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… »

LHA-R Concept
(click to view full)

Modern U.S. Navy Amphibious Assault Ships project power and maintain presence by serving as the cornerstone of the Amphibious Readiness Group (ARG) / Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG). A key element of the Seapower 21 doctrine pillars of Sea Strike and Sea Basing, these LHA/LHD ships transport, launch, and land elements of the Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB) via a combination of LCAC hovercraft, amphibious transports and vehicles, helicopters, and aircraft.

Designed to project power and maintain presence, LHA-Replacement (LHA-R, aka. LH-X and now the America Class) large deck amphibious assault ships will replace the LHA-1 Tarawa Class. They’re based on the more modern LHD Wasp Class design, but remove the LHD’s landing craft and well deck. The end product is essentially a revival of the World War 2 escort carrier concept, with integrated berthing, cargo, and light vehicle spaces for Marines. LHA-R ships will be almost 80 feet longer than USS Wasp and 10 feet wider, since they don’t have to fit through the Panama Canal. As a result, these ships will weigh in at 50,000 tons/ 45,700t fully loaded rather than 42,400t full load for LHD 8. Though DID uses the term “escort carriers” due to the size of their aerial complement, note that their overall displacement will be larger than France’s 43,000t FNS Charles De Gaulle nuclear powered aircraft carrier.

This is DID’s FOCUS Article concerning the America Class…

• America Class Ships: 21st Century Escort Carriers
• The LHA-R Program [updated]
• America Class: Contracts & Key Events [updated]
• Additional Readings
  
  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… »

KC-135 & RNoAF
F-16, Afghanistan
(click to view full)

While Team Boeing and EADS Airbus/Northrop Grumman duke it out for the USA’s $20-30 billion KC-X order of about 175 aerial tankers with secondary cargo capacity, the existing KC-135 fleet still needs to be maintained. Based on the 707 airliner’s initial designs, the KC-135s first entered service in 1954, and they were delivered until 1965. Despite their age, they remain the mainstay of the USA’s aerial tanker fleet as it helps fighters make long-distance flights, keeps US and foreign combat air patrols on station, refuels transports on their way to remote destinations, and generally makes long-range force projection possible.

Unforseen mechanical issues and the accompanying fleet groundings would create a crippling bottleneck in this defining array of American airpower capabilities, which is why KC-X was designated as the USAF’s highest procurement priority. Meanwhile, the KC-135s need to be well and carefully maintained in order to avoid that bottleneck. Which is why Boeing has just received a $1.1 billion, 10-year contract to maintain the USAF’s KC-135 fleet. It doesn’t follow the advanced “we pay for flying planes” model being implemented for Britain’s 707-based E-3D Sentry AWACS fleet, its VC10 aerial tankers, et. al.

Even so, this contract’s size, the American fleet’s importance, and the convoluted contract history that has led to the current GAO ruling, all make attention to its details worthwhile. Extremely unusual language in the GAO’s decision even raised questions of potential foul play. In the wake of the decision sustaining the contract protest, the USAF awarded the contract to Boeing again. Now the GAO has ruled on the second protest from Pemco/AAII…

Continue Reading… »

C-17 vs. AN-124
(click to view full)

The long-range C-17 Globemaster III heavy transport aircraft remains the backbone of US Air Mobility Command inter-theater transport around the world, and its ability to operate from shorter and rougher runways has made it especially useful during the Global War on Terror. Recent buys by Australia, Britain, and Canada have broadened the plane’s its global use. Now NATO, who has relied on the SALIS arrangement and its leased super-giant AN-124s from Russia, is looking to buy and own 3-4 C-17s as NATO pooled assets with multinational crews. Participating countries will receive allocated flight hours relative to their participation (a Dutch MinDef release says they expect 500 flight hours per year for EUR 10-15 million per year over 30 years), and thus far they include: Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, and the United States.

This order will not materially change the coming shut-down of C-17 production, but it does look like the inauguration of a pool that will fill a gaping hole in Europe’s defense capabilities – its complete lack of heavy airlift. This article will cover NATO C-17 acquisition program, including its structure and ongoing announcements. Program is actually a misnomer so far. There has been talk, and spending bills are being introduced in some countries, but nothing resembling firm contracts yet, despite an originally-planned in-service date of late 2007. While Denmark has dropped out, Finland dropped in, and Latvia is now on board. The number of planes has dropped slightly, but NATO has now confirmed the total number of planes and the immediate schedule, as the number of signatories grows…

• The NATO C-17 Pool
• Contracts, Notifications & Key Events [updated]
• Additional Readings
  
  Continue Reading… »

T-AKE Construction
(click to view full)

The entire T-AKE dry cargo/ ammunition ship program could have a total value of as much as $6.2 billion in exchange for 14 ships, as the US looks to modernize its supply ship fleet. Indeed, the House Armed Services Committee recently put together an FY 2008 budget that added $456 million for another T-AKE ship – though this figure would not cover all of the internal systems et. al. that must be added to make it operational.

