Last week, Time Magazine reported that an Israeli airstrike in the Sudan involved "dozens of aircraft." The raid knocked back a sizable overland arms shipment from Iran to the Gaza Strip, but -more importantly- demonstrated just how far (literally) the Israelis are willing to go to break stuff that makes them nervous.
Here's an interesting bit of trivia. The distance between Tel Aviv and Khartoum is roughly the same as Tel Aviv and Tehran, with most of Iran's nuclear facilities located in the western half of the country. Though the IAF's fleet has boasted KC-130H tankers for some time, whether or not Israel had the lungs for such a distant strike was arguable. Now, the debate is over.
Sure the successful strike doesn't satisfy the question of Iran's robust IAD network (Sudan doesn't have one), nor does it offer any insight into a safe ingress/egress route in and out of Iran. But, it does show the Israelis have the legs -and the stones- to prosecute the fight over long distances, and refuel their strike aircraft in close proximity to their Arab neighbors.
Aside: IAF tankers flew a refueling track over the Red Sea, smack in the middle of Egyptian and Saudi airspace. The Egyptians fly F-16s that are a similar, though inferior, variant of the Israeli F-16i, and the Saudis fly AWACs guided F-15s.
I've heard rumors that the IAF was ready to knock back Nataz yesterday, should they hear the trumpet's blast. Even though these guys have proven time and time again that failure isn't in their vocabulary, factoring in distance and enemy defenses left me skeptical. Now? Hey, I'm a believer.
And just for fun...
--John Noonan
Now Aussie Pilots Can Suck and Still Kill MiGs
Are you a ham-fisted goon who lacks situational awareness and is just happy to walk away from each hop with all the big pieces still on the jet? Well, if so, the Royal Australian Air Force wants you!
In a world first for an Air Force and an infra-red guided missile, Air Combat Group (ACG) of the Royal Australian Air Force has successfully carried out the first in-service 'Lock After Launch' firing of an ASRAAM (Advanced short-range air-to-air missile) at a target located behind the wing-line of the "shooter" aircraft. The firing was conducted from an F/A-18 fighter aircraft, at low level and typical fighter speed, at a target located behind the fighter at a range in excess of 5km. The result was a direct hit on the target.
The engagement simulated a "chase down" situation by an enemy fighter and successfully demonstrated the potential for an all-round self protection capability with the ASRAAM. This capability is inherent on all platforms that provide pre-launch 'over the shoulder' designation information such as F/A-18, Eurofighter Typhoon and F-35 JSF.
So this settles it once and for all. We no longer care about Ps curves and air-to-air performance of the airplane. I don't want to debate who would win a 1-v-1 between a MiG-37 and a JSF. It just doesn't matter.
Here's a new bumper sticker idea (this year's "My other car is an F-18"): "My ASRAAM missile hides the fact that I'm a grape."
A pilot struggling to control a crippled Marine Corps jet bypassed a chance to land at a coastal Navy base and instead flew toward an inland base, where minutes later the fighter crashed into a San Diego neighborhood and killed four people, recordings released Tuesday revealed.
Meanwhile, military officials say that four officers at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar have been relieved of duty in connection with the fatal crash and nine other military personnel received lesser reprimands. Officials said the 13 were disciplined for a series of avoidable mechanical and human errors that led to the crash, which killed four members of the same family, including two children.
"It was collectively bad decision-making," said Col. John Rupp, operations officer for the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar.
Recordings of conversations between federal air controllers and the pilot of the F/A-18D Hornet show the pilot repeatedly was offered a chance to land the plane at the Naval Air Station North Island in Coronado. The base sits at the tip of a peninsula with a flight path over water.
Instead, the Federal Aviation Administration tapes disclose, the pilot decided to fly the jet, which had lost one engine and was showing signs of trouble with the second, to the inland Miramar base, which is about 10 miles north of Coronado.
That route took him over the University City neighborhood, where the Dec. 8 crash incinerated two homes and damaged three others.
"This was a tragic incident that could have been prevented," Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., who was among the lawmakers who received a closed-door briefing Tuesday on the results of the Marine Corps' investigation into the crash, said in a statement.
The pilot and senior officers "did not consult their checklists and follow appropriate procedure," Hunter said. Had those rules been followed, "the crash would not have occurred."
Four officers at Miramar have been relieved of duty for failing to follow safety procedures and allowing the Hornet to fly over the residential area, while nine other military personnel received lesser reprimands.
According to the military, the jet's right engine went out due to an oil leak shortly after the fighter left the deck of the Navy aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln on a training flight. The aircraft can fly on one engine, so losing power in one of the General Electric turbofan engines was not cause for extreme concern.
At the same time, the plane was having trouble moving fuel from its tanks to the engines. Marine Corps aviation rules dictate that a plane with such a combination of mechanical failures should land immediately. The investigation determined the best and safest option was to bring the aircraft down at Coronado, not Miramar.
As the jet approached Miramar, the left engine failed because it was getting too little fuel, leaving the plane without power. Seventeen seconds later, the pilot ejected.
Okay, folks, something's gotta give, money-wise. As we dicussed in a recent post and podcast, the VH-71 is in the crosshairs for severe reductions if not outright cancellation. These are bad times to be a program 100 percent over budget and a couple of years behind schedule.
Moreover, these are bad times PERIOD. Now I understand that the JSF and F-22 are designed to meet separate Air Force requirements. The JSF meets the LOW requirement and replaces the F-16; the F-22 meets the HIGH requirement and replaces the F-15. But the fiscal situtation now and in the FYDP might not support both.
We had a similar situation back in the day when carrier aviation, due to budget concerns primarily, was forced to choose between the A-6 and the F-14. Long story short, the Intruder went away and the Navy enhanced the Tomcat's resident bombing capability. (The rest is OEF and OIF history, of course.)
So with Christian on the road for the next few days and me minding the store, I wanted to open up the discussion to you guys, the awesome and erudite in defense matters DT readers. What do you think? If the USAF decison-makers are made to choose one or the other, which should they pick?
Wikipedia (the source of all modern knowledge) "apples-to-apples" unit flyaway price comparison: F-22 - $137.5 million; JSF - $83 million. And I know the Raptor does things the JSF doesn't, but does that capability validate the additional cost considering the current (and projected) threat and budgetary situation?
Faced with a shortfall of about 1,600 flight-rated officers, the Air Force is reaching out to pilots, air battle managers and navigators who have left active duty, service officials said Wednesday.
Under a program authorized for this calendar year, retirees and reservists -- most from the Inactive Ready Reserve -- can come back to active duty for up to four years, officials said. The program is also open to current or former members of all services.
"We are not soliciting O-6s; we are primarily expecting majors and lieutenant colonels to come back," said Lt. Col. Dewey Duhadway, chief of rated force policy.
The Air Force has received interest from about 1,000 retirees and reservists about the program, Duhadway said on Wednesday.
Those interested in returning to active duty would have go before an aeronautical review board to determine their ratings qualifications, and returnees from the IRR will have to undergo a physical examination, he said.
I think we should all encourage Ward to get back in the cockpit! (that's him, second from the left)...
The Blue Angels will fly the balance of their 2008 season with five jets instead of six because of pending administrative action against one of the team's pilots. Marine Corps Capt. Tyson Dunkelberger, the Blue Angel's spokesman, allowed that the pilot had been removed from flying duties for an "inappropriate relationship" with a female member of the demonstration team. Dunkelberger would not, however, identify the rank or squadron billet of either party involved, citing legal reasons.
The five-plane demonstration will employ a diamond formation without the "slot" position, but Dunkelberger was quick to point out that the loss of Blue Angel No. 4 in the show did not necessarily mean that the pilot has flown in that position during this season is involved in the inappropriate relationship. The mystery will be short-lived, however, as the Blue's are scheduled to perform a practice show today in San Antonio minus the flyer in question and his absence will be obvious to anyone in attendance holding a show program.
The Blue Angels have dealt with other personnel issues in recent years. In 2000 Blue Angel No. 2, a Marine Corps officer, was removed from the team for having another "inappropriate relationship" with the team's female public affairs officer. And last year, Lcdr. Kevin Davis, Blue Angel No. 6, flew his F/A-18 into the ground and was killed during a show near Beaufort, South Carolina. In each of these cases a pilot who had been on the team the year prior was pulled out of a fleet squadron and returned to the Blue Angels so that the team could fly the balance of the season with a full six-jet complement. Dunkelberger stated that there weren't enough shows left to justify that sort of effort in the current case. After the San Antonio shows this weekend, the Blue Angels will perform at the Kennedy Space Center and then close their season with two shows at their home base in Pensacola, Florida.
Updated Nov. 1: This from a discussion thread at the Blue Angel's hometown paper, The Pensacola News Journal:
"calfan wrote: It was two officers...#4 Maj. Clint Harris and Lt. Gretchen Doan. They are both officers...they both know better. Clint flew back Sunday in his jet, minus the #4. Didn't fly in the airshow or practice. He's married with kids. She's not. Bottom line is these are two adults who made a huge mistake/decision, broke a major rule, ruined their careers, humiliated their families, got kicked off the team...they will have this hanging over their heads and following them around forever. Boss did the right thing..."
