Gates Addresses ISR, UAV Difficulties

This article first appeared in the Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates is establishing a Pentagon task force to find new and innovative ways to provide intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) to combat forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Gates announced the new team during a speech at the Air War College at Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala., on April 21. During the speech, Gates said getting the military branches to field more unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) quickly to support requirements for U.S. Central Command has been "like pulling teeth."

The task force will be led by Bradley Berkson, director of program analysis and evaluation.

Gates says that the Air Force may "require rethinking long-standing service assumptions and priorities about which missions require certified pilots and which do not." The Air Force trains certified pilots to operate the Predator while the Army does not require pilots to operate its similar Warrior UAV.

Commanders overseeing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan say they have a shortfall of ISR collection in theater, and they specify that they want more full-motion video -- a capability provided by Predator, Warrior and Shadow systems.

The Air Force, however, says it is fielding Predators at an unprecedented rate. One Pentagon official says the service is expected to field its 25th "combat air patrol," (CAP) consisting of four air vehicles and ground support equipment, by June 1. This is double the number of CAPs in the theater about a year ago.

The limiting factor for fielding more Predator units quickly is training Predator crews. The Air Force’s schoolhouse at Creech Air Force Base, Nev., is training about 160 crews per year, according to Air Force officials. However, that is not enough to operate the additional Predators being fielded. Additional funding will need to be included in the Air Force budget to increase training capacity to 240 crews per year in fiscal 2009.

Gates’ new task force will explore whether and how to push more UAVs and crews to support operations in Iraq, as well as other technological responses that could help support the massive intelligence requirements there.

Read the rest of this story, a doosie on Afghan/Dutch relations, some weird bird called a vulture and Av Week's opinion on Gates' Air Force missive at Military.com.

-- Christian

Congress Worried About Ground Force Health

Growing concerns with the U.S. having enough Army and Marine Corps land forces to react to potential unforeseen crises overseas are drawing attention on Capitol Hill.

The concerns come as lawmakers craft fiscal 2009 defense bills and eye post-Bush administration budget-making, keeping in mind the looming potential for a significant number of troops operating in Iraq for years to come and the strain that deployments so far have placed on the volunteer U.S. military.

"We have had 12 military contingencies in the last 31 years, some of them major and most of them unexpected," House Armed Services Committee (HASC) Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) said at a recent hearing.

"We must have a trained and properly equipped force ready to handle whatever comes. But my strong concern is that our readiness shortfalls and the limitations on our ability to deploy trained and ready ground forces have reached a point where these services would have a very steep uphill climb with increased casualties to respond effectively to an emerging contingency," Skelton said.

Skelton made the remarks at an April 9 hearing with the four-star vice chiefs of the Army and Marines, both of whom admitted that they were not satisfied with their respective service's so-called strategic depth to respond to crisis scenarios like the post-9/11 invasion of Afghanistan.

Army Gen. Richard Cody testified that the Army remains "out of balance," repeating what has become a common official Army phrase referring to the need to recruit, station, train and equip soldiers for more than just counterinsurgency operations.

"The current demand for our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan exceeds the sustainable supply and limits our ability to provide ready forces for other contingencies," Cody said.

"Overall, our readiness is being consumed as fast as we build it. If unaddressed, this lack of balance poses a significant risk to the all-volunteer force and degrades the Army's ability to make a timely response to other contingencies," the Army vice chief said.

Read what the Marines have to say about all this from our Aviaton Week friends at Military.com.

-- Christian

New Army Field Manual Preview

In a conference call with bloggers this morning, the Army outlined the newest version of its Field Manual (FM 3-0 Army Operations), the first revision of Army doctrine since 2001. According to LTG William Caldwell IV, Commander of the Combined Arms Center, the manual has finally taken the step of elevating stabilization operations to the level of offensive and defensive ops.

An Executive Summary was passed out beforehand that outlines the chapters of the manual, which goes like this:

-- Chapter 1 establishes the context of land operations in terms of a global environment of persistent conflict, the operational environment, and unified action. It discusses the Army's expeditionary and campaign capabilities while emphasizing that it is soldiers who accomplish missions.

-- Chapter 2 describes a spectrum of conflict extending from stable peace to general war. From that spectrum, it establishes five operational themes into which various joint operations fit. Borrowing heavily from emerging NATO doctrine, this chapter helps Army leaders to understand where diverse operations such as peacekeeping and counterinsurgency fit and shape supporting doctrine.

-- Chapter 3 is the most important chapter in the book; describing the Army's operational concept -- full spectrum operations. Full spectrum operations seize, retain, and exploit the initiative through combinations of four elements: offense, defense, and stability or civil support operations. Mission command is the preferred method of exercising battle command.

