We just got word through the grapevine that a V-22 multi-year plan has been reached between Bell-Boeing and the government. The plan guarantees a buy of 167 Ospreys for $10.4 billion. That's about $62 million per aircraft, which is above the unit flyaway target of $58 million, but considerably down from the $72 million or so price of recent years.
This multi-year plan has been in works for years. Sticky points were the wording of the commitment letter and the details surrounding "reopeners" - the caveats that would allow the government to renegotiate the terms in the future.
Meanwhile, word from the front is the V-22 has morphed into the VIP transport of choice due to its speed and smooth ride. (Even John McCain was ferried around in one during his recent visit.)
(Gouge - SC)
-- Ward
The Sunday Paper (Late Edition)
Enjoy what's left of your weekend by riding along on the shuttle during launch:
(Gouge CM)
-- Ward
An Insider's View of CSAR-X
I got an interesting email yesterday from a combat veteran CSAR pilot. He makes some good points on the whole debate over the current CSAR-X requirements and protest, and I'd like to share them with DT readers with his permission:
(From retired Lt. Col. Charles D. Brown, former CSAR HH-53 pilot and veteran of the Vietnam evacuation and Mayaguez rescue)
The major issue in the contract comes from in the change from 'mission' ready to 'flight' ready. As a retired Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) pilot I can tell you that the seemingly insignificant difference between 'flight ready' and 'mission ready' is anything but insignificant. So, a bit of explanation. Boeing's Chinook can be 'flight' ready in the 3 hours it takes to put the helicopter back together after being off loaded from a C-17. But, 'flight ready' simply means that it can be flown on a formal maintenance check flight to verify that all the flight controls work exactly as necessary. To get the heavy-lift, Chinook into a C-17, you have to disconnect flight controls and remove major flight components. When you put it back together, you have to have a specially qualified flight crew take the aircraft up on a functional check flight before the aircraft can be used for a mission.
This maintenance check flight is supposed to happen in daylight and in good visual flight weather. Off load the Chinook at night or in bad weather, or have something go amiss during reassembly, and you might wait a day or two to have a 'mission ready' aircraft.
The Chinook is a good cargo helicopter. We need it’s heavy lift capability in our helicopter fleet. A CSAR helicopter must carry survivors, a basic crew and weapons— but heavy lift and large size is not a requirement for CSAR. It’s all about not being shot down. CSAR is about flying low over hostile enemy territory. You are there to 'sneak in, grab survivors fast, and get the hell out' before the enemy knows you have been there. That’s will be more difficult to achieve with a larger, noisier helicopter. Then there’s the challenge of finding a landing zone big enough to accommodate a helicopter the size of the Chinook, landing being preferable to using a hoist, especially if there are multiple people to pick up.
In short, the difference between “flight ready” and “mission ready” is a major issue. Anyone who has flown helicopters knows that they are maintenance intensive. The helicopter that meets mission requirements with the fewest maintenance and check flight requirements is a winner. Speed counts in getting CSAR on scene. Less time for the enemy to search for survivors and prepare anti aircraft fire for the CSAR they know is coming. It's a big deal to the squadron and the pilots trying to fly the mission, and a really big deal to the downed, possibly injured warfighter caught behind enemy lines.
Survivors are in a life-or-death situation where every minute counts, and any delays that might be required to get a Chinook 'mission ready' from 'flight ready' are unacceptable. If the military requirements are for a helicopter that can be airlifted by cargo aircraft to a theater and be rapidly mission ready, I'm happy the Air Force didn't opt to overlook this 'technicality' and I suspect families, like mine, with loved ones in Iraq are too.
-- Christian
Iraq MOD Gets its Trucks
It ain't sexy, but this is how you build an army.
Here's a list of the latest trucks the Iraqi army bought as part of its foreign military sales activities (from Multi-National Security Transition Command):
This Foreign Military Sales delivery included logistical support equipment such as 4 BREM tracked recovery vehicles, 47 x 2,000 liter water trailers, 66 x 5-ton cargo trucks, and 175 x 1-ton cargo trailers. This equipment is valued in excess of $11.4 million.
The delivery of the 19 x Shop Equipment Contact Maintenance Humvees, procured through the Iraqi Security Forces Fund, are valued in excess of $3.2 million. These vehicles will increase the capacity of the Iraqi army to repair vehicles and equipment.
This equipment and materiel will be issued to Iraqi Army units throughout the country as new units are generated and to replace any losses that have occurred in their efforts to secure the country.
What's the weakest link in the Iraqi army? Combat support and logistics. These trucks will go a long way to relieving some of that pressure on coalition forces.
Good on 'em for recognizing that blogs like DT and Ares and The Dewline are a force to be reckoned with in shaping the debate and often cross-reference within the blog world. But I've always found it kind of pathetic when "big business" tries to blog.
I mean, isn't the appeal of Defense Tech and our other blog friends the fact that we're not tied to any corporate interests in the defense world? That's what blogs are for; and the idea that Boeing -- or NorGrum/EADS, for that matter -- can pump out investigative insights on the subject instead of market-tested bullet points is preposterous. There won't be any candor. There won't be any objectivity.
While we have our protest in with the GAO, we wanted Americans to know that the KC-X acquisition process was flawed and clearly understand our reasons for protesting. Boeing firmly believes that changes were made to the bid requirements and evaluation criteria that led the Air Force away from a highly capable, mid-sized tanker and pushed them into selecting a less capable, less survivable tanker.
With a GAO decision on the protest due in twelve weeks, we will continue to tell our story throughout the country in order to leave no doubt that Boeing offered the most capable tanker, at the lowest risk to the warfighter and taxpayer.
Mark McGraw Vice President & Program Manager 767 Tanker Programs.
Oh well.
But that's okay. Since the blogosphere is open to everyone, everyone seems to think they need a presence in it. We'll take the info for what it's worth and move on.
Let's just keep an eye on the internet jockeying and where it lands.
-- Christian
Cyber Defense -- and Attack
With U.S. civil and military officials increasingly concerned about cyber attacks against American networks, the U.S. Air Force is planning to establish what will probably be the largest and most comprehensive military organization to defend against cyber attack. And, unlike the apparent efforts of the other U.S. military services in this field, the Air Force will conduct offensive cyber warfare.
The massive Air Force effort will pull together existing cyber-related units and establish new ones, all under the Air Force Cyber Command -- AFCYBER in milspeak -- and its operating arm, the 24th Air Force. According to Major General William T. Lord, the provisional commander of AFCYBER, the command and 24th Air Force will achieve "initial operational capability" on 1 October 2008. However, many components of the command are already operational.
