.

July 13/10: Team EADS. The Hill reports that the KC-X bid cost EADS North America $75,000 in final printing costs alone.

July 9/10: Team Boeing. Boeing delivers its KC-X v2.0 bid. Its release mentions that its design will contain cockpit displays from the 787 Dreamliner, which may not be a change from the first round.

July 9/10: Antonov?!? US Aerospace announces that it has submitted a joint KC-X bid with Antonov at $150 million per plane, following SEC notification of an agreement with Antonov and intent to bid on July 1/10. That agreement would give US Aerospace lead contractor status and final American assembly rights only under a KC-X contract, while Antonov would be the technical lead and manufacture components.

Unlike the March 19-22/10 UAC/ IL-96 hoax, this report has much more backing behind its assertion of a bid. The question is whether it makes any more sense, or would even qualify under Round 2’s mandatory criteria. Reports indicate a bid based on the modernized AN-124-100 “Ruslan” super-heavy transport, which would offer heavy airlift options that beat the C-17 hollow, but terrible operating efficiency as an aerial tanker. Reports of a custom designed “AN-112” make even less sense, given the years-long development and certification timelines. Unlike Ilyushin, Antonov doesn’t even have a base civilian airframe in the right size category. Defense News may have the answer that explains the hype:

“…a May 24 SEC report filed by U.S. Aerospace signals it is in financial trouble. A number of factors “raise substantial doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern,” the firm told federal regulators.”

See: US Aerospace re: bid submission | US Aerospace re: agreement | Defense News | The DEW Line | UPI.

July 8/10: Team EADS. EADS North America delivers its KC-X v2.0 bid, one day before the extended deadline, and highlights key members of its Round 2 industrial team. EADS.

June 7/10: WTO. Boeing teams with AgustaWestland in the US Presidential Helicopter competition. Finmeccanica’s subsidiary has produced several Boeing helicopters under license in England and Italy (WAH-64 Apache, CH-47 Chinooks), and now Boeing will return the compliment with the AW101. The license will give Boeing full intellectual property, data and production rights, making its version of a Presidential AW101 bid a Boeing aircraft, built by Boeing personnel, at one of its U.S. facilities. This decision is likely to create several ripples. Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute points out that:

“Boeing’s bid could create some embarrassing moments for both itself and Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin spent years arguing that the AgustaWestland airframe was superior… By the same token, Boeing is engaged in a bitter dispute with Airbus concerning European aircraft subsidies, and [the AW101 has received them]…”

See: Boeing | Finmeccanica [PDF] | AgustaWestland | DoD Buzz | Lexington Institute.

June 7/10: Team Boeing. Finmeccanica subsidiary DRS announces a teaming agreement with Boeing for work on its KC-X “NewGen Tanker” offering. DRS will collaborate with Boeing on the console design and then manufacture the Aerial Refueling Operator Station (AROS), and will also provide the interconnect design and associated cable sets to integrate AROS into the Tanker. All this is contingent on a contract win, of course.

June 3/10: Team EADS. EADS says it has American partners for its KC-X bid, but won’t name them “because we don’t want to put them under pressure.” Defense News.

May 19/10: The House Armed Services Committee takes the first step toward introducing WTO subsidy rulings to the competition, as part of its recommended FY 11 defense budget (H.R.5136). The modified bill reportedly requires the Pentagon to submit an interim report, discussing the impact of government subsidies on the KC-X competition, at the instigation of Rep. Adam Smith [D-WA]. The implicit message in that name is lost on nobody. See: Congressional Quarterly | The Hill | Politico | bNet op-ed.

May 13/10: U.S. Senator Sam Brownback [R-KS] and Congressman Todd Tiahrt [R-KS] hold a bi-partisan press conference announcing the introduction of the bi-cameral Fair Defense Competition Act (H.R.5298 and S.3361). The bill attracts 39 co-sponsors in the House, and its Senate counterpart attracts 3.

These bills would require the Department of Defense to consider World Trade Organization (WTO) decisions for military acquisitions. Specifically, they would require the Pentagon to add the cost of illegal subsidies onto the price of a competitor’s bid proposal, following a ruling by the WTO. The WTO has already ruled that Airbus’ aircraft were built using illegal subsidies. A ruling on Airbus’ complaint concerning Boeing is pending, but would not come in time to affect the KC-X competition.

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer says that Boeing lobbyists have been lining up legislators for these measures, and Boeing itself is making rather unlikely noises about not bidding over subsidy-related issues. See also: Defense News | ABC affiliate KAKE-10 | US NPR | Reuters | Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

May 12/10: Team Boeing. Rockwell Collins announces that it is part of Boeing’s Round 2 aerial tanker team, with negotiated terms to deliver the same flight deck technology it supplies for the 787 Dreamliner, along with the KC-767’s Communication, Navigation, Surveillance/Air Traffic Management (CNS/ATM) systems, aircraft networks, and other electronics.

May 8/10: A Minneapolis Star Tribune article provides a glimpse into Boeing’s PR offensive on the ground. Part of it involves a trailer with simulators for the KC-767’s new boom, and associated fighters, for some members of the public.

Ralph Crosby, EADS NA
click to play video

April 20/10: EADS back in. EADS North America announces that it intends to submit a proposal for the KC-X aerial tanker RFP based on the KC-45 tanker, a version of the A330 MRTT/ KC-30B design that won the original contract. The US unit of the European aerospace giant plans to submit the proposal on July 9/10, the last day of the Pentagon’s extended deadline.

The company said it is continuing discussions with potential US partners, but apparently the European defense firm is willing to go it alone, if need be. The company reiterated its earlier promise to build a Mobile, AL manufacturing line for global A330F sales, and KC-X finishing work, if it gets the contract.

April 1/10: Boeing issues statement critical of Pentagon’s decision to extend the RFP deadline if EADS agrees to bid:

“We are deeply disappointed with EADS-Airbus efforts to further delay this vital warfighting program and tilt the U.S. procurement process in its favor. EADS-Airbus has been fully engaged in the competition for four years and was always expected to provide the vast majority of its team’s work content…We do not see a legitimate reason for EADS’s bid deadline extension request, and we believe an extension that favors any individual competitor does not further the goal of ensuring fair competition.”

March 31/10: A group of US senators sends a letter to President Obama criticizing EADS Airbus division for receiving “billions of dollars in illegal subsidies.” The senators urge the president not to extend the KC-X RFP deadline:

“Finally, having relied on illegal subsidies to buy market share in the commercial aerospace market, Airbus now seems intent on further using subsidized aircraft to significantly increase its present in the U.S. defense market. This is unacceptable. We urge you to move forward on the Air Force tanker competition without delay.”

The letter was signed by US Sens. Patty Murray (D-WA), Sam Brownback (R-KS), Chris Dodd (D-CT), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), and Michael Bennet (D-CO).

March 31/10: Bid extension. The Pentagon announces that if EADS wishes to bid, they will grant a 60-day extension instead of the 90 days requested. This would move the deadline from May 10/10 to July 9/10. Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell also said that:

“Given that this plane is long overdue, and we do not want its delivery date to slip later than it already has, we are prepared to compress our bid evaluation period to stay as close to the original award schedule as possible so as to still award the contract early this fall… [but we have no] willingness to change any of the plane’s military requirements or the way bids will be evaluated.”

Boeing and some of its supporters in Congress group of US senators criticized the decision. Boeing statement | US Senators’ letter to President Obama (Seattle PI blog) | DoD statement | Reuters

March 22/10: Russians. A Reuters report suggests that John Kirkland, the Los Angeles-based attorney who told various news media that UAC would announce a joint venture and enter the bidding for KC-X, may have been the victim of a scam.

Kirkland sent Reuters copies of letters on what appeared to be letters on “OOO UAC” letterhead, saying that high-level Russian approval of a bid was imminent, but subsequent examination showed contained several grammatical mistakes in Russian. UAC vice-president Alexander Tulyakov drove the final stake in when he told Reuters that:

“John Kirkland is not a UAC representative and we have had no communications with him… We have had no discussions whatsoever with any party about the possibility of producing air tankers for the U.S. air force.”

March 19/10: EADS in, Russians in?!? EADS requests a 3-month extension of the May 10/10 bidding deadline, because it is re-considering a bid submission without Northrop Grumman. The firm’s main foothold in the American market is its successful UH-72A LUH helicopter program, but without an established A330F production line, EADS had previously considered its American base too shallow to handle a contract this big. The Pentagon is reportedly receptive to a bid extension, citing previous examples like BAMS UAV, VH-71 helicopter, Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) II, and LOGCAP IV, among others.

The same day, Russia’s state-owned United Aircraft Corp. reportedly drops a double-surprise. The first surprise is that the firm is supposedly set to sign a joint venture with a small American aerospace firm to market Russian-designed aircraft, including promises that the JV will be announced on March 22/10.

The second surprise is that the firm reportedly intends to bid a tanker version of its IL-96 4-engined, wide body jetliner for the KC-X competition. The IL-96 is civil certified, and can be fitted with Pratt & Whitney engines, but it faces significant disadvantages, despite a price tag that could be as low as half that of a base 767 or A330 airframe. The most prominent obstacle is that the key partner is a state-owned Russian firm. While relations are better than they were in Cold War days, the USA is a long way from trusting Russia as any sort of reliable ally – and the reverse is also true. Congressional opposition to any win would be measured on the Richter scale. Other issues include expected higher operating costs from a 4-engine jet, the low esteem in which Russian airliners are held, and the fact that under 50 IL-96s have been built so far.

Given the expected $100 million cost of a bid, the effort would appear to be quixotic at best, unless the USAF changes it mind and decides to reimburse bid costs. Aviation Week | Bloomberg | Chicago Tribune | CNN | Deutsche Welle | The Hill | McClatchy Newspapers | Politico | Pravda | Reuters | Seattle Times | Wall St. Journal | Washington Post.

March 11/10: As one might expect, political rumbles continue across the Atlantic, with veiled and not-so-veiled threats of a trade war, or retaliation in the defense field. EU release | Aviation Week Ares roundup | Defense News.

March 11/10: EADS out. Aviation Week reports that EADS did not feel confident enough yet in its American footprint, to bid for the KC-X project. Its main beachhead in the USA at the moment is the $3.5 billion UH-72A Lakota Light Utility Helicopter program, which is going well but is an order of magnitude smaller than KC-X.

March 11/10: Team Boeing. Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. announces that they’ve come to terms as part of Boeing Round 2 KC-767 NewGen Tanker Supplier Team. Upon a contract award from the United States government to Boeing, Spirit will build the Boeing tanker’s forward fuselage section in Wichita, KS.

March 8/10: NGC out. Northrop Grumman has apparently bowed out of the KC-X v2.0 RFP, leaving Boeing as the only bidder. The move is not unexpected, given the requirements and the estimated $100 million cost to bid, but it will create longer-term political issues for the program. The European Union is already issuing rumbles about protectionism, and an early blast from Sen. Sessions [R-AL] may be indicative on the domestic front:

“The unjustifiable overhaul of the Request for Proposals – which went far beyond the narrow problems raised by the GAO – completely abandoned the idea of a game-changing tanker in favor of a smaller, less capable plane. Of the 14 major changes to the solicitation, 12 favored Boeing’s smaller, older aircraft. In the end, the process was skewed, and no one can fault a private company for declining to participate in a government competition engineered to guarantee its failure… American taxpayers… could now be on the hook for the most expensive sole-source contract in history.”

Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn said the Pentagon was disappointed, but does not intend to change course. Boeing’s ardent backer Rep. Norm Dicks [D-WA], soon to be head of the House Appropriations’ defense sub-committee, advocates scrapping the bidding process now and negotiating a contract directly, while suggesting an increase in production from the program’s 15 KC-767s per year to 20-25 tankers per year. Northrop Grumman statement | EADS statement | Aviation Week | DoD Buzz | Miami Herald | Politico | Seattle Times | Washington Post early report | Agence France Presse early report | UK’s Daily Telegraph | Sydney Morning Herald | Seattle Post-Intelligencer reactions roundup.

March 5/10: Team Boeing. Boeing announces its RFP v2.0 offering. The new 767 “NextGen” aircraft add a modified version of the new 787 Dreamliner’s flight deck, with its larger displays and other design improvements. Engines will still be Pratt & Whitney’s PW4062s, but the fly-by-wire refueling boom looks different, and so do the wings. Aviation Week attempted to clear up Boeing’s exact offering, but:

“Boeing officials declined to comment on whether the wings, the doors and floors and flaps were being pulled from other commercial models [DID: as in the previous KC-X entry]. They declined interview requests as well…”

The 3rd thing Boeing’s official release emphasized was a pointed reference to the flight control computers that may have been a major cause of Air France Flight 447’s A330 crash over the Atlantic in 2009, with all hands lost:

“The Boeing NewGen Tanker will be controlled by the aircrew, which has unrestricted access to the full flight envelope for threat avoidance at any time, rather than allowing computer software to limit combat maneuverability.”

See also: Boeing | Pratt & Whitney | Aviation Week | DoD Buzz.

Feb 22/10: Dual buy? Flight International’s Stephen Trimble looks for clues to the funding behind a new lobby group called “Build Them Both.” As one might guess, the group favors a dual-source, accelerated buy contract for the KC-X competition, with both firms receiving contracts but annual orders being determined by production readiness, pricing, and the needs of specific theaters. This was the essence of the late Rep. John Murtha’s position.

Feb 8/10: Dual buy? House Appropriations Defense subcommittee chair John Murtha [D-PA], Capitol Hill’s #1 proponent of a KC-X split buy, dies of complications associated with intestinal surgery. A Washington Post blog reports that Rep. Norm Dicks [D-WA], one of EADS Airbus’ most avid foes on Capitol Hill, is likely to succeed Murtha as chair of the subcommittee, and North West Cable News asks the obvious question.

Jan 6/10: At a Pentagon press conference, Press Secretary Geoff Morrell discusses the KC-X v2.0 RFP, among other matters:

“…we are shooting to have the RFP out hopefully by the end of the month, if not early next month. We’re in the process right now of reviewing the comments that were provided… I think we’re still on schedule to get this out in the next few weeks. …no final decisions have been made yet about the RFP, but I think it is safe to say at this point that there will be changes to the draft… We’ve gotten feedback, some of it quite helpful. Some of – some of this we just have realized ourselves. And so I think the team is in the process of correcting mistakes and altering the acquisition strategy a bit, and that will be reflected in the final request for proposal which will likely go out in the – in the next couple or few weeks.

I would add one thing, and that is that whatever changes are being made should not be construed as any attempt to favor anybody. It is — what is being done is we are trying to make the RFP as fair and as transparent as possible, while at the same time providing the taxpayers with the best value for their money and the warfighters the best — the best plane to support their operations… we hope that when this happens that we will have a full and hardy and thorough competition between multiple bidders.”

Jan 4/10: Leeham News offer their 2010 Outlook for Boeing and Airbus, which includes discussion of the KC-X competition:

“We also believe there is a strategic argument, as well as a political one, that supports buying both airplanes because there are simply different mission requirements. But the Pentagon is adamant that it will not split the order… Winning the contract is also critical to the Airbus strategy of establishing a commercial A330-200 production base in the US… Airbus pledged to build the A330-200F [in Mobile, AL] and expectations are that the A330P will follow. But no tanker contract, no US plant. And this is why we believe Boeing and its supporters are fighting so hard to block a tanker award to Northrop. This, we believe, is more important to Boeing than winning the tanker contract, though we also acknowledge Boeing wants the contract on its own merits.

“…The [A330] MRTT is running about 18 months behind schedule for delivery to launch customer Australia. About six months was due to customer change orders, according to the RAAF and EADS. The balance rests with developmental issues.

“…Because of the need for a 787 production Surge Line (see 787 discussion below), the current 767 line will be relocated to the aft part of the bay it now occupies. A Lean production line will be implemented, reducing unit costs by about 20%. Relocation begins this year and will be completed next year… If Northrop stays in, we still think Boeing will submit only a KC-767 proposal… We remain concerned that Boeing has yet to deliver the KC-767 to Italy, now some four years late. We are told problems remain with the centerline hose-and-drogue system… [and] that issues remain with the wing-mounted refueling pods, though Boeing says these have been fixed. Although Boeing intended to deliver the first of four tankers to Italy last year… that this still has not happened indicates all is not well. Since the US tanker is similar to the Italian tanker, we remain skeptical about the program… Boeing is still not forecasting any dates concerning these remaining milestones [for Italy].”

Dec 1/09: Northrop Grumman’s President and Chief Operating Officer Wes Bush sends a letter to Department of Defense undersecretary for acquisition, technology and logistics Ashton Carter. As written, it says, the terms of the KC-X RFP imposed a structure that, in Northrop Grumman’s opinion, favors smaller planes like Boeing’s, and:

“…places contractual and financial burdens on the company that we simply cannot accept… As a result, I must regrettably inform you that, absent a responsive set of changes in the final RFP, Northrop Grumman has determined that it cannot submit a bid to the department for the KC-X program.”

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman replied that both manufacturers wanted changes that would favor them, and contends that:

“The Department has played this right down the middle… [we] cannot and will not change the warfighting requirements for the tanker to give advantage to either competitor… The department wants competition but cannot compel the two airplane makers to compete.”

Alabama’s Republican governor Bill Riley has a different take:

“The Obama administration has corrupted the tanker selection process with a blatantly unfair competition… The question is why is this RFP so radically different than the one Northrop Grumman won last year?”

A final RFP is expected in January 2010, but each program has hundreds of suppliers across the USA. Refusal to submit would trigger a very large political battle in Congress, one focused on the acquisition process itself. It remains to be seen whether it is possible for a single-winner tanker process to successfully obtain American Congressional approval and funding for its choice, in the face of a transatlantic competitor whose American partners saw billions of dollars in concrete business snatched away, and a domestic heavyweight with its own deep supplier and congressional networks. Northrop Grumman’s Letter [PDF] | Agence France Presse | Bloomberg | NY Times | Politico | Reuters | Wall Street Journal | Aviation Week | Defense News.

Nov 25/09: Flight International reports that one of Australia’s KC-30Bs refueled a pair of Spanish EF-18A Hornet fighters at the same time, using its hose-and-drogue refueling system.

Nov 10/09: Aviation Week headline: “Boeing, Northrop Sour On KC-X Draft RFP.”

Nov 10/09: One of Australia’s KC-30B/ A330 MRTTs performs the 1st fuel transfers with its all-digital 905E hose and drogue system, using its left and right under-wing pods to transfer more than 9,200 lbs of fuel to a “NATO” (likely Spanish) F/A-18 fighter. The first of Australia’s 5 KC-30Bs will be delivered to Australia in mid-2010. EADS release.

Nov 2/09: The Lexington Institute’s Loren Thompson writes that the EADS/Northrop Grumman bid has become a question, rather than a certainty:

“Last week, one of the two teams competing to provide the Air Force’s future aerial-refueling tanker launched an unusual campaign to overturn the service’s strategy for buying the plane. Northrop Grumman and its European partner Airbus signaled that they don’t believe they have a plausible chance of winning under the proposed terms, and began building the foundation for a formal protest. What’s unusual about the move is that competitor Boeing hasn’t been all that happy with the revised tanker solicitation either, but Northrop has elected to pursue an aggressive strategy that is sure to anger its Air Force customer. Here’s why Northrop is willing to take that risk…”

Oct 29/09: Sen. John McCain [R-AZ] sends a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Pentagon acquisition czar Ashton Carter, and USAF Secretary Michael Donley, asking questions about the KC-X v2.0 source selection process. He asks about the use of fuel usage rates and construction needs, but not full probable lifecycle cost, in the cost calculations, asks if any of the requirements considered mandatory in Round 1 were discarded RFP v2.0, wonders if the pricing requirements in the draft RFP would “…not favor mostly smaller airframes, and asks how the proposed pass/fail rating can “provide for an assessment of relative developmental and integration risk among the offerings.”

The final v2.0 RFP was supposed to be released around the end of November 2009, but delays out to January 2010 are reportedly a possibility. Aviation Week.

Oct 21/09: Team EADS. An A330 MRTT equipped with the ARBS in-flight refueling boom passes fuel to an in-flight aircraft for the first time. A Royal Australian Air Force KC-30B flew a 4:30 test flight, with more than 3,300 pounds of fuel transferred to 2 Portuguese Air Force F-16s during 13 contacts. Other systems tested included the boom’s fly-by-wire stability and 3-D vision system. EADS | Australian Defence Magazine.

Oct 2/09: Sen. Jeff Sessions [R-AL] says he will introduce an amendment to the FY 2010 Senate defense spending bill (amendment 2610 to S. 1390, currently before the Senate Armed Services Committee). When introduced, it would block the use of funds for the U.S. Air Force’s KC-X competition, unless the service agrees to disclose pricing data about Boeing’s proposal in 2008 to rival Northrop Grumman, just as Northrop Grumman’s data was disclosed to Boeing after Boeing’ asked for an explanation of its loss. Sen. Sessions release | Aviation Week | See also Sept 29/09 entry.

Oct 1/09: KC-10. In a stunning upset, Northrop Grumman beats Boeing for a 10-year, $3.8 billion contract to service the global KC-10/KDC-10 tanker fleet. Boeing subsidiary McDonnell Douglas built the planes, modified them, and had serviced them since their induction in the 1980s. By all accounts and metrics, service quality was high – which is why some analysts see the loss as symptomatic of deeper problems in Boeing’s relationship with the USAF.

KC-46A & B-1B
(click to view full)

Sept 29/09: Major procurement error. As legislators connected with Boeing push the USAF regarding the recent WTO ruling, Northrop Grumman puts out a statement of its own, citing issues with the process:

“Northrop Grumman continues to be greatly concerned that its pricing information from the previous tanker competition was provided by the Government to its competitor, Boeing. Access to comparable pricing information from Boeing has thus far been denied by the Pentagon. With predominant emphasis placed on price in this tanker re-competition and Northrop Grumman again proposing its KC-45 refueling tanker, such competitive pricing information takes on even greater importance. It is fundamentally unfair, and distorts any new competition, to provide such critical information to only one of the bidders. The company will continue to work with its customer to fully resolve this issue.”

The USAF had provided this data to Boeing after Boeing had lost, as part of the USAF’s requested debriefing. The Pentagon has dismissed Northrop Grumman’s claim on the basis that the disclosure to Boeing was in accordance with regulations, and that “the data in question are inaccurate, outdated and not germane” to the new bid, which is a different competition. Clearly, Northrop Grumman continues to disagree; if the impasse continues, the question may become whether the GAO disagrees during a future appeal. Northrop Grumman | Aviation Week | recent Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

Protoccol breach

Sept 29/09: Alabama’s Press-Register puts out an editorial supporting a split-buy and speeded-up production, which legislators like House Appropriations Committee Chair John Murtha [D-PA] continue to support:

“With a defense contract potentially worth $40 billion at stake, expect both sides to fight over every clause and nuance they think might favor their opponent. Right now, Boeing and Northrop have 60 days to comment on the draft guidelines; this is only the first stage of the contest… By the time the lawyering and politicking are over, at least a few years will have elapsed. So here’s one more plea for a split contract.”

