Yesterday I had the opportunity to participate in a DoD-sponsored Blogger's Roundtable with U.S. Air Force Col. Michael Wobbema, Chief of Staff for the Coalition Air Force Transition Team. His job? Help rebuild the Iraqi Air Force.
With the recent MQ-9 Reaper kill that we talked about here on DT, my first question was if UAVs were going to be included in the the future Iraqi Air Force. With ISR assets (intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) such a large part of any operation, I was curious if the success of any Coalition UAV ISR program is in the cards. COL Wobbema's reply:
I do not think that we have any kind of unmanned vehicle program established in the long-term planning. Basically what we're doing is we're using a manned form of the same type of intelligence-gathering equipment in the form of a Caravan, a Cessna Caravan, that we've put an ISR suite on, which is operated by a sensor operator that's actually flying in the aircraft.
My next question centered around what sort of aircraft the Iraqi Air Force can be expected to be flying in the near future:
Well, in the future, of course, you know, I've been a fighter guy my whole career, and a lot of the Iraqi air force pilots are all former fighter pilots. And, of course, if they had an unlimited budget and didn't want to worry about anything else, we'd be buying F-16s, F-18s for them. Or they would be buying them for themselves. That's what they'd be wanting to do.
But we have to walk before we can run, and right now we've got some C-130 aircraft on the ground that they're operating. There are some MI-17 for the rotary-wing side. They've got a few Hueys. And then we've got this Cessna Caravan. The Cessna Caravan will also become -- there will be an armed variant of that that will come online. And then they'll move into -- the next iteration will be a light- attack aircraft of some sort, probably a propeller-driven kind of light-attack aircraft that can take care of their most immediate need, and that is to deal with the insurgency that's taking place inside their own borders.
From there, then, it will migrate to being able to develop an air defense capability to protect their borders from outside influence. And then, from there, you know, who knows? At some point in time I suspect that they will ultimately migrate to becoming a fully integrated part of the world community.
Thinking back to the air order of battle that existed in Iraq 17 years ago, those days are far in the future. Currently any external threat that may require a robust air defense capability can and will be handled by coalition aircraft that remain in theater or are operating offshore from carrier strike groups. Same goes for Close Air Support (CAS), either on-call from a CAS-stack or some form of alert launch, in support of ground operations. Self-determination from a military aviation perspective is in in the cards, but not for a while.
COL Wobbema has a number of other fascinating things to pass on in this interview and you can read the article from DefenseLink News here or read the transcript of the roundtable here.
Above photo shows members of 52nd Flying Training Squadron standing in formation as the first students arrive to the Iraqi air force flying training school at Kirkuk Air Base, Iraq. This flight was officially the first sortie flown by the school as the four Iraqi air force students took control of the aircraft for a few minutes in transit to see what it is they are working toward. The school will instruct the students in both fixed- and rotary-wing piloting. Photo by Senior Airman Jeremy McGuffin, USAF
About two months ago, the American military went into high gear to create an air corps for Afghanistan’s military. Of course, that seems like a long time in coming, but commanders there wanted to set their priorities on building a robust ground force before switching to the more complicated task of forming an aviation force.
According to the general in charge of establishing the new Afghan air corps – which will be the aviation wing of the Afghan National Army – the coalition is building the fledgling fleet at a fever pace. In an interview with military bloggers Wednesday, Air Force Brig. Gen. Jay Lindell said his 130 member team got started in earnest to build an air corps for the Afghan military on a pretty tight schedule. Luckily, it’s not as if the team is building the Afghan air corps from the ground up. Currently, the Afghan air corps has seven Mi-17 Hip transport helicopters; six Mi-35 Hind attack helos; two An-32 Cline and two An-26 Curl fixed-wing transport aircraft and two Czech-made L-39 Albatross training aircraft - used primarily for flight demonstration shows.
But the coalition isn’t stopping there. The air corps is in the process of receiving several Russian-made troop-carrying helicopters from allies. The list includes: six Mi-17s and six Mi-35s from the Czech Republic; one Mi-17 from Slovakia; 10 Mi-17s from the United Arab Emirates and four An-32s from the Ukraine. “All of these aircraft should be here in Kabul in the next six months,” Lindell said.
The coalition trainers are also checking out what’s available to boost the Afghan’s medium lift transport inventory. That procurement will be handled through the U.S. foreign military sales accounts, but Lindell said he likes the looks of the C-27A Spartan, though Lindell is looking at refurbished versions of this Italian-made transport.
So who exactly is going to fly these birds, you ask? Well, Lindell said there are 165 Afghan pilots currently in the Afghan air corps. They’re Soviet trained, run about 2,500 flight hours each, but they’re on average about 43 years old. “They’re actually very capable pilots. They’re not too current. That’s why we need to get them the aircraft to fly in,” Lindell said.
The air corps has its own crew of instructors and they have a Soviet-era flight training syllabus they’re already familiar with, so getting them up to speed won’t be too difficult. It’s the night and foul-weather operations that are going to be the toughest to train. The plan is to establish mobile training teams manned by Eastern European NATO pilots who fly the same types of aircraft to mentor the Afghan pilots on all-weather, day-night tactical flying.
Lindell hopes to set up a training program for new pilots to ascend through the ranks from the Afghan National Military Training Academy in Kabul, so a fresh generation of Afghan air corps pilots can take over for the vets.
Of course, logistics is what makes a functioning air corps and Lindell is bullish on the Afghans’ capabilities there. He’s seen a knack for keeping aircraft aloft with even the most rudimentary resources (just ask the spooks who flew into Afghanistan in 2001), but a good inventory of spare parts and modern maintenance equipment will also be needed.
“The Afghan air corps has ability and desire. They need resources to give them capability,” Lindell said.
-- Christian
Aberdeen Outtakes: M26 Modular Accessory Shotgun System
Here's another clip from Military.com's day at the Aberdeen range. As you can see, I'm getting a little better at this video thing, but there are still some hiccups, I know. I've got a few more on the editing deck, so stay tuned.
The Israeli Navy, still recovering from the image of one of its missile ships struck by a land-launched missile during the summer 2006 Israeli assault on the Hezbollah forces in Lebanon, has received a new commander -- of Chinese descent.
The Israeli minister of defense and other senior military officials had earlier stepped down following recriminations and investigations of the ill-fought conflict. Rear Admiral Eli Marom -- with the nickname "Chiney" -- took command of the navy in October after his predecessor, David Ben-Bassat, retired amidst the continuing criticism of his conduct during the Lebanon war.
Marom's mother was a member of the Chinese Jewish community, born to an Israeli and a Russian émigré woman. She married Marom's father after he had fled his native Germany for China during World War II. In 1955, the couple moved to Israel, where Marom was born.
Because he looked different, it "forced him constantly to show that he was better. He became one of the very best very quickly," one former comrade told the weekend newspaper Yediot Acharonot, which published a profile of the new admiral.
Marom, age 52, trained as an engineer and ascended through the ranks, overseeing major naval operations such as the 2002 capture of an Iranian-supplied weapons ship en route to Gaza.
The Israeli Navy is currently undergoing a major expansion, with additional German-built Dolphin-class submarines and American-built Sa'ar V-class missile corvettes as well as lesser craft under construction. These new ships will lead to an expansion of the active Israeli Navy, which currently has some 5,500 active duty personnel and about 3,500 reservists.