Two new wings are being established to work with two existing wings. The total strength of the new commands have not been established, but they will be "large," with active, Air Force Reserve, and Air National Guard personnel assigned. The AFCYBER/24th Air Force headquarters are at Barksdale AFB, Louisiana, on an interim basis; the permanent base for those headquarters will be decided shortly.
Operating directly under AFCYBER will be the Network Operations unit, which will develop the standards and integration architecture for the command. All other major components are line units under the 24th Air Force; these will be:
67th Network Warfare Wing (Lackland AFB, Texas) -- This is the core of Air Force cyber operations. Its official functions are to organize, train, and equipment "cyberspace" forces to conduct network defense, attack, and exploitation. It is believe that this is the only U.S. military organization that carries out extensive offensivecyber operations.
Under Colonel Joseph J. Pridotkas, the 67th is the largest "wing" in the Air Force, consisting of five intelligence groups with 35 squadrons and detachments comprising more than 8,000 men and women. They serve at about 100 locations on every continent except Antarctica.
450th Electronic Warfare Wing (Lackland AFB, Texas) -- Consisting of electronic attack as well as protection components, this wing will provide operational input for Air Force EC-130J Commando Solo (Hercules) as well as EA-6B Prowler electronic aircraft. The latter are flown by Navy and Marine Corps squadrons, but with some Air Force personnel assigned. Those electronic warfare aircraft will soon be replaced by Navy EA-18G Growler variants of the F/A-18 Hornet.
688th Information Operations Wing (Lackland AFB, Texas) -- Formerly known as the Air Force Information Operations Center, this wing integrates information warfare tactics, training, and technology.
689th Cyberspace Wing (Scott AFB, Illinois) -- Responsible for communications and information functions as well as deployable communications capabilities, the wing is assuming the functions now performed by the Air Force Communications Agency and the Global Cyberspace Innovation Center. (Those commands will be deactivated when AFCYBER becomes operational).
The Air Force leadership believes that the AFCYBER command and its components will provide the necessary capabilities and expertise for "cyber warfare" in the 21st Century. The command is being established at a time that thousands of efforts are being made every day to break into Department of Defense databanks and links, and when there will be increasing efforts by potential military enemies as well as terrorist to wage cyber warfare against the United States.
Our friends at Aviation Week sent this story over to us for posting. My former colleague Mike Fabey has been covering this issue backwards and forwards. With all the tanker dancing going on, it's instructive to remember Boeing's dealing with another major headache, this time in the rotor world.
Under a Defense Department Inspector General (IG) investigation and more intense source selection scrutiny, the Air Force's $15 billion combat, search and rescue replacement helicopter (CSAR-X) program is further delaying its planned contract award.
The IG announced its investigation about a month ago into the way the Air Force changed a key performance parameter (KPP) change for deployability (Aerospace DAILY, Feb. 25).
Late last month the Air Force notified bidders Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Sikorsky that the sixth amendment to the request for proposals (RFP) - in essence, a new RFP - will be released some time in the spring, with an award to follow in October. The service explained the delay by saying it needed more time to evalute the very detailed proposals. A Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) meeting on the program is likely to take place a month or so before the downselect.
Last fall Air Force officials expressed the hope that the award would be made by the summer. The CSAR-X work already has been delayed more than a year - and it has been on the Air Force drawing board since the previous decade.
Initially, Boeing won the contract with its HH-47 Chinook variant. But Lockheed Martin and Sikorsky protested the award twice, with the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) sustaining both on the basis of how the Air Force calculated certain lifecycle costs for the proposed aircraft.
Now added in the mix is the IG investigation into the KPP change. As first reported by Aerospace DAILY, the Air Force changed a crucial bit of wording in the requirement, saying that a disassembled CSAR-X helicopter had to be only "flight" ready - instead of "mission" ready - within three hours. The Air Force said it vetted the change properly, but its own documents call that assertion into question.
Air Force officials told Congress that Lockheed Martin had asked for the change, but the service's own documents show the service had made the change prior to when it said Lockheed suggested a wording clarification. Lockheed said it never asked for any such change.
Boeing would have likely benefited most from such a wording change, analysts said. Boeing said it never requested the KPP change, but the company acknowledged a briefing with the Air Force in April 2005 - shortly before the service made the change - in which deployability times apparently were discussed.
U.S. Navy officials insist the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter won't bust its budget, despite persistent rumors that the $300 billion acquisition program is on the cusp of a major cost overrun.
Capt. Wade Knudson, the Lightning II's development manager, said the plane's development costs are in line with earlier projections. Even if the first planes off the new production line cost more than expected, the long-term price tag isn't likely to move much, he told reporters last week. That's because the U.S. Air Force is on the books to buy 1,763 of the single engine fighters, anchoring a production line that is also due to crank out hundreds more aircraft for the Navy, Marine Corps and eight partner nations.
That isn't just program optimism, but should be reflected in the Pentagon's upcoming next round of official cost estimates, said Vice Adm. David Venlet, head of Naval Air Systems Command, in an interview. He rejected Capitol Hill talk that the program is on the cusp of a so-called Nunn-McCurdy breach, a cost overrun that would trigger a lengthy review and program restructuring. "I don't expect them to probably have numbers in it that would cause a Nunn-McCurdy. I believe what they're saying," Venlet said.
The verdict will come out in coming weeks, when the Pentagon releases its next "selected acquisition report" data on weapons costs. Already, however, audit agencies are raising red flags.
"We believe that JSF costs will likely be much higher than reported. The estimates do not include all costs," the Government Accountability Office said this month in a new report that called current projections "optimistic" and "not well supported". GAO said the required total investment now approaches $1 trillion, including maintenance costs, and it urged the Pentagon to take a realistic look at just how big the coming bills will be, given the Lightning II's "unprecedented" demands on the federal budget.
Critics say that expense should prompt a second look at cheaper alternatives, like a new order of Lockheed Martin's F-16 fighters or the latest models of the F/A-18 Super Hornet. Partner nations also might think twice, particularly if an electronic attack version of the F/A-18 is approved for export.
But Lockheed Martin counters that the stealthy F-35 will prove itself over decades of service, as it takes over roles currently performed by a wide variety of existing aircraft. The F-35 will be a bomber and a spy plane, as well as an air-to-air fighter. Its triple-play design will offer flexibility along with maintenance-saving commonality, said Steve O'Bryan, a former Navy fighter pilot who now handles F-35 business development for Lockheed Martin.
The F-35 will come in three versions, all produced on the same production line and able to use the same engines. A version of the basic model, a conventional takeoff and landing plane, is now in flight testing at Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth plant. The second version is a short-takeoff, vertical landing (STOVL) model sought by the Marines and the U.K., and the third version is an aircraft carrier model for the U.S. Navy.
