But a Navy report issued in January says that the F-35B, in fact, won’t be able to use such forward bases. Indeed, unless it ditches its short take-off, vertical landing capability and touches down like a conventional fighter, it won’t be able to use land bases at all without some major construction efforts.
The newly released document, hosted on a government building-design resource site, outlines what base-construction engineers need to do to ensure that the F-35B’s exhaust does not turn the surface it lands on into an area-denial weapon. And it’s not trivial. Vertical-landing “pads will be exposed to 1700 deg. F and high velocity (Mach 1) exhaust,” the report says. The exhaust will melt asphalt and “is likely to spall the surface of standard airfield concrete pavements on the first VL.” (The report leaves to the imagination what jagged chunks of spalled concrete will do in a supersonic blast field.)
What’s more, if you make an appropriate landing area, it has to be in one slab, without joints, because there are current no existing sealers that can take the heat, and if the aircraft is waiting for clearance with its APU (the Integrated Power Pack or IPP) running, that can burn holes in the runway too.
Bill Sweetman is correct when he notes, “Worst case or not, there is a very big difference between a solid slab of high-grade concrete and the kind of surface you are apt to find anywhere ending in -stan.”
And then there is cost, where the JSF unit cost is up 50% from its 2002 number, shattering the Nunn-McCurdy barrier, and that is assuming that the purchase numbers remain the same, something is about as likely as Obama pursuing war crimes prosecutions against Dick Cheney.
The side by side picture, courtesy of Aviation Week (paid subscription required), clearly shows that the aircraft are very similar in size.
What is also clear is that the T-50/PAK-FA is rather more compact in appearance, and would likely be a little bit more difficult to detect visually at range, though it is clearly no F-5.
What is also clear, see the 1990s Northrop/Grumman YF-23 video, is that its fuselage is rather more like that failed ATF competitor than that of the F-22, though the wing and 4-post tail surfaces more closely resemble those of the Raptor.
It’s been a long time coming. While Arthur C. Clarke’s satellites have taken to space, and James Bond’s futuristic mobile technology has become common place, still the dream of sustained personal flight has eluded us. But the future is here! Finally we can all take flight as Martin Aircraft in New Zealand releases the first commercially-available jet pack!
I’m just saying, “Who amongst us does not want a jet pack?”
Their official statement is here, and I have a full quote after the break.
So, Northrop Grumman does not think it worth their while to bid. There is a possibility that EADS might bid for the contract on their own, but given their current cash flow issues (A380, A400M, and upcoming needs for developing the A350), I don’t see it happening, particularly when their chances are essentially nil without the fig leaf of some American “partner”.
So, Boeing will get he bid, and they know that they have no competitors, so the taxpayer is going to be done without lube.
Statement From Northrop Grumman on U.S. Air Force Aerial Refueling Tanker Program
WASHINGTON, D.C. – March 8, 2010 – The following is a statement from Wes Bush, Chief Executive Officer and President of Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE:NOC), concerning the U.S. Air Force aerial refueling tanker program.
“After a comprehensive analysis of the final RFP, Northrop Grumman has determined that it will not submit a bid to the Department of Defense for the KC-X program. We reached this conclusion based on the structure of the source selection methodology defined in the RFP, which clearly favors Boeing’s smaller refueling tanker and does not provide adequate value recognition of the added capability of a larger tanker, precluding us from any competitive opportunity.
“Northrop Grumman fully respects the Department’s responsibility to determine the military requirements for the new tanker. In the previous competition, Northrop Grumman was selected by the Air Force as offering the most capable tanker for the warfighter at the best value for the taxpayer. However, the Northrop Grumman and EADS team is very disappointed that the revised source selection methodology now dramatically favors Boeing’s smaller refueling tanker. We agree that the fundamental military requirements for the new tanker have not changed since the last competition, but the Department’s new evaluation methodology now clearly favors the smaller tanker.
“We continue to believe that Northrop Grumman’s tanker represents the best value for the military and taxpayer – a belief supported by the selection of the A330 tanker design over the Boeing design in the last five consecutive tanker competitions around the globe. Regrettably, this means that the U.S. Air Force will be operating a less capable tanker than many of our Allies in this vital mission area.
