Advertisement

AIM-120C from F-22A
(click for test missile zoom)

AMRAAM was designed with the lessons of Vietnam in mind, and of local air combat exercises like ACEVAL and Red Flag.

One of the key lessons learned from Vietnam was that a fighter would be likely to encounter multiple enemies, and would need to launch and guide several missiles at once in order to ensure its survival. This had not been possible with the AIM-7 Sparrow, a “semi-active radar homing” missile which required a constant radar lock on one target. In addition, enemy fighters were capable of launching missiles of their own. Pilots who weren’t free to maneuver after launch would often be forced to “break lock” or be killed – sometimes even by a short-range missile fired during the last phases of their enemy’s approach. Since fighters that could carry radar-guided missiles like the AIM-7 tended to be larger and more expensive, and the Soviets were known to have far more fighters overall, this was not a good trade.

Enter AMRAAM – the AIM-120 Advanced, Medium-Range Air to Air Missile. This focus article covers successive generations of AMRAAM missiles, international contracts and key events from 2006 onward, and even some of its emerging competitors. New materials will be highlighted in green type. The most recent additions involve an order for Greece, and changes to the guidance unit…

• Some MRAAM History, and AMRAAM’s Design Approach (ie. Continue reading…)
• AMRAAM: Versions & Derivatives
• AMRAAM’s International Competitors
• AMRAAM: Contracts & Key Events [updated]
• Additional Readings & Sources
  
  Continue Reading… »

CF-18: which way?
(click to see clearly)

The Hornet is the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet’s predecessor, and the first models were introduced in the late 1970s as a spinoff of the USAF’s lightweight fighter competition. While the General Dynamics F-16 won, Northrop’s YF-17 eventually evolved into the McDonnell-Douglas (now Boeing) F/A-18 Hornet.

The F/A-18 Hornet is currently flown by the US Marine Corps as their front-line fighter, by the US Navy as a second-tier fighter behind its F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets, and by 7 international customers: Australia, Canada, Finland, Kuwait, Malaysia, Spain, and Switzerland. The USA’s aircraft were expected to have a service life of 20 years, but that was based on 100 carrier landings per year. The US Navy and Marines have been rather busy during the Hornets’ service life, and so the planes are wearing out faster.

This is forcing the USA to take a number of steps and issue a series of contracts in order to keep their Hornets airworthy, replacing center barrel sections, re-opening production lines, and more. Some of these efforts will also be offered to allied air forces, who have their own programs and services to call upon. The latest additions involve engine support for several countries…

Continue Reading… »

Advertisement

C-17 over Hawaii
(click to view full)

The C-17 Globemaster III remains the backbone of US Air Mobility Command inter-theater transport efforts around the world, and its ability to operate from shorter and rougher runways has made it especially useful during the Global War on Terror. The USA may cap production at 191 planes (though the House has inserted 10 more in the FY 2008 bill), but a fierce fight is underway to preserve the program and even think tanks are lobbying hard. Meanwhile, various upgrades (including LAIRCM defensive systems) continue – along with heavy usage that is accumulating fatigue hours far faster than originally planned.

Which brings us to the subject of maintenance. The rising cost of maintenance has made it a greater concern to the world’s militaries, and new contract vehicles are reflecting that. Under the C-17 Globemaster III Sustainment Partnership, Boeing has total system support responsibility for the big transport aircraft, including materiel management and depot maintenance, for fleets around the world. The goal is total aircraft sustainment support under a single contract, with the goal of achieving improvements in logistics support and mission readiness while reducing operating and support costs. The initial contract had an estimated total value of $4.9 billion, which is likely to grow slightly just as Boeing’s customer base has done via deliveries to Australia (4), Britain (6), Canada (4), and a likely NATO buy (3).

While the C-17 may have limited production time in its future, the C-17 Globemaster Sustainment Partnership is likely to continue for many years. This is DID’s FOCUS Article covering that effort; it will be backfilled and updated as time goes on. The latest addition involves Q4 2008 funding for the USA, and an Australian option as well…

• The C-17 Globemaster III
• The C-17 Globemaster III Sustainment Partnership
• The C-17 PE/PI Program
• Contracts and Key Events, FY 2004-Present [updated]
• Additional Readings & Sources
  
  Continue Reading… »

Boeing Delta IV

The EELV program was designed to reduce the cost of government space launches through greater contractor competition, and modifiable rocket families whose system requirements emphasized simplicity, commonality, standardization, new applications of existing technology, streamlined manufacturing capabilities, and more efficient launch-site processing. Paradoxically, that very program may have forced the October 2006 merger of Boeing & Lockheed Martin’s rocket divisions.