Design differences among the three variants have brought more headaches than initially expected. Engine modifications for the STOVL have become a development challenge. Also, the Navy version has required a bigger wing, so the plane can fly long distances and also stay airborne at slow speeds near aircraft carriers. Even the basic plane has had its snags -- for example, wing bulkhead production issues have caused the first planes to be built "out of sequence" from the production plan, which is a significant hurdle for builders. Still, Lockheed Martin says it's making progress on all three versions and doesn't expect any major delays to result.
That's good news for the Navy, said Vice Adm. Venlet. "We've got to be deliberate about getting it here so it's got the capability we need when it gets here," he said. Patuxent River Naval Air Station, where Venlet is based, is due to get its first STOVL F-35 by the end of this year, assuming the plane sticks to its current schedule. Lockheed Martin will handle the initial test flights this summer, but the Navy will handle the jump jet's first vertical operations. Venlet said that testing will be "busy and noisy", but very welcome.
"We need it and we need it bad," Venlet said. "We need the Joint Strike Fighter. We covet that capability. It's going to be great."
-- Rebecca Christie
NorGrum/EADS Fights Back
The Northrop Grumman/EADS tanker team has posted a new Web site to fight back against Boeing protests. The "America's New Tanker" site has a near daily scrape of pro-NorGrum coverage that tries to paint a picture of a done deal (which is may very well be).
Here's the latest:
Reuters this morning, citing Air Force documents, is refuting one of Boeing's major false statements about Northrop Grumman’s win of an Air Force contract to construct America’s next generation of aerial refueling tankers.
According to Reuters, Air Force documents and interviews with Northrop Grumman officials make clear that the Northrop Grumman KC-45A can refuel the V-22 Osprey operated by the Marine Corps. In its challenge to the Government Accountability Office, Boeing claims, among other things that one of the shortcomings of Northrop Grumman's win is that it cannot refuel the V-22.
Reuters writes that Air Force documents show that Air Force officials chose Northrop Grumman in part because "Northrop Grumman's aircraft was better suited for refueling tilt-rotor aircraft" like the V-22.
And Reuters also quotes Northrop Grumman director of business development Marc Lindsley as saying Boeing's claim is false, and that the V-22 can be refueled by the KC-45A.
Additionally, Northrop Grumman has already built, flown and tested its refueling tanker, while Boeing has only conceptual plans; it has yet to construct even one such aircraft. Reuters reports that the Air Force assigned a higher risk to the Boeing proposal because it is so far behind Northrop Grumman in aircraft development.
What Others Are Saying:
On Sunday, the Tacoma News Tribune published an editorial urging Boeing to respect the Government Accountability Office’s review of its appeal of Northrop Grumman's win.
Calling the GAO "the right umpire" to resolve the dispute, the News Tribune said "The company's political allies...should agree to abide by the GAO's respected judgment."
"Their refusal to do so would make it all too clear that the protests are all about protectionism."
"Real patriotism argues for giving the (U.S.) military the best equipment possible," the newspaper said. "If (Northrop Grumman) has offered the tanker that best meets the needs of the Air Force, so be it."
"The GAO, not Boeing's friends in Congress, can best be trusted to make that call."
-- Christian
Northrop Crafts Multimission N-UCAS
First of all folks, please excuse the delay in posting. I am on a trip this week and wasn't able to establish comms until today -- and Ward's off on a trip as well.
I'll be up and running throughout the week, but the frequency may be down a bit from before.
Here's a great piece of reporting from our friends at Aviation Week on a program I see as the future of Navy strike aviation. I got a few more tidbits from some sources at the Navy League confernece I'll add a little later on this subject, but chew this over first and we'll update soon.
This article first appeared in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.
Northrop Grumman officials are promoting their unmanned strike aircraft being designed for the U.S. Navy as a "first-generation" unmanned combat aerial system (UCAS) with capabilities that include early missile defense intercepts.
The initial platform for a new strike fighter design is based on the company's X-47B, but Northrop researchers are actually assembling an internal system that could fit into a variety of airframes, according to Scott Winship, vice president and program manager of Navy UCAS. The aircraft would incorporate "marinized low observability" and air-to-air refueling as well as advanced sensors, targeting and weapons.
However, Winship contends that a mix of fifth-generation Lockheed Martin F-35s and Northrop's UCAS would be a far more powerful combination than Boeing Super Hornets teamed with the UCAS because of the F-35's ability to penetrate foreign air defenses in combination with the unmanned aircraft.
Boost phase
With surprising candor, Winship identified important new capabilities for the unmanned strike aircraft including boost-phase intercept (BPI) of enemy ballistic missiles soon after launch and the carriage of new, compact, directed-energy weapons. He said options will include both laser and high-power microwave (HPM) weapons. Lasers are seen as a key BPI weapon while HPM is critical to electronic attack.
The new design also will address the U.S. military's fading electronic-attack (EA) capability. The Air Force has failed to come up with a new EA capability for the near term, and by 2012, the Navy will retire its EA-6B Prowlers, which now provide that capability to the expeditionary air forces.
"The Navy is going to be out of the EA-6B business," says Capt. Steve Kochman, manager of the EA-6B program. "There are ways the [Air Force need] can be filled, [but] I'm not endorsing any of them." So, for now the program of record has the Navy stepping out of the Air Force mission and a replacement capability has not been approved. "Something will have to be worked out," he said.
Next-gen stealth
"Broadband, all-aspect stealth is next-generation," which is reflected in the cranked-kite, tailless X-47B design, Northrop's Winship said. "It is also sensors -- signals and electronic intelligence -- and directed energy." Conformal antenna arrays -- eight on the top side of the aircraft and eight below -- will also contribute to low observability and provide 360-degree coverage.
Advanced air-to-air missiles are being studied as part of the BPI mission as well as directed energy and rechargeable weapons that could be carried as palletized units sized for the weapons bays' 4,500-pound payload carrying capability. Alternative weapons bay doors would be fitted with apertures for the directed energy weapons.
Northrop designers are looking for an aircraft that can fly 50-100 hour missions and that can go into the toughest, so-called fourth zone of enemy air defenses.
Navy and Marine Corps electronic warfare requirements officials later described the mission as "stand-in [jamming, electronic attack or strike] within a surface-to-air missile's no escape zone."
-- Christian
The MV-22 Bradley?
I know that Christian loves the Osprey. I know that lots of people love the Osprey. And what's not to love, right? It's a plane! It's a helicopter! It's a tilt-rotor aircraft! And believe me you, there is nothing worse than having to choose between one or the other and ALWAYS having to have both around. SUCH a drag.) And now it is an armed plane/helicopter! Who says we can't have it all?