“Our prior selection by the Air Force, our firm belief that we provide the best value offering, and the hard work and commitment of the many individuals and communities on our team over many years made this a difficult decision for our company. But we have a fiduciary responsibility to our shareholders to prudently invest our corporate resources, as do our more than 200 tanker team suppliers across the United States. Investing further resources to submit a bid would not be acting responsibly.
“We have decided that Northrop Grumman will not protest. While we feel we have substantial grounds to support a GAO or court ruling to overturn this revised source selection process, America’s service men and women have been forced to wait too long for new tankers. We feel a deep responsibility to their safety and to their ability to fulfill the missions our nation calls upon them to perform. Taking actions that would further delay the introduction of this urgent capability would also not be acting responsibly.
“We recognize that our decision likely creates a sole-source outcome for Boeing. We call on the Department to keep in mind the economic conclusions of the prior round of bidding as it takes actions to protect the taxpayer when defining the sole-source procurement contract. In the previous round, the Air Force, through a rigorous assessment of our proposal, determined that it would pay a unit flyaway cost of approximately $184 million per tanker for the first 68 tankers, including the non-recurring development costs. With the Department’s decision to procure a much smaller, less capable design, the taxpayer should certainly expect the bill to be much less.”
Northrop Grumman Corporation is a leading global security company whose 120,000 employees provide innovative systems, products, and solutions in aerospace, electronics, information systems, shipbuilding and technical services to government and commercial customers worldwide.
CONTACT: Randy Belote (703) 875-8525 randy.belote@ngc.com
It appears to be based on a 767-200 design, though the wings appear longer, perhaps to ameliorate the problems that have occurred on the Japanese and Italian 767 tankers,
Additionally, the boom looks to be a significant departure from their last proposal, probably because a higher fuel flow rate is required under the KC-X contract.
Still no word as to whether or not Northrop Grumman/EADS, or just EADS alone, will bid on the program.
The big news is that, notwithstanding the assertions of the Pentagon and Lockheed-Martin, delays continue apace, with the Pentagon Comptroller saying that the aircraft purchase will have to be cut if the cost continues to escalate, (File that under, “Well, Duh!”) as well as concerns that the 13-month schedule slip is overly optimistic.
It should be noted that this is confirmed by reports in the Startlegram*, which, being the home town paper for the F-35 assembly line, is both in a position to be in the know, and not inclined to come out against Fort Worth’s biggest employer.
We also have Bill Sweetman noticing in the DOD press release that full rate production is delayed to 2016, about a year after where it would start with the claimed 13-month slip.
You can see a report of the bald-faced lying by Lockheed and the Pentagon, where they claim that everything is hunky dory, but it makes one inclined to invoke Samuel L. Jackson from Pulp Fiction, “Does Marsellus Wallace look like,” because they are seriously f%$#ing with us.
We also have non-movement, basically heat but no light on the F136 alternate engine, with the Defense Department releasing a report saying that adding a 2nd engine was “cost neutral,” only the study did not address the value of:
Hedging risks.
Greater responsiveness from contractors as a result of competition.
Providing alternate growth paths.
Industrial base preservation.
Potential for innovation from a 2nd contractor.
The DoD wants to cancel the F136 because they want the plane in deployment before Congress realizes how expensive it is.
Five months after the US Congress approved the cancellation of the Lockheed Martin F-22, the air force is still deciding whether to preserve or scrap the production tooling.
The options under discussion include preserving at least the core of Lockheed’s ability to build F-22 components and systems, although restarting production is not the USAF leadership’s intent, says acquisition chief Lt Gen Mark Shackelford.
Rather, USAF officials are considering the cost of preserving tooling to sustain the F-22, which could include a service life extension programme in several years. The same tooling could also be used to repair or replace damaged Raptors.
What part of, “Your bosses told you that the program was terminated don’t you get?”
You don’t get to build new aircraft, and your continued activities are insubordinate.
Note that this is a 12 month slip from schedule announced in 2008, not from the 2005 schedule, which the 2008 schedule was a slip. It’s not 2 full years behind the 2005 schedule, so IOTE is supposed to be completed in 2015, as opposed to 2013.