The allegations in this post are unconfirmed but the tenor of it makes me think this person knows what he or she is talking about, including the use of the term "Boss" to refer to the Blue Angel's commanding officer. And if the IDs are correct, then in fact (and in spite of Capt. Dunkelberger's insistence to the contrary) it was the slot pilot who's been removed, which makes things much easier in terms of working the five-plane show in that all the remaining pilots are flying in the same positions they've flown all year.
And making Maj. Harris fly back from his final show without the number on his jet his something right out of King Arthur's Court or a Hollywood scriptwriter's fantasy. (Remember the opening of the TV series "Branded" back in the day?) Who said the spirit of Naval Aviation is dead?
It could just be that the Air Force is entering an era that, in part, will be defined by what will not be a hot-button issue: uniforms.
"First things first," Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz responded Sept. 17 when asked by Military.com whether uniforms -- new ones or modifications to current dress -- will be relegated to the back burner during his tenure.
Schwartz, who had just listened as his major command chiefs offered up a list of things the Air Force needs today-right-now-thank-you-very much -- including new tankers, more manpower, new tankers, upgrades and maintenance to mobility and fighter planes and, oh yeah, new tankers -- said the Air Force has any number of critical programs it must tackle.
Maybe, at some point down the road, when these other things have been taken care of, he said, uniforms may again be on the agenda.
For now, Schwartz does have to deal with proposed uniform changes that he inherited, including the adoption of a new service dress uniform modeled after one worn by legendary airman Hap Arnold.
The Air Force has a long record of changing or tweaking its uniforms. Acting Air Force Secretary Michael B. Donley made a humorous reference to this fact on Monday, the opening day of the Air Force Association's Air and Space Symposium in Washington, D.C. The Air Force dress uniform only recently underwent a change, with the addition of a belt to the jacket, and Donley noted that the last time he worked for the Air Force, as an assistant secretary and then acting secretary in 1993, the uniform went through major changes under then Chief of Staff Merrill McPeak.
He said he would answer questions today about uniforms the same way he answered them back then: "Ask the chief."
Schwartz last month decided to defer until sometime next year a decision on a Hap Arnold-esque service coat. The proposed jacket came out of a 2006 uniform board under Schwartz's predecessor, Gen. T. Michael Moseley.
Some uniform changes have been greeted critically by airmen -- including a proposed blue cammie BDU several years ago -- who argue that the Air Force has more important issues facing it than whether it should have a belt on a service dress jacket or whether BDUs should come with a permanent crease.
The proposed new dress jacket will cost about $125 million to manufacture if it's approved, the Air Force estimated.
-- Bryant Jordan
Harrier Crash Due to Pilot Error
I'm always reluctant to post these stories and I always get a lot of flak from them, but I think it's important for folks who might not have access to them that are involved in some way with aviation to see what happened and get some "lessons learned" data that can maybe help them down the road.
A Harrier crash on Feb. 13 near Cherry Point (the second in a series of four so far this fiscal year) was initially thought to have been caused by engine failure. But according to the Judge Advocate General Manual investigation I got my hand on through FOIA the cause was a far simpler -- and more correctable one.
According to an official investigation report released after a Freedom of Information Act Request from Military.com, the pilot, Capt. Ian Stevens, failed to move the jet nozzles of his Harrier to the position required for conventional flight during a Feb. 13 mission to practice aerial refueling and ground attack runs near Cherry Point Marine Air Station, causing the plane to drop from the sky.
That's from a story we're posting today on Military.com (there've been some technical snags so publishing is delayed). Here's a bit more:
"This mishap was caused by the mishap pilot not positioning the nozzles back to the aft position after positioning them ... to the hoverstop position in order to ... stabilize in a proper formation position with is lead," the investigating officer stated in the report. "The thrust remained vectored below the aircraft until the aircraft impacted the ground." ...
Stevens executed several successful aerial refueling runs on a KC-10 Extender tanker, the report said, before peeling away with the other two Harriers to practice using his targeting pod during mock ground attacks. As he was trying to slow down and join up with the lead pilot of the flight, whose name is redacted from the report, things started to go wrong.
"The engine sounded like it was spooling up ... but the lead [pilot] continued to pull away from me," Stevens -- whose name was removed from the report but released to local media at the time of the crash -- told investigators in a statement. "I ... increased power to 'mil' but did not feel a corresponding acceleration. I decided that I had a problem."
After several successful mid-air engine restarts but with no resulting forward thrust, Stevens was out of options and decided to eject as his plane plummeted toward Earth.
"I had tried all the emergency procedures I could think of and could not figure out what the problem was," Stevens told investigators. "After the second airstart, I still wasn't getting acceleration from the engine and I was out of ideas, so I decided to eject."
Investigators who examined the wreckage of the plane and downloaded flight data from an onboard diagnostics recorder found that Stevens had redirected the thrust nozzles -- which can be shifted about 90 degrees to allow the Harrier to hover or fly conventionally -- downward to slow down enough to meet up with his wingman. But as he approached the other Harrier, Stevens forgot to move the nozzles aft, resulting in a functioning engine but no forward thrust.
"I'm pretty sure I put the nozzles back to the aft before I powered up, but looking back now I'm not absolutely positive," Stevens told investigators.
It's a rookie mistake from a rookie pilot who did everything right when he was presented with and diagnosed the problem. Thing is, the idea to check the nozzle angle wasn't in his decision tree. I'm sure it is now, though.
I talked to a long time Marine buddy of mine who's a Harrier pilot and currently an instructor and he said the Harriers -- after a pretty shaky track record -- are performing very well lately given their high optempo. That jet is notoriously difficult to fly and just qualifying to get in the cockpit is a huge feat.
My thoughts go out to this young pilot and I hope the mishap didn't scuttle a budding career. But it is important that aviators worldwide who operate this complex aircraft keep this kind of mistake in mind. Sometimes its the simplest explanation that solves a life-threatening problem.
-- Christian
You Run, You Die
It looks like the Air Force got a new arrow in its quiver recently with the first employment in combat of the new Guided Bomb Unit 54 -- a hybrid Joint Direct Attack Munition/Laser Guided Bomb.
Seems that the Air Force issued an urgent need statement for a 500 lb. munition that could take out moving targets. Maybe the fighter jocks were getting jealous of their missile-wielding robot friends who seem to be the go-to platforms for such moving target engagements.
Officials in Iraq announced that on Aug. 12 (why could they not talk about this any sooner? Typical Air Force) F-16s had engaged a moving vehicle with the so-called LJDAM:
The GBU-54 is the U.S. Air Force’s newest 500-pound precision weapon, equipped with a special targeting system that uses a combination of GPS and laser guidance to accurately engage and destroy moving targets.
On, Aug. 12, 2008, F-16s from the 77th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron deployed to Joint Base Balad, Iraq, successfully executed this “combat first” when the weapon was employed against a moving enemy vehicle in Diyala province, Iraq...
Identified as an urgent operational need in early 2007, the Air Force completed the GBU-54’s development and testing cycle in less than 17 months, fielding it aboard 332nd Air Expeditionary Wing aircraft in May.
“We have consistently used precision-guided weapons to engage stationary threats with superb combat effects,” said Brig. Gen. Brian Bishop, 332nd AEW commander. “This weapon allows our combat pilots to engage a broad range of moving targets with dramatically increased capabilities and it increases our ability to strike the enemy throughout a much, much broader engagement envelope...”
"At end game, on Aug. 12, the team of the joint terminal attack controller, alongside his ground unit commander in this event, ensured all criteria were met for the first combat delivery of the LJDAM. And finally, our F-16 pilot accurately and precisely delivered and guided the weapon to desired weapons effects, the disabling and destruction of an enemy vehicle and personnel,” Gen.North said.
All right, so ignore the retarded "cop speak" of the last paragraph (I mean, who says "ensured all criteria were met for combat delivery" -- just say "we lazed the target and said 'cleared hot!' ") -- this seems like a pretty interesting development and one that could improve the Air Force's ability to play in an urban fight. But my question is how expensive is it and what's the ROI compared to a hellfire shot by a Reaper? Again, it looks once more like the Air Force saw an "urgent need" to give its fighter jocks a job other than CAS orbits and "tron banging" for IEDs.
-- Christian
Farewell, Buckeye!
No, not the Ohio State variety, but the primary navy jet trainer for much of the last 50 years - the T-2C Buckeye.
The T-2 Buckeye, last seen training future naval aviators and naval flight officers in Pensacola and other environs, slipped the surly bonds of earth for the ultimate time this past Friday, 9 August. As the Pensacola News Journal said:
Lt. j.g. Dave Chun, 33, and 1st Lt. Brian Miller, 29, were the last student aviators to fly the iconic jet.
Chun reflected on the historic moment after receiving his pilot’s wings, following the successful completion of his final exercise.
“This is the third best day of my life,” he said, holding a freshly opened bottle of champagne to celebrate the occasion. “My wife and my baby, those are the only things that beat this.”
The Navy’s Buckeyes have flown a combined 3.4 million hours, making it one of the Navy’s most used jets. Since its introduction to the fleet in 1959, nearly every Naval aviator trained in Pensacola flew the Buckeye in preparation for aircraft carrier landings.
The venerable light "attack thunder guppy", first entering service in 1959, flew its last naval aviator training hop last week. Most every navy pilot or naval flight officer you saw strutting around in a flight suit since the end of the Eisenhower administration has some time in this baby.