Dave Adamiak of BAE Systems explains more about this new addition to America's uber-aircraft:
The major factor in determining what weapon with which to fit the Osprey was size limitation, he said.
The entire system needed to fit into two holes in the aircraft's floor, each known as a "hell hole," which is used to attach cables to external cargo, such as a Humvee, Adamiak explained.
Weapon systems such as the .50-caliber machine gun were simply too big to fit in the space available, he said.
The weapon system weighs between 700 and 800 pounds, meaning the Osprey will have two to three fewer seats for troops, Adamiak said.
Wait a minute. Where have I heard this before?
That's when I realized that the Osprey is like the M2 Bradley of the skies.
Did anyone here ever see "The Pentagon Wars"? It was an HBO movie loosely based upon USAF Col. James Burton's book about his years at the Pentagon in the early 1980s. Although the movie is about the politics of defense acquisitions more generally (from the 1950s onward), it also about the "Bradley Fighting Vehicle" specifically. The Bradley went through many manifestations, starting out as a troop carrier, evolving into a tank, attempting to be amphibious at one point, and ultimately becoming the "fighting vehicle" that we know it as today.
As an aside, lest you think the Pentagon Wars is not worth watching, consider the following:
[Conversation after redesigning the Bradley to carry a gun turret]
Col. Robert Laurel Smith: That's one hell of a cannon.
Jones: That's the problem.
Col. Robert Laurel Smith: What is?
Jones: You go out on the battlefield with this pecker sticking out of your turret, and the enemy's going to unload on you with everything they got. Might as well put a big red bulls eye on the side.
Col. Robert Laurel Smith: But it's a troop carrier, not a tank.
Jones: Do you want me to put a sign on it in fifty languages, "I am a troop carrier, not a tank. Please don't shoot at me?"
MALMSTROM AIR FORCE BASE, Mont. - On a wind-swept air base near the Missouri River, the Air Force has launched an ambitious plan to wean itself from foreign oil by turning to a new and unlikely source: coal.
The Air Force wants to build at its Malmstrom base in central Montana the first piece of what it hopes will be a nationwide network of facilities that would convert domestic coal into cleaner-burning synthetic fuel.
Air Force officials said the plants could help neutralize a national security threat by tapping into the country's abundant coal reserves. And by offering itself as a partner in the Malmstrom plant, the Air Force hopes to prod Wall Street investors - nervous over coal's role in climate change - to sink money into similar plants nationwide.
"We're going to be burning fossil fuels for a long time, and there's three times as much coal in the ground as there are oil reserves," said Air Force Assistant Secretary William Anderson. "Guess what? We're going to burn coal."
Tempering that vision, analysts say, is the astronomical cost of coal-to-liquids plants. Their high price tag, up to $5 billion apiece, would be hard to justify if oil prices were to drop. In addition, coal has drawn wide opposition on Capitol Hill, where some leading lawmakers reject claims it can be transformed into a clean fuel. Without emissions controls, experts say coal-to-liquids plants could churn out double the greenhouse gases as oil.
"We don't want new sources of energy that are going to make the greenhouse gas problem even worse," House Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said in a recent interview.
The Air Force would not finance, construct or operate the coal plant. Instead, it has offered private developers a 700-acre site on the base and a promise that it would be a ready customer as the government's largest fuel consumer.
Bids on the project are due in May. Construction is expected to take four years once the Air Force selects a developer.
Anderson said the Air Force plans to fuel half its North American fleet with a synthetic-fuel blend by 2016. To do so, it would need 400 million gallons of coal-based fuel annually.
With the Air Force paving the way, Anderson said the private sector would follow - from commercial air fleets to long-haul trucking companies.
"Because of our size, we can move the market along," he said. "Whether it's (coal-based) diesel that goes into Wal-Mart trucks or jet fuel that goes into our fighters, all that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, which is the endgame."
-- Christian
USAF Tanker Firewall
By Amy Butler
Fire-walling procedures to fence off data in a modeling tool used in selecting a Northrop Grumman/EADS refueling tanker design for the U.S. Air Force prevented any unfair advantage for the winner, even though the tool used to assess the bidders was designed by eventual winner Northrop Grumman, according to the Air Force.
Boeing raised concerns about this and other issues, including changes to the assumptions for operational scenarios used in the modeling tool, in a March 7, 2007, letter to Sandra Palmatier, a contracting officer for the KC-X program office at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. These factors gave an advantage to Northrop Grumman/EADS’s A330-based tanker, which is larger than the 767-based Boeing design, officials on the losing team contend.
The Government Accountability Office is reviewing a March 11 protest of the Air Force’s Feb. 29 decision to award the $35 billion contract to Northrop Grumman/EADS.
Aviation Week & Space Technology obtained a copy of the March 7 letter and the U.S. Air Force’s March 29 response. This correspondence was taking place privately between Boeing and the Air Force. Although both competitors said publicly that the competition was expected to be fair, the letters show that concern over how the competition was proceeding began setting in far earlier at Boeing, once thought to be the shoo-in, than its executives had let on publicly.
The correspondence also shines light on the internal workings of a process that forced the Air Force to walk a fine line. The service was trying to craft a competition between two dissimilar commercially derived products, and establishing requirements for the duel proved to be a complex balancing act between the opposing contractors -- both of which considered dropping out.
The Combined Mating and Ranging Planning System (Cmarps) was designed for the Strategic Air Command in the 1980s and is now used by planners in Air Mobility Command. It helps operators assess how many tankers are required for a variety of missions, where they can be based and how many receivers -- fighters and intelligence aircraft, for example -- can be serviced by the available refuelers. It is one of various modeling systems used by the Air Force.
Boeing points out in its March 7, 2007, letter that Cmarps was designed by, and has been used by, Northrop Grumman, giving its competitor an advantage due to its experience using the system. Boeing complained of “problems we have experienced in Cmarps, including difficulties operating the model, the need for manuals and the need for training on the Cmarps tool.” One industry official not affiliated with either Boeing or Northrop Grumman says that Cmarps is known to be manpower-intensive and demands a learning curve before operating successfully.
The Air Force tried to assuage Boeing’s concerns. Dedicated computers were purchased to “ensure no inadvertent electronic transfers occur” between analysts at the system program office evaluating the proposals and Northrop Grumman, says a March 29, 2007, letter from Joseph Leising, another contracting officer in Ohio, to Boeing.
During the early part of 2007, USAF also made changes to some of the operational assumptions used to gauge the performance of the offerings from Northrop Grumman/EADS. These changes form a large part of the basis for Boeing’s protest of the decision.