Additionally, it’s over budget, and will likely suffer a Nunn-McCurdy breach, meaning that the price has escalated to more than 150% of the contract, and it will have to be recertified.
We have a video, (6:39) unfortunately in Russian, about the new PAK-FA fighter.
Thankfully, there are a sort of subtitles.
The bullet points:
Only 40% composites, but the Russians are very good with Titanium
Large AESA array, and size does matter
There are “5 radar antennae, 3 X-band (7.0 to 11.2 gigahertz (GHz) in the nose, and 2 L-Band (1 to 2 GHz) in the wings, which implies some ability to detect and intercept narrow band low observable targets?
They claim that it is, “Designed to have superior aerodynamics and sensors to counter the F-22,” and my guess is that the former is true, but not the latter.
The will supercruise with currently installed engines, and more advanced engines are under development for the production model.
I think that one of the crucial changes in this process has been the death of John Murtha, which makes his likely successor on the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee is Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Boeing WA) so the EADS/Northrup-Grumman team is in a much weaker position.
Murtha appeared fairly agnostic on the tanker choice, he just wanted it done now, but Dicks is clearly going to make things difficult for anything that does not go Boeing’s way.
Northrop Grumman has been threatening to no bid the RFP, but the basic form of the RFP remains much the same as earlier drafts, in that there is little in the way of consideration for additional capacity, which would be the A330’s strong suit, as it is a larger and more capable aircraft than the 767. (also here)
Gates is still “Very Hopeful” about getting two bids, but I’m not so sure.
I will note that it appears that the impetus for not bidding is coming from Northrop, not EADS, which still appears to be Seems to come from NG, not EADS.
Most notably, the CEO of NG has explicitly said that their policy would be to pursue profits, and not markets or market share.
In the absence of a Northrop-led proposal, what would stop EADS North America from submitting its own bid for the KC-X deal?
I can think of reasons why they would. If price is such a factor in the competition, cutting out the US flag bearer and bringing systems integration in-house might save some money. EADS NA has demonstrated it can win an aircraft contract from the US military. The 100th UH-72 Lakota for the US Army rolls off the assembly line in Mississippi next week. The company believes its solid performance on LUH allows it to compete on fair terms with American-owned companies for other Pentagon contracts.
On the other hand, there’s no question EADS’ chances of victory are smaller without Northrop’s help. Northrop has powerful friends on Capitol Hill and a long relationship with the customer. Moreover, as long as fuel offload requirements for the next tanker are modeled on the KC-135R, the KC-45 is going to be disadvantaged against a smaller aircraft like the Boeing 767. And let’s be honest: The UH-72, despite its success, is not a widebody tanker; it’s a civilian airspace-only light utility helicopter.
An EADS only bid is better for EADS, and for the taxpayer, but not for lobbyists or Congresscritter’s campaign war chests, which is why they teamed with NG in the first place, because if you don’t pay off legislators and lobbyists, you don’t get the bid.
Honestly, I do not see Boeing meeting this schedule, given their generally poor record with 767 tankers for the Japan and Italy, which were significantly behind schedule.
One would think that what it brings to the table, digital avionics, improved reliability, and lower operating cost, will improve readiness.
The obvious difference from the Alenia Aermacchi M-346, which sprung from the same failed joint venture, is the over-wing auxiliary air inlets, and the screens in the main inlets, much like the early MiG-29 and Su-27, in order to operate from rough strips where the possibility of FOD to the engines is non-trivial.
Startup company American Dynamics Flight Systems has been developing a UAV to address the needs of the various services for high speed cargo UAVS most notably the Marine Corps VTOL Group IV Program and Medium Programs, the USAF Unmanned Cargo VTOL UAV Program, and the US Coast Guard’s VTOL UAV Program.
All of these programs are requiring fairly high speeds, a cruise at least 250 kts, which pretty much rules out a conventional helicopters which tend to cruise at less than 175 kts.
The solution that was adopted on the V-22 is a tilt rotor, where the propellers are pivoted from horizontal to vertical in the transition from horizontal flight to vertical takeoffs and landings.