One of three earlier Sa'ar V corvettes delivered in 1994-1995 was struck by the cruise missile on 21 July 2006. The Hanit was part of the force blockading the Lebanese coast to prevent additional weapons from reaching the terrorists by sea from nearby Syria. At 8:45 P.M. a C-802 cruise missile struck the ship some ten miles offshore. Indications are that one missile was fired "high" to distract the ship's defensive systems and the second was aimed at the Hanit (spear).
The first missile struck a small merchant ship, reported to be a Cambodian-flag cargo ship with an Egyptian crew, steaming about 35 miles offshore. The second missile struck the stern of the 1,275-ton Hanit. The Israeli ship, fitted with a massive array of anti-missile systems, was apparently taken by complete surprise by the missile attack.
Events like this sort of validate parts of the CNO's new maritime strategy, don't they? This from Military.com
Sailors from the Norfolk-based destroyer James E. Williams boarded a North Korean merchant ship that had been hijacked by pirates off the coast of Somalia, while two other Navy vessels tailed a pirated Japanese ship in the same region.
The Williams, which left Norfolk in July , was about 50 nautical miles from the ship Dai Hong Dan in the Arabian Sea when it received word of the pirate attack, said Lt. John Gay , a spokesman for the Navy's Central Command in Manama, Bahrain.
The Williams dispatched a helicopter and ordered the pirates to give up their weapons via a bridge-to-bridge radio. The North Korean crew, which had retained control of the steering and engineering spaces, then confronted the pirates and gained back control of the bridge, according to a Navy news release.
Initial reports from the North Korean crew said two pirates were killed and five others captured, the release said.
Soon afterward, the North Korean crew permitted a small party from the Williams to come aboard, Gay said.
Three corpsman, accompanied by armed Sailors and a Williams crew member who spoke Korean, boarded the Dai Hong Dan from a rigid hull inflatable boat. The corpsman assisted wounded crew members and attackers.
Three Koreans were transported to the Williams for medical attention before being returned to their ship, Gay said. The pirates were being held on the Dai Hong Dan.
Hundreds of miles away in the same region, two other Navy ships were tracking a Japanese-owned ship seized by pirates over the weekend, Gay said.
The spokesman said that two "coalition" ships from Combined Task Force 150 had responded to the hijacking of the Golden Mori , a Japanese-owned ship registered in Panama.
Combined Task Force 150, which conducts maritime security operations in the Arabian Sea and Gulf of Aden, includes vessels from the Pakistani, British, French, German and U.S. navies.
Navy officials with knowledge of the incident confirmed that the U.S. destroyers Porter and Arleigh Burke, both based in Norfolk, responded to the Golden Mori's distress call.
One of the responding ships fired warning shots in front of the Golden Mori.
It also aimed disabling shots at two skiffs -- the boats the pirates used to approach the ship -- towed behind the Golden Mori. The skiffs caught fire and sank, Gay said.
Gay said coalition crew members have observed men carrying small arms aboard the bridge of the ship, which was hijacked in the Gulf of Aden, a critical body of water between Yemen, Djibouti and Somalia that links the Red and Arabian seas.
After the hijacking, the Golden Mori sailed 380 miles south and remained off Somalia's coast, Gay said.
The article also rolls out the duty critic (it wasn't my turn):
"Essentially, you don't want to use a billion dollar DDG [guided missile destroyer] to suppress pirates," [Robert Work, a retired Marine officer and analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington] said. "That's a mission for a much smaller ship. But we have a lot of ships in that area because of ongoing operations in the Horn of Africa. These are ships designed for high-end war fighting, not chasing pirates."
Hey, not every day's a missile day. Plus, as we say in the fighter business, a kill's a kill, right?
Kudos to our blackshoe brethren here.
(Official U.S. Navy photo showing a pirate ship headed for Davy Jones' locker.)
Here's a video I put together showing the Army's new M110 sniper rifle in action out at that test shoot at Aberdeen. I have several others I'll post as I edit them, so stay tuned.
And please excuse the rough-and-ready quality of the clip. I'm just getting used to this whole video editing and I promise each one will be better...as will my videography.
Here’s another interesting article from our friends at Aviation Week that I thought was worthy of a comment or two. It’s a great example of how internet journalism/blogging can bring some “value added” to readers interested in defense issues and technology.
Bill Sweetman ran across a series of entries at the Secret Projects blog, which yours truly occasionally takes a look at, and found some really cool pictures clicked at a Russian aeronautics lab that shows some intriguing technology being developed there.
Aside from the whiz bang of it all, this sort of post tugs at my “Cold War” heart strings – being a student of Soviet foreign policy and Cold War diplomacy, there’s still a part of me that looks at Russia as this dark, closed place where crazy science experiments are allowed to run amok. Revelations of a variety of weapons development programs that went on behind the iron curtain revealed only as the wall fell have kept those embers smoldering.
This post comes a day after an equally interesting show was broadcast on the History International Channel titled “Secret Superpower Aircraft.” This series was like manna from heaven for someone like me who still yearns for the kind of Cold War rivalry that drove aerospace technology to its limits. The Avro Arrow? The F-103 Thunder Warrior? Hmmmm, yummie.
The invaluable Secret Projects website carries frame grabs from an early-2000s Russian TV documentary, filmed at the vast TsAGI wind-tunnel complex at Zhukovsky. While wind-tunnel models are not equivalent to real hardware, and while known sensitive material wouldn't have been shown, the models are a real indication of Russian industry and government thinking.
First is a flying-wing aircraft, looking (from the inlet and exhaust shape) like a four-engine bomber.
There is also a stealth fighter design that superficially resembles the Lockheed YF-22.
Significant differences from the US fighter include prominent leading-edge root extensions and a different wing and tail planform. This may be the rumored Sukhoi design nicknamed Big Ears, a precursor to the T-50 PAK-FA.
Anytime you can combine stealth and standoff and loiter and lethality in the same platform, you've got a significant winner. Kudos to the MQ-9 Reaper. Looking like a big brother` to the MQ-1 Predator, the MQ-9 has three times the speed of the MQ-1, with a 900hp turboprop engine in place of the Predator’s 119hp Rotax 914. Nice job, Zoomies!
Reaper scores insurgent kill in Afghanistan
Air Force Times Staff report
Posted : Monday Oct 29, 2007 18:59:06 EDT
The Air Force’s use of remote-controlled aircraft passed another milestone Saturday with the first air strike flown by an MQ-9 Reaper, the service’s newest unmanned plane.
According to Central Air Forces, an MQ-9 fired a Hellfire missile at Afghanistan insurgents in the Deh Rawood region of the mountainous Oruzgan province. The strike was “successful,” CentAF said.
Based at Kandahar Air Field, Reapers have been flying over Afghanistan since Sept. 25. Like the smaller MQ-1 Predator, pilots and sensor operators in Nevada use satellite links to guide the planes on attack and reconnaissance sorties. A second set of deployed aviators control the planes’ take offs and landings.
The Reaper can carry up to 3,000 pounds of weapons while the MQ-1 is limited to 500 pounds of munitions.