A very forgiving aircraft, in addition to being the first jet that naval aviators climbed into, it was also used as a spin-procedures trainer for tactical aviators due to its easy recovery capabilities. That was always a fun hop - head out into the restricted area over Phelps Lake in North Carolina, do your clearing turn to ensure other aircraft weren't in the area, get to 250 knots at about 20k, pull the nose up to start bleeding off speed, then kick full left rudder while yanking the stick to full aft right. BOOM...inverted spin...watch the AOA go to 2 or 3 units, watch the airspeed go from 250 down to below 100, start to count the turns, and ye-haw! Recover...neutral stick, feet on the deck (off the rudder pedals), after a few turns the nose steadies out, the turns stop and you recover. So THAT is what an inverted spin is like!
The jet didn't have much in the way of thrust. The early models were a single Westinghouse J-34 with about 3,400 lbs of thrust - that was the thrust of the phoenix missile the Tomcats carried, for cripes sake! Later models, introduced in the early 60's, eventually had 2 GE J-85 engines installed, nearly doubling the thrust at 3,000 lbs each. Compare that to the F-35 PW F-135 engine that puts out over 40,000 of thrust. Now THAT would make a worthwhile trainer!
The T-2 was sold to 2 other countries, Greece and Venezuela, so if we ever do get into a scrap with Hugo at least we know what those boys trained in.
A fine junior-varsity steed to learn in. Sleep well, Guppy!
I'm just fascinated by this stuff According to a report today, DARPA plans to flight test two hypersonic demonstrator vehicles beginning in 2009.
There's been a lot of talk about hypersonics and what the flight regime can and can't do for civilian and military applications. And finally there's going to be some proof in the putting. It'll be interesting to see the dynamic effects of such speeds and whether the science is there to build hypersonic planes and missiles.
Details have emerged of the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's (DARPA) plans to test fly its two expendable dart-shaped Hypersonic Technology Vehicle (HTV)-2 demonstrators.
To be launched by Orbital Sciences Minotaur solid-fuel rockets from Vandenberg Air Force Base, HTV-2a will fly in May 2009 and HTV-2b will follow in the October of that year.
While the two flights have separate trajectories they will both impact near the Kwajalein Atoll test site in the Pacific Ocean. HTV-1 was a ground test demonstrator.
The first flight will demonstrate performance characteristics, and the second cross-range manoeuvring as well as thermal protection system performance.
The two HTVs will use inertial navigational measurement units and global positioning system (GPS) for guidance, while testing satellite communications and GPS reception through the plasma that will surround the vehicles during their flight.
"The HTV-2 will have a plasma probe onboard [to examine the hot gases] and we are expecting it to have good lift-over-drag performance," said DARPA's tactical technology office deputy director Steve Walker, speaking at the 15th AIAA International space planes, hypersonic systems and technologies conference in Dayton, Ohio on 28 April.
The article also mentions another flight demonstrator that will demonstrate some radical flight characteristics:
The next flight demonstrator after HTV-2 will be Blackswift. Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne were working on a waverider type vehicle called the HTV-3 but there are no plans to build this and the concept has been designated HTV-3X.
Blackswift is a reusable hypersonic demonstrator and the prime contractor for its construction and flight test is yet to be selected.
Should be an exciting year for exotic flight regimes.
Known by code names such as Falcon, High Fire and Blackswift, the experiments and tests are being kept closely guarded as the Air Force looks toward a future generation of air power and weaponry midway into the 21st century - or sooner.
One possibility is an ultra-fast long-range bomber that the Air Force wants to field within three decades. Air Force officials hope to deploy a new interim bomber by 2018, followed by a more advanced, and possibly unmanned, bomber in 2035 that could incorporate many of the concepts emerging from current research.
Dr. Mark Lewis, the chief scientist for the Air Force, told McClatchy that a hypersonic cruise missile may be the first operational product to emerge from the research. Government teams, working with private contractors, also hope to develop long-range hypersonic aircraft that would take off from conventional runways, travel more than 10,000 miles in two hours and land on runways.
"We know there are other countries that are working on this technology," Lewis said. "My goal is to make sure that the United States is the first country that ever brings this technology to the fight."
Military analyst Loren Thompson, an executive at the Lexington Institute, a defense policy organization in Arlington, said the Air Force "has great interest in long-range hypersonic vehicles that can do two things - collect intelligence and target time-sensitive assets."
Thompson defined "time-sensitive assets" as "something that if you don't hit right now it will be gone if you come back later." He cited, as one example, a ballistic missile being prepared for launch against the United States.
The development of hypersonic technology has taken on new urgency after China destroyed one of its satellites 530 miles above Earth in a January 2007 test. The test raised fears within the U.S. government that a foreign power is capable of destroying military satellites in low Earth orbit.
Here we go again . . . this from the Honolulu Advertiser:
The ditching of a Hawai'i Air National Guard F-15D fighter yesterday was at least the fifth crash nationwide for the Eagles since May and will result in even greater scrutiny for an aging aircraft that has been grounded several times in recent months.
The fighter crashed yesterday in the ocean 60 miles south of O'ahu at about 1:37 p.m. after the pilot lost altitude and control, officials said.
"The pilot ejected. He's safe," said Capt. Jeff Hickman, a Hawai'i National Guard spokesman.
Hickman said there were two of the twin-tail fighters doing routine "air-to-air" training.
Two Coast Guard cutters were on the scene of the crash, and the pilot was picked up by helicopter and taken to The Queen's Medical Center, where he was in good condition yesterday evening.
The National Guard did not release the pilot's name or age, but said he was an experienced pilot.
(Photo: USCG helo rescues the Eagle pilot from the Pacific. Official USCG photo.)
(Gouge: NC)
-- Ward
Blue Angel Crash Blamed on GLOC
You might remember we reported on this back in October after a conversation with a few of the Blues in San Francisco during a Fleet Week reception. They admitted at that time that the mishap report had found "pilot error" as the main causal factor behind the April crash that took the life of Lcdr. Kevin Davis, Blue Angel No. 5.
Now AP puts a finer point on the findings in an article running at Military.com:
An investigator reviewing flight data found that as the turn subjected Davis to six times the force of gravity, a temporary decrease in blood flow to his brain likely caused him to experience tunnel vision and become disoriented, the report found.
However, Davis worked to regain control of the plane, "and in the last few seconds he may have been aware of his low altitude and was attempting to save the aircraft," said the report by Marine Lt. Col. Javier J. Ball.
"Kevin had performed these maneuvers in training and in the fleet. He had done them in similar situations and he had a history of performing them well without any problems," Hanzlik said
The Pensacola-based Blue Angels fly without the G-suits that most fighter pilots wear to avoid blacking out during such maneuvers. The suits inflate and deflate air bladders around the lower body to force blood to the brain and heart.
However, the air bladders can cause a pilot to bump the control stick, so the Blue Angels instead learn to manage the forces by tensing their abdominal muscles.
The crash at Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort was the Blue Angels' first since 1999 and the 26th fatality in the team's 60-year history.
Because of the crash, the Navy has increased its exercise requirements for Blue Angels pilots with an additional focus on abdominal muscles. The team has also stepped up its requirements for centrifuge training tailored for Blue Angels pilots.
Eight people on the ground were injured and some homes were damaged when the plane crashed in a residential area about 35 miles northwest of Hilton Head Island, S.C.
Among other things, this mishap demonstrates how GLOC really is a "cobra in the basket" for tactical aircrews. Even without G-suits, Blue Angels are as G-conditioned as any aviators in the fleet due to the fact they pull 'em nearly every day all year long.
-- Ward
"Rob Peter to Pay Paul"
Here's just released animation of the Eagle mishap that started the current "crisis":
Pretty hairy, huh? Maj. Stilwell was lucky, to put it mildly.
Meanwhile the USAF is not ready to say everything's okay now that the mishap investigators have figured out what caused the structural failure. Here's an excerpt from the latest running at Military.com:
Gen. John Corley, the top officer at Air Combat Command at Langley Air Force Base, Va., called the situation a "crisis" that would be best solved by an infusion of costly new aircraft rather than fixing jets that are 25 years old.
The mechanical troubles, most acute in the F-15 Eagles used to protect the United States, also have led to a patchwork approach to filling critical air missions at home and in Iraq and Afghanistan.
With nearly a third of the F-15 fleet grounded due to a defective support beam in the aircraft's frame, other fighter aircraft, including F-16s and new F-22s, are being shifted from duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"It's a rob Peter to pay Paul," Corley said at a Pentagon news conference. "It's unprecedented to have an air superiority fleet that's on average 25 years old."
Other reports today suggest the Air Force is leaning on Boeing to take responsibility for a faulty manufacturing process that led to the longerons failing. Stay tuned. That subplot is bound to get sporty.
Yesterday's discussion was lively and (most of the time) informed, so I wanted to get this update posted right away (since these facts have already crept into the last post's comments). Here's the salient truths currently in Military.com's headlines:
"The accident investigation board president (Wignall) found, by clear and convincing evidence, the cause of this accident was a failure of the upper right longeron, a critical support structure in the F-15C aircraft," the report says.
About 20 minutes after takeoff from an airfield near St. Louis on Nov. 2, the forward fuselage of Maj. Stephen Stilwell's $42 million F-15C Eagle shook violently and then broke apart 18,000 feet above the ground. Stilwell, his left shoulder dislocated and his left arm shattered, barely had time to safely eject as pieces of his aircraft tumbled from the sky over the Missouri countryside.