Two “major combat operations” scenarios were tweaked to add additional ramp space in the Cmarps model that doesn’t actually exist. This allowed for the KC-30 to gain enough access at a “priority base,” according to Boeing officials, that it otherwise would have been too large to achieve. Limited ramp space can make operations with larger aircraft more difficult, because of tight parking and ground maneuver space. Though company and Air Force officials didn’t identify that location -- the operational scenarios are actually classified -- it could be Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar. According to an earlier Air Force analysis of various tanker models, only four A330-based tankers can operate from that base assuming 30 ft. of space between rows of parked aircraft and interior taxi ways as well as a standard 50 ft. wingtip-to-wingtip distance between for aircraft parking.
Space between parked aircraft, however, was another change made by the Air Force during the competition, Boeing says. The service cut the space between parked tankers in half, to 25 ft., according to Boeing. The company says this change doesn’t accurately reflect operations in the field as articulated in the Mobility Capability Study 2005, a classified assessment of mobility needs by the Pentagon. The Air Force countered in its March 29 letter, saying that the shift to 25 ft. separation between parked aircraft “accurately reflects contingency operations at constrained employment bases.”
Read more on the tanker firewall and other aeronautical scoops from our friends at Aviation Week.
-- Christian
Inside the Cyber Defense Group
The rumor is that there will be two or three new presidential directives that will put structure around cyber defense this month. These directives will become the fundamental constructs to operate the interagency group.
A presidential directive is a form of executive order issued by the President of the United States with the advice and consent/buy-in of the National Security Council. When issued, a Presidential Directive has the full force and effect of law. One of the most notable directives is Homeland Security Presidential Directives (HSPD). HSPD-1 followed Executive Order 13228 and established the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). There is little doubt that these directives will be classified.
That being said, I thought I would post what I believe will be representative of the directives that should be put in place this week.
Directive #1: This directive will establish the entity being charged with cyber defense. It is believed this order will define the make-up of the organization and establish eleven functional areas of operation. (Listing withheld for security reasons) It is believed that the organization will have defensive and intelligence gathering responsibilities as they relate to cyber defense. Additionally, oversight and reporting requirements will be defined.
Directive #2: This directive will concentrate of the offensive cyber capabilities. It is believed that the military will have the responsibility for offensive cyber warfare and be charged with the responsibility of extending current military doctrine covering information warfare and the requirement to align and integrate these operations with the new organization.
Directive #3: This directive will concentrate on the private sector responsibility for cyber security. It is widely accepted that unless businesses, particularly those included as part of our critical infrastructure, enhance their security in light of the growing threat of cyber attacks and cyber terrorism, the country will not be adequately protected. This directive will establish the coordination and integration of the private sector into the operational modalities of the new entity charged with cyber defense. It is also though to include the establishment of minimum security standards for private sector organizations.
There is a large amount of funding that is being budgeted for this effort. Inside sources believe in this current year the budget is $6 billion. You can be sure the competition for these funds is significant and there is a lot at stake. Hopefully, everyone has learned from establishing the Department of Homeland Security and this will go much smoother.
Things are heating up for the U.S. Navy's first Littoral Combat Ship, after a long frozen winter in a Wisconsin shipyard.
The 377-foot Freedom is expected to head for open water once the ice melts. Prime contractor Lockheed Martin had hoped to set sail before the winter freeze, but ended up needing a few extra months for further development.
This week, the company announced a new testing milestone, as the new warship's electric plant fired up for the first time. The so-called "light off" of four diesel generators and a three-megawatt electrical power plant involved putting the entire system through its paces, at full power.
"This marks a significant milestone for Freedom as her electric plant is completely functional and able to support all tests, evaluations and operations at sea," Lockheed Martin said at this week's Navy League conference.
Freedom will be delivered to the U.S. Navy in 2008 and will be homeported in San Diego. The new ships are intended to hunt mines, submarines and small boats in coastal waters. In addition to the Lockheed Martin design, the Navy also is buying a separate LCS design from General Dynamics. Both prime contractors are working with small U.S. shipyards to build the new ships, which are a lot smaller than the Navy's traditional carriers, cruisers and destroyers.
-- Rebecca Christie
The Growlers Are Coming Out to Play.
In just a few months, the first electronic attack versions of Boeing's F/A-18 fighter jet will make their way to Whidbey Island in Washington State.
The EA-18G will have state-of-the-art jammers and communications gear, as well as an arsenal of missiles and bombs, Boeing and Navy officials said this week at the Navy League conference. The Navy plans to buy about 80 Growlers, at a cost of roughly $8.7 billion, according to the official program plans.
The new jets will replace the aging EA-6B Prowler fleet, which pilots say is much harder to land on a carrier than its brand-new replacement.
This year, the Navy will hold operational evaluation testing, while also delivering planes to Whidbey Island so instructors can get ready to train the first squadron next year. The planes will come online officially in Sept. 2009, the projected date for Initial operational capability and graduation of the first class.
By then, Whidbey Island will have a four-jet training unit and a five-jet first squadron. However, the plane is already able to fulfill its duties if needed, said deputy program manager Capt. Paul Overstreet.
"In all honesty, they're operational right now," Overstreet said.
The Growlers take up about as much deck space as a Prowler, but they can carry a lot more fuel.
"For those who fly around the boat, gas is life," Overstreet said.
Right now, test planes are flying at Navy bases on both coasts, at China Lake and Patuxent River, Md., the Navy's main testing grounds. The new planes also posted strong results in a November 2007 exercise at Nellis.
Operators want to use the plane more aggressively, for more missions than ever envisioned in the planning stage.
"What we thought we were going to use this thing for is not what the guys who are flying today are saying," Overstreet said.
-- Rebecca Christie
Navy Ducks Sat Shootdown Redo
The U.S. Navy marshaled its resources quickly to shoot down a broken satellite recently, but there are no plans to stay ready for a repeat performance, a senior Navy official said Wednesday.
When the U.S. government decided that the falling spy satellite posed a risk, missile defense officials assembled a takedown plan within weeks. It worked -- last month, the Pentagon smacked the satellite out of the sky and demolished the bird's hydrazine fuel tank, which the military officials said could have survived re-entry and spilled its poisonous cargo.
Despite this success, the Missile Defense Agency ducked when asked whether it could spring into action faster for a repeat performance. It would depend on too many technical specifics to say, said Rear Adm. Alan "Brad" Hicks, Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense program manager, at a Navy League press conference.
He said there's no further work on the concept because last month's shootdown was a one-time event, so there's no active requirement for the technology to work against satellites on an ongoing basis.