Sept 16/09: US Secretary of Defense Gates says that he is giving the new leaders he’d installed at the Air Force the final say in the $40 billion tanker deal. This is a reversal from the Round 1 arrangements after the GAO ruled that the USAF had not followed its own criteria, and the US Department of Defense took over direct management of the program. On the other hand, it does put the USAF on the firing line instead of the DoD, in order to absorb any initial hits in what’s sure to be an intense political fight.

Other reports add that the revised KC-X proposal is due “in a few weeks.” USAF | Boeing statement | Defense News | Government Executive magazine | Inside Defense | Agence France Presse | Business Week | NY Times | Reuters | Seattle P.I. offers analyst’s view.

Sept 15/09: Flight International reports that KC-X Round 2 may see a supplier shakeup on the Boeing side:

“Boeing officials are determined to set “aggressive price targets” for selecting suppliers and even manufacturing locations… Boeing’s quest for cost-savings has also reopened the 777’s engine supplier to competition… all three certified engines – the GE90, Pratt & Whitney PW4000 and Rolls-Royce Trent 800 – will be considered if Boeing decides to offer the KC-777. However, engines that have not been certified on the 777, such as the GEnx family, have been ruled out. “We don’t think there’s enough time for a certification programme,” Lemaster says… If Boeing decides to propose the KC-767 in the next round, the structures and control systems will come from the same aircraft type, Lemaster says.”

Sept 14/09: US Ar Force Secretary Michael Donley says the WTO’s ruling will have no effect on the USAF’s process, as Airbus’ counterclaim is still pending, and so is the EU’s expected appeal.

A day later, 47 American politicians send a letter to President Obama that says: “Buying Airbus tankers would reward European governments with Department of Defense dollars at the same time that the U.S. Trade Representative is trying to punish European governments for flouting international laws.” Mobile Press-Register | Seattle Post-Intelligencer | Reuters via Forbes | Business Week | Seattle P.I. re: letter | Seattle P.I. offers contrasting views re: finer points of WTO trade dispute.

KC-X past & candidates:
Boeing Slide
(click to view full)

Sept 14/09: In a briefing at the Air Force Association’s 2009 Air & Space Conference and Technology Exposition, Boeing officially acknowledges that the Boeing 767 and 777 are both potential KC-X candidates. They also launch their own web site, UnitedStatesTanker.com, to promote their “KC-7A7” tanker bid. Boeing release | Boeing briefing [PDF]

Sept 8/09: EADS chief executive Louis Gallois tells the French newspaper La Tribune that: “Our objective is to be in the [KC-X] competition. We are totally determined to be in the running, unless it appears that the request for proposal is biased.” Source.

Sept 4/09: The World Trade Organization issues an interim ruling that the $4 billion in aid Airbus received from European governments to develop the A380 super-jumbo passenger jet constituted illegal subsidies.

Technically, the WTO ruling could empower the U.S. to levy tariffs either against Airbus or other European imports, equal to the amount of the improper subsidies. Legally, the EU is expected to appeal the ruling, Airbus has complaints of its own on tap, and any firm action remains years away. Business Week | bnet.

July 9/09: Stephen Trimble of Flight International highlights a recent podcast interview with Boeing tanker spokesman Bill Barksdale, which seems to show a lot of enthusiasm and prep work at Boeing around the KC-777. Excerpt:

“BARKSDALE: The 777 as a tanker is just so much more capable than anything it’s got as a peer. And I know that sounds like a bit of bravado, but… I’ll give you a couple of examples. If you compare them, the 777 would provide – deliver – however you want to say it – 23% more fuel than the KC-30. It could carry 44% more payload – more cargo – in the back. And it also would carry about 42% more passengers in the back as well. So those are very generic, very general kinds of numbers… If the air force really wants to go in that direction, the Boeing company has spent a lot of time in the last year preparing for that, knowing that we have a real, true, large tanker that, like I said, is comparable in size to the KC-30. And, yet, you get so much more for your money.”

June 16/09: Northrop Grumman CEO Ronald D. Sugar, and EADS CEO Louis Gallois, issue a joint statement re-affirming their joint commitment to the KC-45 Tanker team.

June 15/09: Bloomberg reports that Boeing is preparing to submit a KC-777 for KC-X v2.0, but a DoD Buzz story clarifies. It turns out that Boeing is preparing to offer a KC-777 option if the revised requirements put a premium on cargo capability or fuel offload amounts, but the firm hasn’t made a decision and won’t until the RFP comes out. The firm had considered a KC-777 before the initial KC-X RFP as well, but the RFP’s lack of extra points for exceeding USAF specifications led Boeing to go with its smaller, cheaper, and more fully developed KC-767 instead. DoD Buzz adds:

“Still, a Boeing 777 bid raises all sorts of questions. Given the problems Boeing has had reducing the vibrations afflicting its refueling pods on the 767, and the enormous technical and engineering challenges of refitting the 777, can the company get a plane in shape in time to fill the Air Force’s first tranche of 179 planes?… But it may be that Boeing is largely conceding the first tranche of planes to Northrop and aiming for the larger follow-on buy.”

The DoD Buzz report adds rumors that Northrop Grumman may walk if the revised RFP is seen as weighted in Boeing’s favor – again, a parallel with the firm’s rumblings before the initial KC-X RFP was issued:

“…there are rumors that Northrop is weighing its commitment to the tanker program, which has cost the company financially and politically. Two sources have told me that Ron Sugar, the company’s CEO, will walk away from the competition should the new RFP appear weighted too heavily in Boeing’s favor. This could, of course, be part of the company’s gaming efforts to ensure that the Air Force does include analysis such as best value as it makes its choice. Meyers made clear, as does his colleague Janis Pamiljans in the video below, that the Air Force must include “best value” as a key component of the service’s tanker analysis.”

June 9/09: The USAF’s role in KC-X v2.0 is still up for debate. Military.com’s DoD Buzz reports that Defense Secretary Robert Gates is still deciding whether the Air Force would lead the renewed competition, or whether it would remain with the Office of Secretary of Defense. Either way, however, Gates said that former Raytheon lobbyist and current Deputy Defense Secretary Bill Lynn would take a “very close interest” in the program.

May 27/09: The Project on Government Oversight NGO explains some of the hidden variables behind decisions about who should run the program:

“…this isn’t only a debate over who will be ultimately responsible for the program, but that it will also determine how much this program will be impacted by the new Weapons Acquisition Reform Act of 2009. One of the major revisions to the Senate’s initial version of the bill in the Senate Armed Service committee’s mark-up was changing language that would require the newly established Director of Independent Cost Assessment to conduct independent cost assessments for all major defense acquisition programs (MDAPs) to only those programs where the Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (AT &L) is the Milestone Decision Authority (MDA)… But as a result of this change in mark up, if DoD chooses to give the Air Force management of the tanker program, there will be no mandatory role for the new Director of Independent Cost Assessment to provide oversight and implement policies and procedures to make sure that the cost estimation process is reliable and objective. One can’t help but wonder how much DoD had the tanker program in mind when requesting this change to the legislation.”

April 6/09: US Defense Secretary Gates announces his FY 2010 budget recommendations, which will include a KC-X RFP in summer 2009.

April 6/09: The Lexington Institute raises warning flags about the new acquisition process:

“Despite Obama Administration rhetoric about openness in federal contracting, the new and improved tanker selection process has all the transparency of the FBI’s witness protection program. The performance requirements for the future tankers were blessed by the Pentagon’s Joint Requirements Oversight Council with almost no input from industry, and now the acquisition strategy is being crafted in much the same way. If you were planning to spend $100 billion over the next 30 years on a new aircraft fleet, wouldn’t you want to check with the only two qualified suppliers to determine whether your terms and specifications were reasonable? We have been here before… Many of those problems could have been avoided if the industry teams had been kept informed on how the selection process was unfolding… The current buildup to a re-competition is being carried out with even greater secrecy.”

At this point, with Northrop Grumman and its suppliers believing that a huge contract was taken away from them, and Boeing treating the lobbying as a life-or-death issue, the impact may be tangential. The political reality is that lack of transparency can make the process worse, but even perfect transparency won’t remove the fundamental political bottleneck.

March 17/09: NGC endorses split-buy. A Northrop Grumman release offers figures from a KC-135 Economic Service Life Study, and claims that for each KC-45 that enters service, USAF operating costs would drop by $7 million per year, assuming replacement of 2 KC-135s with each A330 MRTT inducted. It adds:

“Congressmen John Murtha (D-PA) and Neil Abercrombie (D-HI) commented recently the only way to get badly needed tankers to our warfighters quickly is through a dual procurement acquisition process… According to Northrop Grumman analysis, a dual procurement scenario could replace the capability of the entire Air Force KC-135 fleet by the year 2022 – seven years sooner than best case single procurement strategy. Dual procurement eliminates the need to re-skin the KC-135 aircraft.

By procuring 24 aircraft per year from two contractors rather than 15 per year from a single source, as is the current Air Force budget plan, the service could save $7.2 billion in tanker Operating and Support (O&S) costs between 2012 and 2022 compared to the O&S costs associated with a single procurement strategy. Through dual procurement, the Air Force saves $10.2 billion in tanker O&S between 2012 and 2029, compared to the O&S costs associated with a single procurement strategy. [Our product is better, but]… if Congressmen Murtha and Abercrombie are correct the only way to get tankers to the warfighter quickly is through a dual procurement strategy, Northrop Grumman will support the effort.”

The crunch, of course, is that 9 more aircraft per year, at about $200 million each, adds $1.8 billion per year to actual spending. That’s another $19.8 billion from 2012-2022, or $30.6 billion from 2012-2029. The difference between those figures, and projected savings over the same time period, must come from somewhere. That means either expansion of the overall military budget, or dollars taken from other military programs. Both options are unlikely, and difficult.

March 13/09: An Inside the Air Force article entitled “Report: KC-135 Maintenance Could Reach $3 Billion Per Year by 2040” says that KC-135 maintenance costs will escalate by almost 50% over the next 30 years, and cost twice as much as new tankers. The KC-135 Economic Service Life Study claims that it will end up costing the Air Force more than FY2000$ 103 billion to operate and maintain the KC-135s between 2001-2040. Source.

March 11/09: Reports surface that the Obama administration will propose a 5-year delay to the USAF’s aerial tanker program, as US OMB recommendations leak to the general press. The Pentagon is not bound by those recommendations, and US Secretary of Defense Gates is quoted as saying that:

“In the days to come, any information you may receive about budget or program decisions will undoubtedly be wrong because I intend to wait until the end of our review process before making any decisions.”

Assuming that the documents really do propose a 5-year delay to the KC-X program, it is not clear whether this is a classic “Washington Monument” move, proposing a cut that the weight of Congress interests are almost certain to reverse, or a genuine decision within a zero-sum set of budget decisions. In Washington, of course, it could even be both. Washington Post | Seattle Post-Intelligencer | Seattle Times | Grand Forks Herald | Bloomberg News | MSNBC | Agence France Presse.

March 11/09: Democratic Party congressmen John Murtha [D-PA] and Neil Abercrombie [D-HI] begin publicly proposing the split-buy idea that has been floated quietly in the background for several months now. Reuters | Reuters Update.

Feb 26/09: Military.com’s DoD Buzz reports that a Pentagon Joint Requirement Oversight Council met today to consider the new KC-X requirements:

“From what little I have heard about the requirements, it seems pretty clear that the Air Force has compressed and simplified the requirements to avoid the likelihood of another award protest but has not changed its mind about what capabilities are needed… But Rep. Jack Murtha’s plan to split the buy – and avoid what would seem to be an otherwise unavoidable second protest – would seem to allow both companies some breathing room… the Air Force’s opposition may be at an end – at least for the initial purchase.”