How do T-AKE ships fit into US naval operations? What ships do they replace? What’s the tie-in to US civilian industrial capacity? How were environmental standards built into their design? And what contracts have been issued for T-AKE ships to date? DID has answers in this FOCUS Article. Recent updates include the US Navy’s acceptance of T-AKE 5, and a $100 million long-lead items contract for T-AKE 12…

• T-AKE Ships: Mission & Capabilities
• T-AKE Ships: The Civilian Industry Angle
• T-AKE Ships & the Environment
• T-AKE Ships: Contracts & Key Events [updated]
• Additional Readings & Sources
  
  Continue Reading… »

RN CVF Concept
(click to view full)

In 1998, Britain’s Strategic Defence review (SDR) announced plans to replace the current set of 3 Invincible Class 22,000t escort carriers with 2 larger, more capable Future Aircraft Carrier (CVF) ships that could operate a more powerful force. These new carriers would be a joint-service platform, operating aircraft and UAVs from all three services (Navy, RAF, Army) in a variety of roles that could include ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance & Reconnaissance), force projection and logistics support, close air support, anti-submarine/ anti-surface naval warfare, and land attack.

Once the new ships of the Queen Elizabeth Class are complete, Britain will possess a full-size carrier force for the first time in several decades. CVF carriers will initially be equipped with the F-35B STOVL Lightning II, along with AEW aircraft and helicopters; but the ships will be upgradeable to handle conventional fixed-wing naval aircraft and/or unmanned UCAVs during their expected 40-50 year life span.

CVF, De Gaulle, and
Invincible Class
(click to add Nimitz)

The scale of the CVF effort relative to Britain’s past experiences means that the program structure is rather complex. It has passed through several stages already, and is being run and conducted within an industrial alliance framework. There is also a parallel international framework, involving cooperation with France on its PA2 carrier as a larger derivative of the CVF design.

This DID FOCUS article covers that structure and framework, ongoing developments, and the ships themselves as they round toward final design, construction, and fielding. Recent updates include questions about the entire program within the defense establishment, in light of expected spending cuts. Nevertheless, an official announcement has now been made, giving the project the green light… but what’s this about carier time-shares with the French?

• The CVF Queen Elizabeth Class (“continue reading…”) [updated]
• Program Team: The Aircraft Carrier Alliance
• CVF Program Management
• The CVF Program: Contracts and Key Events [updated]
• CVF-Related Contracts and Events
• Additional Readings & Sources: The Program
• Additional Readings & Sources: The Ships
  
  Continue Reading… »

LPD-17 cutaway
(click to view full)

LPD-17 San Antonio Class amphibious assault support vessels are a new class of ship which is just entering service with the US Navy. Much like their predecessors, their mission is to embark, transport, land, and support elements of a US Marine Corps Landing Force. What changes are the capabilities and technologies incorporated to perform that mission. This new ship class includes significant internal technology and design upgrades, and is designed to operate accompanying platforms like the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft and the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle amphibious armored personnel carrier.

Navy sources note that the 9 scheduled ships of this class (reduced from 12) are slated to assume the functional duties of up to 41 previous ships. Ships to be replaced include the USA’s older LSD-36 USS Anchorage Class dock landing ships (all decommissioned as of 2004, LSD-36 and LSD-38 transferred to Taiwan) and its LPD-4 USS Austin Class ships (12 built and serving, LPD 14 Trenton now India’s INS Jalashva). The San Antonio Class ships may also replace 2 classes of ships currently mothballed and held in reserve status under the Amphibious Lift Enhancement Program (ALEP): the LST-1179 Newport Class tank landing ships, and LKA-113 Charleston Class amphibious cargo ships.

Welcome to Norfolk…
(click to view full)

Replacing that many existing ships is already a very tall order. While its design incorporates notable advances, the San Antonio Class has also had its share of teething problems. So, too, has the New Orleans shipyard to which most of this contract has been assigned. Teething issues are not uncommon in new ship classes, but the number of serious issues encountered in this ship class have been higher than usual. The initial ships have been criticized for sub-standard workmanship, and costs are almost twice the originally promised amounts at over $1.5 billion per ship.

