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… »

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.

Between 10-11 scheduled ships of this class are slated to assume the functional duties of up to 41 previous ships, including 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. The number of serious issues encountered in this ship class have been much higher than usual, and more extensive. The initial ships have been criticized for sub-standard workmanship, and it took 2 1/2 years after the initial ship of class was delivered and accepted before any ship of class was sent on an operational cruise. Whereupon the USS San Antonio promptly found itself laid up Bahrain due to oil leaks. Meanwhile, costs are almost twice the originally promised amounts at over $1.7 billion per ship – 2 to 3 times as much as many foreign LPD classes, and more than 10 times as much as Singapore’s 6,600 ton Endeavour Class LPD.

DID’s FOCUS articles offer in-depth, updated looks at significant military programs of record. This is DID’s FOCUS Article for the San Antonio Class, detailing the ships’ unique features and capabilities, its program innovations and issues, ship timelines, and related contracts throughout the program’s history. As has become DID custom, the most recent additions are highlighted in green type. The latest developments include a contract to Raytheon that could be worth over $175 million, and the imminent commissioning of the LPD 21 New York, which contains steel from the destroyed World Trade Center…

• LPD-17 San Antonio Class: Capabilities and Features
• LPD-17 San Antonio Class: Process & Issues
• LPD-17 San Antonio Class: Program, Budgets & Timelines [updated]
• 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… »

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 an important milestone for EADS, amid doubts that the team can win under the new competition…

• 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… »

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… »

Bridge to the future?
(click to view full)

In its 2009 White Paper, Australia’s Department of Defence and Labor Party government looked at the progress being made in anti-shipping surveillance-strike complexes, and the need to defend large sea lanes, and dropped something of a surprise. They proposed increasing Australia’s submarine fleet to 12 boats by 2030-2040, all of which would be successors to Australia’s a current fleet of advanced Collins class submarines.

The Collins class was designed with the strong cooperation of ThyssenKrupp’s Swedish Kockums subsidiary, and built in Australia by state-owned ASC. The class has encountered a number of issues, including significant difficulties with its combat systems, issues with acoustic signature, major cost growth to A$ 5+ billion, and schedule slippage. Worse still, reports indicated that the RAN can only staff 2 of its 6 submarines put a huge crimp in the fleet’s usefulness. High-level attention led to 29 recommendations aimed at improving conditions and staffing on Australia’s submarines, and those are now being implemented. Their long term effect remains to be seen.

So, too, does the nature of Australia’s future submarine project – and its eventual cost…

Continue Reading… »

Austrian Alouette-III
(click to view full)

In 2003, India issued an RFP for 197 light helicopters to replace its Army’s aging fleet of Chetaks (Aerospatiale SA316 Alouette III) and Cheetahs (SE316B Alouette II). These helicopters are old designs, but they have consistently proven themselves in high altitude operations, and remain useful as long as their airframe’s remain safe. The problem is, at their age that isn’t a very long time. India’s Army Aviation Corps needs replacements, and wants new helicopters with better performance and support characteristics. These new machines will perform a variety of armed light utility tasks, including ferrying loads of up to 75 kg to troops based at 23,000 feet above sea level in Kashmir, the Siachen Glacier, etc. Operation at these altitudes has traditionally been very challenging for helicopters, owing to reduced rotor lift in the thinning air.

Indian officials were discussing a deal worth between $500-$600 million to buy 60 helicopters outright, with the remaining 137 being built under license by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). Eurocopter’s AS550 C3 Fennec and Bell Textron’s 407 competed in the second and final round of summer trials, and as 2007 ticked toward a close, it looked like we had a winner. As often happens in India, however, the process ended up completely derailed. There’s a new RFP out – but inside lobbying from HAL has backed India off of its initial goal of 312 foreign helicopters.