The top two U.S Air Force leaders lobbied Capitol Hill for their service Oct. 24, suggesting lawmakers help extend the F-22 Raptor production line with 20 more of the Lockheed Martin fighters than currently budgeted.
Seeking to bolster the Air Force as lawmakers hammer out fiscal 2008 defense legislation and the Bush administration mulls its FY '09 request, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne and Gen. T. Michael Moseley, Air Force chief of staff, further indicated their desire for more Boeing C-17s, retirement of Lockheed C-5As and for the service's ability to take over the Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA) program from the Army.
Wynne and Moseley told the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) that they do not want any ongoing production lines to close, and in fact they hope to increase the number of F-22s until the Lockheed-led F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is well into production. They acknowledged their proposal was deemed unfeasible by the Office of Secretary of Defense, which apparently said it could "break the bank."
Alluding to concerns with slower rollout of the two fighters under current plans, Wynne noted that Air Combat Command's requirement for 381 F-22s is unchanged despite plans for only 183 now. Meanwhile, requirements for 1,763 JSFs would be met only incrementally until 2025.
During my Navy flying career I flew through my fair share of thunderstorms (and not because I wanted to). In fact, in my sixteen years in the tactical jet business, three of the Tomcats I was riding around in were hit by lightning, most memorably while climbing out of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in section where the bolt jumped from our jet to the wingman's. While both jets continued to work normally and we pushed on for NAS Oceana, the strike definitely got the attention of all four of us. When we got on the ground our maintainers pointed out where the bolt had exited our jet, evinced by a charred quarter-sized hole in the trailing edge of the left horizontal stab.
This cool shot was just forwarded to us showing an All Nippon 747 hit while launching out of Osaka. What I can gather from surfing around the Internet is the jet came back around and landed safely.
This photo shows some of the fires that burned around Marine Base Camp Pendleton in Southern California last week. Although no buildings were damaged and the Marines were able to contain the fires in about 24 hours, there were some hairy moments, as this shot showing how close the blazes got to aircraft (Hueys in this case) attests.
(Gouge: LR)
-- Ward
The Future of Carriers Threatened?
Comments made in the halls of the Pentagon and the halls of Congress indicate that there is a new threat to future U.S. Navy aircraft carriers. The "threat" to carriers is not enemy weapons or even the U.S. Air Force, but the increasing cost of the nuclear-propelled carriers now being constructed and planned.
The Navy currently operates 11 large-deck carriers -- ten nuclear-propelled ships and the oil-burning USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63). The latter ship, which is forward based in Japan, will be decommissioned next year, when another nuclear ship, the George H.W. Bush (CVN 77), will be placed in commission. The next carrier to be decommissioned will be the USS Enterprise (CVN 65), which was completed in 1961. She will go out of service in 2013 at which time carrier levels will drop to ten ships.
The next carrier will be the Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), which is now being started. But that ship will not be ready for service until 2015 -- if the ship is completed on schedule. The Navy officially estimates that the Ford -- the first of a new design -- will cost about $8 billion plus about $6 billion for research, development, test and evaluation for the new design. But unofficial estimates have placed the eventual cost of the ship at some $12 billion plus another $12 billion for one-time RDT&E. (In comparison, the last ship of the previous Nimitz [CVN 68] class -- the Bush -- will cost almost $7 billion.)
The higher costs are also predicted in a recent study by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), released in late September that says three key systems face problems that could greatly affect the cost of the Ford: the electromagnetic aircraft launch system (catapults), the dual-band radar, and the advanced arresting gear. While current radars and arresting gear could be fitted in the ship, the ship's new reactor plant will not produce sufficient steam nor will the design permit the use of existing steam catapults. Without the launch system the ship would not be able to launch conventional fix-wing aircraft.
While aircraft carriers have proved to be invaluable for U.S. military operations, from the Korean War through the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, today many of their traditional missions can be carried out as effectively and possibly more so in some scenarios by other "systems." These mission areas include strike, reconnaissance, and anti-submarine warfare.
At the same time that the cost of carriers is increasing and the carrier force is below the authorized level of 12 ships, Navy shipbuilding programs are coming under increased congressional and executive branch scrutiny as the littoral combat ship (LCS), new amphibious ships (LPD), and some other ships are suffering massive cost overruns. It is unlikely that -- with an average shipbuilding budget of $11 billion planned for the foreseeable future -- the Navy will be able to afford building to the current goal of 313 ships. The Navy now operates about 279 ships.
The world situation for the foreseeable future will see a need for additional "carriers" to support U.S. political-military interests.
An alternative to constructing "the next" large CVN-type ship is to procure additional LHA/LHD-type amphibious ships. These VSTOL/helicopter carriers, which can operate the new F-35B Joint Strike Fighter, could carry out some mission that traditionally required a large-deck ship. The LHA/LHD-type ships, of some 40,000 tons full-load displacement, can carry some 1,700 troops for sustained periods as well as operating about 40 VSTOLs and helicopters. These "amphibs" -- currently in production -- cost about $2.5 billion per ship.
Large-deck carriers are important, but it is unlikely that the U.S. Navy will be able to afford the planned 12 ships or even maintain the current 11 carriers. Alternatives must be considered.
Now imagine the close air support you could do with this puppy. Forget a nine-line brief. This is about a one-line brief. Problem with a city block in Fallujah? Level Fallujah with a single sortie. And before you go all Dr. Strangelove on us, you should know we're talking conventional ordnance here.
But this ain't a CAS weapon. It's a . . . well, the Air Force won't really say, except to say that we really need it regardless of how much it costs.
Yesterday Stars and Stripes ran an article about the Pentagon's request for $88 million to fund the development of a "deep-earth-bunker-buster."
According to the article . . .
The Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP, is a joint project between Northrop Grumman and Boeing.
At 30,000 pounds and 20 feet long, the mass of the bomb makes it three and a half times more powerful than the most powerful weapon in the Air Force’s inventory. The bomb carries 6,000 pounds of high explosives.
The Defense Threat Reduction Agency, or DTRA, is helping to test the weapon, spokeswoman Cheri Abdelnour said.
The MOP’s job is to destroy deeply buried and what the military calls “hardened” targets, or those specifically reinforced to survive strikes with high explosives.
The bomb is capable of burrowing 60 meters through 5,000 pounds per square inch (psi) of reinforced concrete, or 8 meters through 10,000 psi reinforced concrete.
Like all modern “smart” munitions, the weapon is virtually a mini-aircraft, with tail fins that steer the weapon in flight via preprogrammed minicomputers and an integrated global positioning system that keeps it on target, according to DTRA.
The first successful tests of the weapon took place at the end of March at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico, according to the Air Force and DTRA press releases issued at the time.
The budget request is part of an amendment to the fiscal 2008 defense budget supplemental request that the White House submitted Monday to Congress.
The money is in two parts: $83.5 million for continuing the development of the MOP weapon itself, including a “technology demonstration” sponsored by DTRA that would conclude at some point in fiscal 2008; and another $4.2 million to modify the B-52 bomber as a launching platform, Air Force spokeswoman Vicki Stein told Stars and Stripes on Wednesday.
