An Insider's View of CSAR-X

I got an interesting email yesterday from a combat veteran CSAR pilot. He makes some good points on the whole debate over the current CSAR-X requirements and protest, and I'd like to share them with DT readers with his permission:

(From retired Lt. Col. Charles D. Brown, former CSAR HH-53 pilot and veteran of the Vietnam evacuation and Mayaguez rescue)

The major issue in the contract comes from in the change from 'mission' ready to 'flight' ready. As a retired Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) pilot I can tell you that the seemingly insignificant difference between 'flight ready' and 'mission ready' is anything but insignificant. So, a bit of explanation. Boeing's Chinook can be 'flight' ready in the 3 hours it takes to put the helicopter back together after being off loaded from a C-17. But, 'flight ready' simply means that it can be flown on a formal maintenance check flight to verify that all the flight controls work exactly as necessary. To get the heavy-lift, Chinook into a C-17, you have to disconnect flight controls and remove major flight components. When you put it back together, you have to have a specially qualified flight crew take the aircraft up on a functional check flight before the aircraft can be used for a mission.

This maintenance check flight is supposed to happen in daylight and in good visual flight weather. Off load the Chinook at night or in bad weather, or have something go amiss during reassembly, and you might wait a day or two to have a 'mission ready' aircraft.

The Chinook is a good cargo helicopter. We need it’s heavy lift capability in our helicopter fleet. A CSAR helicopter must carry survivors, a basic crew and weapons— but heavy lift and large size is not a requirement for CSAR. It’s all about not being shot down. CSAR is about flying low over hostile enemy territory. You are there to 'sneak in, grab survivors fast, and get the hell out' before the enemy knows you have been there. That’s will be more difficult to achieve with a larger, noisier helicopter. Then there’s the challenge of finding a landing zone big enough to accommodate a helicopter the size of the Chinook, landing being preferable to using a hoist, especially if there are multiple people to pick up.

In short, the difference between “flight ready” and “mission ready” is a major issue. Anyone who has flown helicopters knows that they are maintenance intensive. The helicopter that meets mission requirements with the fewest maintenance and check flight requirements is a winner. Speed counts in getting CSAR on scene. Less time for the enemy to search for survivors and prepare anti aircraft fire for the CSAR they know is coming. It's a big deal to the squadron and the pilots trying to fly the mission, and a really big deal to the downed, possibly injured warfighter caught behind enemy lines.

Survivors are in a life-or-death situation where every minute counts, and any delays that might be required to get a Chinook 'mission ready' from 'flight ready' are unacceptable. If the military requirements are for a helicopter that can be airlifted by cargo aircraft to a theater and be rapidly mission ready, I'm happy the Air Force didn't opt to overlook this 'technicality' and I suspect families, like mine, with loved ones in Iraq are too.

-- Christian

More CSAR-X Delays

Our friends at Aviation Week sent this story over to us for posting. My former colleague Mike Fabey has been covering this issue backwards and forwards. With all the tanker dancing going on, it's instructive to remember Boeing's dealing with another major headache, this time in the rotor world.

Under a Defense Department Inspector General (IG) investigation and more intense source selection scrutiny, the Air Force's $15 billion combat, search and rescue replacement helicopter (CSAR-X) program is further delaying its planned contract award.

The IG announced its investigation about a month ago into the way the Air Force changed a key performance parameter (KPP) change for deployability (Aerospace DAILY, Feb. 25).

Late last month the Air Force notified bidders Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Sikorsky that the sixth amendment to the request for proposals (RFP) - in essence, a new RFP - will be released some time in the spring, with an award to follow in October. The service explained the delay by saying it needed more time to evalute the very detailed proposals. A Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) meeting on the program is likely to take place a month or so before the downselect.

Last fall Air Force officials expressed the hope that the award would be made by the summer. The CSAR-X work already has been delayed more than a year - and it has been on the Air Force drawing board since the previous decade.

Initially, Boeing won the contract with its HH-47 Chinook variant. But Lockheed Martin and Sikorsky protested the award twice, with the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) sustaining both on the basis of how the Air Force calculated certain lifecycle costs for the proposed aircraft.

Now added in the mix is the IG investigation into the KPP change. As first reported by Aerospace DAILY, the Air Force changed a crucial bit of wording in the requirement, saying that a disassembled CSAR-X helicopter had to be only "flight" ready - instead of "mission" ready - within three hours. The Air Force said it vetted the change properly, but its own documents call that assertion into question.
Air Force officials told Congress that Lockheed Martin had asked for the change, but the service's own documents show the service had made the change prior to when it said Lockheed suggested a wording clarification. Lockheed said it never asked for any such change.

Boeing would have likely benefited most from such a wording change, analysts said. Boeing said it never requested the KPP change, but the company acknowledged a briefing with the Air Force in April 2005 - shortly before the service made the change - in which deployability times apparently were discussed.

Read more about the CSAR-X delays, F-22 stealth problems, and Euro drones from our friends at Aviation Week.

-- Christian

The Forces Against Tanker Win Gather

I got an email from a congressional source in Rep. Norm Dicks' (D-Wash.) office over the weekend that foreshadows the upcoming fight on the Hill over giving those rotten Frenchies and their Euro pals billions of U.S. tax dollars for something red-blooded Americans can build better themselves (or that's what the anti-NorGrum/EADS forces are probably thinking deep down).

Attached is the letter that Sen. McCain sent to Robert Gates as he was being confirmed ... saying that the competition should not include a consideration of the WTO dispute. The result was that the Air Force a month later dropped the provision in the draft RFP that would have attempted to account for the subsidy that the USTR is alleging has gone into the A330 program. That was one of the key changes that ultimately cleared the way for the EADS-Northrop win.

Protectionism cloaked in legalistic trade jargon seems to be the first salvo fired by Boeing backers so far -- unless you count former presidential hopeful Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) who threw in a little Cold War redbaiting by basically describing EADS/Airbus as a "socialist" government-supported monopoly.

Reuters pulled the issue together well over the weekend, and I'll bet you a million bucks whoever is facing McCain in the general election will blame him for losing American jobs by scuttling the Boeing lease deal and hinting in a letter to Sec. Gates that the Air Force might be attempting to negate the A330's edge on cargo capacity (the letter was supplied by the Dicks source).

Stay tuned folks. You think the CSAR-X deal/protest was a hot one? This KC-X debate is going to get worse before it gets any better.

-- Christian

KC-X...And the Winner Is!

BREAKING NEWS:Northrop Grumman/EADS...the KC-45/A330.

Huge win for US/EU team.