"It is not a core mission. It is not a capability out there for us to use," Hicks said.
The U.S. Navy's satellite shootdown cost around $90 million, he said. That's not including additional costs for sensors, engineers and other support that isn't factored into the initial ballpark estimate.
-- Rebecca Christie
More Gov Agencies to Defend Cyberspace
We've sort of debated this a bit over the last few months, but I thought I'd forward you all a breaking news item that indicates the formation of a joint cyberdefense initiative for the U.S.
New Interagency Group to Oversee Cyberattack Defense -- By Brian Krebs
The Bush administration is planning to tap a Silicon Valley entrepreneur to head a new interagency group that will coordinate the government's efforts to protect its computer networks from organized cyberattacks.
Sources in the government contracting community said the White House is expected to announce as early as today the selection of Rod A. Beckstrom as a top-level adviser to be based in the Department of Homeland Security. Beckstrom is an author and entrepreneur best known for starting Twiki.net, a company that provides collaboration software for businesses.
The new interagency group, which will coordinate information sharing about cyberattacks aimed at government networks, is being created as part of a government-wide "cyber initiative" spelled out in a national security directive that President Bush signed in January, according to the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not have permission to discuss the information.
The presidential directive expanded the intelligence community's role in monitoring Internet traffic to protect against a rising number of attacks on federal agencies' computer systems. According to the sources, the new group will gather information about cyberattacks and vulnerabilities from a wide range of federal agencies, including the FBI, the National Security Agency and the Defense Department. Beckstrom will report directly to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.
-- Christian
Navy Short on Shipbuilding Funds
The Navy needs to make Oliver Twist a senior budget official because it needs to ask: "Please, sir, may I have some more?"
That's the essence of comments made by a Congressional Research Service defense expert who said the Navy's reluctance to push for significantly higher budgets in coming years may give lawmakers the wrong view of Navy needs.
This, in spite of the fact the Navy is facing recapitalization needs aren't very different from those of the Air Force -- which has been up front about needing an additional $20 billion a year for the next five years.
"The Navy has been avoiding asking for an increase," said Ron O'Rourke, a national defense specialist at CRS. "If one [branch] is vocal about the need for an increase and another is not, policy lawmakers can develop an imbalanced understanding of funding needs for the services."
What some lawmakers have seen of the Navy's long-range plans has generated skepticism. Some lawmakers, including key members on the House Appropriations and Armed Services subcommittees, have put more faith in Congressional Budget Office fiscal estimates than in the Navy's. That's led some influential lawmakers to consider altering the Navy's ship procurement plans.
On Capitol Hill, O'Rourke told attendees of the Sea-Air-Space expo in Washington, D.C., there has been strong criticism of the Navy's inability to follow its 30-year shipbuilding plan since the service isn't requesting the budget increases that officials believe are necessary to execute the plan on time.
For example, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee's defense panel, Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), cited the discrepancy between what CBO researchers say the Navy needs to meet its 313-ship fleet in 30 years and what the service proposed in its 2009 budget: The CBO said the Navy would need to spend about $20 billion a year on new ship construction to meet the plan. But the fiscal '09 budget includes just $14.1 billion for ship construction.
O'Rourke also referred listeners to March 14 comments made by Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) chairman of the Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, to best capture the sense that lawmakers have of the Navy's shipbuilding plans.
"Dismissed as pure fantasy," O'Rourke said. Taylor is a strong backer of Navy programs but is well known for his plain speaking and hard-hitting logic, Hill observers say.
"It [the plan] is totally unaffordable with the resources the Department of Defense allocates to the Navy for ship construction," Taylor said in his March 14 comments. The Navy, he continued, admitted in its annual long-rage report on shipbuilding that it does not have the funding to construct the vessels it will need in the years beyond 2020.
Taylor panned the Navy for its plans to cancel ships that are being built on time -- the LPD 17 class amphibious assault ship, Arleigh Burke class destroyers, Virginia class submarines and T-AKE Dry Cargo Ammunition ships -- in order to go forward with additional Littoral Combat Ships, which are behind schedule and over cost.
According to O'Rourke, members on the armed services committee and the powerful appropriations committee both are considering pushing for changes in what the Navy buys, believing they have a better handle on Navy needs than the sea service's leadership.
As a supplement to the UAV plan outlined in the post below, Gizmodo has a post about this wild concept the Army has laid at the feet of select engineering schools, including the University of Michigan. Here's an excerpt:
The proposal is for the bat to be just six inches in length, weigh only four ounces and use just one watt of power, backed by a lithium-ion battery, which could be charged by not just solar energy, but wind energy and random vibrations as well. The bat's intended goal would be to run surveillance ops and relay data in realtime, including sights and sounds from minicams and mini-microphones, but also radiation and poison gas readings.
The UMich grant consists of $10 million over five years, creating the U-M Center for Objective Microelectronics and Biomimetic Advanced Technology (dubbed "COM-BAT"—pun intended). The focus is to shrink down many electronics that while currently available would only be good if the US Army wanted, say, a 12-foot spy-bat. Not too stealthy.
For energy recovery, UMich will work to develop "quantum dot solar cells," making current solar cells twice as nice. The bat's autonomous navi system will be 1,000 times smaller than current systems, and that much more energy efficient too. The comms system will be shrunk to one-tenth the current size, too.
The Army . . . giving new meaning to shrinkage.
(Gouge: CM)
-- Ward
Army Embarks on Ambitious UAV Plan
Of the five U.S. military services, the Army is embarked on the most ambitious plan to integrate Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) into all levels of the force. Based in large part on the Army's five years of experience in fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, UAVs are being integrated into operations from the division down to the platoon level.
This wholesale adoption of UAVs is exacerbating the Army-Air Force controversy over single-service control over UAV procurement and operational control. For the past several years the Army (and to some extent the Marine Corps) has complained about the allocation of Air Force-controlled UAVs, while the Air Force has pointed to the operational and procurement problems that could be solved by single-service control -- under the Air Force.
For example, the Army has great affinity for the MQ-1 Predator, a long-endurance, medium-altitude reconnaissance UAV. The MQ-1 variant can be armed with Hellfire anti-tank missiles, and has been used effectively by the CIA as well as the Air Force. Predator wore Army green until 1996, when the Air Force (and CIA) took over that UAV effort. Reportedly, the Army now obtains less than one-half of the Predator time requested.
There are major "cultural" differences between Army and Air Force operation of UAVs. The Army devolves operational control of UAVs to field commanders at various levels, while the Air force operates UAVs through regional air component commanders. And, in general, the Army relies more on software and uses enlisted men as UAV controllers while the Air Force uses rated pilots.