Now here's the best part. The Pentagon (read "Air Force") isn't sure or won't say what the bomb is for. Although the flacks quack about the MOP as an "urgently needed, critical global strike capability to fight the war on terrorism," General Mosely, the USAF Chief of Staff said, "It’s not specifically geared at an individual country. It’s a capability discussion."
An $88 million capability discussion? Wouldn't an offsite to Vegas or -- better still -- a Webex be cheaper?
And who knew we had at Threat Reduction Agency? Isn't that DoD's job? Oh, that's right. They do threat proliferation.
And heaven forbid that we actually threaten . . . Iran. (Oh, no. I said that which shall not be said when hitting Congress up for large sums of money that will be used to justify the service's existence in the nearer term. My bust, general. Or should I say, my bunker bust, general?)
(Gouge: NC)
(Photo: Engineers examine a test penetrator after it showed the ability to burrow through hundreds of feet of solid rock before the first explosive test at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. Courtesy Stars and Stripes.) (H/T SMSgt. Mac.)
LOS ANGELES (AP) - When the Pentagon's research arm first called for innovators to design and race a self-driving car to make warfare safer, a ragtag bunch of garage tinkerers, computer geeks and even high school students answered.
No one won the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's inaugural contest in 2004. An encore the following year produced five robots that crossed the finish line, and a team from Stanford University drove away with the $2 million prize.
If yesteryear's contests evoked the Wild West, with teams working in the open desert on a shoestring budget, this year's is modern: The field is more savvy, the terrain is urban and corporate sponsors and public relations machines have entered the fray.
"They've become like NASCAR teams with multiple sponsors and stickers on everything," said Peter Singer, a Brookings Institution senior fellow who has followed the DARPA competitions. "It shows that it's becoming big business."
No, this was not from Wednesday's Aberdeen shoot...
-- Christian
Feds Nab Point Blank Armor Officials
Ripped from the front page of Military.com this morning is a story I did on the arrest of former Point Blank top officials David H. Brooks and Sandra Hatfield. Just a quick note - I write this with some sense of satisfaction since I actually met Sandra Hatfield at the Point Blank HQ in Florida back in '05. When I broke the story of vest failures in Marine Corps ordered lots, I went down there to interview her about it. She was scary, and answered my questions with statements like: "well, you tell me, you seem to have all the answers here..." Very combative and pissed off. Well, turns out she might be a crook who could spend 75 years in jail. She was pissed I'd found out about the vest failures and had documents that proved she knew about them and did nothing to correct the problems.
Oh well, I guess Karma's a bitch...
David H. Brooks, the founder of Point Blank Body Armor and former head of its parent company, DHB Industries, was indicted on a variety of financial impropriety charges Thursday after months of investigations by federal prosecutors.
Brooks, who led DHB Industries until July 2006, was indicted for insider trading, fraud, obstruction of justice and tax evasion, the U.S. attorney's office for the Eastern District of New York said in a release obtained by Military.com.
The former chief operating officer of Point Blank, Sandra Hatfield, was charged along with Brooks in the indictment. She had been served with a previous indictment for securities fraud in August 2006.
Point Blank is one of the largest suppliers of body armor to the U.S. military, including more than 1 million Interceptor outer tactical vests fielded for Soldiers and Marines in combat. The Army inked a new armor contract with Point Blank in May to supply 75,000 of its updated "Improved Outer Tactical Vest" - a more modern armor system that's lighter and provides more coverage to Soldiers.
The Army was unable provide comment on the indictment or the status of the service's relationship with Point Blank by press time.
The Marine Corps broke from Point Blank this year and went with the newly designed "Modular Tactical Vest," which is designed and manufactured by Protective Products International, based in Sunrise, Fla.
The indictment alleges that Brooks and Hatfield inflated stock prices by manipulating DHB financial records to increase earnings, including fraudulent claims of armor inventory. Additionally, the duo was charged with cutting company checks for personal gain.
"They also conspired to enrich themselves and their families at the expense of DHB by causing the company to pay personal expenses and millions of dollars above the defendants' authorized compensation," the Oct. 25 release said.
A copy of the indictment obtained by Military.com alleges a series of lavish purchases by Brooks from company coffers, including $101,500 to buy an armored vehicle for his family's personal use, $16,000 to hire a photographer for his son's Bar Mitzvah and $101,190 for a "belt buckle studded with diamonds, rubies and sapphires."
Point Blank came under sharp scrutiny from the Pentagon and other government agencies after reports emerged of test failures with its Interceptor body armor in 2005. Documents show that government testers warned Point Blank officials, including Hatfield, about the vest problems and urged an immediate fix in late 2004.
The Oct. 25 indictment alleges Hatfield and Brooks cashed in tens of millions of dollars in stock during the period testers were warning the company about vest failures. It also alleges that Brooks called a Point Blank employee who brought erroneous body armor inventory data to his attention a "[expletive] snake," and threatened to scuttle any further employment opportunities after the whistleblower resigned.
Justice officials were clearly not amused by Brooks' behavior.
"This case is fundamentally about greed and excess and deceit," said Mark Mershon, the FBI's assistant director-in-charge of the New York field office. "The defendants pillaged the assets of a publicly-traded company for personal luxuries, and they repeatedly lied - to the public, to shareholders, to the SEC and to company auditors."
"If they were thinking they could get away with it, they even lied to themselves," Mershon added in a statement.
If convicted of all charges, Brooks and Hatfield each face up to 75 years in prison and a combined $190 million in fines.
One of the distinct advantages of working for a place like Military.com and Defense Tech is that on occasion you get to spend a day at the firing range slingin' lead from the latest in military weaponry.
Our boy Bryant Jordan went down to Blackwater USA to test fire the Kriss .45 cal. submachine gun a couple weeks ago, and I just had the pleasure of spending the day out at the Army's Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland getting some trigger time on a variety of weapons the service is pushing to troops in the field.
First of all, it's a big deal to even be allowed on base at Aberdeen. Some of the U.S. military's most closely-held testing and evaluation of armor, ballistics and explosives goes on there and officials are loath to let anyone in - especially the press - to get even a preliminary glance at what they're up to.
But thanks to an invitation from the Fort Belvoir, Va.-based PEO Soldier, Aberdeen opened its doors on Wednesday for a small group of journalists to come out and learn more about Army weapons. On hand were program managers, test directors, engineers and everyday Joes to answer questions and give the ground truth on what's being developed.
Testers showed off six different systems either already deployed to the field or ready to be fielded with units in the Sandbox, including:
XM320 Grenade Launcher - Pretty close to my favorite one to shoot, the XM320 is a major upgrade for the M203, 40mm grenade
slinger attached to the barrel of M4s and M-16s. Finally H&K has gotten through to the Army about its side-eject under-barrel grenade launcher. The Army plans to field about 71,600 XM320s in a one-to-one replacement of the M203 beginning in late 2008 … and it's a good thing. The XM320 can be detached from your combat rifle and fired as a stand-alone weapon (which is how we fired it at Aberdeen) but I'll tell you, it's tough to handle in that configuration for tall people like me since the butt stock doesn't extend very far.