-- Christian

MORE:

Pentagon picks EADS/Northrop for tanker contract: report (AFP)

The Pentagon has chosen Europe's EADS, parent of Airbus, and US partner Northrop Grumman for a massive refueling tanker aircraft contract, the Wall Street Journal said Friday.

The newspaper, citing a person familiar with the situation, said the partnership won a heated contest against US-based aerospace giant Boeing for the contract of some 40 billion dollars.

Boeing, the second leading US defense contractor after Lockheed Martin, has been considered the heavy favorite to snare the contract to provide 179 twin-engine planes that essentially are flying gas stations, used to refuel in-flight war planes and troop transporters.

The contract is one of the Pentagon's largest in recent years and the first order on a tanker market estimated at more than 100 billion dollars in over 30 years.

The outcome of the competition is being closely watched not just because of the enormous size of the contract. There are domestic and geopolitical implications at issue in the US Air Force's choice between an all-American contractor or a mainly US team that includes a foreign contractor.

An EADS victory would give the European firm its first major foothold in the world's largest defense market.

Boeing proposed a version of its long-haul cargo plane the 767-200.

EADS offered a modified version of the Airbus 330. The commercial plane would be militarized by Northrop Grumman and its American partners to prevent the transfer of sensitive technology to a foreign entity.

KC-X Decision!...Not

Friday's the big day, it seems. An insider tells me the decision has been made, but that the memorandum is making its way around the Pentagon to get all the signatures it needs.

Our boy Steve Trimble reports that Northrop Grumman shares went up slightly today while Boeing shares went down (NorGrum is partnered with EADS/Airbus against Boeing). A stock trader buddy of mine (who has no inside knowledge on this contract award at all but it's still a good point nonetheless) says "why do you think the entire military drives Chevy and Ford trucks?" That is to say, there ain't no way a European company will win the bid.

I'm not so sure I agree...But we'll keep you posted.

Tanker Announcement Expected Friday: U.S. Official

WASHINGTON, Feb 27 (Reuters) - The U.S. Air Force's top weapons buyer said on Wednesday her best bet was that the winner of a potential $40 billion refueling aircraft contract would be announced after U.S. markets close on Friday.

"That's my best bet for now," Sue Payton, assistant secretary for acquisition, told Reuters after a hearing of the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee on the Air Force 2009 budget request.

Boeing Co. is vying for the contract against a team made up of Northrop Grumman Corp and Europe's EADS.

"It's absolutely not going to happen today," Payton said. "We're really making sure all the 'i's' are dotted and 't's' are crossed."

Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne earlier told Reuters he hoped an award would be announced "any day now," once the Pentagon's top weapons buyer, John Young, has signed off on he plan to buy 179 tankers, used to extend warplanes' operating range.

"You don't have a decision until all the paperwork is done and complete," Wynne said during a break in testimony to the House panel.

The Air Force presented its acquisition plan on Monday to a top-level panel chaired by Young, the deputy undersecretary for acquisitions. (Reporting by Jim Wolf, editing by Mark Porter)

-- Christian

Stealth Bomber Down!

For the first time in its history, a B-2 has crashed. The mishap happened as the bombed was attempting to take off from a base in Guam. Both pilots ejected safely. Here's part of the report from Military.com:

The aircraft was taking off with three others on their last flight out of Guam after a four-month deployment, part of a continuous U.S. bomber presence in the western Pacific. After the crash, the other three bombers were being kept on Guam, said Maj. Eric Hilliard at Hickham Air Force Base in Hawaii.

At least one B-2 bomber had taken off safely from Andersen Air Force Base but was brought back when another aircraft plunged to the ground.

There were no injuries on the ground or damage to buildings, and no munitions were on board. Each B-2 bomber costs about $1.2 billion to build.

Thick, black smoke could be seen billowing from the wreckage at Andersen, said Jeanne Ward, a resident in the northern village of Yigo who was on the base visiting her husband.

Ward said she didn't witness the crash but noticed a rising plume of smoke behind the base's air control tower.

She said crowds began to gather as emergency vehicles arrived. "Everybody was on their cell phones, and the first thing everyone wanted to know was did the pilots make it out in time," she said.

The Air Force, without identifying the pilots, said one was medically evaluated and released, and the other was in stable condition at Guam Naval Hospital.

Read the entire article here.

-- Ward

Winner -Take-All Tanker Deal Criticized

The Northrop Grumman/EADS North America team is clearly happy to have something new to talk about with regard to its Airbus A330-based tanker. The team made the first dry contact with the new EADS-designed boom during a Dec. 10 flight test.

The first photo (both of which are from EADS) below shows the F-16 aircraft in receiver position lining up behind the A310 test platform. And, the second photo shows a close up of the contact.

Paul Meyer, Northrop Grumman's KC-30 vice president, says the purpose of the test was to validate the design of the boom and its hoist and control system. Operators also used the remote workstation onboard the aircraft to control the boom. The hoist caused some earlier problems for the team.

Yet, the team is mum on future milestones. A date to pass fuel in midair through the boom on the A310 to a receiver hasn't been announced (fuel has been passed on the ground). Nor has a target date been acknowledged for passing gas through the A330-based Australian Multi-Role Tanker Transport to a receiver aircraft. Those are to come.

One thing Meyer isn't quiet about is his apparent frustration with the Air Force's decision for a winner-take-all downselect instead of a split buy between the Airbus- and Boeing 767-based designs. He had a handful of reasons why the split-buy strategy makes sense.

There's industrial base, for one. Meyer says that the relationship between Northrop Grumman and EADS North America isn't going to hold to the next competition; USAF plans to conduct a competition for a KC-10 replacement, called KC-Y, in 2018. "We are not going to sit here and hold on this current arrangement with EADS for 10 years for the hope that there might be an acquisition program when there isn't one as a program of record today."

Furthermore, Meyer says the talk among senior Air Force leaders about ramping up a potential KC-X buy -- now between 12-18 aircraft per year up to a total purchase of 179 aircraft -- is "confusing." Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne and others are pushing for the White House and Congress to boost the Air Force's topline procurement budget by about $20 billion per year, mostly to buy higher quantities of F-22s, F-35s and tankers sooner and to retire the legacy airframes more quickly.

"The RFP is 15 per year, plus or minus three. There have been general officers who have made statements that we'd like to accelerate and increase the annual buy to buy out the whole fleet," Meyer says. "You can't say that and say there is a KC-Y as well, can you? The statements don't logically match up."

Keep up to date on the USAF tanker deal from our Aviation Week friends at Miliary.com.

-- Christian

More Ospreys in Action

In spite of what the Marine Corps has labeled as "an aggressive media silence" around VMM-263's performance in Iraq (couched in "force protection" terms), photos are trickling out that provide evidence of the following:

- The "Thunder Chickens" are flying.