In this environment, the Army is seeking -- and Congress is funding -- the MQ-1C Sky Warrior, a modified Predator variant tailored for Army requirements with the 3,000-pound aircraft carrying 300 pounds of sensors internally and 500 pounds of external sensors and weapons. The Army wants 45 squadrons of Sky Warriors, each with 12 UAVs. Combat divisions will have a Sky Warrior squadron and combat brigades will get detachments of two to four of these UAVs. The Army program is seeking more than 500 Sky Warriors that will carry Hellfire missiles and Viper Strike smart bombs as well as sensors and target designators.
On an interim basis Army divisions now have the RQ-5A Hunter UAV. The General Atomics Predator/Sky Warrior beat out an improved version of the Hunter for Army service.
At the brigade level the RQ-7A Shadow UAV will also be provided, later to be supplemented by an improved RQ-8A Fire Scout. The Fire Scout UAV is a rotary-wing aircraft developed by the Navy for shipboard use. It was originally rejected by the Navy because of shortcomings, but is now in production for the Navy. The Fire Scout, developed by Northrop Grumman/Teledyne Ryan Aeronautical, weighs some 2,600-pounds with an array of internal sensors. While it has the advantage of VSTOL operations, its weapons payload will be limited.
Next on the Army's UAV list is the small, four-plus pound RQ-11A Raven. This micro-UAV is being provided at the battalion, company, and platoon level to provide a picture of "what's on the other side of the hill." The Army's Raven requirement is in excess of 3,000 vehicles, with about half that number now in the inventory.
The Air Force has little interest in the short-range, low-flying UAVs being procured by the Army. Rather, it is the Predator/Sky Warrior and Fire scout programs that divide the services. They have agreed to cooperate on supporting Predator and Sky Warrior UAVs, which will save money for both services. But beyond that agreement their respective UAV programs have created contention over the future procurement and operational control of unmanned systems between the Army and Air Force
In discussing the Army's ambitious UAV program, the Association of the U.S. Army in its January 2008 report "U.S. Army Aviation: Balancing Current and Future Demands," explains that UAVs "combine the capabilities of persistent view of an area, precise target designation, instant assessment of attack results, and rapid destruction of fleeting targets. . . . [UAVs] have now become an integral part of the land component commander's ability to conduct reconnaissance, attack and many other critical missions."
The report might have added that those were missions previously carried out primarily by the Air Force.
From our friends at Aviation Week (also covering the Sea-Air-Space conference):
The lack of a viable long-term sustainment solution for the V-22's Rolls-Royce engines may drive the U.S. Marine Corps to look for entirely new engines in a few years.
"We need to move on, with or without Rolls-Royce," Marine Corps Col. Matt Mulhern, V-22 program manager, told reporters at the Naval Sea-Air-Space Expo Tuesday.
Over the next two years, the Marine Corps will work on developing a new strategy to solve issues that have arisen with V-22 engine maintenance in Iraq. "We're casting a wide net to see what's available. [The solution] could be status quo all the way up to needing to find a new motor," Mulhern said.
When Rolls-Royce proposed a maintenance strategy back in 1998, it was a "power-by-the-hour" solution, Mulhern said, which has turned out to be insufficient.
"That business case analysis predicted the engine components would last so many thousands of hours," he said. "I'm not sure the government ever agreed with Rolls-Royce, but we thought it was a good business case. Now, as we actually operate the aircraft, the engines aren't lasting as long as we [or the government] would like."
Rolls-Royce cannot support the current strategy, Mulhern said. They are unable to recoup the cost of engine maintenance under the power-by-the-hour plan. "We'll have to move to more traditional engine support," he said.
The engines are not lasting long in service because of erosion in the compressor blades, which reduces engine efficiency and forces the engine to run at higher temperatures to reach the same power. Another concern is that the existing engine does not have enough margin to handle expected weight growth.
The only turbine engine available in the same power class as the AE 3007 is the General Electric GE38-1B, selected last year as the powerplant for the Sikorsky CH-53K helicopter. Mulhern says that the Navy has not reached the point of estimating the cost of a re-engining program.
This isn't something necessarily to shout from the rooftops, but it's significant nonetheless because of what we just wrote on the Army version.
The Navy, seeing its LCS program slipping into budget and programmatic limbo, has decided to keep it's Naval variant of the Fire Scout alive by assigning it to another type of ship while it waits for the LCS to come to life.
Officials weren't able to name the new ship, saying the Navy was still trying to decide. But it seems that the decision isn't hung up in technical factors so much as it is in scheduling ones.
One source told me it's more a question of when the next aviation-capable ship is available for testing and certification than anything else. And Fire Scout backers say the relatively simple design can be accommodated on any of the Navy's ships that can land a helicopter.
Officials said the decision should be announced within the next two weeks.
In other Fire Scout news, the company is building it's own Fire Scout test bed based on the MQ-8B design to evaluate new components. It'll be called Project Whitetail and first out of the gates is a sea scanning radar built by Telephonics.
The new radar will be used to try and prove the Fire Scout's utility as an anti-submarine platform and company officials say the Whitetail is key to attracting foreign partners who might have their own payloads to contribute to a national buy.
-- Christian
Fire Scout Mired in FCS Rumble
We're cruising the halls of Sea Air Space this week -- the Navy League's annual big time expo in Washington, DC -- and trolling around for news big and small. We'll post here often with little tidbits that might strike your fancy, so check back often to read the latest.
OK, back to business...
Went to a poorly-attended briefing today with the folks from Northrop Grumman on their MQ-8B Fire Scout rotor-wing UAV. Too bad, because they broke a little news there both on the Navy side of their program and on the Army version they're building for the Class IV UAV in the FCS program.
First of all, and many of you might already know this and, frankly, I haven't been as closely following this as I should have, but the Army chose not to send their Fire Scout copters to Iraq as a preliminary evaluation. We reported this might be happening last summer, but it dropped off our radar until now.
The plan was to field as many as eight Fire Scouts to Army forces in Iraq by 2008.
The NorGrum #2 official in charge of UAV systems gave one reason for the Army's decision to kank the deal. First of all the suppliers of the systems the MQ-8Bs were supposed to fly with over there weren't able to deliver on time.The Army wanted the forward deployed Fire Scouts to hunt for mine and IEDs and keep an ear open for enemy radio traffic. But no joy, the NorGrum exec said.