The best part of the system, however, is the integrated electronic sighting system that comes with it. Developed by Insight Technology, the optic uses an iron sight reticule that's precision balanced. A soldier uses a hand-held range finder to determine the distance to a target, dials in the yardage in five-yard intervals on the XM320 sight and a handy green/red light and digital bar tells the shooter whether he's on target and shooting level. I hit the target at 150 yards on my first shot. The rifle-mounted laser illuminator can be used at night with the system to find a target even in darkness, making the new grenade launcher far more effective in all conditions, said Maj. Larry Dring, assistant product manager for individual weapons with PEO Soldier.
M26 Modular Accessory Shotgun System (MASS) - Here was another modular weapon that's pretty cool, but a little more
difficult to use than the grenade launcher. Mounted under the combat rifle - or configured as a stand-alone weapon using a standard M4 pistol grip and collapsible butt stock, the M26 is designed to fire both standard 12 gauge rounds and non-lethal munitions. The M26 has an extendable choke-tube that allows the shooter to place breeching rounds against a door frame from a safe distance with the shotgun attached to his rifle - a method that eases the transition between shotgun and rifle in combat situation, said Sgt. 1st Class William Kone, test and evaluation NCO at Aberdeen.
That's all well and good, but I found the cocking mechanism to be clunky and inefficient. Instead of an under-barrel pump-gun style action, a metal bar attached to the bolt extends out to the side, forcing the shooter to transition his hand position to load another round into the breach. I'm sure with practice, I could have gotten as fast on the action as Kone, but I wasn't the only one with that complaint. The Army plans to field 38,000 MASSs beginning in late 2008 to replace its Mossberg 12ga. pump guns.
Read the rest of my weapons report from the Aberdeen range at Military.com's Warfighter's Forum
MIT astronautics professor Dava Newman tries on her custom-fitted BioSuit, designed for exploration and work on Mars. The pattern of thick, semi-elastic polymer threads forms a support structure to counter the low pressure of other planets.
Until recently, astronauts rarely worried about what to wear -- a standard gas-pressurized spacesuit was the only choice. But navigating Mars in a bulky 300-pound setup would be like doing gymnastics in a suit of armor. "They're not going there to sit in the habitat," says Newman. "They'll have to work five to seven days a week."
Newman has designed an alternative with enough flexibility to get the job done. Partially inspired by giraffe anatomy -- the tall beasts use tight leg skin to help regulate blood pressure -- the BioSuit relies on mechanical counterpressure instead of gas pressure. Every suit must be tailored to squeeze its owner.
Fed up with unnecessary gold-plated fighter jet programs, the service’s impatience with counter-insurgency and its anti-China rhetoric, back in August I proposed the disbanding of the U.S. Air Force. The air service’s missions could be folded into the Army, Navy and Marine Corps without any loss in national power — and we’d benefit from cuts to Pentagon overhead.
Now Robert Farley over at The American Prospect has taken up the cause in a new piece, “Abolish the Air Force” (subscription required). To complement the piece, Farley has solicited input from a number of bloggers.
“Does the United States Air Force fit into the post–September 11 world, a world in which the military mission of U.S. forces focuses more on counterterrorism and counterinsurgency?” Farley asks.
The Navy’s newly published maritime strategy -- officially A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower -- calls for the return of Marine Corps detachments on a “wider variety” of Navy ships and Coast Guard cutters. When the strategy was unveiled at the Naval War College in mid-October it was announced that “Marines will continue to be employed as air-ground task forces operating from amphibious ships to conduct variety of missions, such as power projection... But they will also be employed as detachments aboard a wider variety of ships and cutters for maritime security missions.”
Marines are not normally embarked in U.S. Navy warships or Coast Guard cutters. Of course, amphibious ships, some of which have small Marine detachments as part of their ship’s company, normally embark Marines for assault operations.
It has not been announced which ships will carry Marine detachments or what will be their mission. “Maritime security” can cover a variety of activities, from inspection of merchant ships to raids on suspected pirate bases.
Since the colonial era Marines have been embarked in U.S. warships, primarily to form landing parties. In the era of steel ships Marines were assigned to cruisers, battleships, and aircraft carriers. On those ships they often were also employed to man secondary or anti-aircraft gun batteries as well as being used for landing operations. With the deployment of nuclear weapons aboard U.S. aircraft carriers in the early 1950s, Marines were given the principal duty of security for those weapons.
During the 1990s the last Marine detachments were withdrawn from warships. The last nuclear weapons were removed from U.S. surface ships in the early 1990s, and the last Marine detachment -- embarked in the nuclear-propelled carrier George Washington (CVN 73) -- went ashore on 3 April 1998. That detachment consisted of one officer and 25 enlisted Marines; previously Marine carrier detachments numbered two officers and 64 enlisted men.
In 1992 the Navy experimented with placing large Marine detachments aboard aircraft carriers. In January 1992 the carrier Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71) embarked 538 Marines for a month of at-sea training and workup. This force consisted of a rifle company, command staff, and various detachments including a composite helicopter squadron. Subsequently, in March 1993 the Roosevelt battle group steamed for the Mediterranean for a six-month deployment with some 600 Marines and their helicopters. (Part of the carrier air wing was left ashore to make space for the Marines.)
The “TR” operation was considered successful by the Navy and Marine Corps. However, the costs and disadvantages outweighed the benefits and the Marines-on-warship concept was not continued.
The recent decision to place Marines aboard Navy ships and Coast Guard cutters occurs as the Marine Corps is fully committed -- to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and forward deployments aboard amphibious ships in several areas, while at the same time, being required to provide a major Marine troop contingent to the U.S. Special Operations Command. The recent decision to increase the size of the Marine Corps and Army by 92,000 troops reflects the critical situation in U.S. ground troop strength. Thus, the decision to place Marines abroad ship should be addressed with caution.
MRAP is an unusual program that involves rolling purchases of a wide range of vehicle types, all meeting the same basic mobility and protection requirements.
The requirements do not specify how a vehicle should meet them, so manufacturers take different approaches, with some embracing a monocoque style that combines the hull and chassis in a single piece, and others bolting an armored hull to a separate chassis, perhaps with a "belly plate" to protect the drive train. All hull designs are V-shaped, though some are flatter than others to maximize interior space.
The manufacturers give their vehicles model names like "Cougar" and "Alpha," but the MRAP program office tends to refer to them only by category. The three categories in the program each describe a different weight class and size and are intended for different missions. The roughly 7,800 vehicles ordered as of August are split between the four main military services and Special Operations Command.
The following is a summary of the categories, vehicle types, key performance specifications, design strengths and weaknesses, and mission information for the MRAP vehicles procured by the Pentagon.
Category I: approximately 7-15 tons; at least 4 passengers, plus 2 crew; urban transport.
Category II: approximately 15-25 tons; up to 8 passengers, plus 2 crew; road escort, ambulance and bomb-disposal missions.
Category III: approximately 25 tons; at least 4 passengers, plus 2 crew; bomb disposal.
Category I
Cougar H 4 X 4: Force Protection Industries Inc. (Ladson, S.C.). Weight: 16 tons. Passengers: 4 + 2 crew. MRAP I orders: 785 + several for testing. Cost: $475,000. Features: Monocoque, flattened V-shaped hull extended to engine compartment; 330-hp. engine; dual air conditioners; rear door.