-- Chapter 4 addresses combat power, the means by which Army forces conduct full spectrum operations. It replaces the older battlefield operating systems ("BOS") and elements of combat power with six warfighting functions tied together by leadership and employing information. Combined arms and mutual support are the payoff.

-- Chapter 5 reviews the principles of command and control and how they affect the operations process -- plan, prepare, execute, and assess. The emphasis is on commanders and the central role that they have in battle command. Commanders understand, visualize, describe, direct, lead, and continually assess.

-- Chapter 6 discusses operational art, offering Army commanders a bridge between military theory and practice.

-- Chapter 7 is about information superiority, particularly information operations. Information operations divide into five Army information tasks, with particular emphasis on information engagement.

-- Chapter 8 addresses the significance of strategic and operational reach to the force, articulating how the Army capitalizes on unique expeditionary and campaign qualities to promptly deploy forces into any operational environment worldwide, even the most austere regions...

Read more on this and other defense insider news from our friends at Aviation Week on Military.com.

-- Christian

B-2 Suffers Fire in Crash

One of the pilots of the B-2 stealth bomber, Spirit of Kansas, reported a fire at takeoff from Andersen AFB, Guam which was followed quickly by loss of control of the bomber, according to a senior Air Combat Command official.

The stealth bomber rolled uncontrollably to the right and fell between the taxiway and the ramp at 10:45 am Feb. 23 Guam time just after passing the control tower. It was attempting a takeoff toward the seaward end of the runway. The two pilots ejected with one being hospitalized. A dark plume of smoke rose from the crash site and civilians outside the base reported a second explosion about 30-min. after the initial impact.

The aircraft can lose one or even two of its four General Electric F118-GE-100 17,300-lb. thrust engines and still take off, so it’s unlikely that engine failure was to blame, says a retired U.S. Air Force pilot who has flown the B-2. Moreover, early suggestions that the aircraft struck birds or stalled in a steep takeoff climb also have been dismissed as unlikely. Also, the weather was reported as clear.

The Spirit of Kansas, tail no. 890127, was the second in a four aircraft flight that was ending its deployment and taking off for return to home base at Whiteman AFB, Mo. They were being replaced by six B-52s as a forward-based, heavy-bomber force in the Pacific. The loss cuts the number of combat coded B-2s to 15 from 16 out of the total force of 21. The force has a minimum aircraft requirement of 19 airframes.

The other three B-2s later returned to Whiteman where the wing commander has declared a “safety pause” for the fleet, says ACC officials. During the pause procedures are being reviewed with the pilots and training is at a standdown. However, if the stealthy bomber is needed for an operational mission it is cleared to fly.

The aircraft that crashed rolled off Northrop Grumman’s line in 1989 and had accumulated 5,176 flying hr. at the time of the crash.

Early testing indicated that the aircraft would remain structurally intact for about 40,000 flying hr. Analyses also posited that the rudder attachment points would be the first structural failure item.

Read more on this story and others from our friends at Aviation Week on Military.com.

-- Christian

AF Has KC-X Backup Plan

Lt. Gen. Don Hoffman, the three-star in charge of U.S. Air Force budgeting, said Feb. 15 that although he will not speculate on the likelihood of a protest in the upcoming KC-X tanker award, the Air Force is prepared for any contingency with a $240 million Tanker Transfer Fund.

The fund has grown since November, when Congressional appropriators decided to provide the Air Force a $150 million cushion (DAILY, Nov. 11, 2007). "[The Tanker Transfer Fund] could be deployed in a protest," Hoffman said. "If [the KC-X award] does end up in protest, we'll support the Government Accountability Office's outcome and process."

Hoffman said he vehemently opposed the idea of a split buy, saying the contract has always been "winner take all. A split buy would take another 18 to 24 months of re-do."

(Read more on this and other inside news on planes, copters and blimps from our friends at Aviation Week on Military.com).

-- Christian

AF Promises 380 Raptor Buy

U.S. Air Force Gen. Bruce Carlson, chief of Air Force Materiel Command, told a group of reporters Wednesday that the Air Force will figure out a way to buy 380 F-22s, despite the fact that the Pentagon -- through the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) -- has capped the number of Raptors to be procured at 183.

"We think that [183] is the wrong number," Carlson said. Even 380, a number he joked is a "compromise" from the 381 the Air Force originally asked for, still leaves too much room for risk. That risk could even include a future conflict with China, he said. "Most people say in the future there will be a Chinese element to whatever we do," he added.

"We're committed to funding 380," Carlson said Feb. 13 after speaking at Aviation Week's Defense Technology and Requirements conference in Washington. "We're building a program right now to do that. It's going to be incredibly difficult on the Air Force, but we've done this before." He added there are only three places from which to draw funds to accomplish the Air Force's goal: operations and maintenance, research and development and procurement. "We don't have a [money] printing machine," he said. "We have to pay for it."

