It appears that SAAB has a pretty competitive entry into the smaller AEW field, the Saab 2000 Airborne Early Warning (AEW) system:
SAAB had previously created a system for the Swedish Military based based on a slightly smaller member of this turboprop family.
The E-2 C/D from Northrop Grumman, and the IAI’s Conformal AEW (CAEW) based on the Gulfstream G550 airframe are its nearest competitors.
Well, SAAB has rolled out its Gripen demo, with more thrust*, more fuel, and more carrying capacity, see here and here.
There should be a meaningful (i.e. carrying a meaningful air-to-air load) supercruise, in addition to the greater payload and range in the strike configuration.
Additionally there are some developments in parallel in avionics, most notably an AESA radar.
Here you can see how the landing gear has been moved outboard to the win root to allow for more internal fuel and a second pylon on the fuselage.
Also here:
In addition to being the best value of the current generation of fighters, I also think that it’s just plain cool:
*Cheaper engine too. The RM-12, a GE F404 derivative is actually more expensive than the roughly 25% more powerful GE F414.
Airbus has filed a patent for what it considers an innovative trijet design.
What they are arguing is that three smaller engines will weigh less than two larger ones, that the noise from the third engine will be mitigated by the “trough” created by the tail configuration, and that the smaller engines will allow a shorter and lighter landing gear.
I don’t think that it’s going anywhere, because the two jet/three jet question has been answered now for some time, the additional maintenance, etc. just ain’t worth it.
As to the supposedly innovative idea of using the tail to mask the signature of rear mounted engines:
It’s been around for a while.
B-2 Bombers are flying again after their “safety pause” (let’s not call it a grounding).
Also, according to Aviation Week, while grounded, orders went out for an undisclosed component to be inspected, which is believed to be a part of the flight control system.
It could be an air data sensor, or an actuator, or something in the stabilization augmentation system, or pretty much any sensor or actuator in the flight controls, but my guess (and my record on this sucks just as badly as everything else) is something in the fuel system associated with center of gravity management.
There are maybe one of two of you out there who recall a couple of posts (here and here) just under a year ago about Thielert, a company that seemed to be on the verge of “great things” with its line of turbocharged diesel commercial aircraft engines.
While the tech might still be first rate, and it does sound so, the company appears to be in serious financial, and possibly legal, trouble.
It appears that the company may be very near insolvency, either through booking non existent orders to puffing up the balance sheet, or through customers who are seriously late in making payments for products that are already shipped.
My money is on the second, as two (perhaps all) of the management board have been dismissed by the board of directors.
It’s a pity. It’s nice well developed tech.
Here is some interesting scuttlebutt on the tanker challenge.
Two items, one is that the USAF has moved to have the GAO dismiss the challenge in its entirety, which is not unexpected, and the second is that USAF “Red Teamed” the bid process in response to the prior contract, the lease deal which imploded in corruption convictions and jail times for USAF and Boeing officials.
Well, the NorGrum official told me that for a month and a half, the Air Force convened a Red Team of the Army and Navy’s top procurement officers, staffers from Pentagon acquisition chief John Young’s office and Pentagon IG officials at Wright Patterson Air Force base. The team was tasked with poking holes in the contract process to make sure there could be no protest from either side on how the Air Force handled the competition.
I believe this report, because after the first tanker contract came down, and Boeing screwed it up by getting too greedy, which is what got the investigation going in the first place, I could see people from the top to the bottom of the chain of command having, “Don’t f&^% it up this time,” as an imperative
But I’m an engineer, so a lot of the rest of you may not understand why I think that the chemical vapor deposition (CVD) diamond coatings on tools is neat.
It’s been “just around the corner” for some time, and the fact that we are seeing a commercial application (F-35 wing skin cutting), with tool life increasing by a factor of is interesting.
I’m wondering if we’re going to start seeing CVD diamond on heat sinks, as it’s the most thermally conductive substance on earth.
This does appear to be a triumph of defense procurement.
$600 million is the price tag for the upgrade on the Gripen, where they replace the RM 12 (F404 derivative) with a GE F414G, giving about 25% more thrust, strengthen and relocate the landing gear, add more fuel, add two hard points for weapons carriage, and offer an AESA radar (though the radar seems to be an extra cost option).