Crosslink Magazine’s Winter 2004 article “EELV: The Next Stage of Space Launch” offers an excellent briefing that covers EELV’s program innovations and results, while a detailed National Taxpayer’s Union letter to Congress takes a much less positive view.

This DID Spotlight article looks at the contracts that have been placed since the merger was completed. The latest development is a contract to Lockheed worth over $1 billion…

Continue Reading… »

A-10 over Germany
(click to view full)

The Precision Engagement modification is the largest single upgrade effort ever undertaken for the USA’s unique A-10 “Warthog” close air support aircraft fleet. when complete, it will give them precision strike capability sooner than planned, combining multiple upgrade requirements into one time and money-saving program rather than executing them as standalone projects. Indeed, the USAF has accelerated the PE program by 9 months as a result of its experiences in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The entire A-10 fleet will be modified over 4-5 years, at an estimated total cost of $420 million. While A/OA-10 aircraft continue to outperform technology-packed rivals on the battlefield, this set of upgrades is expected to help keep the aircraft current until the fleet’s planned phase-out in 2028. Overall, an April 2, 2007 GAO report places the potential total cost of upgrading, refurbishing, and service life extension plans for the A/OA-10 force at up to $4.4 billion.

This is DID’s FOCUS Article for the PE program, and for other modifications to the A-10 fleet. It covers the A-10’s battlefield performance and advantages, the elements of the PE program, other planned modifications, and the contracts that have been issued each step of the way. In the latest updates, the SEEK EAGLE office is doing some important modeling work…

• A/OA-10 Thunderbolt II: Experiences on the Ground
• The A/OA-10 Precision Engagement Modification Program
• A-10 PE, Other Planned Improvements
• Contracts & Key Events [updated]
• Additional Readings & Sources
  
  Continue Reading… »

Do you feel lucky…?
(click to view full)

DID has covered the T-45 Training System before, which includes T-45 Goshawk aircraft, advanced flight simulators, computer-assisted instructional programs, a computerized training integration system, and a contractor logistics support package. The integration of all five elements is designed to produce a superior pilot in less time and at lower cost than previous training systems.

The US Navy uses the Hawk-based T-45TS system to train its pilots for the transition from T-6A Texan II/ JPATS aircraft to modern jet fighters – and carrier landings. This is not a risk-free assignment, by any means. Nevertheless, it is a critical link in the naval aviation chain.

DID recaps its coverage of the complete T45TS system, notes the relevant budgetary figures, and covers its contracts from FY 2006 onward. The latest development includes more realism in strike fighter and electronic attack training, thanks to a project under development by Elbit…

• History & Background
• T45TS Contracts
  
  Continue Reading… »

(click to view full)

The V-22 program has been beset by controversy throughout its 20-year development period, from crashes that have killed more than 20 Marines, to engine stalls, to issues with their AE1107C Liberty engines in Iraq that may lead to the end of Power By the Hour maintenance arrangements, or even replacement of the Liberty engines altogether. DID’s “V-22 Osprey: A Flying Shame?” offers a focused look at a number of specific allegations associated with the program, with material from Pentagon test reports, critical reviews, and the US military’s responses.

Despite these issues, the program continues to move forward. In March 2008, the Bell Boeing Joint Project Office in Amarillo, TX received a $10.4 billion modification that converted the previous advance acquisition contract (N00019-07-C-0001) to a fixed-price-incentive-fee, multi-year contract. The new contract will be used to buy 141 MV-22 (for USMC) and 26 CV-22 (Air Force Special Operations) Osprey aircraft, including associated manufacturing tooling in support of production rates.

This DID article will cover V-22 multi-year purchase contracts, developments that arise after this contract conversion, and associated contracts for key V-22 systems. The latest contract involves support services, and yet another spares order…

• Contracts & Key Events (June 2008 – Present)
• Additional Readings
  
  Continue Reading… »

THAAD: In flight
(click to view full)

The Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system is a long-range, land-based theater defense weapon that acts as the upper tier of a basic 2-tiered defense against ballistic missiles. It’s designed to intercept missiles during late mid-course or final stage flight, flying at high altitudes within and even outside the atmosphere. This allows it to provide broad area coverage against threats to critical assets such as population centers and industrial resources as well as military forces, hence its previous “theater (of operations) high altitude area defense” designation.