More troubling, however, are the results of a parallel examination finding as many as 163 of the workhorse aircraft also have flawed support beams, or longerons. The aircraft remain grounded as the Air Force continues to search for how serious the problem is and whether extensive, costly repairs are needed. Another 19 of the aircraft have yet to be inspected and also remain grounded.
Nearly 260 of the A through D model F-15s, first fielded in the mid-1970s, were returned to flight status Tuesday following fleet-wide inspections.
Kudos to the Air Force investigators for finding the problem in a hurry. At the same time, these amazing fighters aren't getting any younger. There'll be more groundings to come, no doubt; hopefully they won't be as a result of a mishap.
-- Ward
"You're Grounded for Life, Mister!"
Once again the aging Eagle comes into our scan, and as has been the case over the last couple months the news ain't good. This from an LA Times story running at Military.com:
"Many of them may never fly again," said a senior Air Force officer. The officer, like others interviewed, spoke on condition of anonymity because results of the investigation were not to be made public until today.
Many of the F-15s, long the nation's most sophisticated front- line fighters, have been around for 30 years, and the fleet is being replaced gradually. The Air Force still relies on F-15s to protect the continental United States and to fly combat missions abroad. Newer model F-15Es are used in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan and were the first of the planes to resume flying after the mishap in November.
The problems with the F-15, Air Force officials argue, have increased the need to buy additional F-22s, a swift and stealthy but expensive new fighter plane.
"This is grave," said a senior Air Force official. "Two hundred of our air superiority aircraft are on the ground, and we are acting like it is business as usual."
So what do we think? No big deal considering the current lack of an air-to-air threat worldwide or time to buy more Raptors, toot sweet?
-- Ward
Breaking News - Super Hornets Collide over Gulf (Updated)
(Updated at 1338 Pacific) AP reports in more detail on the Super Hornet midair:
Two U.S. Navy fighter jets crashed Monday in the Persian Gulf, but the three pilots on board ejected safely out of the aircraft, the Navy said.
The three pilots were brought back after the crash to the USS Harry Truman, the aircraft carrier they were operating from, and are in good condition, the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet said in a written statement.
Teams from the Truman rescued the pilots who ejected after their F/A-18 Super Hornets crashed during operations in the Gulf, the statement said.
The Navy said the cause of the accident, which occurred around 1800GMT, was under investigation.
The planes were operating in the "vicinity of the Truman Carrier" at the time of the crash, said Lt. John Gay from 5th Fleet's headquarters in Bahrain.
"They were on a routine mission in support of maritime security in the region," said Gay, adding that Navy pilots conduct these types of flights several times a day.
Navy Vice Adm. Kevin J. Cosgriff, who is the commander of the 5th Fleet, said it was a mid-air collision. Information released by the 5th Fleet said the two aircraft were providing "close air support from Iraq when they crashed."
One of the F-18 jets that crashed held two pilots, the other held just one. The aircraft are from Carrier Air Wing Three, which is deployed to the Persian Gulf with the Truman Carrier Strike Group.
Gay said Monday's crash was not connected to an incident early Sunday where Iranian boats harassed and provoked three U.S. Navy ships in the strategic Straight of Hormuz. The three Navy boats involved in the incident were the cruiser USS Port Royal, destroyer USS Hopper and frigate USS Ingraham, officials said.
"There is no connection with the incident," Gay said.
Updates will continue to be posted as we get them.
-- Ward
Could the USAF Buy Growlers?
According to Aviation Week, they just might...
Industry and Pentagon sources say USAF has made little headway on its lingering electronic attack requirements. The service had been pursuing a standoff jammer based on the venerable, and powerful, B-52. But the program cost crept upward around $7 billion, too much in the Pentagon’s tight budget environment. Lt. Gen. Donald Hoffman, USAF’s military deputy for acquisition, acknowledges that some in the Pentagon are pushing the Air Force to buy Growlers designed for Navy requirements. He counters, however, that an EA-18G would not be survivable in the penetrating role as the Air Force transitions from F-15s and F-16s to an all-stealth combat fleet. USAF officials don’t like to talk much about it publicly, but they are looking for a jammer that can escort the high-end stealthy fighters if necessary in the future. The Marine Corps, by contrast, is looking ahead to an electronic attack version of the F-35B, which won’t be available when existing Navy Prowlers retire in 2012. Hoffman says there is a “natural progression” to the Joint Strike Fighter as a jammer, but USAF still wants something in the near term.
I really like this idea. The Super Hornet is marginal as a fighter/bomber but it's rugged airframe and load capacity may prove a formidable replacement for the Prowler. And who needs stealth in an EA aircraft? Isn't EA the opposite of stealth? Banging trons til you get through...
(Gouge: NC)
-- Christian
F-15 Situation Gets Worse
An excellent piece today from Josh Partlow at the Washington Post...looks like the F-15 problems are getting worse...And USA Today reported a couple days ago that the Pentagon's comptroller Tina Jonas put the breaks on shutting down the F-22 line.
From the Saturday Post:
Air Force inspectors have discovered major structural flaws in eight older-model F-15 fighters, sparking a new round of examinations that could ground all of the older jets into January or beyond, senior Air Force and defense officials said...
...Current and former Air Force officials said that the grounding of the F-15s -- on average 25 years old -- is the longest that U.S. fighter jets have ever been kept out of the air. Even if the jets are cleared for flight, they add, it could take six months to get the pilots and aircraft back to their normal status...
...The disclosure of the cracks comes amid intense Air Force lobbying for the purchase of additional new fighter jets. The Air Force wants to replace its aging F-15s with 200 more F-22 Raptors beyond the 183 already approved by Congress and the Defense Department. Senior Defense Department officials have not agreed that the additional planes are needed or supported their purchase. The F-22s, which cost $132 million each, are manufactured by Lockheed Martin, a Bethesda-based firm...
And our boy Winslow Wheeler, who doesn't suffer fools, has a perfectly reasonable solution: fix 'em.
...Some outside analysts have said that the F-15 problems can be fixed and that the extra F-22s are unnecessary. "I don't suspect that the Air Force is lying when it says it has discovered stress fractures in the longerons of the F-15s," said Winslow Wheeler, an expert at the Center for Defense Information and a longtime opponent of purchasing additional F-22s. "But there's no big deal about that. Fix it."
Wheeler said Congress should look into the F-15 issue. In another prominent case, involving refueling tankers, several independent study panels concluded that the Air Force had exaggerated the structural consequences of aging for older planes so that it could make a better case for leasing new ones.
Air Force photos of the damaged beams show clearly visible cracks toward the rear of the fighters' cockpits. Photos and drawings provided to The Washington Post show cracks in similar locations on both sides of the planes and that the F-15 that crashed had undetected damage behind the cockpit.
-- Christian
Sugar-Coated Fallout of the F-15 Grounding
From this story, it at least appears that my fear of a potential "F-15 overreaction" to push for more F-22s has come true.
From Reuters:
Top Pentagon officials are planning to extend production of Lockheed Martin Corp's F-22 fighter jet amid concerns over the airworthiness of the aging fleet it is replacing, an analyst with close ties to the Pentagon said on Friday.
"Pentagon insiders say the Office of the Secretary of Defense is planning ... to continue production" beyond the 183 F-22s due to be delivered by the end of 2011, said Loren Thompson of the Arlington, Virginia-based Lexington Institute, noted for links to the Pentagon and industry.
"Policymakers are under pressure ... because Cold War fighters are falling out of the sky due to age," he added, referring to the second grounding this month of older Boeing F-15 models.
Representatives of the Air Force and the Defense Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Now, I know this story is shaky since it's based on comments from one person. But Loren is pretty tapped in and though is sometimes given to hyperbole, he's been a very reliable source of mine over the years. And the Reuters reporter, Jim Wolf, is top notch and wouldn't have let the story go to print if it wasn't accurate and properly sourced.
Sure, the F-22 is a kick ass airplane, and we can debate the merits of the planes and the proper number. But to shoehorn more of them into the inventory by cynically grounding the fleet they're to replace as a public relations ploy to make a better case, if true, is disappointing.
Now let's keep our eyes on Congress. If this keeps going, there's going to be hearings with their own parochial histrionics, then the inevitable added money and production authorizations. Then the Air Force will finally have gotten its wish, and the sky itself won't even be the limit for F-22 buys.
We just got this breaking news at Military.com in a few minutes ago and I wanted to get the word out to DT readers...
An informed DT reader told me this afternoon the Air Force had re-grounded its fleet of F-15s after they were returned to flight last week.
Military.com reporter Bryant Jordan got the details...
Barely more than a week after returning the F-15 Eagle fleet to flight the Air Force is once again grounding most of the planes, Military.com has learned.
F-15 models A through D -- a total of 442 planes -- were ordered grounded by Air Combat Command,Langley Air Force Base, Va., late on Nov. 27, ACC spokesman Maj. Thomas Crosson said in an interview.
The latest problem is with cracks in the planes' metal support beams, called longerons, that run the length of the aircraft, and make up the sill on which the canopy sits, Crosson told Military.com.