- The area they're flying over is light brown without much, if any, vegitation.

- For some of the sorties the Ospreys are outfitted with a ramp-mounted gun.

To add anything else would be conjecture and journalistically irresponsible. (And you know we hate that.) So just enjoy the cool photos.

(Gouge: KS)

-- Ward

Dogfight Over C-17s and Raptors

The top two U.S Air Force leaders lobbied Capitol Hill for their service Oct. 24, suggesting lawmakers help extend the F-22 Raptor production line with 20 more of the Lockheed Martin fighters than currently budgeted.

Seeking to bolster the Air Force as lawmakers hammer out fiscal 2008 defense legislation and the Bush administration mulls its FY '09 request, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne and Gen. T. Michael Moseley, Air Force chief of staff, further indicated their desire for more Boeing C-17s, retirement of Lockheed C-5As and for the service's ability to take over the Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA) program from the Army.

Wynne and Moseley told the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) that they do not want any ongoing production lines to close, and in fact they hope to increase the number of F-22s until the Lockheed-led F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is well into production. They acknowledged their proposal was deemed unfeasible by the Office of Secretary of Defense, which apparently said it could "break the bank."

Alluding to concerns with slower rollout of the two fighters under current plans, Wynne noted that Air Combat Command's requirement for 381 F-22s is unchanged despite plans for only 183 now. Meanwhile, requirements for 1,763 JSFs would be met only incrementally until 2025.

Read the rest of this Aviation Week story HERE.

-- Christian

Switching JCA to USAF Would Hike Costs

Gen. Richard Cody, Army vice chief of staff, says turning the Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA) program into a single acquisition and operation platform under the Air Force would mean significant cost increases.

Cody spoke in response to questions from Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

Cody also sent Levin a copy of the Oct. 9 appeal to restore authorization for JCA funding to the Army aircraft procurement account.

"A switch to a single service will necessitate a significant and time-consuming update to all documentation and could possibly result in Nunn-McCurdy implications," Cody said in his mid-October letter.

When Pentagon program cost increases exceed a certain set amount, the services have to notify Congress they have breached so-called Nunn-McCurdy limits.

Levin had asked the Army to explain the need for a joint JCA program.

"Program documentation and activities to date have been based on an Army-led joint process. If this program were to revert to an Air Force only program, the validity of these documents and decisions will come into question," Cody wrote. "Additionally, there are three primary areas of near-term focus that will delay the program if a service switch is made. These three areas are: the acquisition program execution and documentation; the test program; and the training/fielding activity."

The Army is also currently providing 75 percent of the acquisition execution personnel, Cody pointed out. It will take "upwards of a year" for the Air Force to get the necessary staff in place to replace the Army force.

"The documentation is of particular importance with respect to the acquisition approach," Cody wrote. "This documentation ... defines the acquisition program baseline. This baseline is currently defined with the program being an Army-centric activity joint program." Cody also said the testing is now scheduled around Army processes, procedures and resources.

Cody said the key operational differences between Army and Air Force JCA fleets would not be in the airframe, but in how the aircraft would be used.

The Air Force would use the aircraft to supplement C-130s and other overall airlift needs. The Army is responsible for getting materials and service members to the last tactical mile -- where speed, not necessarily efficiency, is of the utmost importance. Many of the JCA missions would be executed with 24 hours notice or less, Cody said.

-- Aviation Week

Osprey at War

Although the Marines have been keeping a tight lid on what's going on with the Osprey since VMM-263 arrived at al Assad a couple of weeks ago, our inside sources relay that after a couple of sorties in country it's "so far, so good."

Here's a photo of the "Thunder Chickens" readying for launch from the USS Wasp:

And here's a shot of a V-22 launching off the front end of Wasp after a "rolling go," the launch method of choice for the Osprey. (From the look of the mountains in the background I'd say this photo was taken off the coast of Oman in the Straits of Hormuz.) According to Navy NewsStand, this photo was taken in the Gulf of Aqaba.

(Official U.S. Navy photos)

-- Ward

Next President's Tricked-Out Supercopter

From our friends at Popular Mechanics:

Even the president's ride can be hot-rodded. That's the best way to describe the 23 choppers scheduled to replace the current fleet of Marine One VH-3Ds and VH-60Ns. Outfitted with a kitchen, a bathroom and a White House-worthy high-speed communications suite, the VH-71 is closer in capabilities (and amenities) to Air Force One than to its short-hop predecessors.

Development of the VH-71, which had its first test flight in Yeovil, England, in July, was accelerated following the Sept. 11 attacks, with Lockheed Martin promising five production models by 2009. The remaining choppers, due by 2018, will include even more communications systems and performance boosts.

Read the rest of the Popular Mechanics story on the VH-71 HERE.

-- Christian

C-5 Upgrade Costs Climb

The Air Force senior leadership confirmed Monday that the estimated cost for upgrading the C-5 Galaxy fleet is far above what contractor Lockheed Martin has contracted for - a circumstance that may threaten the future of the upgrade program.

"We see the disparity [in the figures] and we see that no matter whose costs you use the cost of the program is going to go up through at least the 15 percent if not the 25 percent, which requires a Nunn-McCurdy announcement," Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne said Monday at the Air Force Association symposium in Washington, D.C.

Under the Nunn-McCurdy Pentagon budget statute, a cost overrun of 25 percent or more requires the Defense Department to make a case for keeping the program alive. To do that it has to show the program is critical to national security, that there is no other viable alternative, and the department must demonstrate that the problems that caused the overruns are under control.

Former senior Air Force leaders have said the Air Force may use the cost breach to justify killing the C-5 program. The program to re-engine the giant cargo carrier and also upgrade the avionics has been estimated to cost about $13 billion.

Air Force officials said the service is trying to reconcile the costs now, and intends to give Lockheed its "best shot" at showing it can do the program within cost. Lockheed has previously said it could do the re-engining work for about $83 million per plane.

But former senior Air Force officials and others report that the service thinks it will actually cost up to $119 million per plane.

Both Air Force chief Gen. Mike Moseley and Wynne say they are now trying to explain to Congress and the Defense Department that a formal announcement of contract breach could be coming. The two have made no secret of the fact they'd like to get rid of at least some C-5s, but Congress to date has made that impossible by requiring the service to keep the entire existing fleet intact.

"Right now there are two laws on the books which we are complying with," Wynne said. "One is to finish the testing on the airplanes [already upgraded] and the other prohibits us from retiring C-5s, and we're in compliance with those."

"If the money sounds right and Congress holds the laws together," he said, "we're going to execute the C-5" program.