While not quite as extensive as the F/A-18 C/D to F/A-18 E/F upgrade, the fuselage and wing profiles are nearly unchanged, the fact that they are doing this upgrade for something around the cost of a dozen aircraft is amazing.
My emotions mirror Bill Sweetman’s:
The whole deal cost the Swedish government – are you sitting down? – the equivalent of $600 million. That’s a little over half what the US will spend in one year on putting radios and plush carpets in the Presidential helicopter, and about the same as one year’s R&D on F-22 upgrades. And we wonder why we can’t afford our defense needs.
I’ve been invited to speak at next week’s event in Linkoping, and will take the opportunity to ask the Swedes how they did it.
I’ve been following this technology since the late 1970s, when it was called the ABC (Advancing Blade Concept) helicopter, and I’ve always found the concept interesting, so I’m kind of juiced about Sikorsky saying that the first flight of the X2 demonstrator is going to be relatively soon.
Tom Engelhardt makes a very convincing case that US air power is making terrorism worse, not better.
His thesis is that, “U.S. air power has, in the last six and a half years, been an effective force in a war for terror, not against it.”
When one considers the nature of the United States’ use of air power, particularly on a strategic level, it has largely proved a failure.
In WWII, when the entire 8th air force was focused on bombing the German aircraft industry during the “big week”, aircraft production increased.
In Viet Nam, bombing increased the support of the Viet Cong in the south, and of the general citizenry in the north, as the North Vietnamese civil defense authorities have attested to repeatedly.
While strategic bombing is more often a failure than not, and is currently failing in both Iraq and Afghanistan because it is the strongest recruiting tool of Jihadists, but the military, including the Army and, to a lesser extent, the Marines, continue to call air strikes in rather than clearing buildings.
It is a fundamental error in doctrine that permeates the US military establishment.
The New York Times, reporting on new dynamics in airline piloting as a career, lower wages and higher costs to enter the field, notes that there are now shortages of pilots.
When you can reasonably be expected to leave flight school with upwards of $100,000 in debt, and where starting salaries can be as low as $21,000 a year, and where senior level salaries have been cut by as much as 1/3, is it any wonder that the pool of entrants is shrinking?
It does not help that once you join an airline, you are pretty much a slave, since a move entails throwing out all of one’s seniority.
Safety is suffering too, with flight hours required for an interview falling.
It appears that Prince Bandar, nicknamed “Bandar Bush” for his closeness to the Bush clan, may not have been quite as successful as he though in shutting down the bribery investigation against him.
The basic deal is that Bandar netted billions of dollars (a quick Google shows £1 billion, you do the math) in bogus “consulting fees” in order to “facilitate” the £43bn Al-Yamamah arms deal.
The Serious Fraud Organization was looking into the deal, and was near to getting Swiss bank account information, when Tony Blair shut it down, probably there was a threat that the sales of 72 Eurofighter Typhoons would be canceled if there were further investigations.
The OECD, an international corruption watchdog, condemned the termination of the investigation.
It’s unclear from the story whether this ruling means that the investigation will restart, but Labour is taking no chances, they have a draft law in Parliament that would allow, “an Attorney General to close down such investigations as he or she saw fit on ‘national security’ grounds”.
This is now well into A380 territory.
I think that this is more of a failure of management than engineering. While the extensive use of composites is new for a civil aircraft, as is the “all electric” nature of the accessories, the degree to which Boeing has outsourced basic engineering and designs to so-called “partners” seems to be a much bigger part of the delay.
First flight is not in Q4 of this year, and if it’s before December 15, I will be very surprised.
Well, in the latest bit of unmitigated bullsh&# to spew forth from Seattle Chicago, boeing is now claiming that the USAF had worries about the refueling boom, but covered these concerns up.
McDonnel Douglas had no problem whatsoever coming up with their own boom in the 1970s, and EADS is already working on one for the Australians, and it’s already flying.
Unmitigated crap.
We have a little one paragraph blurb in Aviation Week‘s Newsbreaks section (subscription required):
A factor that won the U.S. Air Force replacement tanker program for Northrop Grumman’s KC-45 may have operational repercussions, say U.S. Air Force critics. The KC-45’s ability to carry cargo and passengers is being used to validate the need for production of fewer C-17 transports. But a long-time operations expert says USAF will now be required to assign the tanker “for too many missions” because of its “significant strategic airlift capability,” he says. “It’s a convenient argument to kill the C-17, but it also means they’re going to try to use the tanker for everything under the Sun.”