The entire F-15 fleet was ordered grounded in early November after the break up and crash of a Missouri Air National Guard Eagle. The Air Force began lifting the restrictions on the fleet Nov. 19 - starting with F-15E Strike Eagles - following aggressive inspections of the planes.
ACC called for the new groundings after metallurgical analysis of the planes suggested there could be possible cracking problems with the longerons.
Officials now are working at Warner Robins Air Force Base, Ga., to develop an inspection list that will be sent out to F-15 maintainers across the Air Force.
Crosson said the list should be completed in a day or two, and will include a timeframe for how long the actual inspections should take.
He could not say how long it would before the latest restrictions would be lifted from the entire fleet.
-- Christian
Some Eagles Cleared to Fly
Well, it looks as if the story of F-15 groundings has taken a new turn today.
Air Combat Command headquartered at Langley Air Force Base, Va., lifted flight restrictions on newer F-15E Strike Eagles after the service grounded the fleet Nov. 3.
Air Force officials are taking steps to lift the grounding orders on at least part of its F-15 fleet.
Air Combat Command, headquartered at Langley Air Force Base, Va., has cleared the way for F-15Es, the newest of the supersonic fighters, to return to action if they pass a detailed visual and non-destructive inspection.
The fleetwide grounding - affecting 676 aircraft - was ordered Nov. 3 following the crash the day before of an older F-15C near Salem, Mo. The Air Force has 224 E models of the F-15.
How long the remainder of the fleet will be grounded was unclear Wednesday.
Robins Air Force Base officials were not immediately available to comment on the latest action, although F-15 flight testing was conducted at the installation Wednesday.
The Warner Robins Air Logistics Center at Robins provides worldwide management and support and periodic overhaul for the twin-engined Boeing-McDonnell Douglas aircraft.
Our readers caught the issue early on, suggesting a structural flaw with the aircraft that could have contributed to an F-15C crash in Missouri Nov. 2 – though we were off a bit in the location of the structural problem.
According to a tapped in source who contacted Defense Tech, the Av Week story we posted a couple days ago was correct on the general location of the structural failure. More specifically, our source tells us the separation occurred behind the “ECS bay” and could have been the result of a faulty repair years ago.
The notion that the F-15 crash and subsequent grounding stems from a known structural problem with the Eagle, however, isn’t right, our source tells us.
Fortunately, it’s the F-15E that’s the version being employed in Afghanistan and Iraq. So when shooters call in for support from the air, Strike Eagle can now make the hop to help.
I suspect the lifting of flight restrictions on E model F-15s will not undercut the case for more F-22s, since the “A” in “F/A-22” was added later, and the threat the Air Force keeps using to sell the plane is advanced-generation fighters in the hands of enemy regimes. We’ll stay on top of this story; and please keep me posted on what you all are hearing.
TOKYO -- Japan's air force has grounded its F- 15 fighter jets following a crash of the same type of aircraft in the United States on Nov. 3, Defense Minister Shigeru Ishiba said.
The Japanese Air Self-Defense Force has suspended flights of F-15 aircraft since Nov. 5, Kyodo News quoted Ishiba as saying. The suspension will last until the cause of the U.S. crash is determined, he said.
The minister also said that F-4 fighters will deal with airspace incursion "for the time being," since the ASDF has also grounded F-2 fighters in the wake of a recent crash of an ASDF plane of the model at Nagoya.
A Missouri Air National Guard F-15C jet crashed while training in air combat maneuvers over southern Missouri. The pilot ejected and suffered a dislocated shoulder and broken arm. The U.S. Air Force then grounded nearly all its F-15 fighters - excluding those required for critical missions - as preliminary findings showed there might have been structural failure.
It was the second crash of a Missouri Air Guard F-15 this year. In May an F-14D crashed near Vincennes, Ind. Officials traced the cause to a jammed cable. The pilot of that plane also ejected, and escaped with minor injuries.
According to an earlier report from Kyodo, a planned joint drill between the U.S. Air Force and Japan's Air Self-Defense Force at Komatsu base in Ishikawa Prefecture, in which F-15s from Kadena were to take part, has also been postponed.
-- Christian
Grounded Eagles
An F-15C tooling around the sky in southern Missouri with 3 of his closest aeronautical acquaintances came apart during air combat maneuvers Friday and the Air Force grounded all F-15 Eagle aircraft pending inspections for service-life issues.
The grounding of an entire fleet of aircraft is not all that rare. Many aircraft types have experienced this after an mishap, pending the discovery of the cause of the mishap. This particular aircraft was 27 years old and "service life issues" is one of the determining factors in the grounding. Fuselage or wing fatigue concerns are a very definite question in the aircraft, and the fact that the C-model is the air-to-air version of the F-15 and this particular Eagle was engaged in ACM when the mishap occurred makes a fleet grounding apropos until inspections can be made.
There are between 550 and 688 (depending on which source you use) F-15 aircraft out there so a grounding of the fleet is no small thing.
Lieutenant General Gary L. North, the Air Force officer in charge of military aircraft in the Middle East, issued a statement yesterday saying he would be able to fill the gap with other fighters and bombers. But another Air Force official said the F-15 grounding will have a "significant impact" on operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. "They will clearly have to work hard to pick up the slack," the official said.
F-16's and A-10's will take up that slack in southwest Asia, as will whatever aircraft carrier airwing is deployed to the region.
General T. Michael "Buzz" Moseley, the Air Force chief of staff, who ordered the grounding this past Saturday said at a congressional hearing in October "The F-15s . . . they're very capable airplanes". "But against the new-generation threat systems, they don't have the advantage that we had when they were designed in the late 1960s and built in the 1970s."
Air Force grounds entire fleet of F-15s
Move in response to plane breaking in midair last week
By Peter Spiegel, Los Angeles Times | November 6, 2007
WASHINGTON - The US Air Force has grounded its entire fleet of F-15s, the service's premier fighter aircraft, after one of the planes disintegrated over eastern Missouri during a training mission, raising the possibility of a fatal flaw in the aging fighters' fuselage that could keep it out of the skies for months.
General T. Michael "Buzz" Moseley, the Air Force chief of staff, ordered the grounding Saturday after initial reports showed that the Missouri Air National Guard fighter plane broke apart Friday in midair during a simulated dogfight.
Although the 688 F-15s in the Air Force's arsenal gradually are being replaced by a new generation of aircraft - the F-22 - they remain the nation's most sophisticated front-line fighters. US officials said the F-15s are used heavily for protecting the continental United States from terrorist attack, as well as for combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Lieutenant General Gary L. North, the Air Force officer in charge of military aircraft in the Middle East, issued a statement yesterday saying he would be able to fill the gap with other fighters and bombers. But another Air Force official said the F-15 grounding will have a "significant impact" on operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"They will clearly have to work hard to pick up the slack," the official said.
The health of the F-15 fleet has long been a concern for Air Force brass, who repeatedly have warned that the two-engine fighter had exceeded its expected life span and was straining under the workload imposed by the counterterrorism duty.
In addition, Moseley repeatedly has raised concerns that the plane is inadequate for increasingly sophisticated air defense systems being developed by potential adversaries such as China and Iran.
"The F-15s . . . they're very capable airplanes," Moseley told a congressional hearing in October. "But against the new-generation threat systems, they don't have the advantage that we had when they were designed in the late 1960s and built in the 1970s."
In May, another Missouri Air National Guard F-15 crashed in southern Indiana during a similar training exercise. The pilots in Friday's crash and the May accident survived.
The F-15 that crashed Friday was 27 years old. Of the five versions of the F-15 used by the Air Force, four versions average 24 to 30 years of age. The F-15E, the newest version, is 15 1/2 years old, but has been grounded with the other versions because it has a similar airframe.
Air Force leaders frequently have cited the age and growing obsolescence of the F-15 as the main reason to buy the new, stealthier F-22, the most expensive fighter ever made.
Critics of the F-22, which was first designed to fight a generation of Soviet MiGs that never materialized, say it is an overpriced Cold War relic, but the Air Force insists it has adapted the plane to meet more modern threats and missions.
Lieutenant General David Deptula, a former F-15 pilot who is now the Air Force's head of intelligence, said his son now flies the same F-15 aircraft that Deptula flew while based in Japan in the late 1970s.
"They have become serious maintenance challenges as they get older, and now I'd suggest that we may be facing a crisis," Deptula said. "We must recapitalize our aging fighter forces - and fast."
Loren Thompson, a military analyst with the Lexington Institute who has consulted for aircraft manufacturers, said the accident probably was caused by metal fatigue, corrosion, or faulty maintenance.
If maintenance problems turn out to be the culprit, Thompson said, the F-15 fleet could be returned to flight relatively quickly. Similarly, corrosion could be fixed by examining other aircraft for similar problems.
If the Missouri crash was the result of metal fatigue, however, it could lead to a much more extended grounding, as it would suggest that time and intense use of the aircraft since the Sept. 11 attacks have caught up with the aging fighter.
"The whole fleet was already flying on flight restrictions due to metal fatigue," said Thompson, noting that a fleet-wide grounding is extremely rare, especially for a fighter.
"In this case, the planes that are grounded are supposed to be America's top-of-the line air superiority plane," Thompson added. "This is not like grounding some cargo plane. These are the sinews of our global air dominance."
Despite fears over the plane's safety, it remained unclear whether all F-15s were on the ground or would stay there.