-- Bryant Jordan

Osprey on the Way

Our friend Dave Montgomery has a story about the Osprey's first deployment in this morning's Philadelphia Inquirer:

The first combat squadron of tilt-rotor V-22 Ospreys has
quietly set off to Iraq, ushering a new and controversial form of aerial technology into 21st-century warfare. A Marine Corps aviation squadron and 10 Ospreys sailed for Iraq on Monday aboard a small Navy aircraft carrier known as an amphibious assault ship, said a Marine Corps spokesman, Maj. Eric Dent.

The USS Wasp's departure from the New River Marine Corps Air Station near Jacksonville, N.C., was made under tight security with no advance public notice and no ceremonial speeches by Marine Corps officials. "It was just another workday for the squadron," Dent said.

Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 263, nicknamed "The Thunder Chickens," will be based at the Al-Asad Air Base in western Iraq for at least seven months of combat operations.

The Marine Corps Ospreys, known as MV-22s, will be used to ferry Marines as well as cargo throughout the predominantly Sunni Anbar province. Dent, citing "operational security," offered limited details about the deployment and said he was not allowed to discuss the timetable of the trip or scheduled arrival in Iraq. The V-22s could conceivably leave the Wasp en route and fly the rest of the way.

The "rest of the way" is presumably whatever distance remains once the Wasp inchops to the Persian Gulf . . . a couple hundred miles at best (or worst).

DT readers will remember the discussion here months ago about whether or not VMM-263 would "self deploy," which is to say, fly over with tanker support. A Boeing official told us that after the program's experience translanting two airplanes to the Farnborough Air Show -- with one having to divert to Iceland enroute -- the powers that be elected to use the traditional "fly aboard the amphib" method to get the squadron to theater.

Godspeed to the "Thunder Chickens." We'll be watching with great interest.

-- Ward

Are We Seeing the Next-Gen Bomber?

A Defense Tech reader threw this little story my way late yesterday. I'm not too up to speed on the X-48B program, but from NASA's description, it looks as if this design could be incorporated into any future long-range bomber.

The idea that the blended-wing concept takes advantage of aerodynamic stability at trans-sonic speeds, low noise signatures and incorporates greater payloads than competing designs seems to say "bomber" to me.

NASA says...

One of the latest cutting-edge experimental aircraft, or X-Planes, the X-48B blended-wing body is a collaborative effort of the Boeing Co., NASA's Fundamental Aeronautics Program, and the Air Force Research Laboratory. The 21-foot wingspan, 500-pound, remotely piloted plane is designed to demonstrate the viability of the blended wing shape. And demonstrate it has.

After completion of six flights, the X-48B team began a four-week maintenance and modification period during which removable leading edges with extended slats are being replaced with slatless leading edges in order to mimic a slats-retracted configuration. The change requires a software update to the flight control software. In addition, the team is removing and replacing all of the aircraft's flight control actuators for maintenance purposes.

NASA is interested in the potential benefits of the aircraft - increased volume for carrying capacity, efficient aerodynamics for reduced fuel burn, and, possibly, significant reductions in noise due to propulsion integration options. In these initial flights, the principal focus is to validate prior research on the aerodynamic performance and controllability of the shape, including comparisons of flight test data with the extensive database gathered in the wind tunnels at NASA's Langley Research Center in Virginia.

The Subsonic Fixed-Wing Project, part of NASA's Fundamental Aeronautics Program, has long supported the development of the blended wing body concept. It has participated in numerous collaborations with Boeing, as well as several wind tunnel tests for different speed regimes. The team is focused on researching the low-speed characteristics of the design and expanding its flight envelope beyond the limits of current capabilities.

In addition to hosting the X-48B flight test and research activities, NASA Dryden is providing engineering and technical support -- expertise garnered from years of operating cutting-edge air vehicles. NASA assists with the hardware and software validation and verification process, the integration and testing of the aircraft systems, and the pilot's ground control station. NASA's range group provides critical telemetry and command and control communications during the flight, while the flight operations group provides a T-34 chase aircraft and essential flight scheduling. Photo and video support complete the effort.

The composite-skinned, 8.5 percent scale vehicle can to fly up to 10,000 feet and 120 knots in its low-speed configuration. The aircraft is flown remotely from a ground control station by a pilot using conventional aircraft controls and instrumentation, while looking at a monitor fed by a forward-looking camera on the aircraft.

Up to 25 flights are planned to gather data in these low-speed flight regimes. Then, the X-48B may be used to test the aircraft's low-noise and handling characteristics at transonic speeds.

Two X-48B research vehicles were built by Cranfield Aerospace Ltd., in England, in accordance with Boeing specifications. The vehicle that flew on July 20, known as Ship 2, was also used for ground and taxi testing. Ship 1, a duplicate, was used for the wind tunnel tests. Ship 1 is available for use as a backup during the flight test program.

(Gouge: BD)

-- Christian

Persistent Eye in the Sky

Beware the all-seeing eye.

You know, I remember seeing a few of these in Afghanistan back in ’04. The troops at Bagram joked that the only reason these surveillance aerostats were tethered above was to keep an eye on frisky co-eds and boozing Netherlanders.

But as Gen. David Petraeus describes his plans for the future force posture in Iraq – one of increasing “overwatch” and support – it only makes sense that Iraq will look more and more like the Israeli border. You can do a lot of surveillance without a lot of manpower using these aerostats, leaving your manpower for quick reaction and the real kinetic kind of stuff.

Raytheon:

Raytheon Company has been awarded a $5 million U.S. Army contract option to provide Rapid Aerostat Initial Deployment (RAID) Mobile Eagle Eye tower systems to protect U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq.

The contract calls for nine Mobile Eagle Eye elevated sensor systems with deliveries beginning in February 2008. Work will be performed at Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems' Integrated Air Defense Center, Andover, Mass., and at the Warfighter Protection Center, Huntsville, Ala.

"The equipment Raytheon is providing to support U.S. military operations is helping to save the lives of our warfighters," said Pete Franklin, vice president, National & Theater Security Programs, for Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems. "The joint Raytheon and U.S. government team takes great pride in rapidly delivering this critical capability to our soldiers."

Raytheon first developed RAID to meet the military's increasingly critical need for persistent surveillance in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. RAID consists of infrared sensor systems and ground-based motion detection radars, elevated on a stationary platform, capable of detecting hostile troop and equipment movement at great distances. This capability enables U.S. and coalition forces to respond rapidly to threatening situations.

(Gouge: NC)

-- Christian

Bears R Us

Author's Note: An error that appeared in the below text regarding Russian air-to-air refueling capabilities has been amended to reflect the author's (me, in other words) original intent. Apologies go out from Defense tech and the author for this inadvertent yet gargantuan transposition of terms. The corrected text appears below in bold type. Thanks.