This is DID’s FOCUS Article for the San Antonio Class, detailing the ships’ unique features and capabilities as well as its program innovations and issues. We’ll also include an updated list of related contracts awarded throughout the program’s history. As has become DID custom, the most recent additions are highlighted in green type. Now, over 2 1/2 years after the initial ship of class was delivered and accepted, the San Antonio Class has reached Initial Operational Capability, and Raytheon continues to get electronics contracts to equip new ships of class…

• LPD-17 San Antonio Class: Capabilities and Features
• LPD-17 San Antonio Class: Project & Timelines
• LPD-17 San Antonio Class: Process & Issues
• LPD-17 San Antonio Class: Contracts and Events (1996-Present) [updated]
• Appendix A: Additional Readings & Sources – LPD-17 Ship Class
• Appendix B: Additional Readings & Sources – News and Views
  
  Continue Reading… »

General Dynamics Team
Trimaran LCS Design
(click to enlarge)

The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) is the U.S. Navy’s newest surface combatant class. Optimized for shallow seas and operations within 100 miles of shore, but deployable across the ocean, LCS ships are a centerpiece of the USA’s new focus on littoral warfare. They will help to counter growing “asymmetric” threats like coastal mines, quiet diesel submarines, global piracy, and terrorists on small fast attack boats. They will also perform intelligence gathering and scouting using helicopters and UAVs, offer some ground combat support capabilities, and share tactical information with other Navy aircraft, ships, submarines, and joint units. Swappable “mission modules,” UAV robot aircraft, and robotic UUV and USV vehicles will give these small ships the specialized capabilities they require for each of these roles – and the quick-replace adaptability they need to keep up.

At present, 2 teams are competing for the final LCS design. The General Dynamics team is offering a futuristic but practical high-speed trimaran based on Austal designs and experience. The Lockheed Martin team offers a high-speed semi-planing monohull based on Fincantieri designs that have set trans-Atlantic speed records. Team Lockheed’s efforts have run into serious trouble, including cancellation of the contract for their second ship. The General Dynamics/Austal team hit the same rocks soon afterward, in part because of the US Navy’s unusual proposal for future business arrangements.

DID places recent developments in context by explaining a bit more about the US Navy’s new surface combatant; detailing the teams, key time line events, and contract awards under the program to date; and providing additional resources and links to complete our in-depth coverage. New material appears in green type. The latest updates include the launch of Austal/GD’s LCS 2 Independence…

• LCS = Standard Equipment + Mission Modules
• LCS: Budgets and Program Structure
• LCS: Designs & Teams
• LCS Controversies
• LCS: Contracts & Key Events [updated]
• LCS Ancillaries: Mission Module & Weapon Contracts & Key Events
• Additional Readings & Sources
  
  Continue Reading… »

FSTA Concept
(click to view full)

Back in March 2005, “British AirTanker Deal May Go Private” discussed the deal for a potential public-private partnership to buy, equip, and operate the RAF’s future aerial tanker fleet, and noted the selection of a preferred consortium. The RAF would fly the 14 Airbus A330-MRTT aircraft on operational missions and receive absolute preferential access to the planes, while the contractor handled maintenance, received payment from the RAF on a per-use basis, and operated them as passenger or transport aircraft when the RAF didn’t need them. The deal became politically controversial; though it was based on a practice that has been successful in Britain, it had surface similarities with the USA’s controversial and canceled KC-767 lease deal. Negotiations on the multi-billion pound, 27-year deal, meanwhile, charted new territory for both the government and private industry.

Which may help to explain why the final decision to move ahead on a “Private Financing Initiative” basis had yet to be issued, and procurement had yet to begin, over 2 years after a preferred bidder was selected. That hurdle is now clear, and Britain has just issued the world’s largest-ever Defence Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contract. This FOCUS Article describes the current British fleet, the aircraft they chose and how the new fleet will compare, the innovative deal structure they’ve chosen, and the project’s key events. The most recent events include the big PFI agreement, and Rolls Royce’s detailing of the award’s value to them…

• RAF Tankers: The Current Fleet
• A330-200 MRTT: The RAF’s Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft [updated]
• FSTA Program Details [updated]
• PFI: The Art of the Deal
• UK FSTA: Contracts & Key Events [updated]
• Additional Readings
  
  Continue Reading… »