Murtha [D-PA] has been at the center of ethical investigations over his career, but he remains a powerful member of the Democratic Party. He chairs the House Appropriations Committee’s Defense Subcommittee.

Feb 25/09: USAF Transportation Command leader Gen. Duncan McNabb testifies to a joint hearing of the House Armed Services Committee’s Seapower and Air and land forces subcommittees. He reiterates KC-X as the USAF’s top priority, and says that further delays in replacing the KC-135 fleet would add significant risk to the U.S. military’s ability to quickly move troops and firepower rapidly to the globe’s combat zones. Reuters, via Forbes.

Jan 29/09: The US government’s Office of Management and Budget submits a list of potential defense program cuts in its guidance to the US Defense Department. One of the suggestions is reportedly a 5-year delay of the KC-X program. The Pentagon is not bound by these suggestions, but the recommendations will become news in March 2009, igniting controversy and lobbying. Source.

Sept 22/08: Sen. Richard Shelby [R-AL] fires a broadside in a Washington Times op-ed:

“Two months from Election Day, politics seem to be everywhere we turn. However, one place we should not see politics is in our Department of Defense (DoD) acquisition process. The process to select the new Air Force tanker fleet has become so politicized that DoD allowed parochial and business interests to keep the Air Force’s top acquisition priority from the pilots who need it. The long fight over the tanker contract proves that the acquisition process is fundamentally and significantly flawed… Politics just cancelled a competitively awarded contract, solely because Boeing was not the winner. Defense acquisition policy has been stated: If it is not a Boeing plane, DoD is not going to buy it.”

Sept 18/08: A Washington Post story reports that:

“John Young, the undersecretary for acquisition, technology and logistics, said in an interview at the Pentagon yesterday that under the tanker proposal from Northrop Grumman and its partner European Aeronautic Defence & Space, developing the first 68 aircraft would have cost $12.5 billion, compared with $15.4 billion under Boeing’s plan.”

Sept 3/08: Gen. Lichte of USAF Air Mobility Command says that he expects a protest after the final round 2 RFP is released. He hopes it doesn’t happen. But:

“I mean this is a lot of money, I understand the business nature of this. But I don’t understand how at some point you stop and say, this company wins, and this company loses, or this company is successful and this company is not. I don’t know how we get through something like that. With the poisonous nature of all the comments that are out there right now, I don’t know how we make peace with everybody to say, okay let’s go forward.”

He also said that he does not want a split buy…

“However, if you were to tell me that was the only way to get out of [the current situation] then I’d take it… We need a new tanker now. I don’t care which one it is. And we need to get on with this quickly.”

Military.com | Agence France Presse | AP | CBS | Reuters.

Aug 14/08: Jerry Cox is a former procurement policy counsel in the U.S. Senate, and now holds the title of managing director of The Forerunner Foundation. At, least according to the article byline in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer for “Tanker choice in mathematical terms“. The core claim of the article is as follows:

“The Air Force knows a tanker accomplishes nothing by flying from Point A to Point B, so what really matters is the ratio of delivery. How many gallons will the plane deliver for every gallon it burns? That’s a tougher problem, but it’s hardly trigonometry. Northrop showed the Air Force it can deliver almost two pounds for every pound it burns, while Boeing delivers only 1.6 pounds. That’s a 22 percent edge for Northrop, and the numbers hold up, regardless of the trip length.”

What the newspaper did not mention is that Cox also heads up a lobbying firm called Potomac Strategy Associates. DID spoke to Jerry Cox, however, and he told us that his PSA has not been employed by any firm in conjunction with the aerial tanker competition.

Aug 11/08: Aviation week reports that Boeing is strongly considering a refusal to bid as its response to the revised KC-X RFP.

That response would leave the field open to EADS/Northrop Grumman in a formal sense, but the political weight of that kind of protest move would force the Pentagon to think long and hard before signing a contract under those circumstances. Until Boeing makes a firm decision, of course, its bid team must continue working full speed ahead.

Aug 6/08: New draft RFP. The USAF has issued a new draft of its RFP, and appears to be adopting an approach of minimum required compliance. On the surface, there are 2 major changes. Fuel costs over a plane’s 40-year lifetime will be considered, and full credit will now be given for exceeding the stated requirements in key areas like cargo capacity, fuel offload, et. al. Neither was true under the old RFP. The catch is that different levels of importance are being assigned to various types of costs, with development and production cost estimates weighted more heavily than long-term projections for maintenance and fuel costs. The second major change around exceeding performance limits simply makes the USAF’s original evaluation approach the competition’s officially announced approach, instead of a violation of the competition’s terms.

Under those terms, Boeing is likely to lose again – which may trigger a follow-on protest upon the release of the revised RFP. The planned time line for moving forward is as follows:

• Aug 6-13: DoD officials will take a week to discuss elements of the draft with Northrop-Grumman and Boeing. Expect a lot of back and forth over the terms of the RFP, including efforts by members of the (currently recessed) Congress.
• Mid-August: DoD plans to issue the final RFP amendment, with just 45 days for renewed submissions. Note that this time frame would make an airframe switch very difficult, due to the hundreds of pages of documentation, cost information, and design work required.
• Early October 2008: Renewed submissions due.
• October to late November: Discussions with the companies about their proposals.
• Early December: Final proposal revisions for “best, final” offer.
• Early January 2009: Decision made and announced. If Boeing wins, the existing contract is canceled and a new one is signed. If Airbus/NGC win again, the current stop-work order is lifted.

It’s important to note that the US DoD’s desired schedule, and what politics, appeals, et. al. actually end up dictating, may end up being 2 different things. On a political level, however, introducing the revised RFP when Congress is in recess, and not issuing a decision until after the elections, will help to lower elected representatives’ political leverage. What it will not do is provide full insulation, since the decision is certain to be an important election issue in some states. The first days in a new Congress’ term also tend to provide some political insulation for issues of this type, since members are busy with other things. Nevertheless, it can also be a double-edged sword. Exceptions do occur if the issue in question is a big enough priority for enough elected representatives. In that case, the first days of a term can also be the stage for dramatic political actions whose fallout would be considered much more carefully later in their term.

See also: KC-X RFP, revised draft | US Armed Forces Press Service | Boeing statement et. al., via CNBC | NGC statement via MarketWatch | CQ Politics | Politico re: guerilla marketing | Leeham Companies LLC | Defense News | Aviation Week | Bloomberg | Business Week | Christian Science Monitor | Agence France Presse | Money Times of India | Seattle Post-Intelligencer | Seattle Times | Mobile Press Register | Birmingham News | Pensacola News Journal.

AARGM Concept
(click to view full)

The AGM-88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM) is a medium range, supersonic, air-launched tactical missile whose primary job is to attack and kill enemy radars. AARGM is a US Navy major acquisition program, with around 1,750 expected orders from the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps. The Italian Air Force is expected to buy up to 250 of these successors to the AGM-88 High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missile, and Germany may also join.

So, why is AARGM a big deal? Perhaps the story of how a Serbian unit using an antiquated SA-3 battery managed to survive the 1999 NATO air campaign – and shoot down an F-117 Nighthawk stealth plane – will help put things into perspective. DID recounts those events, explains the new weapon, and offers updates on contracts and key milestones.

Why AARGM? Rationale & Capabilities

Showdown Over Serbia: Demise of an F-117

SA-3 Goa/ Neva
(click to view full)

eDefense Online tells the story of Col. Dani Zoltan. In 1999, he was a Serbian commander of the 3rd battery of the 250th Missile Brigade near Beograd, when NATO intervened in the Kosovo War. The Serbs were equipped with 1960s era SA-3 SAMs:

“In addition to technical modifications to increase the probability of successful engagement of low-RCS targets, Col. Dani also trained his unit to fight against the NATO air armada. Engagements using the shortest possible radiation of the fire-control radar were practiced over and over, and Col. Dani indicated that they focused on engaging targets well within the possible launch zone to reduce the time of flight of the missiles and, therefore, the reaction time available to the target aircraft…”

Nighthawk Down, 1999
(click to view full scene)

The story – which is well worth reading in full as a testament to the importance of the human factor in war – adds:

“Beyond frequent relocation, RF discipline contributed to the 3rd battery’s eventual survival, and the unit suffered no human or materiel losses at all. Radiation time of the fire-control radar was kept to a minimum, although with the P-18 they could be more liberal, as this VHF radar – according to their experiences – could not be targeted by NATO’s High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missiles (HARMs). Even with this precaution, though, they were forced to cease radiation and/or missile control 23 times when it became evident from the target-return fluctuations or other indications that a HARM had been launched at them. False transmitters in the vicinity of the battery’s location were also used to spoof the anti-radiation missiles. Dani added that the survivability of the VHF P-18 is the single biggest reason for the command-guided Neva[1] system’s success compared to the semi-active Kub [SA-6] system…”

Moving systems, decoys, intermittent radar emissions, and radars that are outside the missile’s target profile all make life difficult for ARMs that home in on enemy radars.

Fortunately, an age of advanced reconnaissance systems and UAV offers other ways of finding such targets, which may eventually include UAV swarms. Growing trends toward persistent surveillance are even offering the ability to track, remember, and distinguish between found objects. The design question is how to translate those opportunities into a new missile.

AGM-88E AARGM: Addressing the Gaps

ATK: AARGM
click for video

One obvious improvement option is 2-way communication throughout the missile’s flight, but that won’t always be reliable or possible on the battlefield. It’s nice to have, but not enough by itself. The ability to head to a precise area, and to find vehicles independent of their radar emissions, would also add important new ARM capabilities.

The AGM-88E AARGM adds all 3 of these features in order to counter radar shutdown tactics, and adds advanced capabilities that would foil many of Col. Zoltan’s other stratagems. It’s touted as a missile that can pick out and engage a variety of strike targets in addition to enemy air defenses, while providing near real-time Weapon Impact Assessments (WIA) to commanders.

AARGM production to date has involved the conversion and upgrades of existing Raytheon AGM-88B HARM missiles, which are currently used by American and allied fighters. It uses the existing HARM rocket motor and warhead sections, but swaps in a modified control section, and a new guidance section.

AARGM Block 0. Initial fielded variant. Incorporates a datalink, and GPS point-to-point weapon navigation so it can be directed toward known and last-seen targets. On top of that, its multi-sensor system includes passive digital Anti-Radiation Homing with an increased field of view and increased detection range, counter shutdown algorithms that remember where radars were, active Millimeter Wave radar guidance for final attack, and a Weapon Impact Assessment transmitter datalink that sends information back at appropriate times.

AARGM Block 1. Full combat capability. Corrects a number of classified deficiencies, and adds a netted targeting real-time feed via Integrated Broadcast System (IBS) prior to missile launch. The IBS Receiver interfaces lets the system receive national intelligence data directly.

AGM-88E AARGM: The Program

AARGM’s production phase may total up to $1.478 billion for 2,121 missiles, to equip the US Navy & US Marine Corps (1,871: 1,750 active missiles + 121 no-motor CATMs for training), plus up to 250 missiles for the Italian Air Force. Production could expand further if the partnership formally expands to include Germany, for instance, or other export sales materialize. Australia is about to buy EA-18Gs, and has placed some initial orders for AARGM training missiles.

The AGM-88E AARGM was developed by ATK with the US Navy’s AARGM Integrated Product Team, led by the Navy’s Direct and Time Sensitive Strike Program Office (PMA-242). The team also includes members from the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division at China Lake, CA; the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) in Patuxent River, MD; the Italian Air Force, the US National Reconnaissance Office, and industry partners.