Reality check: Widely considered the "gold standard" of MRAP designs, the Cougar enjoyed considerable sales success even before MRAP. Force Protection built a small number of Tempest vehicles-basically early Cougars-for British Army engineers in 2002, followed by several hundred Cougars for the U.S. military between 2003 and 2006, mostly for engineer and bomb-disposal units. In April, Force Protection, citing military statistics, claimed that despite some 300 attacks targeting Cougars in Iraq, not one Marine died while riding in one. Force Protection builds Cougars at its main factory in Ladson as well as in a new facility in North Carolina, and has signed co-production agreements with General Dynamics and BAE Systems (for Iraqi army Cougars). The vehicle's major weakness is poor off-road mobility, a consequence of its relatively heavy weight resulting from a high degree of protection. The design minimizes the use of glass to improve survivability, at the cost of passenger visibility.
RG-33 4 X 4: BAE Systems North America (Rockville, Md.). Weight: 14 tons. Passengers: 4 + 2 crew. MRAP I orders: 201 + several for testing. Cost: approximately $300,000. Features: Monocoque, flattened V-shaped hull that stops short of engine compartment; rear door.
Reality check: The RG-33 is a cousin of the RG-31, which itself is based on the South African Mamba design that incorporates a German-designed Unimog chassis. The RG series of vehicles makes extensive use of armored glass to improve visibility, with a slight penalty in survivability. Perhaps the design's greatest weakness is its vulnerability to a "mobility kill" that destroys the lightly armored engine and leaves the crew stranded. RG-33s are manufactured on two lines in York, Pa., another in Texas and a fourth at a BAE-owned factory in South Africa. BAE's acquisition of Armor Holdings LLC this summer significantly boosted the company's ability to "up-armor" its MRAP designs. BAE representative Doug Coffey says that live-fire testing at Aberdeen, Md., proved the RG-33 to be the overall most survivable MRAP vehicle. He added that stockpiling adequate raw materials, especially armor-grade steel, was the biggest obstacle to fulfilling orders. RG-33 has an extensive combat record. U.S. Army and Marine Corps units use the vehicle in Iraq and Afghanistan for bomb-disposal and route-clearance missions.
MaxxPro 4 X 4: International Military and Government LLC (Warrenville, Ill.). Weight: 16 tons. Passengers: 4 + 2 crew. MRAP I orders: 1,955 + several for testing. Cost: $548,000. Features: Commercial truck chassis with a bolt-on V-shaped armored hull; 330-hp. engine; rear door.
Reality check: Commercial truck-maker International was a surprise winner in the first round of MRAP purchases; MaxxPro scored more orders than any other type. Assistant General Manager Bob Walsh credits the company's huge factory capacity and support base, as well as MaxxPro's two-piece design. "It does a very good job of redirecting energy [from bomb blasts]." Repairability: "Being cab-on-chassis, you're able to pull off this body and slide a new chassis in." The successful German Dingo vehicle embraces a similar design philosophy, but there's a reason most MRAP types feature single-piece monocoque hulls: On a bolt-on design, a powerful blast might separate the hull from the chassis, resulting in a mobility kill that strands the crew. MaxxPro chassis are manufactured in Garland, Tex.; hulls are made in West Point, Miss.
Caiman 4 X 4: Armor Holdings LLC (Jacksonville, Fla.). Weight: 14 tons. Passengers: 4 + 2 crew. MRAP I orders: 1,154 + several for testing. Cost: $443,000. Features: Family of medium tactical vehicle (FMTV) chassis with a V-shaped armored hull; rear door.
Reality check: Armor Holdings has released few details about the Caiman design, stressing only that it is lighter than many MRAPs. Caiman has chassis components common to the FMTV utility truck, a feature that should simplify maintenance and support. The design reportedly boasts better off-road performance than the heavier Cougar. Work is performed in Sealy, Tex., and Fairfield, Ohio.
Alpha 4 X 4: Oshkosh Truck (Oshkosh, Wis.). Weight: 13 tons. Passengers: 6 + 2 crew. MRAP I orders: 100 + several for testing. Cost: $306,000. Features: Monocoque layout with V-shaped armored hull; rear door.
Reality check: Despite being one of the biggest builders of military utility trucks, Oshkosh designs have fared poorly in the MRAP competition. Alpha was intended to be a smaller, lighter MRAP in order to facilitate rapid shipping and improve urban maneuverability. But testing at Aberdeen, as well as limited field testing with combat units, proved Alpha to be more vulnerable than other designs-this despite special armor co-developed by Battelle and Protected Vehicles Inc. The Marine Corps informed Oshkosh that it would not order more than the initial batch of 100.
RG-31 Mk 5 4 X 4: General Dynamics Land Systems Canada (London, Ont.). Weight: 9 tons. Passengers: 10 + 2 crew. MRAP I orders: 10 + several for testing. Cost: approximately $300,000. Features: Monocoque, flattened V-shaped hull that stops short of engine compartment; rear door.
Reality check: The U.S. Army and Canadian forces used the relatively lightweight RG-31 in Iraq and Afghanistan, where it has proved popular but somewhat less survivable than the Cougar. Canadian RG-31s have been involved in several fatal bombings and have suffered mechanical problems. Mechanical faults also drove the British Army to retire a handful of RG-31s it purchased in the 1990s. GDLS is partnered with BAE in South Africa on RG-31 production. The Army continues to purchase the model for route clearance outside of the MRAP program. RG-31s in Iraq have been fitted with cage armor to protect against rocket-propelled grenades.
M1117 4 X 4: Textron (Providence, R.I.). Weight: 12 tons. Passengers: 8 + 3 crew. MRAP I orders: 4 for testing. Features: Flattened V-shaped hull; side door; 260-hp. engine. Cost: $690,000.
Reality check: Textron pitched this stretched variant of its successful Armored Security Vehicle, more than 1,000 of which have been ordered by the U.S. Army for convoy escort duty in Iraq. The M1117 is lighter and has a flatter hull bottom than the other contenders, and these liabilities apparently doomed the vehicle. The Marine Corps bought only four test examples. The New Orleans factory that makes ASVs was heavily damaged in Hurricane Katrina in 2005; there were doubts that Textron could increase production to meet MRAP demand, even if the vehicle had proved survivable enough. The M1117 also is more expensive than other Category I MRAPs.
Category II
Cougar HE 6 X 6: Force Protection Industries Inc. (Ladson, S.C.). Weight: 24 tons. Passengers: 10 + 2 crew. MRAP I orders: 920 + several for testing. Cost: $644,000. Features: Monocoque, flattened V-shaped hull extended to engine compartment; dual air conditioners; rear door.
Reality check: The roomier six-wheeled Cougar variant is prized by bomb squads for its ability to carry an ordnance-disposal robot and controls with room to spare; many of the pre-MRAP 6 X 6 orders were placed by the Navy on behalf of the military bomb-disposal community. The British and Iraqi armies were first to embrace the 6 X 6 for other missions. In 2006, Force Protection sold 400 Cougar HE variants to the Iraqi army and 108 to the British Army. The British "Mastiffs," as they are called, reportedly boast superior protection against explosively formed penetrator bombs.
RG-33L 6 X 6: BAE Systems North America (Rockville, Md.). Weight: 22 tons. Passengers: 12 + 2 crew. MRAP I orders: 330 + several for testing. Cost: approximately $630,000. Features: Monocoque, flattened V-shaped hull that stops short of engine compartment; rear door, exportable power; robotic claw arm.