Taking a look at the picture to the right, you'd be excused if you thought it was taken in the mid 1980's.

It was taken in Sept of last year and there are many more of these photos lately.

A little less than a month ago Former Soviet KGB head and current Russian President Vlad Putin told the world that the Russians would, after a 15 year hiatus, begin long range reconnaissance flights again with their strategic bomber assets, most notably the Tu-95 Bear.

Whether or not this will mean anything in the long term of geostrategic military hegemony or is just a flexing of an increasingly atrophied strategic recon arm remains to be seen. The Bear, however, is the characteristic icon of these flights, with US and allied intercepts occurring around the world - in the Indian Ocean, along the US east coast, in the western Pacific, around the North Cape of Norway and many points in-between.

The Bear, first slipping the surly bonds of earth in the early to mid 1950's, remains Russia's premier strategic long range bomber. Powered by 4 BIG Kuznetsov NK-12MV turboprops (pumping out 14,795 shaft-horsepower (shp) each - by comparison, the C-130 and P-3 aircraft's Allison T56 turbo props generate only 4,600 shp each), the bug bomber can reach speeds up to 525 mph, making it one of the fastest prop aircraft in the world and definitely the fastest BIG prop-driven aircraft.

Comparisons are somewhat moot with the US's aged long-range strategic bomber, the B-52, which was discussed here on DT with its upgraded avionics system. I say moot because while both are big and have a strategic use, that's where the similarities end!

The B-52 has 8 Pratt & Whitney TF33 turbofan engines, pumping out 17,000 lbs of thrust from each engine (compare that to the shaft horsepower of those Bear Kuznetsovs above). Those engines, as smoky as they are at times, can push the BUFF up to 650 mph.

Ranges are somewhat similar, with the Bear reaching out to around 8,200 miles and the BUFF able to make 8,800 miles unrefueled. Both aircraft have air-to-air refueling capabilities, making their true range almost unlimited, however Russian air-refueling tactics, techniques and procedures are far below that of the US and her allies.

There's not much on the unclass side regarding the usage of the big Russian bomber over the years, but it appears that it was never used in any conventional bombing roles, whether in Afghanistan or any other nation where Soviet/Russian hardware was employed. It appears it has been used strictly in a deterrence mode, oftentimes to let the carrier battle group know that it is targeted - after a fashion.

There are about 71 scattered through out Russia (compared to 85 B-52s). Ukraine had some at the dissolution of the USSR, but transferred those back to Moscow as part of a debt reduction deal. India has a few, obtained in the late 80's for long-range reconnaissance and ASW. Like the BUFF, they'll be around for a while.

Some good webpages to get more info are at Global Security and Federation of American Scientists.

--Pinch Paisley

Full Disclosure on CSAR-X

Our thanks goes out to an alert DT reader who brought to our attention a mitigating fact in the ongoing (fueled mostly by the protesting parties) debate over the CSAR-X program.

On August 21, DefenseTech posted a letter forwarded to us written by a former top general in the Air Force search and rescue community who had some pretty harsh words for the source selection officials and the ultimate decision to award Boeing with the CSAR-X contract.

He signed the letter with his name and former rank only. But what he left out is more revealing than what he put in his letter.

It turns out Maj. Gen. Richard Comer (ret.) is the executive vice president of Aerospace Integration Corporation based in Mary Esther, Fl. AIC announced with great glee in February of last year its selection as a partner with Sikorsky to do systems integration work for the company’s HH-92 CSAR-X bid. Both Sikorsky and Lockheed Martin are protesting Boeing’s win.

In Comer’s letter, he outlines his credentials in the opening paragraph, but declines to mention he’s employed by a Sikorsky subcontractor. He impugns the motives of the source selection officials in the Air Force, saying they were probably the victims of “group think” – though he caveated his remarks by saying the officers were conscientious and honest in their decision.

Our reader knows Comer and was stung by his crass assertion without ever revealing that he has a financial interest in Boeing’s demise, “selling his soul for 30 pieces of Sikorsky silver.”

And he raises a very valid point. The source selectors in the DoD are precluded by law from discussing any of their motivations beyond the stated specifications and how the selected aircraft met them. But that hasn’t stopped the protesters from pumping out info to folks like us here at DefenseTech undercutting Boeing’s win and fueling the fire of protest. The government folks can say nothing while the fur is flying.

Sober people can debate the strengths and weaknesses of the Boeing win. We’re agnostic on the issue other than to say that it seems the Air Force picked a heavy lift helicopter for a medium lift job. Hearing the Boeing folks talk about the superior range, speed and payload of the HH-47 was kind of like hearing Boeing say the C-17 is better than the Lockheed Martin C-130…of course, they’re different aircraft in separate classes.

But it’s starting to get to the point where the debate has devolved into the arcane world of defense contracting procedure and who dotted which “i” and crossed what “t” and when. At the same time, America has hundreds of thousands of troops worldwide in combat who will need this capability and it may start getting to the point where the bickering comes at the cost of our troops’ lives.

We want to extend our deep thanks to our readers for providing us important information that helps advance all the stories posted on DefenseTech. It’s difficult for us to read all the comments on each post, so if you have crucial information that can help expand on the posts, please send an email to the EDITOR.

-- Christian

The Navy's Still Jammin'

The Navy has recently awarded a $6.8 million contract to Northrop Grumman to upgrade another three EA-6B Prowler electronic attack aircraft, with a $2 million option for a fourth. The firm has already upgraded 12 Prowlers with the Improved Capability III kits that provide a new crew workstation display and new radar threat detection receiver, among other hardware and software improvements.

These modifications are expected to extend the aircrafts’ usefulness to 2018. By that time the Navy will be flying the Prowler’s replacement, the Boeing/McDonnell Douglas EA-18G Growler, developed from the F/A-18F Super Hornet strike fighter. Significantly, the Marine Corps will continue to fly the EA-6B in the electronic attack role after the Navy has shifted completely to the EA-18G. Rather, the Marines appear to be waiting for an electronic attack variant of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), recently named the Lightning II.

Today the EA-6B is the only electronic attack aircraft flown by the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps. Navy and Marine Prowler squadrons provide Electronic Warfare(EW) support for the Air Force, with Air Force crewmen flying in those aircraft alongside naval aviators.

(The Air Force is believed to be resurrecting a proposed standoff jammer/EW program centered on the venerable B-52 Stratofortress. The last specialized, electronic attack/countermeasures aircraft flown by the Air Force was the EF-111A Raven, which was phased out of service in May 1998. While their EW threat and countermeasures capabilities were similar, the EA-6B was a slower aircraft, but carried three systems operators compared to one in the EF-111A, and could launch anti-radar missiles, which the EF-111A could not.)