Initial Operational Capability involves F/A-18C/D Hornets only. In time, AARGM operational status on the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet, EA-18G Growler electronic warfare aircraft, and Tornado IDS/ECR fighters will follow. AARGM is also being designed for compatibility with the US Navy and USMC’s older EA-6B Prowler electronic warfare aircraft, with USAF F-16CJs, and with allied F-16s.

Early Funding

AM Tornado IDS
(click to view full)

Developing these capabilities required assistance from a number of different funding sources. AARGM’s guidance section technology was developed under a series of Phase-I, II, and III US Navy Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) contract awards from 1990 – 1995. Its missile radome, precision radome machining techniques, and radar gimbal also come from other SBIR or science and technology research initiatives.

SBIR funding is limited, however, and ends at Phase III once the specific technologies being studied are deemed ready for use in commercial designs. Funding for that overall commercial design and development came through the “Quick Bolt” Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrator (ACTD) program, which began in 1999. ACTD concluded in 2003 with very positive a Military Utility Assessment (MUA) from United States European Command (EUCOM), which described AARGM as “a resounding success for the warfighter and the DoD.” By 2006, the program had even secured foreign participation from Italy, and was in talks with Germany.

Timeline & Delays

Despite that promising beginning, AARGM’s subsequent development has been slower than expected.

By February 2011, the US Navy’s 2012 RDT&E Budget Item Justification [PDF] placed IOC at Q3 FY 2011, but Operational Evaluation started late, and was halted early. AARGM didn’t begin IOT&E testing until June 2010, then suffered 6 operational mission failures during captive-carry tests. The problems were traced to poor software and parts quality, and ultimately traced back to management of the program and engineering specifications by ATK. In September 2010, the Navy de-certified AARGM from IOT&E, and the Pentagon rescinded approval for the program’s operational test plan. IOT&E didn’t restart until August 2011, and the back stock of early-production AARGM missiles have had to be individually certified as fit for service.

The program was looking to achieve Initial Operational Capability on just the F/A-18C/D Hornet in Q2 2012, but Full Rate Production (FRP) was been forced back from early 2010 to Q4 2012, and Full Operational Capacity (FOC) was moved back from Q4 FY 2013 to Q3 2014. Even then the missiles aren’t completely fit for purpose. They have (classified) deficiencies that the Navy hopes to fix with software upgrades, at the very end of the testing and evaluation periods.

AARGM Contracts & Key Events

AARGM on EA-18G
(click to view full)

AARGM is a Department of the US Navy major acquisition program under PEO-W, the Program Executive Office, Strike Weapons & Unmanned Aviation. US Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) in Patuxent River, MD manages the contracts.

Note that All-Up-Rounds are live missiles, including their storage containers. Captive Air Training Missiles (CATM) have the seeker and electronics, but remove the warhead and rocket motor in favor of ballast that maintains the same weight distribution.

F/A-18D launch
(click to view full)

April 13/16: Orbital ATK’s production of the AGM-88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM) was ceased for five weeks due to bad resistors supplied by a sub-contractor. The supplier quality issue will likely result in delays to the delivery of the company’s second and third full-production contracts. Developed as an improvement on the HARM missile, the AGM-88E contains a more modern homing receiver and navigation system to detect the radar signals of both stationary and mobile air-defense systems.

March 29/16: Orbital ATK is to keep producing AGM-88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM) multi-mode seekers until 2023. The extended orders were made by the US Navy, which requires 556 additional units. The addition, among some other changes, has caused a bump in the program’s cost by $484.8 million to over $2 billion. Jointly developed by the USA and Italy, the missile modification aims to improve the effectiveness of legacy Raytheon AGM-88 High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM) variants against fixed and relocatable enemy radar and communications sites, particularly those that shut down to throw off incoming anti-radiation missiles.

September 25/15: The Navy and Orbital ATK successfully conducted a test-firing of the Block 1 AGM-88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM) in August, the company announced on Thursday. A Super Hornet was used to launch the missile, which struck a moving ship target. Further tests are planned before the upgrade is rolled out. The US Marine Corps and Navy currently operate the missile, with the Italian Air Force scheduled to employ the weapon on its Tornado ECR attack aircraft from 2017.

FY 2013 – 2014

April 23/14: FRP-3. ATK Defense Electronic Systems in Northridge, CA receives an $83.4 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for AARGM Full Rate Production Lot 3: conversion of 110 AGM-88B high-speed anti-radiation missiles to a combination of AGM-88E all-up-rounds and captive air training missiles, plus include related supplies and services. An Aug 11/13 ATK release places the total contract value at $96.2 million instead.

All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2014 US Navy budgets. Work will be performed in Northridge, CA (90%); Fusaro, Italy (8%); and Ridgecrest, CA (2%), and is expected to be complete in December 2016. US NAVAIR in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-13-C-0162). See also ATK, “ATK’s Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile Earns Third Full-Rate Production Award from U.S. Navy”.

FRP Lot 3

March 4-11/14: FY15 Budget. The US military slowly files its budget documents, detailing planned spending from FY 2014 – 2019. From FY 2014 – 2016, the Navy has removed 221 AARGM missiles, compared with previous plans. See above for key charts etc. The new projections imagine that they’ll be able to buy 77 more missiles than planned in FY 2017 – 2018, but those kinds of future increases have a way of evaporating. Detailed budget documents add:

“The prior year quantity should be 186 due to the program procuring 10 additional missiles with FY 2012 funding at Full-Rate Production-2 (FRP-2) contract award in September 2013…. All-Up-Rounds (AURs) and Captive Air Training Missiles (CATMs) modification kit procurement quantity reduced in FY 2013 – FY 2016 due to Italian Air Force budget/funding restructuring, effects of sequestration reduction in FY 2013 through Future Years Defense Program and funding adjustments for other Navy priorities. Quantity increased in FY 2017 – FY 2019 in order to meet program of record. The quantity in FY 2015 is higher than FY 2014 due to the missile cost, which now includes Integrated Broadcast Service-Receiver (IBS-R) capability in FY 2015 and out years.”

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). AARGM is included, and the verdict remains the same: changes have made it operationally suitable (usable/ maintainable), but not operationally effective due to classified deficiencies.

All relevant parties have agreed to a framework that will adequately test the AARGM Block 1 Upgrade, but funding reductions are pushing planned FOT&E testing out of FY 2014, and into FY 2015 or even FY 2016. When that’s all taken care of, the Navy intends to conduct software upgrades of all Block 0 FRP missiles to Block 1, conducted at the squadron level.

Sept 25/13: FRP-2. ATK Defense Electronic Systems in Woodland Hills, CA receives a $102.4 million firm-fixed-price contract for AARGM Full Rate Production Lot II. They’ll convert Raytheon’s AGM-88B HARM missiles to AGM-88E all-up-round operational missiles and captive air training missiles (CATMs) for the US Navy (97/ $80.3M/ 78%) and the Government of Italy (15/ $12.8M/ 13%), plus related supplies and services. As an export sale, They’ll also convert AGM-88B HARM missiles to AGM-88E AARGM CATMs for the Government of Australia (8/ $9.3M/ 9%), and provide related supplies and services.

All funds are committed immediately. Work will be performed in Northridge, CA (90%); Fusaro, Italy (8%); and Ridgecrest, CA (2%), and is expected to be complete in December 2015. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to FAR 6.302-1. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, MD, is the contracting activity (N00019-13-C-0162).

FRP Lot 2: USA, Italy, Australia

Aug 5/13: #100. A ceremony Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, CA marks the 100th AARGM missile delivery. Sources: US NAVAIR, Aug 8/13 release.

#100 delivered

May 31/13: Australia. The US Navy signs an agreement with the Australian Government to provide training related to Raytheon’s AGM-88 HARM (High Speed Anti-Radiation Missile) and ATK’s AGM-88E AARGM (Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile), as part of the RAAF’s EA-18G Growler buy. They’ll be able to support whichever missile the RAAF chooses, though AARGM seems to be the target.

While it’s just a training capability, its the 1st Foreign Military Sales agreement with any country regarding AARGM. Italy is something else: a co-development partner. Sources: US NAVAIR, June 18/13 release.

Australia agreement

Tornado ECR MLU
(click to view full)

May 9/13: Italian upgrades. Alenia Aermacchi, BAE Systems, and EADS Cassidian delivered the 1st upgraded Italian Tornado ECR (Electronic Combat/ Reconnaissance air defense suppression variant) to the Italian Air Force. Alenia Aermacchi is the technical and program leader for the program, which will upgrade 15 planes to “Tornado ECR MLU” standard for service to 2025, and possibly beyond.

The upgrades begin in the cockpit, using an array of color, night-vision compatible LCS displays to replace key instruments. The new communication and identification system improves communications security, and add Link-16 battlefield situational awareness system via a MIDS box that integrates TACAN navigation functionalities. An integrated IN-GPS navigation system, supported by a Multi-Mode Receiver (MMR) system for approaches and ILS blind landings.

GPS awareness extends to sensors and weapons, with ELS multi-ship ranging and other software improvements added to improve pickup, identification, and localization of enemy radar emitters. Ordnance-related software changes allow the aircraft to carry new sensors, and adds GPS-guided weapons like AARGM and JDAM. Alenia.

March 11/13: Italian upgrades. NATO Eurofighter and Tornado Management Agency (NETMA) signs the MET 27 contract annex with the Panavia Tornado consortium. The contract will integrate the AARGM missile and the GPS-guided GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb onto the Aeronautica Millitare’s Tornado RET 7 and RET 8 configurations.

This effort builds on a larger upgrade effort, which began in December 2010. Implementation will take 3 years plus flight test activity, and is expected by by December 2015 thanks to some advance work. Alenia.

Jan 17/13: DOT&E Report. The Pentagon releases the FY 2012 Annual Report from its Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E). AARGM is still rated as “not effective,” as “the current [Block 0] weapon configuration has multiple performance shortfalls that largely negate its ability to accomplish its mission.” 2012 was mostly about making fixes, many of which involved communications between the control sections and guidance section. The USN expects AARGM Block 1 to provide Full Operational Capability, with testing scheduled in FY 2014.

That’s after the Navy will be asked to make a decision to buy FRP Lot 2, in late FY 2013. DOT&E’s other concern is that the testing will cost more than the program has in reserve, and notes that a shortage of AARGM telemetry kits is already identified as a potential problem. Finally, this quote bears mention:

“Immediately preceding a February 2012 test event involving two other live-missile shots, the Navy notified DOT&E that the planned threat scenario would likely result in mission failure due to a classified AARGM deficiency (details available in the classified DOT&E IOT&E report). Without DOT&E consent, the Navy modified the approved test scenario to alleviate the classified deficiency and proceeded with live-missile testing. DOT&E disagreed with the adjusted threat representation and subsequently assessed these events as operational failures.”

FY 2011 – 2012

IOC delayed by testing problems, low quality parts; Full-Rate Production approved – conditionally; LRIP-3 multinational order.

F/A-18E test w. HARMs
(click to view full)

Sept 24/12: ATK’s Defense Electronic Systems in Woodland Hills, CA received an $8 million cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order under AARGM’s basic ordering agreement for AARGM Block I software changes, improvements, and enhancements. It also covers other enhancements to the basic system, “implement [the] deferred Capability Production Document,” and change Common Munitions Built-in Test Reprogramming Equipment boxes 4 and 6 to correct Initial Operational Test & Evaluation deficiencies.

Work will be performed in Woodland Hills, CA, and is expected to be complete in January 2015. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12 (N00019-11-G-0014).