Reality check: This stretched and widened RG-33 variant is fitted for the same roles as the Cougar HE, with the addition of a robotic arm like that on the larger Buffalo MRAP, used to probe suspected explosive devices. The RG-33's lower height compared to the Buffalo will probably make it an inferior arm platform.
RG-31E 6 X 6: General Dynamics Land Systems Canada (London, Ont.). Weight: approximately 20 tons. Passengers: at least 10 + 2 crew. MRAP I orders: 610 + several for testing. Cost: $559,000. Features: Monocoque, flattened V-shaped hull that stops short of engine compartment; rear door.
Reality check: A stretched RG-31 variant, the E model has yet to appear in public and the manufacturer has released only basic details, but it should be broadly similar to the RG-33L.
MaxxPro XL 4 X 4: International Military and Government LLC (Warrenville, Ill.). Weight: 18 tons. Passengers: 10 + 2 crew. MRAP I orders: 16 + several for testing. Cost: $540,000. Features: Commercial truck chassis with a bolt-on V-shaped armored hull; rear door.
Reality check: A heavier, stretched MaxxPro. As with many Category II MRAPs, the MaxxPro XL uses the same engine as its smaller, lighter Category I counterpart, meaning slightly degraded performance.
Golan 4 X 4: Protected Vehicles Inc. (North Charleston, S.C.). Weight: 15 tons. Passengers: 10 + 2 crew. MRAP I orders: 60 + several for testing. Cost: $623,000. Features: Monocoque, V-shaped armored hull; rear door.
Reality check: PVI was a subcontractor to Oshkosh on that company's failed Alpha MRAP; PVI's own Golan has fared little better. There has been no indication that the Pentagon will order any beyond the initial batch of 60. While awaiting orders, PVI has cut its work force in half, and is currently fighting a lawsuit relating to issues about the departure of PVI founder Garth Barrett from rival Force Protection Inc., where he was president. Force Protection claims Barrett stole a hard drive containing confidential data. Barrett is countersuing. Executive representative Drew Felty says the lack of interest in Golan is not due to survivability. "We have what we call a triad solution: we've got protection against IEDs-including fragmentation, EFP (explosively formed penetrator) and RPG, all in one vehicle." The design features modular armor blocks on the sides and cage armor over the windows. PVI has the advantage of being located near the Navy's SPAWAR Systems Center, which integrates turrets and electronics in MRAPs, and Charleston AFB, where many MRAPs embark for flights to Iraq.
Caiman 6 X 6: Armor Holdings LLC (Jacksonville, Fla.). Weight: 24 tons. Passengers: approximately 10 + 2 crew. MRAP I orders: 16 + several for testing. Cost: approximately $600,000. Features: FMTV chassis with a V-shaped armored hull; rear door.
Reality check: As with the Category I Caiman, Armor Holdings has released few details about this vehicle, only stressing its FMTV utility truck chassis.
Category III
Buffalo 6 X 6: Force Protection Industries Inc. (Ladson, S.C.). Weight: 25 tons. Passengers: 4 + 2 crew. MRAP I orders: 58 + several for testing. Cost: $856,000. Features: Monocoque, flattened V-shaped hull extended to engine compartment; 400-hp. engine; rear door; robotic claw arm.
Reality check: The Buffalo is the only vehicle qualifying for MRAP Category III, owing to its unique features: greater size, weight and height, which make it cumbersome but extremely survivable, and an excellent platform for the robotic arm used to prod suspected bombs. Buffaloes in Iraq have been seen fitted with cage armor to protect against RPGs. Buffalo is a direct descendant of the South African Casspir design that is in widespread military and civil use for mine-clearance.
More than a few years ago while at 20,000 in the middle of the Med I finished a fuel check and told my trusty nose-gunner, Jim "Rev" Jones "We're fat on gas...2k above ladder". Rev, who cut his early cruise teeth in F-4 Phantoms off USS Midway, said "You're never fat on gas".
After that quick tutorial on fighters and airborne gas, let's look at some news that has come out regarding the status of the US Air Force Tanker question.
First, airborne tanking is a vital element to our power projection capability. Aside from being a significant force multiplier, in many cases it is a required element for mission success. Navy aircraft, even when carriers can be positioned offshore of the vast majority of hot spots around the world, need fuel to extend missions and provide that margin for error needed when returning to your postage stamp of a landing field. Air Force aircraft, even when launching from land bases or in the fulfillment of their "global reach" tenet, often times have significant distances to fly and loiter requirements. Add in the "time sensitive strike" capability that is vital in this asymmetric battlespace and airborne fuel is essential to mission success.
EADS North America, the branch of the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company that is on our side of the pond, is making an aggressive move in the competition to be the US Air Force next tanker fleet with a report late last week that they have selected Bridgeport, West Virginia (no idea if Robert Byrd was included in site negotiations there) as the location for a new aerial refueling center of excellence, IF Northrop Grumman KC-30 Tanker is selected as the U.S. Air Force’s next generation aerial refueling aircraft.
I say an aggressive move because the hurdles are high for Northrop Grumman in this situation given the fact that their KC-30 aircraft is based on the Airbus A330 airliner, currently under delivery to the Royal Australian Air Force and, according to the aforementioned web site is the U.K. government's preferred bidder for its Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft requirement. One BIG plus in the KC-30's favor would be the fact that the aircraft would be converted to the tanker role in Mobile, Alabama.
The competition in this deal is the Boeing KC-767A, currently under production/delivery contract to the air forces of Italy and Japan.
Interestingly, both EADS and Boeing have agreements with Sargent Fletcher, Inc., of El Monte, Calif. to provide tanking hardware for their systems. Talk about cornering the market on airborne refueling equipment.
As a former fighter guy, pulling up to a KC-767 or a KC-30 matters little - as long as there is gas to pass. The details of which company or which aircraft is selected to fulfill the Air Force's is better left to bean counters and pencil-necked GS-types/contractors in the Pentagon. We need something to replace the increasingly aging fleet of KC-135 and KC-10 aircraft, however, and either of these new systems will suffice nicely.
EADS North America and Cobham Select
Bridgeport, West Virginia for an Aerial Refueling Center of Excellence
Charleston, West Virginia; Arlington, Virginia, October 19, 2007 – Bridgeport, West Virginia has been selected as the site for a new aerial refueling center of excellence that will provide key components for the Northrop Grumman KC-30 Tanker. The new facility will produce and support EADS’ advanced Aerial Refueling Boom System and Cobham’s under-wing hose and drogue refueling system, developed with its U.S. subsidiary, Sargent Fletcher. The announcement was made by West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin at a press conference held in the State Capitol building.
The production site, chosen after an evaluation that considered locations in several states, will be established if the Northrop Grumman KC-30 Tanker is selected as the U.S. Air Force’s next generation aerial refueling aircraft. The facility will employ at least 100 skilled workers, and is to co-locate the production operations of EADS North America and Sargent Fletcher into two adjacent facilities at Harrison County’s North Central West Virginia Regional Airport.