The issue with a tilt rotor system is that, even more than in a conventional helicopter, managing the transition from horizontal to vertical flight can become difficult and complex.
In the V-22, this is handled with a cyclic type control system that mirrors the swash plate type setups that exist on helicopters.
While this is obviously a known quantity in vertical lift mode, issues in transition to wing-borne flight had to be resolved before the tilt-rotor could become viable, there is a cost in complexity, cost, and reliability in using a complex prop assembly for such a system.
ADF Concept
Moves in pitch and yaw
The solution for the AD-1 is different. A ducted fan which is controllable in pitch and yaw, but where the pitch of the fan is fixed is used, the High Torque Aerial Lift (HTAL).
Pitch is obviously a given in any tilt rotor, which theoretically makes the addition of yaw actuators for the propulsors less complex, and hence lighter, cheaper, and more reliable than going with a full up cyclic control system.
Fixed Aluminum Prop
This sort of control system has been used in the past, at the dawn of the development of helicopters, where the use of tilting rotor hub, rather than a swash plate style cyclic was, for example, used by Raúl Pateras Pescara used this on his early helicopters in the 1920s, where he pitched the hub forward to allow for forward flight without the need for a separate propeller to provide lateral thrust.
The application to a tilt-rotor aircraft, and the use of rotor hub in yaw, appear to be unique, and a patent is pending.
Propulsor shroud panel
Additionally, the use of a shrouded propulsor provides for greater thrust/lift for a given disk area, by acting as a nozzle to accelerate flow.
The shrouds themselves have composite skins. The panel shown is well under 10 pounds.
The use of a shrouded prop should also simplify deck handling, since it mitigates against the possibility of someone walking into a moving prop, and there are added efficiencies because the down wash in vertical lift mode does not impinge on the wing.
All moving ruddervators
It should be noted that the aircraft has been designed from the outset to be low cost, and so notwithstanding its appearance, it is not designed to be a low-observable (“stealth”) airframe.
The top mounted inlet is intended to minimize the possibility of FOD damage to the engine, the all moving ruddervators were developed after it was determined that a rear moving flap on a conventional rudder fin would not provide sufficient control authority, and the wing configuration is designed to minimize pitch changes during transition from vertical to horizontal flight.
Wind tunnel model
AD1 Development
ADF is relying heavily on computational fluid dynamics (CFD) to determine the characteristics of the, and according to Paul Vasilescu, VP of Engineering, their experiences at the Paul Vasilescu Glen L. Martin wind tunnel at the University of Maryland have been closer to the calculated predictions than any prior systems tested at the facility.
The simulations are run on 64 bit Linux rack mount systems, with some of the more complex simulations, which are being modeled in 6 degrees of freedom.
Instrumented Test Rig
The propulsors have been modeled, both in full size, and at the reduced size in which they will be tested in the wind tunnel, which should serve to further validate the mathematical modeling.
It is anticipated that the propulsors will be tested in full scale on an “iron bird” instrumented test rig at Aberdeen Proving Ground, where ADFS hopes to, “Confirm CFD performance data for hover in ground effect (HIGE) and hover out of ground effect (HOGE),” later this year, using a T53 turboshaft, used on the original UH-1 models, but flight models will use the T700, which is currently in use on the AH-64 and UH-60.
The mechanical design is done in SolidWorks®, which I’ve used extensively, and should be more than capable of generated the required geometries, though it’s associated FEA package, Cosmos®, is intended for less intensive analysis.
AD-1 Manufacturing Capabilities
Applied Dynamics Flight Systems has a 14,700 square foot manufacturing facility at the Jessup headquarters with 3 & 4 axis CNC mills, and anticipates being able to assemble 12 units a year upon receipt of a contract.
Manufacturing workshare
Paths not taken
At this point, the company does not believe that there is a reasonable market for civilian applications for UAVS, the FAA has not yet come up with a coherent regulatory environment, and the technology to allow UAVs to operate in civilian airspace, so called “sense and avoid” technology, is immature.