Sept 10/12: FRP-1. ATK Defense Electronics Systems in Woodland Hills, CA receives a $70.6 million firm-fixed-price contract for AARGM Full Rate Production Lot 1. ATK will convert 53 AGM-88B HARM missiles provided by the US government, turning them into 49 AGM-88E AARGM All-Up Rounds for the US Navy, and 4 missiles for Italy. ATK will also provide 23 AGM-88E Captive Air Training Missile systems for the US Navy, which have seekers but no rocket motors, along with all related supplies and services.

Work will be performed in Woodland Hills, CA (90%); various locations in Italy (8.1%); Ridgecrest, CA (1.7%), and Clearwater, FL (0.2%), and is expected to be complete in December 2012. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to FAR 6.302-1. This contract combines purchases for the Navy ($65.0M / 92.06%) and the Government of Italy ($5.6M / 7.94%). US Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-12-C-0113).

FRP Lot 1: USA, Italy

Aug 29/12: FRP. US NAVAIR announces that the Department of the Navy has authorized Full-Rate Production (FRP) for AARGM. What they misleadingly fail to say is that only the first lot of FRP missiles are approved, with any other orders depending on a program review by the end of FY 2013.

The Navy plans to award an 81-missile FRP contract to ATK later in 2012: 72 missiles for the USN, and 9 for the Italian Air Force, to be delivered in late 2013. See also Everett Herald Business Journal, which questions the authorization in light of testing problems. The Pentagon’s DOT&E 2012 report subsequently explains the limited nature of that approval.

FRP

April 4/12: Block I fix. ATK Defense Electronic Systems in Woodland Hills, CA receives a $10.6 million cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order for the AARGM Block I upgrade. They’ll handle AARGM Block I software changes, improvements, and enhancements that will enable the AGM-88E, as well as the common munitions built-in test reprogramming equipment boxes 4 and 6, to correct initial operational test and evaluation deficiencies, implement deferred capability product documentation capability, and add capability enhancements.

Work will be performed in Woodland Hills, CA, and is expected to be complete in April 2015. 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 the contract (N00019-11-G-0014).

March 30/12: GAO report. The US GAO tables its “Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs” for 2012, which is very critical of ATK’s program management:

“[AARGM] entered production in September 2008 with its critical technologies mature and design stable, but without demonstrating its production processes were in control. The Navy halted operational testing in September 2010 after a series of missile failures… caused by both hardware and software issues. The hardware failures involved multiple subcontractors and were primarily attributed to poor parts quality… supplier assessments conducted in the aftermath of the program’s test failures found several problems with the prime contractor’s management of its suppliers. For example, not all program requirements had flowed down to the subcontractor level, nor had subcontractors received updated drawings as design changes were made.”

Recoverry from that situation has been rocky, but it’s making progress:

“…in July 2011, Navy test officials evaluating the program’s readiness to reenter operational testing reported that the reliability of the missiles coming out of the factory had not improved. The Navy has implemented additional controls to identify missiles of poor quality, in particular, requiring each missile to be flight tested for 3 hours before accepting them… the Navy noted that the AARGM program continues to pursue should cost initiatives, awarding low-rate production contracts within should cost targets for planned quantities… The Navy stated that reliability continues to improve and is now over twice the threshold requirement.”

Jan 17/12: DOT&E test report. The Pentagon releases the FY 2011 Annual Report from its Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E). AARGM is included. The program restarted IOT&E testing in August 2011, using low-rate initial production (LRIP) missiles per the restart approval. They expect to finish in Q2 2012, and deliver a report in Q3 2012 that will affect the program’s approval for full-rate production. How did they get here?

“AARGM commenced IOT&E in June 2010, but during initial captive-carry flight tests, it suffered six operational mission failures. In September 2010, the Navy subsequently de-certified AARGM from IOT&E, and DOT&E rescinded approval for the program’s operational test plan… DOT&E assessed that [4 / 6] operational mission failures encountered during the first IOT&E period were discoveries developmental testing should have identified. IT and dedicated IOT&E is appropriately scoped and resourced with 10 live-fire LRIP missiles, along with captive-carry, reliability, and compatibility testing in operational environments against threat-representative targets.”

Oct 31/11: LRIP-3. Alliant Techsystems in Woodland Hills, CA receives a $54.4 million firm-fixed-price contract for AARGM Low Rate Initial Production Lot 3. The LRIP-3 contract involves the conversion of 51 AGM-88B HARM missiles from the US government into 51 AGM-88E AARGM missiles: 44 all-up-round (AUR) and captive air training (CATM) missile systems for the U.S. Navy ($47.15M/ 87%); and 7 AURs/CATMs for the government of Italy ($7.25M/ 13%), including related supplies and services. LRIP-3 brings the total number of ordered AARGM missiles for the U.S. Navy and Italian Air Force to 115 so far.

AARGM remains in the Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) phase and has undergone more than 300 hours of missile flight testing and multiple live fires. When IOT&E ends in early 2012, AARGM will achieve Initial Operational Capability (IOC) with the FA-18C/D Hornet, and Super Hornet family and Tornado ECR fighters will eventually follow.

Work will be performed in Woodland Hills, CA (89.2%); Fusaro, Italy (7.5%); Ridgecrest, CA (1.7%); Piacenza, Italy (1.4%); and Clearwater, FL (0.2%). Work is expected to be complete in May 2013, and $517,000 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12. This contract was not competitively procured, pursuant to FAR 6.302-1, as the AARGM Italian Cooperative Program follows the Production Sustainment and Follow-On Development Memorandum of Agreement between the U.S. Navy and the Italian Ministry of Defense (N00019-12-C-2005). See also ATK release.

LRIP Lot 3: USA, Italy

August 2011: IOT&E resumes.

Aug 12/11: IOC delayed. AARGM Initial Operational Capability (IOC) faces a further 9-month delay to February 2012. Costs aren’t expected to rise significantly. DefenseNews.

May 25/11: EA-18G. AARGM successfully completes its 1st EA-18G Growler test, during a captive-carry flight at China Lake, CA. Work with the electronic attack fighter will continue, in parallel with the ongoing AARGM Integrated Test & Evaluation phase using FA-18C/D Hornets.

The test squadrons have also used Super Hornets, and Cmdr. Chad Reed, deputy program manager for Anti-Radiation Missiles within the Direct and Time Sensitive Strike program office (PMA-242), says that F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler testing since November 2010 totals 25 flight hours, compared to over 150 flight-hours on F/A-18C/D Hornets. US NAVAIR | ATK.

April 27/11: Back on track? Serious quality issues that had stopped AARGM combat testing and threatened a full production decision have supposedly been resolved. US Navy program manager Captain Brian Corey told Bloomberg News that:

“The anomalies experienced in the first operational test period have been corrected and verified… The weapon is performing very well and the team has been able to meet the affordability goals… We are confident we will successfully complete [combat testing/OpEval].”

The revised AARGM missile has flown more than 160 flight hours on aircraft since February 2011 to assess its readiness to resume combat testing. The Navy plans 100 flights to evaluate the missile’s effectiveness, with initial flights assessing missile guidance, internal diagnostics, and pre-launch communications with the pilot. See also Sept 3/10 entry.

FY 2008 – 2010

Milestone C approval; 1st delivery and LRIP orders; But testing failures force halt.

Stop.
(click to view larger)

Sept 3/10: Testing. The US Navy halts AARGM IOT&E testing, after 6 software or circuit-card failures in the first 12 trials. This is not a common occurrence. Later reports say that the hardware failures involved multiple subcontractors, and involved poor quality parts. Source.

Tests halted

July 30/10: LRIP-2. Alliant Techsystems (ATK) Mission Systems Group’s Defense Electronics Systems Division in Woodland Hills, CA receives a $50.1 million firm-fixed-price contract for AARGM Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Lot II manufacturing. This contract provides for the conversion of 37 government furnished AGM-88B HARM missiles into AGM-88E AARGM All-Up Round (AUR)/Captive Air Training (CATM) missile systems for the US Navy (33, $38.1 million, 76%) and the government of Italy (4, $11.9 million, 24%), including related supplies and services.

Work will be performed in Woodland Hills, CA (75%); Rocket Center, WVA (11%); Piacenza, La Spezia, Italy (6%); Rome, Italy (6%); Clearwater, FL (2%), and is expected to be complete in February 2012. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to FAR 6.302-1. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-10-C-0065).

LRIP Lot 2: USA, Italy

July 14/10: Acceptance. ATK announces that the US Navy has accepted its 1st deliveries of AGM-88E AARGM production missiles. The missiles were handed over at ATK’s Allegany Ballistics Laboratory (ABL) facility in Rocket Center, WVA.

1st delivery

Aug 7/09: Test. The 8th and final development test (DT) firing of the AGM-88E AARGM takes place at Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, CA. It used the final missile hardware and software configuration, intended for Navy Independent Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) later in 2009.

The test shot was launched from a US Navy FA-18C Hornet in a scenario designed to test the missile’s capabilities to maneuver and perform in a short time-of-flight profile under heavy enemy counter-measures. During missile flight, AARGM successfully detected, identified, and located an enemy air defense unit (ADU) using its anti-radiation-homing (ARH) receiver. It then demonstrated its designed ability to minimize collateral damage and friendly fire by navigating clear of pre-planned impact avoidance zones. In the terminal phase, AARGM used its multi-mode sensor suite to overcome advanced target countermeasures, accurately guiding towards and directly hitting the enemy target. ATK’s Sept 3/09 release.

July 30/09: The House addresses Rep. Jeff Flake’s [R-AZ-6] proposed amendments to the FY 2010 House defense budget, including “H.Amdt. 402: An amendment numbered 439 printed in Part B of House Report 111-233 to prohibit funding for AARGM Counter Air Defense Future Capabilities.”

The amendment fails, 348-78. Its failure is bipartisan, with Republicans and Democrats both opposed in numbers, but almost all of its supporters are from the Republican Party. Flake’s district is actually near Phoenix, AZ. The 2 House members whose districts are most closely tied to AARGM competitor Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, AZ, actually voted against this amendment: Raul Grijalva [D-AZ-7] and Gabrielle Giffords [D-AZ-8]

April 13/08: Test. A successful test firing at Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake marks the 12th successful live fire test, on top of 200 flight tests, and 58 “captive carry” tests of the guidance systems and receivers. This test is similar to the Aug 11/08 test, but adds discrimination among multiple targets, prioritization of the most important target, and a last-minute send-back transmission for use in battle damage assessment. ATK release.

Dec 22/08: LRIP-1. Alliant Techsystems Mission Systems Group, Advanced Weapons Division in Woodland Hills, CA received a fixed price incentive fee contract with a not-to-exceed value of $55.1 million for the low-rate initial production of AGM-88E AARGM missiles – to include conversion of 27 existing AGM-88B HARM missiles into 27 AGM-88E AARGM All-Up-Round (AUR)/Captive Air Training (CATM) missile systems. CATMs contain seekers, but no rocket motors.

Work will be performed in Woodland Hills, CA (87.5%); Rocket Center, WVa (11%); and Clearwater, FL (1.5%), and is expected to be complete in March 2011. The Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages this contract (N00019-09-C-0026).

LRIP Lot 1

Sept 30/08: Milestone C. The AGM-88E AARGM successfully completes its Milestone C review, paving the way for Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP). Mr. Sean J. Stackley, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition, signed the Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM), following AARGM’s Operational Assessment (OA) in August 2008. NAVAIR release | ATK release.