Let’s see, they are claiming that there will be “operational repercussions” because the aircraft is too capable. That’s like claiming that you are too rich, or there is too much chocolate.
What they are really saying is that when choosing an airframe for the basis of the tanker, a 767 or a shortened 777, they went with the 767 because it did a better job of protecting the C-17 production line.
As with any flying wing, the moment arm for the controls is fairly short, so maintaining the CG within the proper range is crucial to controllability.
Actually, it’s not just flying wings. The first B-1 crash happened because the CG was too far aft, because the fuel was not properly distributed.
Well, investigators are now examining the fuel management system or other issues involving the CG of the aircraft. (Paid sub reqd)
The report (a short blurb really) says that the , “bomber rotated prematurely, lifted off too early and stalled”.
According to a former B-2 pilot, ““One of these things we always worried about on ferry missions is that you have a lot more fuel on board than on training or operational missions. So CG can play a role. You have to make sure you don’t overcontrol on takeoff because that’s easy to do with an aft CG in a fully loaded configuration.”
In congressional testimony before the House Armed Services, Sue Payton, Air Force under secretary for acquisition, was asked if asked if additional credit was given in the process for exceeding the contract minimums. Her response was that the minimums were just that, minimums.
If you did not meet the minimums, your bid would not be accepted, but that, “It was also very clear that extra credit would be given to the offeror who exceeded that threshold”.
Much of the crux of Boeing’s complaint is that this is irregular. It is not. I have read hundreds of requirements for military programs, and the overwhelmingly majority of them have a “threshold” (minimum), and an “objective” (good to have).
This has been a part of the procurement process for years, and to the degree that Boeing is using it for a challenge, this is completely bogus.
The Myth Lives On, or not, I guess.
Yep, EADS has already delivered the first aircraft, D-1, to Dresden for modifications to full KC-45 status.
Doubtless, this is on hold because of the challenge, but note that Airbus had the airframe ready to fly to an outfitting location, and Boeing’s “Frankenplane” would not be cutting metal for months.
Boeing simply got beat like a ten dollar hooker* on this one.
Pictures below.
*My apologies for comparing a multi-billion dollar defense contractor to a cheap whore†.
†Sorry, wasn’t clear there. I was apologizing to the whore.
The USAF just put in a request for a potential C-5 replacement
This is a special notice open to U.S. industry requesting information on project plans and overall feasibility of designing, fabricating and flying a full-scale, aero-structural technology demonstrator of an advanced, long-range transport concept in approximately 36 months. Responses are requested to provide information on four key aspects of the demonstrator project: (1) a description of the advanced aircraft concept (2) a description of the flight demonstrator and how it will establish proof-of-concept for the objective system (3) a project plan to go from demonstrator design to flight in 36 months (4) discussion of featured, enabling technologies for the objective system concept and risk reduction strategies necessary to validate them. The objective of this RFI is to identify potential flight demonstrator options and feasible program plans that will rapidly accelerate technology readiness level (TRL) growth of advanced transport system concepts and/or critical component technologies without being constrained by a formal acquisition program or requirement. Interested offerors may view and/or download the full Request for Information (RFI) by accessing the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOps) homepage at http://www.fbo.gov. Direct questions to Mr. Barth Shenk, AFRL/RBOT, (937) 255-8343.”
They want this in 36 months?!?!?!? Well, whoever wants to make the bid and better have Antonov on their speed dial. Because the AN-124 is the only thing out there that could fulfill the requirements and be flying in 36 months.
The A380 comes close, but without a rear cargo door, and a low wing that will suck debris off austere fields, there are some problems with that.
They are considering buying 12 aircraft.
This is not surprising. The Gripen is about half the weight of its next smaller competitor among the 4th gen fighters, and you pretty much pay for planes by the pound (or by the kilo for you metric folks).
I think that the Gripen may very well be the Mirage III of the 4th generation fighters.
It’s small, it’s cheap, it’s designed for austere basing, and by all reports, its avionics are superb.