They believe the situation to be rather similar in terms of ambulance applications on the battle field, an area where the Israeli firm Urban Aeronautics’ similarly sized Air Mule is attempting to carve out a niche, there are serious issues with landing aircraft into unprepared areas, as many of the cues that a pilot has in a cockpit are lost on a remote display, and so additional technology needs to be developed in terms of automated imaging and auto-landing systems before one can expect a UAV
I have notes, and photos, taken with my cheap digital camera, as opposed to my profoundly cruddy cell phone camera.
I talked with Wayne Morse, the President, and Paul Vasilescu, the Technology Development Director for the firm at their offices in a Jessup, Maryland office park, right next door to, if the stickers on the doors of the neighboring are any indicator, old offices from the Baltimore Examiner.
We went over their technology, what they have covered under IP, potential customers and applications, and their capabilities.
They will be sending me a copy of their presentation in PDF, which I will be embedding via ScribD.
A full write-up will be coming in the next couple of days.
I had fun……It’s kind of a kid in a candy store thing for me.
Well, it shows a number of features, though the provenance is totally unclear.
Items of interest are the IRST in front of the nose(2), wing mounted radar arrays (10), in flight refueling provisions (8), external stores provisions (16), a missile warning system (4), and (most notably) a vertically inclined “S” duct for the engines.
It does appear to match the general configuration of what was seen in the flight video though.
I hadn’t thought about a vertical offset in the inlets to hide the engine face, but from this 3-view, it does appear to be there, so the engine does appear to be shielded, at least partially, though I would still bet on a radar blocking grid.
The company, American Dynamics Flight Systems, has an interesting take on the tilt rotor system, and I don’t mean just their use of shrouded propulsors, but the fact that they can operate the propulsors asymmetrically in order to provide control inputs.
The final product is looking to be a 14½ foot long vehicle that can carry a roughly 500 pound payload at 300 kts, which places it within the requirements for the US Marine Corps “Group 4” drone requirement.
Given the specifications, it certainly will be able to keep up with the Osprey, though I have not seen any range data.
The company’s other products are the High Torque Aerial Lift (HTAL) propulsor, which is used on the AD-150, and an improved launcher for the 2.75″ FFAR called the, “LH Series Launcher,” which is lighter and more streamlined than the existing launchers, and so more suited to UAVs.
There seems to be a fair amount of “neat” tech there, the AD-150 appears to be leveraging on their HTALpropulsor, and their LH launcher appears to fill a real need.
Basically, with the advent of guidance heads for the 2.75″ rocket, APKWS and DAGRS, it is rather likely that this will become the weapon of choice for UAVS,
The rocket, which is smaller, lighter, and has a smaller warhead than the AGM-114 Hellfire, which means that more can be carried with less collateral damage.
Using the hellfire to take out a guy on a motorbike, or a bunch of guys in an SUV, is kind of like using an elephant gun as a fly-swatter.
In any case, I emailed them about getting a tour of their Jessup, Maryland facility, and will be having a tour on Wednesday, assuming that their schedule or the vicissitudes of mother nature (more snow predicted next week) don’t intrude.
I will be posting a request for any ideas for questions on a shorter post, which will remain at the top of the list until late Tuesday evening, so I’ve closed comments on this post, if there is anything you want to know, post it there. (Link to request for questions)
I recommend checking out the web site. It’s chock full of neat stuff.™
*Their use statement on their website says, “Unless otherwise noted, the content in this collection is provided for non-commercial use and may be used for educational and editorial purposes only. All other uses require the explicit written consent of American Dynamics Flight Systems. For more information please contact media@adflightsystems.com.” My writing about them should qualify as an “editorial” purpose.
The source is Fars News, and the aircraft is called the ‘Sofreh Mahi'(flatfish):
“The research model of this plane which staged a successful flight passed all radar-evading tests that we desired,” Lieutenant Commander of the Iranian Army Air Force General Aziz Nasirzadeh told FNA.
The General said that the flatfish-inspired shape of the aircraft as well as the materials used in its structure have provided the aircraft with the radar-evading capability.
Ummm….Flatfish? You are calling your aircraft a Flounder?!?!?!
I’ll spend it on 