Milestone C

Aug 11/08: Test. A 2nd test firing takes place at Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, this time designed to test the missile against enemy “shutdown tactics.” Launched from an F/A-18D Hornet, the AARGM detected, identified, located, and guided toward the emitter target using its Anti-Radiation Homing (ARH) receiver. After target radar emissions were purposely shut-down during the missile’s flight profile, AARGM utilized its GPS/INS to guide to the final ARH cue-point. For final approach, it successfully employed active Millimeter Wave (MMW) radar tracking to pinpoint and target the air defense site. The firing was the 4th of 8 planned developmental firings, and the final missile live-fire event leading to a Milestone C LRIP decision for AARGM. ATK release.

Aug 3/08: Test. A successful test at China Lake marks the first of two “Operational Assessment” firings supporting a Milestone C Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) decision later in 2008.

The AARGM was launched off-axis at medium altitude from an FA-18D Hornet. In this realistic scenario, AARGM successfully picked out the air defense system target in a cluttered environment, using its precision navigation to stay clear of designated impact avoidance zones (which prevents strikes in sensitive, neutral, or friendly regions), and guiding itself to lethal range. ATK release.

FY 2003 – 2007

Development contract; Italy joins; Germany signs MoU but doesn’t join.

F/A-18D fires AARGM
(click to view larger)

July 20/07: Germany. Alliant Techsystems (ATK) announces a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with MBDA LFK-Lenkflugkorpersysteme GmbH, to assess potential work share opportunities with the German Ministry of Defense (MoD) on the AGM-88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM). The MOU focuses on identifying opportunities for Germany in the production and product improvement phase of the AARGM program, as well as opportunities for additional derivatives of its predecessor the AGM-88 High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM).

This isn’t an MoU with the German government, but it’s the kind of activity usually precedes procurement decisions in multi-national projects. See our entries below, for instance, to observe that Italy became the first international partner of ATK and the U.S. Department of Defense when its Ministry of Defense signed a work share agreement in 2005. If the German MoD joins the AARGM cooperative team, LFK would be integrated into this industry team. ATK release.

May 25/07: 1st firing. The first Developmental Test (DT) firing of an AARGM missile takes place from an F/A-18 aircraft on the China Lake test ranges. The missile successfully achieves safe separation from the aircraft, navigates over an extended range to the designated target, and guides to a direct hit. The successful flight test meets all test objectives. These included AARGM’s compatibility with ATK’s Common Munitions Built-in-test/Reprogramming Equipment (CMBRE), compatibility with the Joint Mission Planning System (JMPS) and AWM-103, compatibility with the F/A-18C/D 21X Software Configuration Set, and the successful integration of AARGM hardware and software with legacy AGM-88 High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM) components.

The missile also achieved 7 successful flights firing the Quick Bolt Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD) and AARGM Advanced Technology Demonstration (ATD) phases of the program. A series of additional launches is planned during the SD&D phase.

April 5/06: CDR. The AARGM passes a Critical Design Review. During a CDR, all elements are reviewed to ensure that the weapon system’s predicted performance will meet warfighting requirements and that the program remains on schedule and on cost. The CDR was also the first major review attended by the Italian Air Force since signing a Memorandum of Agreement with the U.S. Department of Defense to participate in AARGM development. See ATK release.

CDR

AM Tornado IDS
(click to view full)

Feb 3/06: Italy in. ATK Missile Systems Co. LLC in Woodland Hills, CA received a $19.3 million ceiling-priced modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-incentive-fee contract. It covers risk reduction efforts and production of the AGM-88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM) for the Government of Italy under a Memorandum of Agreement.

Efforts to be provided under this specific contract include a point-to-point firing; modification of an aircraft to perform additional captive flight tests; real and surrogate targets for use during captive flight test program; development of software models of specific targets; and establishment of an Italian source to assemble common control sections. Work will be performed in Mantova, Italy (37%), Pratica di Mare, Italy (25%), La Spezia, Italy (6%), and Woodland Hills, CA (32%); and is expected to be completed in April 2009. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, MD issued the contract (N00019-03-C-0353).

November 2005: Italian MoU. The Italian Ministry of Defense and the US Department of Defense signed a Memorandum of Agreement on the joint development of the AGM-88E AARGM missile, which will equip their Tornado strike aircraft. Italy is providing $20 million of developmental funding as well as several millions worth material, equipment and related services.

Italy joins

June 19/03: SDD contract. ATK Missile Systems Co. LLC in Woodland Hills, CA receives a $222.6 million ceiling-priced, cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for the system development and design of the AGM-88E advanced anti-radiation guided missile (AARGM). The scope of the contract is the design, development and demonstration of a multi-mode AGM-88E AARGM seeker that will include an anti-radiation homing receiver, global positioning system/ inertial measuring unit and terminal radar to meet current Navy operational requirements. In addition, the contract provides for 7 special test units; 9 engineering, development models for developmental testing and operational assessment; and 15 production representative AGM-88E AARGMs. The whole program through the production phase was valued at $1.55 billion.

Work will be performed in Woodland Hills, CA (88%); San Diego, CA (7%); Van Nuys, CA (2%); Santa Barbara, CA (1%); Torrance, CA (1%); and Bourges Cedex, France (1%), and is expected to be completed in September 2008. This contract was not competitively procured by the Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, MD (N00019-03-C-0353). See also Deagel.

System Design & Development

Footnotes

1. Note that the SA-3 is known by more than one designation. SA-3 Goa is the NATO designation. S-125 is the Russian designation, and they call it the Neva or (if it’s the 2000 upgrade) S-125 Pechora.

Additional Readings

• US NAVAIR, via WayBack – NAWCWD AARGM Missile CRADA.
• US NAVAIR – AARGM.
• ATK – Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM).
• Raytheon – High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM). A new HARM HCSM retrofit adds a GPS receiver and an improved inertial measurement unit, and merges targeting solutions from navigation and seeker systems. That makes it a de facto AARGM competitor.
• Global Security – AGM-88 High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM), AARGM’s predecessor.

JAGM infographic
(click to view full)

The AGM-114 Hellfire missile remains a mainstay for the US military and its allies around the world, and efforts to replace it have repeatedly stalled. The Joint Common Missile (JCM) was meant to offer new guidance options, and use on fast jets as well as helicopters and UAVs. It performed well, but was canceled. It returned from the procurement dead as JAGM, a program that has undergone several major changes within itself. While other air forces field fast-jet solutions like MBDA’s Brimstone, JAGM will initially be limited to helicopters and UAVs, as a dual-mode guidance upgrade to current model Hellfire missiles.

The JAGM Program

JAGM Missile Increments

Hellfire II: what’s next?
(click to view full)

Oddly, the problems faced by Hellfire’s JCM and JAGM successors have been largely unrelated to cost or to performance. Rather, the programs kept getting cut to pay for other things. The Hellfires were seen as good enough to equip American helicopters and large UAVs like the Predator. To compete, new entrants had to fit into a new category. Smaller guided 70mm rockets gained a foothold because more of them could be carried in the same space, while small multi-mode glide bombs found a niche by being launched from the back ramps of cargo aircraft. JAGM was a straight substitute, and that wasn’t interesting enough.

After enough JCM/JAGM missile program cancellations and resurrections to make even Lazarus give up, the US Army looked at its Hellfire stocks, and realized that they’d need something new anyway. In response, they decided to try squaring this circle using an incremental approach, one focused on replacing the most at-risk AGM-114L radar-guided missiles first.

Initial. The JAGM Continued Technology Development phase now aims to create dual-mode laser/radar guidance sections that can equip existing Hellfire II missiles. Essentially, JAGM Increment 1 would create a Hellfire III missile with dual-mode guidance, matched to the AGM-114R’s multi-role warhead and rocket. Initial Army platforms would include the AH-64E Apache attack helicopter, and MQ-1C Gray Eagle UAV. The USMC’s initial platforms will be the AH-1Z Viper attack helicopter and KC-130J Harvest Hawk armed tanker/ transport, for integration by FY 2019.

JAGM Increment 2. Intends to increase the maximum range to 12 km, and move to the full tri-mode seeker with semi-active laser, Imaging Infrared (IIR), and millimeter wave radar guidance modes. If Raytheon bids, they’d be offering the tri-mode seeker in Increment 1 as well.

JAGM Increment 3. This is the original JAGM concept, more or less. It would have a maximum range of 16 km that would likely force a new rocket motor, alongside other redesigns for carriage and launch from helicopters or fast jets. Initial fixed-wing platforms would include the USMC’s AV-8B Harrier and F-35B Lightning II STOVL fighters, but there’s no set schedule. The earliest F-35 integration slot involves Block 4 fighters, whose software isn’t likely to be ready before 2021-2023.

Timeline & Budgets

If JAGM can be delivered to the required cost targets, it may add the originally-planned tri-mode (imaging infrared + semi-active laser + millimeter wave radar) guidance set, and Increments 2 & 3 may revive interest in new rocket motor technology that would eventually allow safe launches from fighter jets. Those kinds of advances sit beyond the current timeline.

Budgets to date have included:

Scope and Scale

F-16 fires Maverick

If the US Army and Navy have total current program numbers for JAGM, they aren’t disclosing them in recent documents. We do know that JAGM’s scope is much reduced, but it could still expand again.

The original Joint Common Missile (JCM) was seen as the next-generation, multi-purpose, air-to-ground precision missile that will replace AGM-114 Hellfire family, AGM-65 Maverick family, and airborne xGM-71 TOW missiles with a single weapon usable by the airplanes, helicopters and UAVs of the US Army, Navy, and Marine Corps. It was also being considered for use on some ground vehicles, and had naval potential. The original JCM had a goal of 54,000 missiles.

JAGM was revised lower, and a 2010 GAO document estimated the total 20-year program cost at about $6.4 billion: $1.64 billion for Research, Development, Test and Evaluation; and $4.74 billion to build 33,853 missiles. As of November 2011, the totals had reached $6.88 billion for 35,422 missiles.

Then the FY13 budget came in, grinding the program to a near halt as the Navy left. The program was restructured, and the USMC returned to the program in time for the FY15 budget submission, but the program’s scope has been reduced further.

Part of the reason involves fewer platforms. “Increment 1 & 2” versions of JAGM can’t replace the Mavericks on fixed-wing jets. Until at least 2019, the missiles will be limited to US Army AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, USMC AH-1Z attack helicopters, US Army MQ-1C Gray Eagle UAVs, and USMC KC-130J Harvest Hawk armed tanker/transports.

SDB-II

Meanwhile, the US Navy and USAF have a substitute. The Navy expects to follow the AGM-65 Mavericks on its jets with small GBU-53 SDB-II glide bombs, carrying a tri-mode IIR/laser/MMW radar seeker that may yet see derivative use in JAGM. The USAF will be doing likewise, instead of turning to JAGM or to similar missiles like MBDA’s Brimstone.

US Navy MH-60s can expect eventual JAGM integration, since AGM-114 Hellfire deliveries are set to end in 2017. Farther into the future, the USMC wants to equip its AV-8B and F-35B fighters with JAGM Increment 3. Note, however, that there’s no set schedule for missile upgrades. On the export front, if JAGM is added to F-35Bs, it will be competing with the MBDA Brimstone and SPEAR missiles that Britain plans to integrate into its own F-35B fleet.

Other opportunities exist. Vehicle-mounted options for Hellfire-class missiles are springing up, but competition from dedicated anti-armor weapons like the shorter-range Javelin, MMP, and Spike, or the longer range Spike-NLOS, will be fierce. Naval options may be even more promising for fire-and-forget missiles, where JAGM could replace the AGM-114L Hellfire on the USA’s Littoral Combat ships, or fit out other vessels who need a deadly fire-and-forget counter to small boat swarms. In that arena, MBDA’s laser/radar guided Brimstone and Raytheon’s GPS/laser/IIR guided Griffin C will be its main competitors.