This capability makes THAAD different from a Patriot PAC-3 or the future MEADS system, which are point defense options with limited range that are designed to hit a missile or warhead just before impact. The SM-3 Standard missile is a far better comparison, but the SM-3 is a naval counterpart and could offer positioning advantages or disadvantages depending on the area to be defended. A multi-layered anti-ballistic missile system should ideally have both land and naval options, as well as theater-level and point defenses backed by a 3rd tier of longer ranged midcourse-defense missiles (q.v. GBI) and/or space-based weapons that can hit the missile during its boost phase.

This is DID’s FOCUS article covering the THAAD system, and newer items will be indicated in green type as a reader convenience. The latest news includes another successful intercept test…

• The THAAD System: Further Details (i.e. “Continue reading…”)
• The THAAD Program
• Contracts and Key Events [updated]
• Additional Readings & Sources
  
  Continue Reading… »

Darkest before dawn?
(click to view full)

The USA’s aerial tanker fleet is the backbone of American global air power, but its youngest KC-135 planes were built over 40 years ago. Replacing them is the USAF’s #1 priority, and the initial KC-X phase of 175 operational aircraft amounts to a $35 billion buy. When EADS Airbus and Northrop Grumman’s A330 MRTT was picked over Boeing’s KC-767 on Feb 29/08, therefore, the shockwaves were felt around the world. DID’s members-only Insider article “The USAF’s KC-X Aerial Tanker RFP” offers full coverage of the RFP, the decision, and subsequent events.

The most recent event has sent shockwaves of its own, however, and deserves its own depth coverage. As everyone predicted, the losing firm immediately launched a protest with the Congressional Government Accountability Office. The GAO has no power to compel the Air Force, but the US military usually works to comply with GAO decisions in order to minimize political difficulties. Those difficulties have just increased significantly, however, as the GAO sustains Boeing’s protest and pours fuel on the smoldering discontent among many Congressional representatives. The implications extend beyond the USA’s borders, and into the global defense industry as a whole. Now, the full decision has been released – and the Air Force may be about to try to bull its way through to an award by the end of the year, using the same playbook it tried the CSAR-X helicopter contract…

• The Summary
• The GAO Release
• The Full Decision [NEW]
• The Way Ahead: Analysis [updated]
• Additional Readings & Sources
  
  Continue Reading… »

Old as the hills…
(click to view full)

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 the USAF believes that adding new plane types to America’s 40-50 year old aerial tanker fleet is its #1 priority, lest unpredictable age or fatigue issues like the ones its F-15A-D fleet is experiencing ground its aerial tankers – and with them, a substantial slice of the USA’s total airpower. KC-Y and KC-Z contracts will 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.

“US Debating Aerial Tanker Types, Mix” offers in-depth coverage of the lead-up to the KC-X RFP, explaining many of the military & policy issues in play as the USA contemplates its own choices. Then came the contractor decisions, and responses. What would Boeing propose? The KC-767, the KC-777, or both? Would Northrop and EADS elect to play, bringing their Airbus KC-30/A330 MRTT?

In the end, it was Team Boeing’s KC-767 Advanced (767-200 derivative) vs. the Team Northrop Grumman KC-30B (Airbus A330-200/200F derivative). Each aircraft system has its strengths, and each system also had risk factors as lobbying continued right down to the wire. Boeing claimed lower KC-767 operating costs, and received a union endorsement. EADS promised to open production of A330F civilian jets in the USA if it won. Most observers correctly pointed out that all this lobbying was important, as the financial stakes involved meant there was going to be a huge political fight no matter which side won.

That has proven to be the case. Intense guerilla marketing and legislative lobbying were only the opening shots, especially now that there’s a concrete winner to fight over. The Airbus A330 MRTT will become the KC-45 in US service, if the military can make its decision stick. DID offers the competition’s entire history to date, as a GAO decision rocks the competition by agreeing with some of Boeing’s key charges…

• The Contenders and The Cargo Factor (i.e. continue reading…) [updated]
• KC-X: Teams & Locations
• KC-X RFP: Key Developments [updated]
• Additional Readings
  
  Continue Reading… »