EADS North America will supply the KC-30 Tanker’s fly-by-wire Aerial Refueling Boom System from a new 32,000 sq. ft. production site, while Sargent Fletcher is to build the aircraft’s two digital underwing hose and drogue pods at an adjacent 25,000 sq. ft. facility.
“We examined a number of sites across the country and chose Bridgeport because it offers a solid combination of location, community support and skilled workforce necessary to execute this critical national security program,” said EADS North America Chairman and CEO Ralph D. Crosby, Jr. “In particular, Governor Manchin and the West Virginia congressional delegation have a demonstrated record of support for industry. This investment decision - along with our previous selection of Mobile, Alabama as the potential site of the KC-30 Tanker final assembly facility - reflects EADS’ firm commitment to create jobs and insource advanced critical technologies into the United States.”
EADS North America’s Aerial Refueling Boom System (ARBS) is the most capable in-flight refueling system available today. Its fly-by-wire design features enhanced controllability and incorporates an automatic load alleviation system, which greatly aids the boom operator and the receiver aircraft’s pilot during refueling operations.
Sargent Fletcher is the leader in the military hose and drogue refueling industry. All under-wing pods presently used by the U.S. Department of Defense are Sargent Fletcher products, and the company is the world’s only producer of an FAA-certified under-wing refueling pod.
Although the Air Force has not completed selection of the contractor to build the new refueling aircraft, EADS and Sargent Fletcher’s commitment to West Virginia reaffirms that we are making great progress in attracting world-class companies to the Mountain State,” West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin said. “These would be good-paying jobs with benefits, and it would open the door to additional aerospace and defense contractor opportunities. If finalized, this new aerial refueling center of excellence will be an important addition to our growing aerospace and high-technology industries.”
The EADS advanced aerial boom – which is 40 ft. long and weighs approximately 2.5 tons – is already present on the first of five KC-30B Multi-role Tanker/Transport aircraft that EADS is supplying to the Royal Australian Air Force. With the capacity to offload up to 1,200 gallons of fuel per minute, the ARBS is easily adaptable to future mission requirements, including the refueling of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).
Sargent Fletcher will supply the Northrop Grumman KC-30’s two FRL 905E-series hose and drogue refueling pods, which are the most modern in service today. These all-digital electric pods carry their own power system and can offload approximately 420 gallons of fuel per minute. Fitted with 90-ft. long hoses, they are designed for use with probe-equipped receiver aircraft, and are mounted on pre-existing outboard wing structures under the KC-30 Tanker’s wings. A Sargent Fletcher fuselage refueling unit, which utilizes the hose and drogue system as well, also will be part of the KC-30’s refueling capability. It is located within the aircraft fuselage, near the boom and can be utilized to refuel probe-equipped U.S. Navy/Marine aircraft, along with those of allied forces.
“I congratulate our KC-30 Tanker team partners, EADS North America and Sargent Fletcher, on their selection of West Virginia.,” said Paul Meyer, Northrop Grumman vice president and general manager of the KC-30 program. “This industrial announcement is strong evidence of the KC-30 Team’s focus on risk reduction, economic expansion in America and commitment to be a catalyst for the creation of new centers of aerospace excellence nationwide.”
In addition to ARBS assembly activities for the U.S. Air Force KC-30 Tankers, EADS North America’s West Virginia facility also will provide long-term support and maintenance for the boom on in-service aircraft. EADS North America has significantly expanded its U.S. industrial footprint since the company’s creation in 2003. New locations include the rapidly-expanding helicopter center of its American Eurocopter business unit at Mississippi’s Golden Triangle Region (which is producing UH-72A Lakota helicopters for the U.S. Army, along with other rotary-wing aircraft for homeland security missions); EADS CASA North America’s Mobile, Alabama customer support and training center, which will support the U.S. Coast Guard’s new HC-144A maritime patrol aircraft; and a facility in Russellville, Arkansas for EADS North America’s Integrated Shelter System operation.
Defense Tech news usually consists of whiz-bang gear bordering on science fiction. But sometimes new equipment doesn't have to sound like something out of Star Trek to make a transformational-ish change on the battlefield.
The M326 120-mm Mortar System was developed by BAE Systems to make it easier for Soldiers to quickly set-up and take down the M120 120-mm Mortar system on the battlefield.
The M326 is a simple and rugged device that can be easily attached to the M1101 Trailer, High-Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) or a variety of other vehicles that serve as a prime mover for 120-mm mortar systems. It significantly reduces mortar crew workload by using a hydraulic system to hoist the fully assembled M120 Mortar, which weighs more than 300 pounds, into and out of the trailer or vehicle used to haul the weapon.
Today's combat zones are more fluid and shifting than ever, and mobility and reaction time are often key elements to victory. This system is designed to allow heavy mortar teams to set up with less effort, engage enemy forces more quickly, and pack up and go in record time.
Some mechanized forces use mortar carrier vehicles, such as the M1129 Stryker mortar carrier. Light infantry and other units that are primarily foot-based, however, don't have this option. The M326 should help get the big tubes into the fight quite a bit more quickly.
Gen. Richard Cody, Army vice chief of staff, says turning the Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA) program into a single acquisition and operation platform under the Air Force would mean significant cost increases.
Cody spoke in response to questions from Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
Cody also sent Levin a copy of the Oct. 9 appeal to restore authorization for JCA funding to the Army aircraft procurement account.
"A switch to a single service will necessitate a significant and time-consuming update to all documentation and could possibly result in Nunn-McCurdy implications," Cody said in his mid-October letter.
When Pentagon program cost increases exceed a certain set amount, the services have to notify Congress they have breached so-called Nunn-McCurdy limits.
Levin had asked the Army to explain the need for a joint JCA program.
"Program documentation and activities to date have been based on an Army-led joint process. If this program were to revert to an Air Force only program, the validity of these documents and decisions will come into question," Cody wrote. "Additionally, there are three primary areas of near-term focus that will delay the program if a service switch is made. These three areas are: the acquisition program execution and documentation; the test program; and the training/fielding activity."
The Army is also currently providing 75 percent of the acquisition execution personnel, Cody pointed out. It will take "upwards of a year" for the Air Force to get the necessary staff in place to replace the Army force.
"The documentation is of particular importance with respect to the acquisition approach," Cody wrote. "This documentation ... defines the acquisition program baseline. This baseline is currently defined with the program being an Army-centric activity joint program." Cody also said the testing is now scheduled around Army processes, procedures and resources.
Cody said the key operational differences between Army and Air Force JCA fleets would not be in the airframe, but in how the aircraft would be used.
The Air Force would use the aircraft to supplement C-130s and other overall airlift needs. The Army is responsible for getting materials and service members to the last tactical mile -- where speed, not necessarily efficiency, is of the utmost importance. Many of the JCA missions would be executed with 24 hours notice or less, Cody said.
doing is we're using a manned form of the same type of intelligence-gathering equipment in the form of a Caravan, a Cessna Caravan, that we've put an ISR suite on, which is operated by a sensor operator that's actually flying in the aircraft.
the Airbus A330 airliner
currently under production/delivery contract to the air forces of Italy and Japan.
Defense Tech news usually consists of whiz-bang gear bordering on science fiction. But sometimes new equipment doesn't have to sound like something out of Star Trek to make a transformational-ish change on the battlefield.