Competition: MBDA’s Brimstone/ SPEAR

Brimstones on GR4s
(click to view full)

While the JCM/ JAGM program has churned specifications and burned time, a different program has already produced an interesting competitor with many of the same specifications, and some of the flexibility.

AGM-114P/R Hellfire missiles are now qualified for use at high-altitudes on UAVs like the MQ-9 Reaper, but they aren’t a solution for fixed-wing jets, and range limitations make Hellfire dangerous to use against even short-range air defenses. MBDA’s Brimstone 2 solves those problems.

The Brimstone’s first combat use came in 2011 over Libya, where its man-in-the-loop option and attack profiles made it one of the few weapons that NATO commanders could use to attack enemy armor in urban areas. It has been integrated with Britain’s Royal Air Force Tornado GR4 strike aircraft and Harrier GR9 jump-jets, and is slated to add the Eurofighter Typhoon to that list. F-35 integration was scheduled for F-35B Block 3 in 2018, but overall F-35 development problems look set to push the British effort back to Block 4 in 2021-2023.

SPEAR

With combat credentials and a significant head start, MBDA can be expected to make more market inroads.

Nor is MBDA resting on its technical laurels. Their SPEAR project for Britain’s Complex Weapons program aims to take the Brimstone’s warhead and guidance, and mount it on a larger missile with a range of 75 – 100 km. SPEAR will be mounted in multiples on external hardpoints, or carried inside the weapons bay of Britain’s forthcoming F-35Bs.

Contracts and Key Events

The JAGM program will be managed by the U.S. Army’s Aviation and Missile Command in Redstone Arsenal, AL.

JAGM Inc 1
(click to view full)

April 15/16: The Redstone Test Center is playing host to the engineering and development phase of the Joint Air to Ground Missile (JAGM). So far, the missile completed tests on its guidance section which included captive flight testing, tower testing, and environmental testing. The JAGM will now enter the Product Qualification Test (PQT) phase which will see the weapon carried on the Grey Eagle unmanned aerial system (UAS) and AH-64 Apache helicopter for flight testing.

Aug 3/15: Lockheed Martin has been awarded a $66.4 million contract to further develop the Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM) for the Army and Navy. The company submitted its bid for the program in April and successfully test fired two JAGMs in mid-July. The JAGM is intended to replace AGM-114 Hellfire, AGM-65 Maverick and BGM-71 TOW missiles currently in service.

July 14/15: Lockheed Martin reported on Monday that the company has successfully tested two Joint Air-to-Ground Missiles (JAGM) during recent testing over Elgin AFB in Florida. The company is bidding for its missile to win the Army’s JAGM competition, delivering its proposal in April.

Nov 3/14: USMC Plan. The USMC’s Aviation Plan to 2030 deals with weapons as well. JAGM is mentioned, and its 3 planned increments are fully outlined. Under current plans, JAGM Increment 1 will begin integration with AH-1Z attack helicopters in 2015, and will achieve Initial Operational Capability on the AH-1Z and on KC-130J Harvest Hawk armed tanker/ transport planes in 2019.

Beyond 2019, the USMC plans to field JAGM Increment 3 on the AV-8B Harrier II and F-35C Lightning II. Note that the earliest available integration slot for the F-35 would involve Block 4 software, around 2021-2023. Britain, is likely to add its competing Brimstone missile to the F-35B in Block 4, after original plans to feature it in Block 3 fell through. Sources: USMC, Marine Aviation Plan 2015 [PDF].

Oct 13/14: Lockheed Martin is preparing its expected JAGM bid with the current dual-mode laser/radar seeker, following successful tests.

Raytheon, whose solution was dropped at the same time as JAGM dropped to a dual-guidance mode because of funding shortfalls (q.v. July 18/13), is deciding whether to bid at all. If they do bid, they’re going to stick to their original plan and use the same tri-mode laser/IIR/radar seeker from the GBU-53 Small Diameter Bomb II. It’s a reasonable hedge against perceived risk, offering more capability for the same dollars. Of course, the level of perceived risk could be far more even if both designs had been funded through development.

Given the likely scope of future JAGM orders, and the tiny fraction of the procurement budget involved in JAGM development, there’s a legitimate policy question here re: the responsibility of the Pentagon to promote competitive tenders for significant weapon systems. Sources: Aviation Week, “Lockheed Martin Preparing JAGM Bid; Raytheon Unsure”.

May 13/14: FBO.gov, “14–JAGM ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING DEVELOPMENT”:

“The U.S. Army Contracting Command – Redstone (ACC-R) intends to issue a Draft Request for Proposal (DRFP), W31P4Q-14-R-0107, for the purpose of supporting a full and open competitive procurement to fulfill the requirements for the Joint Air to Ground Missile (JAGM) Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase with options for Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP)…. The JAMS project office plans to host a Pre-proposal Industry Day sometime in the June 2014 timeframe to present general unclassified information on the U.S. Army’s projected procurement strategy of the JAGM and the Army’s vision…”

March 4-11/14: Budgets. The US military slowly files its budget documents, detailing planned spending from FY 2014 – 2019. According to those documents, AGM-114 Hellfire orders stop in FY 2015 (USAF), and the last Hellfires will be delivered in April 2017. The Army’s documentation says nothing about JAGM production, except that the Milestone C decision for low-rate production is expected in Q2 FY17:

“The Army has depended on Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding to replenish [AGM-114] stocks since FY 2008. The Army continues to evaluate the transition strategy from HELLFIRE to Joint Air to Ground Missile (JAGM).”

Meanwhile, Navy documents indicate that they’re back in the program. They show JAGM integration on AH-1Z helicopters beginning in FY15, and orders beginning in FY19. JAGM will be re-using most of the AGM-114R Hellfire, which is already integrated on the AH-1Z, but Navy helicopters are used to the video interface that JAGM won’t have, and don’t typically carry fire-control radars. So, some changes will be necessary.

Feb 20/14: Lockheed Martin announces that its JAGM dual-mode guidance section has flown on a Hellfire missile and hit a moving laser-designated target. The missile was fired from 6km during an internally funded flight test at Eglin AFB, FL. Essentially, the missile acted like a normal Hellfire. Tests of the seeker in dual-mode are coming.

In a briefing, Lockheed Martin gives JAGM’s range as 8 km, whether launched low or high with its boost-only motor. The M299 launcher interface has a few changes from the basic Hellfire, and hews to the radar-guided AGM-114L Hellfire Longbow missile’s serial interface instead of a video interface. Otherwise, JAGM is basically an AGM-114R Hellfire missile with a new guidance section. System qualification is expected in Q4 2014, and JAGM will be integrated with the Army’s AH-64 Apache attack helicopters and MQ-1C Gray Eagle UAVs. Sources: LMCO, “Lockheed Martin Demonstrates JAGM Dual-Mode Guidance Section in Recent Flight Test” | JAGM Media Briefing with LMCO VP Tactical Missiles/Combat Maneuver Systems Frank St. John.

May 3/13: Brimstone for Reapers? With JAGM fielding still some way off, if ever, the USAF’s 645th Aeronautical Systems Group rapid acquisition office is reportedly interested in adding MBDA’s longer-range, dual laser/ MW radar guided Brimstone missile to the MQ-9’s arsenal. It’s real attraction is a ‘man in the loop’ feature that lets the firing aircraft abort an attack after launch, or correct a missile that locks on the wrong target. In Libya, those characteristics reportedly made it one of the few weapons NATO commanders could use to hit enemy armored vehicles in urban areas.

Brimstone already serves on RAF Tornado GR4 strike jets, and was an option for Britain’s Harrier GR9s before the entire fleet was sold to the US Marines. With Britain’s MQ-9s deployed, they’ve reportedly asked for tests using USAF MQ-9s, and also hope to interest American armed services in the weapon. Defense News | Defense Update.

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 JAGM, there isn’t a lot of near-term funding, and there are a lot of milestones to hit on the way to funding it as a Hellfire upgrade beginning around 2017. Budget figures to 2018 are compiled above.

R/B JAGM pre-test
(click to view full)

Dec 11/12: CTD. Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, AZ receives a “$10 million” firm-fixed-price contract for JAGM’s continued technology development. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ with an estimated completion date of March 31/13. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received (W31P4Q-13-C-0080). It appears to have taken longer than expected (vid. Aug 17/12 entry), but Raytheon has its CTD contract.

Raytheon’s Dec 3/12 release places the total value of both CTD phases at $65 million, just like Lockheed Martin. During the next 4 months, Raytheon will update its design and complete a delta (design changes) Preliminary Design Review. During the next 24 months, the team will focus on a Critical Design Review, guidance section qualification and testing, and delivery of JAGM guidance sections. The CTD phase will culminate with the US Army integrating Raytheon JAGM guidance sections to Hellfire missiles. Based on current schedules, Raytheon’s SDB II tri-mode seeker will be in its 2nd year of production by the time JAGM CTD concludes.

JAGM CTD contract

LMCO on JAGM
click for video

Aug 17/12: CTD. Lockheed Martin Missiles & Fire Control in Orlando, FL announces a $64 million extended technology development contract from the US Army, in order to keep the JAGM program one notch above dead. The Pentagon follows with an Aug 27/12 announcement for $32 million to continue developing the seeker & guidance unit, but “50% award announcements” are common, and Lockheed Martin’s figure remains authoritative.

Work will be performed in Orlando, FL, with an estimated completion date of Nov 28/14. Two bids were solicited, with 2 bids received (W31P4Q-12-C-0003).

Observant readers may notice that $64 million is about half of the $127 million the GAO was talking about for FY 2012 (vid. March 29/12 entry). Raytheon’s head of JAGM business development, J.R. Smith, says that their own CTD contract is currently in negotiation, and expected within the next several weeks.

JAGM CTD contract

May 31/12: A March 2012 presolicitation from the US Navy for JAGM integration on F/A-18E/F aircraft may have sent mixed signals, but its cancellation confirms the Navy’s intent.

March 29/12: GAO report. In its 2012 Selected Weapons Program assessment report, the GAO underlines the uncertain nature of JAGM’s future – not quite cancelled but close. It notes that Hellfires have been working well in theater, weakening the case for an expensive replacement.

According to the GAO, $127M in funding for the current fiscal year will allow a 27-month extension of the technology development phase to hopefully address affordability issues and reduce risk. The Pentagon’s comptroller sizes up the savings from stalling on JAGM at $300M in FY2013 and a total of $1.6B over the FYDP.

Raytheon/ Boeing JAGM
(click to view full)

Aug 2011: JAGM AoA. The program office submits its Analysis of Alternatives, defending JAGM as a cost-effective solution. They will probably have to fight hard to make that case.

June 7/11: Testing. Lockheed Martin touts company-funded trials of a JAGM seeker mounted in a Sabreliner 60 executive jet flying at 20,000 feet, which was used to track small, fast naval targets in the Gulf of Mexico near Eglin AFB, FL. Targets included a Revenge Advanced Composites (RAC) state-of-the-art, low-signature, high-speed patrol craft performing evasive maneuvers.

The test was designed to highlight robust mid-wave infrared performance, fixed wing performance, high humidity performance, effectiveness against a challenging low-signature target, and EMD readiness – since captive flight isn’t required until the next stage.

May 2/11: Testing. The Raytheon/ Boeing team follows up their Oct 23/10 firing, and completes the series of government-funded JAGM tests. The latest firing uses the new rocket motor, but only after subjecting it to thermal cycling from -45F to 160F degrees.

The test was whether the new motor would still work after 5-20 cycles of that treatment. It did, and Raytheon VP Advanced Missiles and Unmanned Systems Bob Francois gets to point out that “Every single test of the Raytheon-Boeing JAGM has been an unqualified success, even those using EMD motors.”