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 wanted heavy aircraft that could support their Leathernecks on the ground. The bad news was that the the Corps could field about 45 KC-130J aerial tankers for the price of a 12-plane AC-130J squadron, and lighter options like the AC-27J “Stinger II” would probably tally similar costs once R&D dollars were factored in. 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 range to refuel helicopters and fast jets alike? The Harvest Hawk program aims to do just that. It would give the USMC a far less capable convertible gunship option for Afghanistan, at a cost that’s about 2 orders of magnitude below a dedicated gunship fleet.

Unsurprisingly, the next service to show interest in this concept was SOCOM itself. The latest developments to this article (which will soon become DII subscriber content) include added background, and ammunition orders for SOCOM’s similar MC-130Ws…

• Gunships R Us: Equipping The Hercs [updated]
• Contracts and Key Events [updated]
• Additional Readings and Sources
  
  Continue Reading… »

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 current bid to replace its aerial tanker fleet. In January 2007, the big question was whether there would be a competition for the USA’s KC-X proposal, which will cover 175 production aircraft and 4 test platforms. The cost for this first phase alone is likely to reach $35+ billion spread over about 20 years, but America’s 40-50 year old aerial tanker fleet demands new planes. Otherwise, unpredictable age or fatigue issues, like the ones its F-15A-D fleet experienced in 2008, could ground its aerial tankers – and with them, a substantial slice of the USA’s total airpower. KC-Y and KC-Z contracts may follow in subsequent decades, in order to replace all 530 KC-135s/ Boeing 707s (195 active; ANG 251; Reserve 84) that were delivered until 1965, as well as the USAF’s 59 larger KC-10 tankers delivered from 1979-1987.

In the end, it was Team Boeing’s KC-767 Advanced (767-200 derivative) vs. the Team Northrop Grumman KC-30B (Airbus A330-200 derivative), both within the Pentagon and in the halls of Congress. Most observers correctly pointed out that all this lobbying was important, since the financial stakes guaranteed a huge political fight no matter which side won. A fight that ended up sinking, and restarting, the entire program.

Recent additions revolve around the KC-X v2.0 draft RFP’s release, as the canceled competition is on again, with a decision expected by mid-2010. As expected, complaints regarding the structure and process have already begun. The latest additions include a pair of milestones for the Airbus entry, and political battles around the RFP’s chosen selection process…

• KC-X: The Story So Far
• KC-X RFP v2.0: The New Structure [NEW]
• The Contenders and The Cargo Factor: KC-30B, KC-767… KC-777?
• KC-X: Teams & Locations [updated]
• KC-X RFP: Key Developments [updated]
• Additional Readings
  
  Continue Reading… »

IAF: Jaguar, Mirage 2000
SU-30K, MiG-27, MiG-21BiS
(click to view full)

“It’s the biggest fighter aircraft deal since the early 1990s,” said Boeing’s Mark Kronenberg, who runs the company’s Asia/Pacific business. DID has offered ongoing coverage of India’s planned multi-billion dollar jet fighter buy, from its early days as a contest between Dassault, Saab, and MiG for a 126 plane order to the entry of American competitors and even EADS’ Eurofighter.

What began as a lightweight fighter competition to replace India’s shrinking MiG-21 interceptor fleet appears to have bifurcated into 2 categories now, and 2 expense tiers. What’s going on? In a word, lots. The participants changed, India’s view of its own needs is changing, and the nature of the order may be changing as well – but with the release of the official $10 billion RFP, the competition can begin at last. DID offers an in-depth look at the MRCA/MMRCA competition’s changes, the RFP, and the competitors; and also offers an updated timeline regarding competitive moves since this article was published in March 2006.

The RFP responses were submitted in April 2008, and the IAF is beginning the competitive fly-off. France’s Rafale has climbed back into the race, but the breakdown of negotiations to upgrade the IAF’s Mirage 2000s may damage its chances, even as it increases the MMRCA order…

• India’s MRCA (Multi-Role Combat Aircraft): Changes (i.e. “Continue reading…”)
• MMRCA: The RFP, Please…
• The Competitors: Analysis
• MMRCA: Updates and Developments [updated]
• Appendix A – MMRCA: The Naval Angle
• Appendix B – Dassault’s Move: Au Revoir, Mirage
• Additional Readings
  
  Continue Reading… »

RAAF C-130J-30, flares
(click to view full)

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

C-130J customers now include Australia, Britain, Canada, Denmark, India, Iraq, Italy, Norway, Oman, Qatar, and the United States. American C-130J purchases are taking place under both annual budgets and supplemental wartime funding, in order to replace tactical transport and special forces fleets that are flying old aircraft and in dire need of major repairs.