The EA-6B Prowler was derived from the Grumman A-6 Intruder all-weather attack aircraft, flown by the Navy and Marine Corps from 1963 to 1996. The specialized, enlarged EA-6B entered Navy-Marine Corps service in 1971. Although the attack and tanker (KA-6D) variants of the Intruder have long been retired, the services continue to operate, support, and upgrade the EA-6B variant, which is flown from all 11 Navy aircraft carriers as well as from land bases. (Marine EA-6Bs have periodically flown from carriers.)

While there could be an electric attack variant of the F-35 JSF, some military officers as well as aviation industry specialists predict that the next-generation electronic countermeasures/attack aircraft will be unmanned -- an EUAV unmanned aerial vehicle that could penetrate and attack enemy air defenses.

-- Norman Polmar

Why the F-35 Will Smoke the Russians

Our friend Harold Hutchison posted another update to his F-35 coverage over at Strategy Page blog...We've cross posted here.

While the F-35 compares favorably to some of the latest European fighters, the natural question emerges: How does it fare against some of Russia's best, particularly the Su-27/30/33/35 and later versions of the MiG-29?

The Su-27 is roughly equivalent to the F-15. Like the F-15, it started out as an air-superiority fighter. However, as the years went on, it also proved to be very capable at ground attack. There have been very few combat tests of the Su-27 family to date. The only one known of is the Ethiopia/Eritrea conflict in 1999-2000, in which it scored at least five kills. The Su-27 family usually has ten weapons pylons, a 30-millimeter cannon, and a combat radius of 1,500 kilometers. The Su-30 is comparable to the F-15E, and has 12 weapons pylons. The Su-30 has been exported to a number of countries, including Venezuela, India, China, and Malaysia. It is arguably the best fighter that the Russians have been exporting, and one of the best in the world. Algeria is acquiring 28 of these planes.

The MiG-29 is a shorter-range fighter, with six weapons pylons, a 30-millimeter cannon, and a combat radius of 700 kilometers. Like the Su-27 family, it started as an air-superiority fighter/interceptor, but it also proved capable of carrying a lot of air-to-ground ordnance. The MiG-29 is flown by a number of countries, including Poland, Russia, India, North Korea, Cuba, and Iran.

What makes both of these planes interesting is their use of an infra-red tracking system. This is often used with the R-73/AA-11 air-to-air missile. The Archer has a range of 20-40 kilometers, depending on the version, and a 16-pound warhead. Another feature of the missile is the ability to work with a helmet-mounted sight (the missile goes for whatever the pilot is looking at). These are impressive systems, enabling a MiG-29 or Su-27 to get in a shot without having to use radar. Still, will they be enough to get a better chance against the F-35 in a fight?

The F-35 has one big advantage over these fighter families from Russia. Its visability, particularly with regards to its vulnerability to being picked up on radar, is very low. While the infra-red systems are an advantage, these fighters still need to be cued in via an airborne radar plane or a ground station, and they will still have trouble picking up the F-35.

The MiG-29 and Su-27, on the other hand, are much more visible on radar. In essence, the F-35 still retains the advantage it holds over the Eurofighter, Rafale, and Gripen: It will see its targets long before its targets see it. And that will enable it to get in the first shots. With missiles like the AMRAAM and AIM-9X, the F-35 will be very likely to kill its targets before they even know an F-35 is in the area. In essence, the F-35 will have the best Russian planes outperformed, and it gets worse when one realizes that the United States Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps will combine for more F-35s than there are Flankers and Fulcrums in service.

-- Harold Hutchison

Next-Gen Blackhawk is Born

From Defense Tech friend Bob Cox over at the Fort Worth Star-Telegram's Sky Talk blog...

(Photo: Sikorsky)

Vought Aircraft said it has delivered the first cabin for the Army's new generation UH-60M Blackhawk helicopter to Sikorsky Aircraft. The M-model, featuring souped up cockpit avionics, new engines and rotor blade design will be the Army's workhorse troop transport, utility and medical evacuation helicopter for the next 20 or 30 years.

The Army expects to buy some 1,200 of the M-model Blackhawk as it phases out its older A and L models. Sikorsky began Blackhawk production in 1978 with more than 3,000 of the aircraft in use worldwide.

Vought won a contract from Sikorsky and began production of Blackhawk cabins at its Dallas plant in 2005. To date the company has built 55 cabins, 39 Army L-models and 16 Navy S-models. More than 300 people work on the Blackhawk program at the west Dallas plant.

Vought would like to have the Blackhawk cabin work on a long term basis, but Sikorsky will re-bid the program later this year before going to a multi-year production contracts. Chief Executive Elmer Doty, seeking to improve Vought's financial performance, has been trying to negotiate more attractive contracts with its customers.

-- Bob Cox

Senators Drop CSAR-X Letter Bomb on Gates

The CSAR-X debate is heating back up again, with two powerful Senators on the Armed Services Committee telling Pentagon chief Gates they would withhold funds from the new rescue helicopter program until the DoD’s investigation into the procurement process for the controversial aircraft is concluded.

Here’s an excerpt...

“...Complaints by Lockheed Martin Corporation and Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, validated in part by the Government Accountability Office, call into question whether the Air Force has used a capabilities-based approach for this acquisition that is traceable, repeatable and feasible.”

“...We intend to offer an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act that would prohibit expenditure of any funds for the CSAR-X program during fiscal year 2008 until the later of the 60 legislative days after DoD approves the Air Force decision or the DoD provides the congressional defense committees with written notice in accordance with established procedures.”

Read the entire letter obtained by Defense Tech HERE.

Additionally, the Project on Government Oversight’s top investigator on this case – Nick Schwellenbach - posted an interesting analysis on their site the other day...

This March, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne told Lt. General John L. "Jack" Hudson in an email that "I would like to stay with our selection" of Boeing's HH-47 Chinook helicopter for the combat search and rescue helicopter replacement (CSAR-X), according to a protest filing by rival defense contractor Sikorsky.

Lt. General Hudson is in charge of selecting the company that receives the contract for the CSAR-X. Wynne's statement came after the Government Accountability Office (GAO) sustained procurement protests by rivals Sikorsky and Lockheed Martin, and Congress began to scrutinize the CSAR-X program's selection of the Chinook last
November.

In February, the GAO ruled that the Air Force's evaluation of each proposal's costs was not made according to the evaluation criteria made in the contract solicitation. GAO recommended that the Air Force clarify its basis for evaluations and request revised proposals from the competing contractors. The Air Force released an amendment to its CSAR-X request for proposals in May, but has been met with additional protests by Lockheed Martin and Sikorsky for not
addressing the problems found by GAO. The March 3, 2007, email appears to affirm the view of some insiders that the Air Force's response to the GAO is simply a face-saving measure.