Read more from our Av Week friends on Military.com.

-- Christian

Senate Pressures WH on C-17 Buy

Nineteen senators are pressuring the White House and Pentagon to "rightly fund" C-17 production by including it in the forthcoming fiscal 2009 budget request due to Congress in February.

Two letters, dated Dec. 13, were dispatched; one each went to White House Office of Management and Budget Director Jim Nussle and Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Both letters encourage the Bush administration to stop looking to Congress to plus-up funding for Boeing's strategic airlifter production line in Long Beach, Calif.

"We encourage you to work with DOD leadership to have C-17 funding added to their budget," the senators say to Nussle. "While Congress has sustained C-17 production in recent years, it is unrealistic to presume that it will be able to continuously support needed production through congressional adds."

Congress has provided funding to keep the production line open in the last two years; orders now stand at 190. The senators, however, tell Gates that the strategy of relying on congressional plus ups "is no longer viable."

The production line would close in 2009 without additional money, and without a nod from the government, Boeing would be forced to close operations at its suppliers. The senators note that about 30,000 jobs around the country contribute to C-17 production. Suppliers are now being funded by Boeing in hopes that the U.S. government will buy more of the massive airlifters.

The Pentagon's requirement for strategic airlift is about 300 aircraft. It has about 111 C-5s, which are in disrepair and subject to a $17 billion re-engining project before they can provide sufficient reliability. However, past requirements studies have not taken into account use of the C-17 as an intratheater airlifter, the increasing end strength of the ground forces, addition of an Africa Command and the demands of the war on terrorism. The Pentagon is planning to undertake a new Mobility Capabilities and Requirements Study next year.

Citing skepticism about the future of the C-5 modernization program, U.S. Air Force Gen. Norton Schwartz, chief of U.S. Transportation Command, has told Congress he needs at least 250 C-17s to handle his missions.

Read more on the C-17 push from our Aviation Week friends at Military.com.

-- Christian

Israel Wants JSF As Soon As Possible

Israel plans to keep its aerial domination of the Middle East intact, and that includes buying Lockheed Martin's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, accelerating its first deliveries, and deciding whose advanced equipment will be packed into the stealthy strike aircraft.

A senior Israeli air force (IAF) official says those major areas of concern appear to be on the right track because of an "understanding" with the U.S. officials. Washington's representatives are more ambiguous, saying that there has been no official change to Israel's F-35 program.

"The plan is that we will get the F-35 as soon as it's possible," the senior IAF official says. He says the service will end up with more than 100 F-35s, but he would not confirm the size of the purchase or that Israel is asking that the initial delivery date be accelerated by two years to 2012. The IAF wants the JSF "the minute it is available."

"Israel has a unique requirement, it doesn't operate in a coalition, [and it has a] different kind of strategic relationship" with the U.S. than the other F-35 partners," says Tom Burbage, Lockheed Martin's vice president and general manager for the F-35. However, he says the overseas release of the first export aircraft will be no sooner than 2014.

The purchase, which could include an initial batch of 25 aircraft, is still being negotiated. Brig. Gen. Johanan Locker, head of the IAF's air division, was in Fort Worth as recently as late November.

Israel's ambitions to integrate indigenous weaponry also pose some problems for the program. The weapons road map for the Blocks 1-3 F-35 standards has already been drawn up with no Israeli weaponry on the list. Partner nations are currently working on a list for Block 4, but there's pressure to cut weapons from the process rather than add them. Israel undoubtedly will want its F‑35s to carry the Rafael Python 5 air-to-air missile and possibly its successor, as well as the Rafael Spice family of precision-guided weapons.

Moreover, an influential retired IAF general says total sales will be limited by the JSF's disadvantages. He points to its overdependence on stealth, a single crewman and what could be proprietary U.S. avionics.

"Eventually somebody will come up with a way to detect it," he says. "A stealthy configuration also means you can't carry additional weaponry on the exterior. The weapons system is more important than stealth. Israel will have F-35s, but not as many as we once thought."

Smaller numbers won't detract from the aircraft's deterrence value, he concedes. Even a small fleet will ensure a first-day-of-war, surprise-strike capability. But once daily combat operations escalate, nonstealthy aircraft aided by standoff weapons, escort jammers and information operations will sustain air operations.

Nonetheless, he worries that the JSF will start showing its limitations within five years. Among the drawbacks will be its one-person crew. As a result, "we can't operate the F-35 by itself," the retired general says. "We really need two-seaters, with one person concentrating on flying and someone else focused on the strike mission. One man can't take advantage of all the options," particularly since JSF capabilities will include jamming, information warfare and network attack.