But I also heard whispers that the Army didn't want a successful Fire Scout deployment to upstage other FCS initiatives that are biting and scratching for funds. So much for the whole idea of spiraling out technologies from the program into the force when they're ready, huh? Now successful portions fall victim to budget politics.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
-- Christian
My Next .45
When the Supreme Court strikes down the DC handgun ban, this is the pistol I'm gonna buy to celebrate. I prefer a .45 anyway, and when I fired this baby a few years ago during a gun demo at Blackwater USA, I fell in love with it.
After a long search for a .45 ACP caliber 1911 duty pistol, in 2002 the LAPD's SWAT team adopted a special version of the Kimber Custom II. Equipped with a few custom features over and above what already comes standard on a Kimber 1911, the LAPD Kimbers were issued to all of L.A.'s SWAT cops and are still providing excellent service.
Taking note of the LAPD's Kimber acquisition, the United States Marine Corps' Det-1 had ample opportunities to see and shoot these pistols, as the LAPD SWAT Team frequently trained at Camp Pendleton and a number of the SWAT cops were also former Marines. Getting ready to become part of SOCOM, Det-1 wanted a suitable CQB 1911 pistol for its 87 Warfighters to deploy with in Iraq; so, like the LAPD, it selected a Kimber pistol. Also adopted by Det-1 was a special limited edition MCSOCOM Knife designed by Strider.
As with the LAPD Kimbers, Det-1 specified a number of special features, a few of which are listed here: Front and rear slide-cocking grooves Slide dovetailed front sight Flat mainspring housing Lanyard loop Standard recoil spring system Novak LoMount night sights Being fortunate to receive test samples of both the Kimber LAPD SWAT and Det-1 pistols, I test fired them over a period of several months and found them to perform to perfection. Because of their unique markings, neither of these pistols was produced for commercial sale; but Kimber does offer commercial pistols based on them.
Called the TLE (Tactical Law Enforcement) II, the commercial counterpart of the LAPD Kimber 1911 has virtually all of the features of the SWAT model, and can also be had with LaserGrips from Crimson Trace. However, as great as the TLE II is, Kimber's commercial counterpart to the Det-1 pistol has a lot more to talk about.
The Kimber Warrior
Following the Det-1 pistol and the demand it created, Kimber introduced what amounts to a commercial variant of that gun. Appropriately called the Warrior, this Kimber embodies many of the features found in the Det-1 gun, as well as a number of others inspired by it.
Featuring the same stainless steel match grade barrel, the Warrior also has identical internals to those in the Det-1. But unlike the USMC pistol, the Warrior comes with Kimber's firing-pin safety. On the outside, although early Warriors came with Novak Lo- Mount tritium night sights, a more or less look-alike set of Kimber Meprolight night sights later replaced them. Forward slidecocking grooves are present, as are all other features now standard on Kimber 1911 pistols.
In addition to the normal features found on Kimber 1911 pistols, the Warrior comes with a light rail that is integral with the dust cover portion forward of the trigger guard. Reinforced to last the life of the gun, this dust cover is made to true M1913 specifications in order to properly mount any tactical pistol light, such as those from Insight Technology, Laser Devices, SureFire, and others...
Thanks to all for the kind words, and special thanks to the pprune moderators, who allowed me to make the transition without fear as one heartless and witless ppruner tried to saw off the limb I was on before the next limb was within reach!
Yes, Gulfstream is a great place to work, and I honestly planned to work there for years, until retirement, but the opportunity that Bell offered was just too grand to pass up. The advancement is wonderful, but so is the promise of working with some of the industry's finest on projects that make my head spin. Research and Development was my dream on the first resume that I prepared back when I graduated from Georgia Tech (Go Jackets!) back in 1973, and is now an essential part of my career.
Yes, Avnx EO, the challenge will be to make it work within the confines of today's corporate America, but I do think the team Dick M has built is a powerhouse - I am willing to bet my career on it! I am also betting on a group of very dedicated engineers and pilots who only ask for someone to get them the resources, constancy and support to make things happen. I believe loyalty goes up and down, and that a leader owes his folks to work as hard as possible to get them what they need to make new things happen. I know that some doubt my desire to develop tilt rotors. To them I say that we must please our customers, who demand more speed than we now deliver. I know that, and I stand ready to learn what those grizzly professionals want to teach me about flying at 300 knots.
I also think that research lies in smaller things, systems and technologies that do not stun, and don't make the Sunday newspaper. Sometimes we feel compelled to develop the better blade, and better transmission, and we forget that a failed microswitch, a missed approach or blown oil seal can spell financial disaster for our customers. Our technological progress has big leaps and small victories, and I would like put together a team that can hit both chip shots and long drives.
The rumor and gossip mill at Bell Helicopter has been running at warp speed the last few days over reports the company may hire a former top official of rival Sikorsky Aircraft Co. to take over as senior vice president of engineering and head of Bell's Xworkx research and development lab.
The suggestion that Bell may hire Nick Lappos, now an executive with Gulftream Aerospace but formerly an engineer, test pilot and head of the effort to sell Sikorsky's S-92 to the U.S. armed forces, has stirred up a tempest among old line Bell loyalists.
Some Bell employees and former employees have reportedly written letters to senior management at the company urging reconsideration if Lappos is indeed being considered for a Bell post.
Bell and Sikorsky have long been competitors and rivals, at times less than friendly. Lappos, who is well respected by many in the helicopter world, has earned the enmity of many Bell loyalists because of his past criticisms of the V-22 Osprey and Bell's other tilt-rotor aircraft development efforts including the BA609 civil tilt-rotor.
Lappos has not returned telephone calls and e-mails from the Star-Telegram. Bell officials have declined to comment on "any personnel matters."
Bell has hired several other former Sikorsky officials in recent years including Mike Blake, now executive vice president of the Fort Worth company. One industry official said Lappos is an excellent engineer and works well with other people and would have little problem renouncing his past criticisms of the V-22 to go to work for Bell.
Let's get real. In spite of the copious amounts of lipstick the services have been putting on the proverbial people pig, our military is facing a troubling manning crisis. And it's not about recruiting, necessarily (although those stats are taking a turn for the worse); the bigger problem is retention - keeping those who are already serving to keep serving.
Today's Washington Post has a couple of op-eds that frame the issue nicely. The first is by a young captain who has decided to get out of the Army. From what I've heard his story is representative of the feelings of most of the junior officers and staff NCOs service-wide. They're willing to do their part, but they also need time to catch their collective breath. The current operational tempo doesn't afford that, nor does there seem to be any plan in the works to make it so in the forseeable future.
So if these guys are leaving, who's going to man the force? Another op-ed speaks of casting a wider net. Here's an excerpt from Who Says the Elite Aren't Fit to Serve?:
The privileged of prior generations were more likely to consider military service a natural expression of their own privileged relationship to the state -- the