Here's a little "working for the weekend" motivation for DT readers. This shot was taken by former naval aviator and Military.com's chairman and founder Chris Michel last Saturday during San Francisco's Fleet Week. Note wake on the bay behind the Hornet. This is about as high speed as a jet can get without breaking windows and blowing the locals off of their yachts. This one's for you, Councilman Daly!
Typhoons come to Saudi Arabia
No, not the weather-type, although that would be interesting just to see the reaction of the Global Warming crowd.
These are of the Eurofighter-type Typhoon, generally considered a 4.5th generation fighter, and the Saudis are purchasing 72 of the for either £6bn (or £ 4.43bn, depending on the news site,or €6.4 billion or about $8-12bn USD) which is part of a larger £20bn arms deal between the Saudi government and the British defense contractor BAE Systems.
As Kris Alexander wrote here on DT back in February of this year, this is just the expected result of ..."Iraq-fueled tension in the Middle East...setting off a defense buying binge." Lots of money flying around there, but that is nothing new.
The Typhoon itself is a fine looking and performing fighter, ranked up there with other aircraft from the past decade or so, including the French Dassault Rafael, the the various SU-27 derivatives, the F/A-18 E/F and the latest versions of the F-15.
With supercruise, a digital cockpit, direct voice inputs for specific aircraft functions, canards to augment flight capabilities, the ability to carry all the current inventories of weapons (advanced short and medium range IR and radar missiles, anti-ship missiles, laser guided bombs, laser designating pod, internal gun, the works) to meet any mission requirement, the jet is one sweet machine. I just wonder about its stealth abilities against enemy radars with that big delta wing and those huge square intakes.
With two EJ200 afterburning engines (or "reheat" as the Brits and folks over there call it), each motor puts out 13,500 lbs of thrust in military and 20,000 lbs of thrust in full blower. Compared to the F/A-18 GE F414s, which pump out 14,000 and 20,000 respectfully, they compare favorably but keep in mind the historical differences between an Air Force land-based jet and a Navy jet and even a less powerful engine will still make the Air Force jet do eye-watering things because of its greater thrust-to-weight ratio.
Max takeoff weight is 51,200 lbs (compare that to the Tomcat's 72,000 max t/o weight!) and again this personifies a land-based Air Force-type strike-fighter capability - a light aircraft with beasty engines that can haul the mail and doesn't need the extra strength and weight necessary for carrier operations.
Bottom line with this Saudi deal is a couple of things. It widens an already wide gap with the main threat in the region, that being Iran's increasingly antiquated and anachronistic menagerie of an Air Force with its Dassault/Sukhoi/Grumman/McDonnell Douglas/Northrop dinosaurs (what an International Flight Museum that would make!) and its home-grown Saeqeh twin-tailed F-5 knockoff. Should any aerial conflict arise that would involve the Iranian air order of battle, this patchwork air force really wouldn't last long against any regional air capability with the possible exception of Iraq's C-130s and helicopters.
The other element is to watch the Peyton Place aspect of this as BAE goes under the microscope of the US Justice department for accusations of bribing the Saudi government and Prince Bandar bin Sultan, former ambassador to the United States and now head of Saudi Arabia's National Security Council during a $86 billion Al-Yamamah arms deal (including Hawk and Tornado jets) negotiated in 1985. This investigation comes after Britain's "Serious Fraud Office" (what a *great* government agency name!) dropped its investigation of BAE Systems based on national security reasons.
More information on the Typhoon is here at the Eurofighter home page and here at FAS.
Changes of command happen all over the military all the time and usually one isn't really all that different from another.
When Captain Tom "Trim" Downing took over command of Carrier Airwing 11, based on board USS Nimitz on August 1, though, the "on board" became "airborne" as the change of command with outgoing CAG Captain David Woods occurred in two F/A-18 Hornets passing overhead the ship.
Airborne changes of command are not that rare in the Navy. It provides a nice alternative to the staid, formal and at times stuffy standing in ranks. I don't know if there is an Army equivalent (a couple of main battle tanks in formation?) to naval aviation's airborne change of command, but again it is a nice alternative to have in this time-honored passing of the leadership torch. The fact that we're at war, as well, kind of calls for a no-nonsense approach to this ceremony. Nimitz is currently deployed to the western Pacific and the Arabian Gulf, as well, so being on the pointy-tip of the spear calls for pointy-tip actions.
PACIFIC OCEAN (JULY 31, 2007) - Capt. Michael Manazir, commanding officer of the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN 68), Capt. David Woods, former Commander, Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 11, and Capt. Thomas Downing, commander CVW-11, fly by the Nimitz in a F/A-18E and F/A-18F Super Hornets during an airborne change of command ceremony for CVW-11. The Nimitz Strike Group and embarked Carrier Air Wing 11 are deployed in the U.S. 7th Fleet. U.S. Navy photo by Lt. Cmdr. Brian Knoll (RELEASED)
Trim was a squadron mate of mine back in our VF-14 Tophatter days. I've only seen him a couple of times in the years since we left that first Tomcat duty, but he's gone on to commanded VFA-136, led strikes into Afghanistan and has been Deputy Commander of CAG 11 since July of 2006.
The Navy News article on the CoC is here. More pics over at the Instapinch.
Aviators have a saying: "You can only tie the record for low flight."
Well, the U.S. Air Force's Air Combat Command is installing a system in its jets that is designed to keep future pilots from tying the record. Press Zoom reports that the Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance System is a software-based technology that has demonstrated a 98 percent effectiveness rate at eliminating aircraft crashes into the ground. The system is ready for operational integration on F-16 Fighting Flacons, F-22 Raptors and F-35 Joint Strike Fighters.
Auto-GCAS differs from other crash-avoidance systems in that it doesn’t create nuisance warnings and activates only at the last instant to take control and recover the aircraft when it determines collision is imminent. The determination is made when the aircraft is within 1.5 seconds of the "point of no return" and no action has been taken by the pilot.
“Manual or warning-only systems don't prevent many of our ( controlled flight into terrain ) mishaps," said Col. “Tex” Wilkins, senior Air Force readiness analyst with the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. "That's because situations like pilot spatial disorientation, target fixation, loss of situation awareness, or G-induced loss of consciousness may render a pilot unable to process the warning and/or perform the necessary maneuvers to prevent a collision with the ground. Current programs rely on a pilot’s ability to manually respond to its warnings. Auto-GCAS, however, is specifically designed to prevent a collision in situations where a pilot cannot.”
Defense Department experts estimate that without Auto-GCAS more than 130 fighter aircraft will inadvertantly fly into the ground over the next 25 years. Wilkins said the Auto G-CAS program could virtually eliminate “controlled flight into terrain” as a mishap category.
“That preserves a lot of combat capability and will obviously make a huge difference in the department,” Wilkins said. “We’re pleased the technology to curb this trend and save pilot lives is ready to go.”
Defense News reports that the Pentagon has given the Super Hornet program the nod to take the Active Electronically Scanned Array radar into the "full rate production" phase of its development. Now Raytheon can start making as many as 72 AESA systems a year.
Early word on the AESA radar from the fleet bubbas we're in comms with suggest that it is going to be a game changer. Tomcat RIOs turned WSOs, reared on the tempermental AWG-9, absolutely love AESA. "It's an S.A. machine," one WSO said, using the Naval Aviation acronym for "situational awareness." Specifically, AESA not only tracks multiple airborne targets at long range, it also provides high-resolution ground mapping for air-to-ground tracking, even from standoff range. And it's high speed data processing and intuitive displays transform the Super Hornet into a "mini AWACS," according to several crews DT has talked to in recent months. In fact, the challenge will be for crews to effectively fuse all the information that's readily available into their airborne tactics.
And the goodness doesn't end in the cockpit. Raytheon claims AESA is three to five times more reliable than other radars in service, which will certainly make maintainers happy, especially former Tomcat tweaks.
VFA-213 based at NAS Oceana will be the first squadron to deploy with AESA-equipped Super Hornets.
Back in the "day" when the Cold War was cold and the western military had to maintain interceptor capabilities on short alert to escort Soviet bombers through or alongside territorial waters, it was a looked at as a fairly routine evolution.
Today, though, the below article raises some eyebrows. This sort of activity has not been seen in years. Is it an increasingly militarily-moribund Russia trying to raise some hackles? It might be instructive to remind Vladimir of what Pres Bush said a short while ago - The cold war is over! We won!
British Fighter Jets Scrambled as Russian Bombers Approach Airspace
LONDON — Fighter planes from Britain and Norway scrambled on Friday to keep watch on Russian bombers that were approaching the countries' air space, officials said.
The incidents occurred amid high tensions between Britain and Russia, as each country ordered the expulsion of four diplomats from the other side. There was no indication that the fighter plans were connected to the row.
Norwegian military spokesman Lt. Col. John Inge Oeglaend told The Associated Press said his country's F-16s were sent into action twice: once when two Russian Tu-95 bombers headed south along the Norwegian coast in international air space. They turned around above Aberdeen on Scotland's North Sea coast.
In the second, two Tu-160 bombers were spotted flying near Norwegian air space over the Barents Sea, he said.
Oeglaend characterized the incidents as routine and but said it was a "bit unusual that the first two bombers went so far south." Aberdeen's latitude is about 50 miles below the southern tip of Norway.