Sikorsky quoted Secretary Wynne's email in its July 2, 2007, protest of the Air Force's amended solicitation, which the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) has obtained. Sikorsky obtained the email and other documents from the Air Force, which was responding to Sikorsky's legal actions, according to the protest filing. POGO does not have a copy of the email itself, so it is possible that necessary context has been left out. On its face, however, the partial quote does raise questions about the Air Force's commitment to a fair
and transparent evaluation.

Wynne's email seems consistent with his answers to reporters after his February 28, 2007, congressional testimony before the House Armed Services Committee that he would "like to stay with what we got [referring to the Boeing HH-47] and get this product going as soon as possible." He also stated that the Air Force is considering whether it can take corrective action "more narrowly" than what GAO had recommended, according to a Reuters article (Andrea Shalal-Esa, "US Air Force wants no long delay on new helicopter," February 28, 2007).

"Either the Air Force is serious about fairly and transparently re-evaluating a bungled competition, or they're wasting everyone's time," said POGO Defense Investigator Nick Schwellenbach, who had been investigating the CSAR-X program. "When coupled with the evaluation inconsistencies pointed out by Sikorsky and Lockheed Martin, this email seems to indicate the latter."

And pro-Lockheed/Sikorsky DT fans sent along a copy of a letter addressed to House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee chair John Murtha from former AFSOC bubba, Maj. Gen. Richard Comer, who says:

“I know a couple of the guys who were on the selection board for the CSAR-X and I have talked with them about their thought process. I believe they did their jobs honestly and with a great deal of conscientiousness. I also believe they talked themselves into what they think is the right decision. Still, I disagree, and I believe they got into a ‘group think’ situation and reached the wrong conclusion on what helicopter the Air Force should require…”

Read the entire Comer letter HERE.

Just a little CSAR-X information grab bag for you to chew over and impress your friends during the next cocktail hour conversation.

-- Christian

The F-35 is Worth the Cash

Defense Tech friend and Strategy Page contributor Harold Hutchison sent this quick piece over to us on the Joint Strike Fighter. I’ll post it here as food for thought, and we look forward to Harold’s next post on aviation and other defense-related subjects.

My two cents on the issue is that I tend to agree with his thesis that the JSF is a good buy given its performance and stealth. What he does not address, however, is the likelihood the cost will climb even further if the program’s buy is reduced. Then the cost/performance ratio won’t be as compelling as Harold’s analysis today.

There's rumbling in both Congress and the Pentagon that the STOVL version may get dumped, the Navy won't buy in the numbers they'd previously thought, the Brits may bail...all these events are possible and could throw the value argument out the window. We'll see. But on the face of it, Harold's got a pretty good point. Read on...

Is the F-35 overhyped? That is one question that is being asked in light of both American refusal to release the source code for software, as well as the climbing price (up to $63 million per-plane). The real answer depends on what competing aircraft have to offer.

How does the F-35 compare in the air-to-air mission against likely competitors like the French Rafale, the Swedish Gripen, and the multi-national Eurofighter? All of European planes boast some of the best electronics suites that have ever provided for a combat aircraft. All are capable of high speed (over 2,000 kilometers an hour). All three aircraft carry excellent beyond-visual-range missiles (like the Mica, AMRAAM, and Meteor). All are highly maneuverable. But will they be better than the F-35 in a fight?

The answer, surprisingly, is probably not. The F-35 has one big advantage over these three fighters from Europe. Its radar signature, its vulnerability to being picked up on radar, is very low – as is the case with the F-117 and F-22. Given that its speed is pretty comparable to the European jets, and its AESA radar is at least as good as the European systems, this is a decisive advantage. The best weapons in the world are useless if they cannot see their targets.

The F-35 will be able to see the Rafale, Gripen, and Eurofighter long before it can be seen itself. The first rule of air combat may be "speed is life", but the second rule is "lose the sight, lose the fight". In the 21st century, sight includes radar. It is very likely that the only warning the F-35 may give of its presence will be when its radar has locked on to one of the European fighters. By that point, the F-35 is already close to launching its AMRAAMs.

The cost differential is not as big as one might think, either. The F-35 runs at $63 million (for the most expensive variant), but the Gripen is $50 million per plane, the Rafale runs about $65 million each, and the Typhoon is $58 million. That is not much difference in terms of cost.

In essence, the F-35's small additional cost gains a huge edge in a fight.

Ultimately, the F-35 does cost a little more than most of its European competition. That said, in a fight, an F-35 is probably a little better than the competition, largely due to its stealth technology. Even then, there will be far more F-35s than the combined total of the planned production runs of the Rafale, Typhoon, and Gripen. In essence, the F-35 is going to have a qualitative edge, and the quantitative edge.

-- Christian

LUH Takes More Hits

Another excellent dispatch from DT friend, Bob Cox, who's a top contributor to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram's new Sky Talk blog and a veteran aerospace reporter for them...

Pentagon weapons testers are not overly impressed with the Army's new light utility helicopter, the UH-72A Lakota, which is very similar to the Eurocopter EC-145.

In a recently issued report, the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation said that while the new helicopters can probably serve fine as the equivalent of a small pickup truck they're not well suited to tougher tasks, such as carrying two critically injured patients - one of the Army's requirements.

The UH-72A is intended primarily for use by the National Guard and stateside Army units as a utility aircraft, meaning carrying four or five people from point A to Point B. It's purpose is to allow the Army to keep its larger, more powerful Blackhawks for use by combat units. The report does indicate the Lakota is an improvement over the aging UH-1H Hueys and OH-58A/C Kiowa models the guard now has.

But the helicopter failed to meet key mission requirements specified by the Army, including having enough room to carry two critically ill patients with an attending medic. It also cannot lift the required weights, internally or externally, at high altitudes and hot weather. And the cabin air conditioning, which is different than that of the commercial EC-145, cannot keep temperatures low enough. The aircraft manual specifies a condition where the avionics may shut down after just 30-minutes if operated at too high a temperature.

Produced by Eurocopter/EADS, the UH-72A was selected by the Army a year ago after a competition involving four aircraft that also included entries from MD Helicopters, Bell Helicopter and AgustaWestland. American Eurocopter, the U.S. arm of the French-German consortium, is gearing up to build more than 300 of the new aircraft at a plant in Mississippi.

-- Christian

MV-22 Will Cruise, Not Fly, to War

Our friend Bob Cox sent us his latest jibe at the MV-22 Osprey.

Editor's note: From my standpoint I think Bob's criticism is unfair. I understand that the Marine Corps sold the Osprey as "self-deployable."