This DID FOCUS Article describes the C-130J, examines the bottleneck issue, covers global developments for the C-130J program, and looks at present and emerging competitors. The latest update includes a USAF order for Rolls-Royce to supply AE 2100D3 spare engine parts to power the C-130J…

• The (Private) Labors of Hercules: the C-130J
• The C-130J and the 20-ton Bottleneck
• Turbulent Flight: The C-130J Program
• Contracts and Key Events [updated]
• Additional Readings & Sources, incl. emerging competitors & Special Operations requirements
  
  Continue Reading… »

C-17 Globemaster III
(click to view full)

Defense News reports that India is negotiating to buy 10 C-17A Globemaster III heavy transports for its air force, and claims that a $1.7 billion deal is likely to be finalized “by early 2010.” The report adds that:

“The C-17’s advantages include its easier handling (compared with the IL-76) and ability to operate from short and rough airstrips, added the sources…. The Indian military needs to do three things: augment its ability to quickly lift larger numbers of troops as it views possible threats on its border with China; strengthen its presence on the Pakistani border; and fight terrorism and low-intensity warfare, said a senior Defence Ministry official. India needs to triple its lift capacity, said the official.”

IAF IL-76MD
(click to view full)

The article correctly notes that C-17 costs would be about 300% of the Russian IL-76, which India already operates as transport, aerial refueling (IL-78), and AWACS (IL-76/A-50 Phalcon) aircraft. Purchases by countries like Jordan indicate that a stretched IL-76MF with westernized avionics would sell in the $50-75 million range, and the aircraft does have some rough field capability. In contrast, the C-17’s price tends to hover near a modern 747’s, at around $200-250 million. Australia spent about $1.4 billion, and Canada about $1.6 billion, to buy and induct 4 C-17As into their respective air forces; the USA, who does not have the extra expenses that accompany any new fleet aircraft type, was set to spend $2.5 billion for 10 C-17s in the Senate’s FY 2010 defense budget. A $1.7 billion budget might buy India 5 operational C-17s, but it’s very difficult to see how it could buy 10.

C-5 Galaxy
(click to view full)

DID’s FOCUS articles offer in-depth, updated looks at significant military programs of record. This FOCUS Article explains what the C-5 AMP/RERP program involves, why it’s so critical to the future of American airpower, and why it’s such a challenging project. It also covers developments on the political and contracting fronts.

When it was introduced, back in 1970, the C-5 Galaxy was the largest plane in the world. Even so, the fleet is not without its issues. The C-5 has the highest operating cost of any Air Force weapon system, and those costs stem from extremely high maintenance demands as well as poor fuel economy. Availability rates routinely hover near 50%. To add insult to injury, the Russians not only built a bigger plane (the AN-124), they sold it off at the end of the Cold War to semi-private operators, turning it into a commercial success whose customer list now includes… NATO.

Sunrise? Sunset?
(click to view full)

Meanwhile, the USA still needs long-range, heavy load airlift. The AN-124’s commercial success may get its production line restarted, but the C-5 has no such hope. C-17s cost more than $200 million per plane – about the cost of a 747-8 freighter, but still a lot of money. The US Air Force believed it could save money by upgrading the older C-5s to renew their avionics (AMP) and engines (RERP). Their hope was that this would eliminate the problems that keep so many C-5s in the hangar, cut down on future maintenance costs, and grow airlift capacity without adding new planes. Unfortunately, the program is program experienced major cost growth, and a battle between C-5M and C-17 supporters in Congress is underway.

The C-5M program wound up being cut in size, and cut in two. The C-5A and C-5B/C fleets are now slated for different treatment, which will deliver fewer of the hoped-for benefits in exchange for lower costs and lower risk. The latest development involves a $143.2 million contract for C-5 Avionics Modernization Program sustainment support…

• The C-5’s AMP/RERP Changes
• The AMP/RERP Program and the C-5 Gamble
• Contracts & Key Events, 1999 – Present [updated]
• Additional Readings & Sources
  
  Continue Reading… »

Scratch one flag…
(click to view full)

In April 2005, South Africa’s Public Enterprises Minister Alec Erwin expected the cost of the SAAF’s 8 planned Airbus A400M medium-heavy military transport aircraft to be EUR 830 million. That converted to R 6.5 billion at those exchange rates, or about $177.75 million per plane in American dollars. South Africa reportedly intended to take delivery of 8 of the A400Ms from 2010-2014, with a further 6 on option. Ordering those additional 6 aircraft would reportedly have pushed the total contract value to EUR $1.5 billion, or about R11.9 billion at those exchange rates. When the deal was signed in December 2006, the price for 8 aircraft and initial fielding had risen to R 17.646 billion, or almost $2.5 billion: about $308 million per plane.

