Category: Defense Procurement

Defense May Boost Orbital Power Generation

No Comments

It looks like the military is seriously looking into developing orbital power stations in order to reduce the logistical tail for remote bases. (paid subscription required)

The theory here is that if a relatively cost effective power station can be developed, then things like remote forward bases in Afghanistan would not require regular resupply of fuel for generators, which are both expensive and vulnerable.

They are in the very early stages, but the notational concept appears to be a 5-10 MW pilot power plant in about 10 years.

If they can manage that, we might start seeing commercial applications in the decade following that.

Why Japan May Not Buy the JSF

No Comments

It is increasingly looking like it will be impossible for Japan to have their own final assembly site for the F-35 JSF. (paid subscription required)

Japan has been manufacturing front line fighters locally since 191956, when it started taking deliveries of the Japanese assembled F-86 Sabers, and while aircraft in service have been foreign designs (F-4EJ, F-15J), or derivatives of foreign designs (The F-2 derivative of the F-16), this is a capability that the Japanese government and military see as important (otherwise they would not have flushed all that money down the toilet on the F-2 in the 1990s).

In addition to the F-35, the competitors for Japan’s next fighter requirement are the improved F-15FX and the F/A-18E/F from Boeing, or the Typhoon from Eurofighter:

Japan’s F-X fighter competition results will determine next year whether the national industry can sustain its tradition of domestic production of fast jets or instead be forced to accept a suspension and the risk of losing skills.

….

One Japanese official who has recently moved from the Defense Ministry to industry says that his former colleagues are inclined toward the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning to fill the F-X fighter requirement, but industry is lobbying for the Boeing F-15FX or F/A-18E/F Super Hornet or the Eurofighter Typhoon.

Simply put, the F-35 already has too many hard and fast contracts on work share for there to be any realistic opportunity for Japanese industry to participate.

What’s more, though this article does not discuss this, the aircraft is very tightly integrated, and so it becomes very difficult to involve local industry in upgrades.

There is the possibility that Japan could go it’s own way,with either something like their ADT-X stealth demonstrator, but the expense here would be enormous, particularly since the manufacturer would be prohibited from exporting the aircraft by the Japanese constitution.

Brazil to Buy Hind Helos

No Comments

This actually makes a lot of sense for them.

They are dealing primarily with things like dope dealers and insurgents, and purchase of 12 Mi-35M attack helicopters gets them an aircraft that is competent in attack, but also has the ability to carry 8 troops or a 4 of litters in a medevac situation, and so are more flexible.

They are also likely a lot cheaper, than the competition, the Eurocopter Tiger, and the Agusta-Westland Mangusta.

Israel Tests Black Hawk Gunship

No Comments

It looks like Israel is looking at an armed variant of the UH-60 Black Hawk demonstrator.

From the photo, it appears that they would be carrying an chain gun and a targeting turret, along with a fair number of ATGWs, something on the order of 16 Hellfire class missles, though, given that this is an Israeli developed project, Rafael’s Spike, or some variant thereof, would likely be the actual weapon deployed.

It’s kind of a return to the old UH-1 gunships developed in Vietnam.

Very Angry Swedes

No Comments

The Norwegian decision to purchase the F-35 JSF should come as no surprise, but the folks at SAAB are hopping mad at the suggestion that the F-35 will be less expensive to own and operate.

This is not surprising. The Gripen, even the heaver Gripen NG, is half the weight of the JSF, and cost and operating costs vary pretty directly with size.

What appears to have happened is that the Norwegians compared the purchase price of the Gripen that included, “included initial training, initial spares and all mission planning and support systems,” to unit flyaway costs for the American fighter, and even then, the cost quoted is about $20 million a pop less than what is bandied about in the media.

Bill Sweetman, talking to his sources, suggests that the Norwegians were concerned about the cost to them if the Gripen turned out to be a market failure.

If only 100 or so were sold, and that is a real possibility, or worse, that SAAB is taken down by the financial crisis, than upgrades throughout its life cycle would be very expensive, while there will be thousands of JSF’s produced, as there are already thousands of JSF’s on order by around a dozen nations, and the program is backed by the “full faith and credit of the United States”.

Their strong language appears to be all about mollifying left wing parties in the government.

SAAB’s full rebuttal is here (PDF), here are their bullet points:

  • claims that Gripen does not meet the Norwegian air force’s demand rests on simulations containing incomplete or non-existent capacity information
  • the alleged life cycle cost does not rest on experience of the Gripen system but hasbeen calculated by applying own assumptions and models of calculations.
  • conditions underpinning the calculation are in parts radically altered and based on internal Norwegian assumptions.

Reports of Iran Buy of SA-20 Systems

No Comments

Needless to say, this is something that would concern any country that might be considering an air strike at their nuclear facilities.

The S-300 (SA-20) is a very capable system, with the S-400 (SA-21), which is apparently on offer for export, with no orders yet, even more so.