Bell Helicopter’s withdrawal from the v2.0 RFP made this a smaller competition. Now there are reports that dithering by India’s procurement bureaucracy will make it a late one…

• The Contenders
• Milestones & Developments [updated]
• Additional Readings & Sources
  
  Continue Reading… »

(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 advance acquisition contract (N00019-07-C-0001) to a fixed-price-incentive-fee, multi-year contract. The new contract now sits at $10.8 billion, and will be used to buy 141 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.

The V-22 tilt-rotor program has been beset by controversy throughout its 20-year development period. 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, ongoing news reports, and the US military’s responses. 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 new multi-year purchase contract, associated contracts for key V-22 systems, and program developments that arise after the contract conversion.

The latest developments involve a slew of minor contracts, and a very negative GAO report on the program. Which does nothing to change the program…

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

Aria’s airship
(click to view larger)

In early 209, Aria International, Inc. announced a contract from the Royal Thai Army to provide in-country surveillance and communications solutions and services, for an aggregate purchase price of $9.7 million. The RTA surveillance system consists of a manned airship with military-grade imaging and communications systems, a state-of-the-art Mobile Command and Control Vehicle, and upgrades to existing communications and facilities to receive real-time surveillance data.

Thailand has the questionable distinction of being saddled with the bloodiest Islamist insurgency most people have never heard of. The American export system hindering their order, however, is well known around the world…

Continue Reading… »

F136 Prototype
(click to view full)

In January 2006, “Reports: Cuts on the way to F-35 JSF R&D, Engine Programs” covered Pentagon attempts to remove FY 2007 funding from the F-35 Lightning II’s second engine option, the GE/ Rolls Royce F136. As predicted, protests from fellow Tier 1 partner Britain followed at the highest levels of government. Many in the US Congress, meanwhile, were openly skeptical of handing Pratt & Whitney’s F135 engine the keys to the entire F-35 fleet. In the end, the Pentagon’s argument that low program risk made R&D spending on F136 development a waste, failed. Congress re-inserted funding, and F136 development has continued on schedule.

Fast forward to the FY 2008 budget. For the second year in a row, the Pentagon removed funding for the GE/RR F136, arguing that killing the F136 would free up $1.8 billion. Politicians disagreed, and the USA’s GAO auditors backed them up. Funding was reinstated. Again. So far, that process has been repeated every year. Now it’s 2009, and the 2010 budget is in progress. Once again, the USAF is trying to kill the F136.

This time, there’s lukewarm Senate support for the Pentagon – but strong House of Representatives opposition, which was recently reiterated as cost estimates for the incumbent F135 engine rise 24%, and reports of other issues surface. The latest developments include reinsated funding in the signed FY 2010 defense budget, and the need for a minor engine part redesign by the F136 team after a testing failure…

• The F136 Program
• The F136: Detractors and Defenders
• Updates and Key Events [updated]
• Additional Readings
  
  Continue Reading… »

GMD launch, 2001
(click to view full)

The USA’s Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) program uses land-based missiles to intercept incoming ballistic missiles in the middle of their flight, outside the atmosphere. The missiles are currently based at 2 sites in the USA: Vandenberg AFB in California, and Fort Greely in Alaska.

Patriot missiles provide what’s known as terminal-phase defense options, while longer-reach options like the land-based THAAD perform terminal or descent-phase interceptions. Both can be used against intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), but their sensors and flight ranges are best suited to defense against shorter range missiles launched from in-theater. In contrast, GMD is designed to defend against ICBMs. It depends on tracking that begins in the boost phase, in order to allow true mid-course interception attempts in space, before descent or terminal phase options like THAAD and then Patriot would be tried. In order to accomplish that task, GMD missiles must use data feeds from an assortment of long-range sensors, including the naval SBX radar.

The longer term question is whether GMD will continue to receive contracts for production and development, given directions set out by the new Obama administration. Recent developments include a key loss in Europe, layoffs at Boeing, and related educational grants from Northrop Grumman…

Continue Reading… »