Russian Air Force spokesman Col. Alexander Drobyshevsky said British and Norwegian planes approaching bombers on training flights were a "normal occurrence."
A spokesman for Britain's Royal Air Force said he had no immediate information on the reports. British media earlier reported that RAF planes had approached Russian bombers on Tuesday as they headed toward British air space.
Britain on Monday ordered four diplomats to leave as punishment for Russia's refusal to extradite the man named by Britain as the chief suspect in last year's killing in London of ex-Russian security officer-turned-Kremlin critic Alexander Litvinenko.
Russia on Thursday ordered four British diplomats to leave in a reciprocal move.
That response appeared to indicate that neither side wished to escalate the tensions further. Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday expressed confidence the nations would overcome their differences.
Like Jason in the "Halloween" "Friday the 13th" movie series, even in apparent death the Tomcat remains a threat. AP reports the following about the fate of the now-retired fighter:
"The Defense Department had intended to destroy spare parts unique to the F-14 but sell thousands of others that could be used on other aircraft. It suspended sales of all Tomcat parts after The Associated Press reported in January that buyers for Iran, China and other countries had exploited gaps in surplus-sale security to acquire sensitive U.S. military gear, including F-14 parts.
"Among other tactics, middlemen for the countries misrepresented themselves to gain access to the Defense Department's surplus sales or bought sensitive surplus from U.S. companies that had acquired it from Pentagon auctions and weren't supposed to allow its export.
"Investigators also found some sensitive items accidentally slipping into surplus auctions rather than being destroyed as they were supposed to be. In an unusual move when dealing with retired aircraft, the Pentagon is trying to shut off all avenues for Iran's parts purchasers by demolishing the F-14s, then combing through the scraps to make sure nothing useful remains."
The Associated Press raised a hoopla a couple of weeks ago about the use of the Vietnam-era E/A-6B Prowler to blast IEDs electronically from the sky. Many DT readers argued there was nothing new about the revelation, but as far as the “mainstream” press goes, it was new to the general public.
The Navy (and Marine Corps) is only too happy to be reaching down from the air to help their brethren on the ground however they can in the counter-IED fight both in Iraq and Afghanistan – using Prowlers, Hornets, Harriers to spot roadside bombs or blow them up.
But the Air Force is starting the grumble about this unglamorous work.
A former Defense News colleague of mine pulled out some interesting quotes from a speech delivered by Air Force Air Combat Command chief, Gen. Ron Keys, last week whining about the “effectiveness” of aerial observation by his jets in pinpointing IEDs.
Aerospace Daily’s Mike Fabey reports:
Using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and pod-equipped combat jets to find improvised explosive devices (IEDs) is often a misuse of time and resources, said U.S. Air Force Gen. Ronald Keys, commander of Air Combat Command.
Often, requests for airborne surveillance are based on the assumption that such aircraft help find IEDs and save ground forces from such attacks, he said. Certain military leaders feel they need the full-motion video feeds to locate the explosives. The truth, he said, is much different.
Based on Air Force analysis, the number of IEDs found by UAVs, surveillance aircraft or combat jets outfitted with advanced targeting pods per 100,000 flight hours is very low, according to Keys. "It's a waste," Keys said June 20 during a morning keynote speech at the Transformation Warfare 07 conference and exhibit in Virginia Beach, Va…
…Keys said ACC has developed a "concept of deployment" to help fight IEDs that is air-centric "to a certain point." Without going into specifics, he said, "We ought to be attacking the system - to the left of 'the bang,'" meaning the process before the IED is emplaced. What needs to be looked at is the network, "not the thing that's buried out there," he said.
Flying pod-outfitted F-16s up and down streets no one will be on for another 12 hours will not help the IED fight, he said. Looking for buried IEDs in Iraq in that fashion is not the best way to stop attacks. "It's a junkyard out there," he said, adding there are too many false positives.
Sounds like the Air Force wants to tell ground commanders to shove it when they call for “eyes on” a hotspot.
The statistics can be manipulated to say anything the Air Force wants, but experience shows infrared targeting pod-equipped aircraft of any kind – on a normal close air support patrol – are invaluable in the IED fight for units maneuvering their way through insurgent strongholds. It’s like radioing for a 500 pounder … but a lot less lethal.
When a patrol sees a potential IED, the call goes up to any aircraft within range to scan the area with their IR scope. The components of an IED give off heat, making it pretty easy for the jet to give some reassurance that the pile of bricks is a trap or just that: a pile of bricks. The IED is then either bypassed or another call goes out for the explosive ordnance disposal unit to dismantle the bomb.
Instead of lending this passive helping hand, Keys wants to attack the system “to the left of the bang” – in other words, he wants to destroy the factory, the trigger man or the explosive storage areas with bombs of his own.
That’s pretty sexy stuff and makes for better headlines (if anyone bothers to report it). But with the Air Force’s recent bad press on civilian deaths in Afghanistan, it might be worth keeping the non-lethal counter-IED mission on the front burner, pulling the “left of the bang” card out only in extreme circumstances. The grunts will thank Airmen just as well.
When Commander Pavel Chekov asked that question in Star Trek IV, San Francisco’s bay area did indeed still have a robust naval presence that wasn't limited to the aircraft carrier piers across the bay. With the closure of Naval Station Alameda in 1997, however, a big part of the Navy’s presence in the region ended.
Now, some groups are trying to pull the welcome mat out from under Navy tradition, that being the annual navy Blue Angel air show during Fleet Week. Performing their aerial magic every year since 1981, the Blues have continued a treasured (by some) military presence in the San Francisco area, honoring the city and region that was such an important gateway, both outbound to war and inbound for home, for hundreds of thousands of military personnel and naval ships dating back over a hundred years.
“Anti-War Activists Call For End To Annual Blue Angels' Air Show
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- The Navy's Blue Angels may not be welcome in San Francisco. Anti-war activists are calling on San Francisco city officials to bring an end to the annual Fleet Week flyover by the team.
CodePink, Global Exchange and Veterans for Peace are working with Supervisor Chris Daly on a resolution that calls for stopping the popular air show.
Daly says he may introduce a resolution as early as next week that calls for permanently halting the flyovers because "they seem dangerous and unnecessary."
The Pensacola, Florida-based Blue Angels is a team of navy fighter pilots that perform high-speed maneuvers. Fleet Week in San Francisco is scheduled for October.”
In and of itself, this is nothing new. From being THE homecoming port for many returning veterans at the end of the second world war, San Francisco has grown into a hotbed of military revulsion. When a veteran's group tried to bring the retired battleship USS IOWA to the city waterfront as a memorial and museum a few years ago, San Francisco said "NO". If anyone has any question about how many on the city or local government payrolls feel, listen to City Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval, who led the fight against having the battleship brought to the city:
“The United States should not have a military. All in all, we would be in much, much, much better shape.”
When pressed for an answer of how would we defend ourselves, Sandoval said that was what we had cops and the Coast Guard for.
In a more recent example of the turn towards banning any and all things military from the city by the bay, the San Francisco school board last November voted 4-2 to eliminate high school ROTC programs, with proponents of this effort stating:
“We need to teach a curriculum of peace.”, a former teacher, Nancy Mancias
“We don’t want the military ruining our civilian institutions… In a healthy democracy … you contain the military. You must contain the military.” Sandra Schwartz, American Friends Service Committee
“It’s basically a branding program, or a recruiting program for the military,” San Fran Education Board Member Dan Kelly
Thus far, only about 500 signatures have been gathered for the attempt at banning these ambassadors of goodwill. Hopefully, though, this latest effort to further emasculate the military presence in the bay area won’t get any more traction than it has now and the Blues will continue to entertain the many, many thousands who understand and appreciate the sacrifices and dedication of the US military.
This vid is a blast from the past, a Desert Storm-era classic that captures a flight of four F-16s targeted by a salvo of Iraqi SAMs. According to one of the seemingly erudite comment-adders the strike happened on January 19, 1991. The F-16s' targets were nuclear research facilities around Baghdad. Two of the F-16s were shot down. (You can hear Stroke 4 get hit.) Both pilots ejected and became POWs.
The HUD footage is grainy, but if you look closely you can make out the airspeed aligned vertically on the left and the altitude on the right. Heading is horizontally oriented along the top. The F-16 is headed south-ish most of the time, but as the pilot continues to "defend" he also remains over the SAM envelope longer - sort of a "rock and a hard place" situation.
Also, if you look closely you can see the contrails the SAMs leave as they fly toward the American jets. These guys got ambushed, big time.
The UHF comms between the airplanes in this video are intense (they get my heart racing, anyway). Adding to the confusion is the sound of the ALR-67 radar warning receiver. All of this should serve as a reminder to tactical jet aviators (and the procurement machine designed to support them) that while our enemy may not have an integrated air defense at the moment, future foes probably will.
The next bomber in the US Air Force inventory should be stealthy and subsonic. It should travel 2,000-nautical miles to its target and have enough fuel on board to get home. It should carry at least 28 500-pound bombs. And (surprise!) there should be a human pilot on board.
These are the conclusions of the Air Force's recently completed analysis of alternatives for a next-generation bomber to be fielded around 2018.
This is supposed to be a new thing, of course, but those specifications seem strangely familiar.