Meanwhile, South Africa bit the bullet and decided to upgrade its 8-9 aged C-130B Hercules planes. The first SAAF C-130Bs were delivered in 1963, and badly needed additional upgrades and refurbishment.

Subsequent delays to the A400M program were set to either extend the C-130Bs’ service, or force reliance on charters, even as the A400M’s likely costs grew. That SAAF aerial uncertainty has only grown, now that South Africa has become the first country to pull out of the A400M program…

Continue Reading… »

F-16B & X-35
(click to view full)

In an exclusive June 2006 interview, Israeli Air Force (IAF) chief procurement officer Brigadier-General Ze’ev Snir told Israel’s Globes publication that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter was a key part of their IAF recapitalization plans, and that Israel intends to buy over 100 of the fighters to replace their F-16s over time. A 100-plane deal would have cost at least $5 billion under Israel’s original estimates, and would involve the F-35A conventional take-off Air Force version. Snir added that:

“The IAF would be happy to equip itself with 24 F-22s but the problem at this time is the US refusal to sell the plane, and its $200 million price tag.”

Unfortunately, Israel’s September 2008 request for its first 75 F-35s would end up costing them an estimated $15 billion – or about $200 million per plane. All in return for a fighter with poorer air-to-air performance than the F-22, and less stealth. The necessary contract must deal with that sticker shock, and with issues like the incorporation of Israeli technologies, before it can be signed. The latest news is that Israel may forego its own weapons and technologies, in order to curtail a $130 million price tag – and may decide to delay its F-35 purchase by 2 years…

• F-35 for Israel: Key Issues
• Contracts and Key Events [updated]
• Additional Readings
  
  Continue Reading… »

[by John MacNeill]
Goo goo g’joob!

In April 2005, “USN, DARPA See Blimps & HULAs Rising”, looked at a range of projects on the drawing board, including the Walrus heavy-transport blimp (that’s “heavy” as in “1-2 million pounds”) which offered the potential for a faster and more versatile sealift substitute.

In this article DID explains the Walrus concept, details the contractors and contracts involved in this initial award (including a few updates), and lays out the program’s structure… or at least, what used to be its structure. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) funded phase 1 contracts, but things seemed to end in 2006. Yet the imperatives driving the need for Walrus, or even for a much smaller version of it, remain. Is the Walrus dead? What about Paul? And could it, or a HULA like like it, rise again?

Continue Reading… »

A400M: The real target?
(click to view full)

From “C-130J Acquisition Program Restructured”:

”[The C-130J Hercules] has since been deployed into theater by the USAF, where its vastly improved performance in “hot and high” environments has come in very handy. Unlike the pending Airbus A400M, however, the C-130J doesn’t solve the sub-survivable 20-ton armored vehicle limit that has stymied multiple US armored vehicle programs from the Stryker IAV to Future Combat Systems. As such, it represents an improvement that fails to address US tactical airlift’s key bottleneck limitation.”

Something called the Advanced Composite Cargo Aircraft (ACCA) may – or may not – represent a first step toward addressing that issue. It may also represent a US aerospace effort to avoid a looming future in which the Airbus A400M would be the only available tactical transport for survivable armored personnel carriers. With the light transport JCA made up of entirely foreign designs, the 20-ton transport market beginning to crowd, and the heavy-lift C-17 production line headed toward shutdown, the US aerospace industry risks a slip from a 1980-1990s position of market dominance in the military transport space to a position of fighting for its competitive life by 2020.

So where does ACAA fit in? How is it connected to the Composite Affordability Initiative, and the notional Advanced Joint Air Combat System (AJACS) program?

• From CAI to ACAA
• The AMC-X/ AJACS Program: Intent and Issues
• Contracts and Key Events
• Additional Readings & Sources
  
  Continue Reading… »