But keep in mind the plane is intended to replace the CH-46 Sea Knight - which cannot self-deploy at all. The Corps doesn't fly its much more powerful CH-53E Super Stallions to the war zone either, even though technically they are self-deployable due to their in-flight refueling capability. So why is it such a big deal that the Osprey isn't?

Also, there's nothing untoward in the Corps' desire to deploy the Osprey aboard an amphib for its first stint in the operational forces. If I were a maintainer, air boss or deck handler, I'd sure want to take all that at-sea time to work out the kinks that are bound to crop up with a flight deck - and hangar deck - filled with aircraft.

But Bob's been covering this program for a long time as well, so we at DT think it's important to present all sides in this important debate. One thing I think we can all agree on, however, is that we wish the VMM-263 Thunder Chickens the best of luck and a safe deployment next month.

From Bob's Sky Talk blog:

One of the key selling points of the V-22 Osprey, one that is repeated over and over by the Marines and the Bell Helicopter-Boeing contractor team, is that the aircraft can self deploy to combat. In other words, fly high and long distances to get from one base to a combat zone - say from the U.S. to Iraq - where it can there be put into tactical use on the battlefields.

Well, for their first combat deployment with the V-22 to Iraq next month the Marines will be going by ship, Navy Times is reporting.

“It’ll save wear and tear on the airplane,” Lt. Col. Curtis Hill said. “This will also allow time to do shipboard integration operations. That will help us down the road as we look to integrate them with the [Marine expeditionary units].”

All along the Marines have viewed the V-22 as a dual role aircraft, able to operate from ships or land. But the self deployment capability is highlighted over and over and as a true revolutionary breakthrough, at least when compared to slower moving, lower flying helicopters.

Of course, the reliability record of the V-22 is such that the Marines probably don't want to take a chance on seeing several of the aircraft have to divert to landing spots along the way for repairs. The V-22s much ballyhooed trip to England last year for the Farnborough Air Show got even more attention when one plane diverted to Iceland due to engine troubles, later described as minor, and the return trip to the U.S. was delayed for other repairs.

-- Christian

The $265 Million Misunderstanding

DT friend Bob Cox of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram's new Sky Talk blog sent this little item in to us today.

All we can say is "ugh"...

Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. says it discovered that it has overcharged the U.S. government by $265 million for work on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program and will promptly refund the money with interest.

In a statement released this morning the Fort Worth-based company said it had recently discovered "an inadvertent billing error." Actually, it appears to be the same error over and over. The company had erroneously billed the government in each of the 11 billing periods since the F-35 program launched in late 2001.

Lockheed said the error came in the way it processed invoices from the two major subcontractors, Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems, but that the error was not the fault of those two companies.

Lockheed said it is in discussions with the U.S. government to determine the appropriate amount of interest that should be paid and will repay the entire amount within a few days. The company said the matter should not have a material impact on Lockheed Martin Corp. financial condition or its performance.

-- Christian

Murtha Irked by CSAR-X

CSAR-X UPDATE:

A source tells Defense Tech that one of the most powerful lawmakers on Capitol Hill in defense matters, Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), has problems with the way in which the CSAR-X decision was made.

Our source tells us that during a brief press conference announcing the completion of the 2008 appropriations bill yesterday, HAC-D chairman Murtha expressed his frustration with the contract process.

Murtha reportedly said: "What we were worried about was the way it was bid. They bid [CSAR-X] for one company, and we thought it should have been more open."

Our source also tells DT that Murtha read Air Force chief Moseley the riot act, threatening to pull all CSAR-X funding if the program wasn’t cleaned up. As it stands, the HAC-D removed $100 million of ’08 funds due to protest delays.

-- Christian

House Wants the Dirt on CSAR-X

Now it’s time for the anti-Boeing crowd to fire back in the ongoing CSAR-X cat fight that DT is only too happy to keep tabs on.

According to an email sent to us, the House Appropriations Defense panel inserted language into the fiscal 2008 Pentagon funding bill that called into question the methodology of the CSAR-X decision in favor of Boeing’s HH-47 Chinook.

The language states:

“The Committee is concerned about the selection criteria and process by which this program has proceeded to source selection. The Committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to submit a report to the congressional defense committees detailing the source selection criteria and how they were established. The report shall include the significant factors for the Request for Proposal (RFP) that determined the source selection, their importance, and how each of the respondents to the RFP was rated against those factors. The report shall be delivered not later than September 15, 2007.”

This is all well and good of course...But the irony is it is unlikely the Defense Appropriations bill will be passed by the report deadline. With arguments over Iraq strategy and Gen. Petraeus’ surge report coming, we doubt Congress will have the comity to pass a hotly-contested defense bill.

Even if we never get the Air Force report, at least one powerful committee in Congress is concerned about the decision and has put that concern into law. In the end, however, the debate may accomplish little other than delaying a much-needed upgrade to one of the most important missions the Air Force has.

-- Christian

Polmar on Prez Helo

The first of a series of new helicopters for the U.S. president has made its maiden flight. Designated VH-71, the new helicopter completed a successful 40-minute flight on 3 July 2007. Developed by the European firm AugustaWestland, the VH-71 is produced by a partnership of that firm with Lockheed Martin and Bell Helicopter Textron.

When the President has embarked, a helicopter has the designation "Marine One." But no specific VH-71 will be designated as such.

The Marine Corps plans to procure three test aircraft and 23 operational aircraft of this type, based on the now-operational EH.101 helicopter. That aircraft is now flown by the Royal Navy, Royal Air Force, Italian Navy, and Canadian Forces as well as by agencies of several other governments. More than 130 EH.101s are in operational service.

Initial operational capability of the VH-71 with the Marine Corps is scheduled for late 2009. The helicopters will be flown by Marine Helicopter Squadron (HMX) 1, based at Quantico, Virginia, with a detachment at the naval station in Anacostia, Washington, D.C. The VH-71 will replace the long-serving VH-3D Sea King, now operated by HMX-1 to transport the President and other senior government executives.

HMX-1 also flies the UH-60A/N helicopters in support of the White House, although the President does not normally fly in those aircraft. The squadron is one of the largest in the U.S. armed forces with about 50 Marine officers and 600 enlisted men, plus a Navy detachment of about four officers and 15 enlisted men. The squadron, which provides test and evaluation services for the Marine Corps, also flies CH-46E Sea Knight and CH-53E Super Stallion helicopters.

During the 40-minute flight on 3 July, AgustaWestland test pilots performed general aircraft handling checks, tested flight characteristics at varying speeds up to 135 knots, and evaluated the on-board avionics systems.

-- Norman Polmar

Osprey Lands on Brit Ship

The Bell-Boeing MV-22 Osprey pro