Anyone remember the A-12 Avenger II? It, too, was a stealthy, subsonic, manned aircraft that blurred the boundary between an attack aircraft and a bomber.
Dick Cheney cancelled the A-12 program on 7 January 1991, just as the bombs started to fall on Baghdad during Operation Desert Storm.
True, the A-12 was conceived as a carrier-based land attack aircraft, but it wasn't entirely a Navy bird. According to our dog-eared copy of Jane's All the World's Aircraft 1991-92, a "USAF A-12" had been proposed as a replacement for the F-111.
The F-111 was designed to carry 24 500-pound bombs and travel 1,800 miles, and it's not unfair to think the proposed USAF variant of the super-secret A-12 would have been very similar in capability.
So, congratulations, taxpayers: Watch the Air Force spend billions of dollars over the next decade for an aircraft that General Dynamics and McDonnell Douglas very nearly delivered to the navy and the air force 15 years ago.
Christian adds:
The Washington Post reported today the law suit between the government, General Dynamics and Boeing Co. that festered for years over the cancellation of the A-12 program has been adjudicated in favor of the government’s position.
The U.S. Court of Federal Claims upheld the government's 1991 decision to terminate the companies' contract for the A-12 radar-evading plane, General Dynamics and Boeing said.
The "contracting officer could have concluded that McDonnell Douglas and General Dynamics had 'no reasonable likelihood' of delivering the aircraft on time as measured by the schedule," Judge Robert H. Hodges wrote in the decision. McDonnell Douglas merged with Boeing in 1997. "We must again uphold the Government's default termination…"
…The debate dates to the eve of the Persian Gulf War in January 1991 when Dick Cheney, who was defense secretary, canceled the program, which was over budget and behind schedule. The Pentagon demanded return of the $1.3 billion it had invested in the plane, and General Dynamics sued, arguing that the real reason for the cancellation was that the Pentagon needed money for the war. No A-12s were ever built.
The case has been in the courts for years and became a symbol for the difficulty of canceling a weapons program. In 2002, the Navy told General Dynamics and Boeing to pay $2.3 billion to settle the case, which the companies refused to do. That demand included $1 billion in interest.
The ambitious F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter program took a huge step last week when the Pentagon’s top acquisition official, Kenneth Krieg, approved of the first low rate production lot for the conventional takeoff and landing version of the aircraft.
Krieg approved money for two new CTOL jets, but more importantly, he also approved funds for long-lead items to produce six of the “jump jet” STOVL versions of the JSF.
That’s got to warm the heart of the Marine Corps, which, as most of you know, decided against the hedge-play the Navy made in buying the F/A-18E/F(and G), instead counting on the STOVL Lightning II to replace their tactical aircraft fleet of AV-8B Harriers.
A couple months ago, the Navy’s top acquisition official, Delores Etter, said the STOVL JSF remains a “top priority” for Navy buyers. Krieg’s move lends weight to the Marines’ case (as does the international pressure to produce the plane). The Corps put all its eggs in one basket and, at least for now, it seems their gamble is paying off.
But the proof is in the pudding. Will the STOVL JSF be able to shrug off its weight problems and other technological roadblocks? Will the Navy continue to funnel scarce resources into a program that the “sea service” may conclude is of marginal importance given continued TacAir integration initiatives and congressional momentum to boost shipbuilding?
We’ll have to stay tuned on that. But at least for now, the Corps can rest a little easier because the money’s there to start building their new jump jets and the program’s international partners have a reason not to cast their eyes about for another alternative.
"A Navy Blue Angel jet crashed during an air show Saturday, plunging into a neighborhood of small homes and trailers and killing the pilot, the county coroner said.
"Witnesses said the planes were flying in formation during the show at the Marine Corps Air Station and one dropped below the trees and crashed, sending up clouds of smoke. At least one home was on fire."
Early reports say it was Blue Angel No. 6 that crashed, and presumably LCDR Kevin Davis was piloting that F/A-18 Hornet.
This is part of LCDR Davis' bio from the Blue Angels site:
"Kevin reported to Fighter Squadron 101 (VF-101) at NAS Oceana, Virginia, for training in the F-14 Tomcat and was the Top Stick in his class. In July 2000 he reported to the VF-11 Red Rippers where he completed deployments aboard the aircraft carriers USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) and USS John F. Kennedy (CV 67). While with the Red Rippers, Kevin served as the airframes/corrosion branch officer, air-to-ground training officer and head landing signals officer. His deployments included extended operations in the North Arabian Sea and Arabian Gulf in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.
"In July 2003, Kevin transitioned to the F/A-18 Hornet through Strike Fighter Squadron 125 (VFA-125) at NAS Lemoore, California, and then reported to the Fighter Composite Squadron (VFC-12) Omars, stationed at NAS Oceana, Virginia. While at VFC-12, Kevin served as a Navy adversary pilot providing valuable air-to-air training for fleet squadrons. In December of 2004, Kevin graduated from the United States Navy Fighter Weapons School (TOPGUN) as an adversary pilot. During his tour at VFC-12, Kevin worked as the schedules officer, legal officer, FRS/SFARP officer and assistant operations officer.
"Kevin joined the Blue Angels in September 2005. He has accumulated more than 2,500 flight hours and 200 carrier arrested landings."
Defense Tech passes its deepest sympathies to Kevin's family and the rest of the Blues.
-- Ward
Sad End to a Sad Week
We too often get caught up in the marvel of watching these select men and women fly and we forget that these aviators run the risk gauntlet much like those out in the fleet. Indeed, during the show the narrarator emphasizes that the flight maneuvers and displays are symbolic and representative of those maneuvers that are needed when flying from a forward deployed carrier.
The aircrew realize this, as well. Prior to any recap during a debrief, when their turn comes up to speak, the Blue Angel pilots start off their comments with a "Glad to be here, Boss", an acknowledgement to their commanding officer that they are aware of the fact that they are indeed fortunate to represent the Navy and the United States in this venue and they recognize their comrades who are flying on the pointy tip of the spear around the world, without the crowds and the adulation that goes along with being a flight demonstration pilot, be it Blue Angel or Thunderbird or Snow Bird or Red Arrow or any of the teams.
Don't forget to say a prayer this evening for the pilot's family.
The US Air Force has just issued a rather innocuous-looking notice for a new technology called "active combustion control." But this is quite a momentous development, and here's why.
Today, the Air Force has two kinds of warplanes that can survive in combat in which fighters and bombers have to compete with integrated air defenses as well as increasingly sophisticated enemy fighters.
One is the Northrop Grumman B-2A bomber. It's relatively slow, but super-stealthy. It can fly for a long time and drop a lot of weapons.
The other is the Lockheed Martin F-22A. It's extremely fast and also super-stealthy. But it doesn't fly for very long without refueling and can carry only a couple of strike weapons (okay, eight if your talking about the Small Diameter Bomb).
The missing link is a single aircraft as nimble as the F-22, as long-range as the B-2 and as at least as stealthy as both. In short, it's the dream warplane for every gadget-hearting Air Force general.
This melding is the basic concept for what the Air Force now calls the "Next Generation Long Range Strike Aircraft." It's supposed to be ready to enter service by 2018 to 2020.
The trick to meeting this schedule is for some company to come up with the next breakthrough in aircraft engine technology. The breakthrough is called "active combustion control," which is just a fancy name for integrating a fuel injector into an aircraft's propulsion system.
Aircraft engines using active combustion controls should be able to fly longer distances at a lower rate of fuel consumption.
With today's engine technology, the flow of gas into the combustion chamber is fairly unrestricted, which is not very efficient. Many years ago, the automotive industry fixed this problem with fuel injectors, and now the aerospace industry wants to make a similar leap -- although at a far greater level of sophistication, of course.
It's a new spin on an old concept. In the past, aircraft designers used variable-geometry wings (think: F-111, F-14, and B-1) to be more efficient in high-speed and cruise-speed. With active combustion controls, the goal is to reconfigure the engine instead of the airframe to be optimal in both states.
The Navy’s Buckeyes have flown a combined 3.4 million hours, making it one of the Navy’s most used jets. Since its introduction to the fleet in 1959, nearly every Naval aviator trained in Pensacola flew the Buckeye in preparation for aircraft carrier landings.
This particular aircraft was 27 years old and "service life issues" is one of the determining factors in the grounding. Fuselage or wing fatigue concerns are a very definite question in the aircraft, and the fact that the C-model is the air-to-air version of the F-15 and this particular Eagle was engaged in ACM when the mishap occurred makes a fleet grounding apropos until inspections can be made.
4.5th generation fighter, and the Saudis are purchasing 72 of the for either £6bn (or £ 4.43bn, depending on the news site,or €6.4 billion or about $8-12bn USD) which is part of a larger £20bn arms deal between the Saudi government and the British defense contractor BAE Systems.
short and medium range IR and radar missiles, anti-ship missiles, laser guided bombs, laser designating pod, internal gun, the works) to meet any mission requirement, the jet is one sweet machine. I just wonder about its stealth abilities against enemy radars with that big delta wing and those huge square intakes.
11, based on board USS Nimitz on August 1, though, the "on board" became "airborne" as the change of command with outgoing CAG Captain David Woods occurred in two F/A-18 Hornets passing overhead the ship.
Fighter planes from Britain and Norway scrambled on Friday to keep watch on Russian bombers that were approaching the countries' air space, officials said.