I ran the numbers on detection ranges about a year ago, using nothing but my basic understanding of physics, and the presence of either the S-300 or S-400 would concern me if I were doing mission planning.

X-47 UAV Program Expanded

No Comments

A few months back, it looked like that the Navy/Northrop-Grumman X-47 CUCAS-D (unmanned combat air system demonstration) was on the chopping block.

This is perhaps the most ambitious UAV currently in development, given that among other things, it’s supposed to make an arrested landing on a carrier deck.

It now appears that in addition to demonstrating combat capabilities and carrier ops, the program has been expanded to include autonomous air-to-air refueling, which will greatly improve the strike capability of the aircraft.

Autonomous refueling has been kind of a holy grail in the UAV community, and is really essential for any system that actually sees operational use.

The Costs of Ending F-22 Production

No Comments

Well, it appears that there some significant costs to canceling the F-22 at just 4 more aircraft, (paid subscription required) instead of the full 20.

If the US government does not buy the remaining 16, Lockheed could be due $147 million in cancellation fees.

Let’s see….16 additional aircraft, costing somewhere between $138 million (Air Force figures) and $300 million (critics figure), instead of paying a penalty of $147 million.

If you canceled the program, and put garlic in its mouth, and a stake through its heart, and burnt it, and took half that money and bought advanced F-16s with EASA radar, like we are selling to…well, anyone who wants one…You could have 20 F-16s.

Get out the garlic, rosewood, and torches.

Murtha Calls for Cuts in DoD Budget

No Comments

This is no surprise. Anyone with eyes can see that the defense budget is wasteful, bloated, and not serving the current security needs of the country.

It’s also refreshing that he wants to bring the “emergency wartime supplementals” back into the regular budget process, as well as noting that the defense procurement process is broken.

Of course, he also gets on his high horse about reinstating the draft, where I have mixed emotions.

Australian MRTT Tanker Delayed

No Comments

This is actually fairly significant news, as it is Australia’s A-330 MRTT tanker is the airframe that won the US tanker competition. Stephen Trimble hhas the official reasons for the delay:

  1. the mutual decision by EADS and RAAF to take the aircraft to the Paris air show;
  2. the RAAF directed changes to the MRTT configuration following contract award which has served to extend the development and testing program (including modifications to the refueling and avionics systems);
  3. the RAAF has requested additional flight testing to ensure a more robust mission system when delivered.

If these are the all the reasons, then it really has no bearing on the viability of the airframe for the tanker competition, but I tend to be cynical on such things, so my guess is that EADS was finding it difficult to meet the schedule.

Additionally, Australia’s currency has generally been falling, which may create budget pressures that might lead them to defer purchases.

See also here.

Why go Bullpup

No Comments



In what should be a surprise to no onw, the Israeli Defense Forces have adopted the MTAR-21 Micro-Tavor as their weapon of choice.

Once again, it allows us to look at why the M4/M16 needs to be replaced in US service.

In addition to its gas tube operation requesting excessive cleaning, it’s just too damn long:

Overall Length

Barrel Length

TAR-21

725 mm (28.5 in)

460 mm (18.1 in)

MTAR-21

590 mm (23.2 in)

330 mm (13.0 in)

M16

1000mm (39.5 in)

508 mm (20 in)

M4

838 mm (33 in) (stock extended)

757 mm (29.8 in) (stock retracted)

368 mm (14.5 in)



While it’s clear that the both MTAR-21 and the M4 having 13½ and 14 inch barrels respectively, will have lethality problems at range. The 5.56 mm round is light and uses high velocity to carry to provide lethality, but the M4 is much more extensively used, because for any urban situation, the M-16 at 1m long is simply unmanagable, while the TAR-21, the normal rifle for the IDF with an 18 inch barrel is shorter than the M4.

The additional 4 inches of barrel also get the mussel velocity high enough to avoid the lethality issues at 100 m or so.

That is an very small package though.

The Real DDG-1000 Cancellation Reason?

No Comments

Both of the US Navy’s new combat ships, the DDG-1000 Zumwalt and the Littoral Combat Ship are designed to minimize crew size to save cost.

However, the LCS is a conventional hull form, and it has lots of open space in, both for modules, and for a lot of reserve bouyancy.

The Zumwalts, however, appear to be much more tightly packed, with less reserve bouyance relative to their size, and a tumblehome hull form for stealth that is suspected of having stability issues.

Galrahn at Information Dissemination suggests that perhaps the crewing and hull form created a ship with a serious glass jaw, much like the British battlecruisers at the turn of the last century:

More than any other form of damage control, flooding is best known for being managed by active means best represented in manpower. The reduction in crew creates an unstable situation in this regard, and while we are on this subject, let me note that I believe one of the real unspoken reasons Roughead wants to cancel the DDG-1000 is specific to the absence of flood control capabilities with that platform that has a relatively tiny crew. Ever read Friedman about ship design? If so, consider the hull form of DDG-1000 as you reflect upon the thoughts I’ve noted below.