Inevitably, the avionics will present an area of contention. For example, Israeli aerospace officials say they can offer a tailored, active, electronically scanned array radar for less money than an AESA bought from the U.S. However, many of the electronic warfare and attack techniques are routed through the radar to produce jamming, false-target and other effects at ranges of 125 mi. or more. As a result, integration could be difficult and expensive.

Elta, the electronics division of Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), has a version of the AESA, according to the retired general. "We need our own radar that we don't share with others. We also need our own advanced radar warning and active jamming." The Israeli AESA was flown last year; but for now it remains a generic system, not tailored to any specific aircraft—although it's sized for an F-16, an Elta official says. Flight trials are continuing.

For more on Israel's request for the JSF from our friends at Aviation Week, please visit the full story on Military.com.

-- Christian

Drone AEW Not Too Far Off

After a swift and (for competitors) apparently trouble-free development, IAI-Elta expects the Coformal Airborne Early Warning (CAEW) to reach formal initial operational capability (IOC) with the Israeli Air Force in the first quarter of 2008. In fact, the Gulfstream G550-based system is already flying missions with IAF crews, as the service conducts training and familiarization flights; crews have been training on the simulator in parallel with flight tests, which started in Israel last fall.

But the crews may not be flying for much longer. CAEW is already designed so that it does not need radar operators on board the aircraft. With a wideband datalink, it's intended to feed information to a ground station, and ultimately will be part of a tight network that also includes signals intelligence, maritime patrol and ground-surveillance G550s.

The final step is to take the flight crew off the aircraft, according to Avishai Itzhakian, general manager for IAI-Elta's AEW division. Speaking at IQPC Defence's AEW conference in London last week, Itzhakian outlined the project's goal -- to provide continuous air, land, sea and electronic surveillance with a constellation of UAVs.

It got interesting when someone asked when that might happen. "It's not so far away," he said, and pointed out that a Northrop Grumman speaker, talking about the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) program, had just referred to Boeing's proposal based on an optionally piloted G550. "You can figure this out for yourself," he said.

Read more about drone radar zappers from our Aviation Week friends at Military.com.

-- Christian

JSF Hoping for a Brighter New Year

After seven months of flighttestus interruptus caused first by an electrical problem and then by the failure and subsequent requalification of the F135 engine, the first Joint Strike Fighter -- aircraft AA-1 -- is back in the air.

Next week will see another milestone as BF-1, the first short take-off, vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B, rolls out in preparation for hover-pit tests -- where the powered-lift system is run up as the aircraft stands on a grating over a deep trench.

BF-1 will be much more important than AA-1 next year. AA-1 itself was built to the pre-2004, overweight JSF design and is not fully representative of the production JSF; and the STOVL version is the long pole in the tent, because it needs more flight testing than either the F-35A or the Navy F-35C, and is supposed to enter service first, achieving IOC in early 2012.

BF-1 is due to fly in May 2008 and is expected to be flying in STOVL mode by the end of the year. Program vice-president Tom Burbage, talking at a conference in Oslo last week, says that the customer wants a test program in which the jet "backs in" to STOVL -- slowing down from conventional flight to progressively lower speeds in each sortie, finally reaching the hover -- rather than performing "push-up" tests from the hover pit as the X-35B test aircraft did in 2000.

Everyone in the JSF program will be watching the hover-pit tests, though. A key issue: as reported here and here, the jet (to say the least) has no thrust to spare in vertical-flight mode. So far, says Burbage, recent rig tests of the F135 and its lift fan are showing that thrust is higher than expected. (That was the experience in the X-plane program, where the jet popped up to 30 feet on the first push-up, to the consternation of the engineers.)

The team is not taking credit for the lift bump, but it will be a big relief if it's still there on the hover pit. At the same time, work is underway on a redesigned second stage for the lift fan, which optimizes the work split between the two counter-rotating stages and provides another vertical thrust boost.

What Burbage calls "constipation" in the production system is also a concern, because the front-loaded test program needs to get assets on time. The problem centers on the big main frames or bulkheads that hold the wings and body together: early frames were late and the effect is rippling through the line.

On the sales side, Burbage is in constant motion, still trying to set up a deal between multiple non-US customers and the US government to reduce early-aircraft prices. The issue is that export customers -- particularly Australia and the European F-16 founder nations -- need early deliveries from the low-rate initial production (LRIP) batches, but that these come with a scary price tag.

That's a cost of doing business for the US government, which plans to buy many, many more aircraft once production stabilizes, and buys year-by-year by law; but export customers who are ready to sign multi-year contracts see it as a raw deal.

Read more Av Week predictions about the JSF's 2008 fortunes at Military.com.

-- Christian