If his analysis is correct, and I think it is, I find it interesting this is repeating almost in an almost exactly 100 year cycle.

Russian Sub Update

No Comments

There are 3 items, and I don’t believe the first 2:

The Russian Navy is due to receive Severodvinsk 2010. Yeah right…..Considering the delays and cost overruns in their shipyards, the Indian carrier comes to mind, this is not going to happen on schedule.

They are also claiming that they will scrap all decommissioned nuclear submarines by 2012. See above.

The one that I do believe is reports that the Russians Russia will not lease the Akula II class nuke boat, Nerpa India.

Idon’t think that the recent fatal accident has anything to do with this. I think that this was always a ruse by the shipyard to get funding to finish the boat, with the goal of delivering it to the Russian navy.

IDF Shocked by JSF Price Spike

No Comments

Well, the numbers that the Israelis are seeing :

“Defense News” reports that Ministry of Defense and Israel Air Force officials are “stunned by projected program costs for their Israel-unique version of the F-35” Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), manufactured by Lockheed Martin Corporation (NYSE: LMT). IAF and Ministry of Defense officials are struggling to pare a hefty list of customized subsystems and add-ons that threaten to ground the aircraft as unaffordable.

“Defense News” states that, in September, US F-35 program officials gave rough price and availability data to their Israeli counterparts, who reacted with sticker shock to the price tag of $200 million per plane. Since then, both sides have been seeking a new configuration that can meet IAF performance and budget requirements. The IDF had expected to pay about $2 billion – $80 million per plane – for the first 25 aircraft.

My money is on the Israeli numbers being closer to the truth than the Norwegian ones.

Doubtless, there costs with integrating Israeli systems into the airframe, but it’s increasingly clear that the high end estimates for cost are accurate, and largely unaffordable.

This is About Pork, Nothing Else

No Comments

Well, it looks like the US Navy is looking at moving a carried from Hampton Roads, Virginia to Mayport, Florida, near Jacksonville, and the Virginia Congressional delegation is throwing a fit over this.

This is not surprising, the presence of that carrier pumps something like ½ a billion dollars into the local economy.

The Navy is arguing that, “The five East Coast carriers should be dispersed as a hedge against a natural disaster or attack that could shut or cripple the sprawling Norfolk base.”

So, in order to hedge against natural disaster, you want to move the ships into hurricane alley, otherwise known as Florida.

Of course the idea that foreign power will launch a sneak attack on the base is ludicrous.

SecNav John Lehman did this in the 1980s, on the argument that it would make more difficult for Soviet subs to shadow fleet movements, but it was a crap argument then.

Of course, these days the USSR is no more, and the Russians can’t deploy a significant portion of their fleet and the Chinese are a decade from a meaningful submarine fleet, so there is no risk of attack.

The reality was that Lehman wanted to do this because it created more constituencies for his vision of a 600 ship navy, because a large number of small bases gets you the support of many congresscritters, where as one large base just gets you 1 or 2 districts support.

With the Navy claiming that their ships and aircraft are wearing out and need to be replaced, they still want to drop a billion dollars on the move, not because of military need, but because of political need.

More on the JSF Norway Buy

No Comments

So, we have the statement by the Prime Minister that Norway has settled on the F-35 as its F-16 replacement.

What I find interesting is this article, which says Norway will pay $2.54 billion for 48 aircraft, because that figureds to $52 million per aircraft, which is less than half the unit costs I’ve been seeing.

Something is seriously whack with those numbers, which, as the Norwegian PM notes in his statement, is less than the Gripen, which is half it’s weight, and you pay for aircraft like you pay for ground beef, by the pound.

It may be that the money already put into the program by Norway as a JSF partner is being counted, but there have to be some seriously heavy duty “Jedi mind tricks” in the accounting too.

An Interesting Article on the Gripen

No Comments

And specifically on how SAAB will ensure that the upgraded Gripen NG will remain cost effective: (paid subscription required)

Moreover, Gripen NG embodies a new business model that aims to cut costs even with low production rates. “The market is extremely price-sensitive,” and the build approach for the new version reflects this, says Bob Kemp, marketing director for Gripen International.

In the past, Gripen embraced technologies that designers modified to fit specific needs—as was the case with the General Electric F404 engine that Volvo turned into the fighter’s RM12 powerplant. For the Gripen NG, Saab went directly to GE and asked for an F414, the latest version of the F/A-18E/F’s engine with minimal changes. The F414G features some adjustments to the full-authority digital engine control and power supply, largely because Gripen is a single-engine fighter (whereas the F/A-18E/F has two engines). This seemingly innocuous change allows Saab to reduce engine costs 20%, even though the F414 is a higher thrust engine with a greater sticker price than the F404.

(emphasis mine)

Another possibility in this model is the use of some commercial systems, with even greater cost/performance advantages.

It’s why I think that it will be see a successful export market. even though it just lost in Norway, because these aircraft, and pretty much all of the high end military systems out there, have gotten too damn expensive.

BTW, here is a nice bit of video from Aviation Week: