Category: Defense Procurement

Mo Tanker, Mo Tanker, Mo Tanker

No Comments

I think that I missed a couple of things from the March 10 Aviation Week issue that I need to address now, specifically some rather telling comments in the “Hometown Hubris” article.

Interesting stuff:

  • IBoeing’s proposal was, “far too risky and expensive”. The 767-200LRF “Frankentanker” used the, “767-200 airframe; over-wing exits from the -300; floors, doors and structurally enhanced wings from the -300F; a cockpit, tail section and flaps from the -400ER, a completely new and not yet produced configuration.
    • By comparision, the A-330 proposal was nearly identical to the Australia tanker currently in test.
  • Boeing felt that, “Air Force purchase of tankers capable of hauling large amounts of cargo could jeopardize Boeing’s already tenuous C-17 production line”.
    • It’s worth noting that Boeing has already purchased long lead C-17 items for 10 airframes in the expectation of more orders.
  • Boeing did consider the 777, and considered pitching both the 767 and 777, but decided on pitching just the 767. There are claims that someone “discouraged” submittal on the 777, but no name or time are given.
  • The U.S. requirements were similar to Australia’s. The Australian defense forces wanted a tanker that could refuel 3+ fighters, and carry maintenance crew and spares to a distant Pacific airport. The smaller airports of Europe and the Middle East were not as important in their scenarios.
    • The 767 could not do this. You would need a 2nd freighter to carry crew and spares.

Now I get it. They pitched the 767, and not the 777 because they thought that the latter would compete with the C-17.

Additionally, to the degree that there was a short field requirement, the 777’s short field performance is lacking, with its wing optimized toward the cruise efficiency end of the spectrum,

Note, the boom is not rocket science. McDonnell Douglas developed their own in the 1970s, and Airbus is testing theirs for Australia as as I write.

Brazil, France, and Argentina In Cooperation for Development of Nuclear Submarines

No Comments

The interest in developing a nuclear submarine, is being driven by a desire to prevent US, and in the case of Argentina UK, CV battle groups from being able to deploy forces off the Atlantic coast of Latin America.

The picture below is from France’s DCNS Barracuda Class SSN. I’m not sure how accurate it is, but the lack of forward bow planes, and the nose mounted torpedo tubes are of interest.

In most SSNs, the torpedoes are located amidships, to allow for a larger sonar array in the nose.

France would have no involvement in the reactor design, which would be a Brazil-Argentina joint venture.

A GBU-57 Theory

No Comments

You may recall my linking to a blog post by Stephen Trimble about a mystery bomb, the GBU-57, for the USAF is letting out a contract for integration with the B-2.

While cleaning out my pockets, I came across an article from the Defense Technology International January/February Issue, there is an article on page 14 (no direct link because of the oddball way it displays pages) about three new/old bomb technologies.

Specifically, the use of ES-1 super hard “Eglin Steel”, the “precise time of arrival munitions, where multiple bombs dropped are given flight paths which will result in simultaneous detonation, and “skip bombing”, the Marnes Wallis’ technique used by the Dam Busters. in WWII.

It may still be some sort of MOP integration for a sneak attack on Iran, though how they can ask for bids when Congress has specifically forbidden spending money on this is beyond me.

The USAF is Integrating the GBU-57 Into the B-2

No Comments

Stephen Trimble, who has a lot more patience than I do, notices a solicitiation document for bids to integrate the GBU-57 into the B-2.

He does some research, and all he can find is a reference to it being a 5000lb penetrating bomb from an article in the Grauniad* circa 2003, but this appears to be an error actually referring to the GBU-28.

So, why is the USAF putting out bids to integrate a new weapon into the B-2? Why does it appear to be a penetrator?

Is this a preparation for a first strike on Iran?

*According to the Wiki, The Guardian, formerly the Manchester Guardian in the UK. It’s nicknamed the Grauniad because of its penchant for typographical errors, “The nickname The Grauniad for the paper originated with the satirical magazine Private Eye. It came about because of its reputation for frequent and sometimes unintentionally amusing typographical errors, hence the popular myth that the paper once misspelled its own name on the page one masthead as The Gaurdian, though many recall the more inventive The Grauniad.”

Successful Test of Meteor Breathing Air to Air Missile

No Comments

On the 6th of this month, at the Vidsel Missile Test Range in Sweden.

It’s generally in the AMRAAM range of performance, though it offers significantly better kinematics (Range 100+km reported on the wiki, and I’d bet on more than 150km) due to its solid fuel ramget/ducted rocket propulsion system.

Of note, it will
never fit in an F-22 weapon’s bays, though it might fit in those of an F-35.

It’s supposed to enter service in about 5 years….Yeah…I know…what takes so %$#@ing long.

Time for Your Weekly Tanker Saga Update

No Comments

First, lets start with my analysis. As soon as Airbus proposed the A330, Boeing knew that they were facing a larger, more modern, and more capable plane.

They stuck with the 767 for a very simply reason, they believed that they were God’s gift to tankers, and commercial clients still wanted to buy the 777, so they thought that it was more convenient.

First, Boeing has filed a formal protest on the award, which is as surprising as the sun coming up in the morning. (See here, here, and here.)

Needless to say, Democrats are using this to take shots against John Mccain (Read a fantastically funny riff on the politics here)

Truth be told, the first deal to lease was corrupt, with DoD and Boeing officials going to jail over the deal, and. McCain was right to challenge the deal.

A lot of the problem for Boeing is that they were unbelievably arrogant and unresponsive to the DoD:

“The Boeing team was not responsive and often was not even polite,” said Loren B. Thompson, a defense analyst at the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va., based on conversations he said he had with defense officials. “Somehow that all eluded senior management,” Mr. Thompson said. “They were not even aware there was a problem.”

Add to this that Boeing’s record in defense contracting is worse than that of Northrop Grumman in terms of being on time and on budget, and that they had an inferior product, and this was a done deal.

Boeing was hoping to rest on its laurels, and the fact that much of the Congress would flip out over the choice.

Of course it doesn’t help that McCain campaign staffers lobbied for EADS.

Additionally, one of Boeings arguments, that EADS was ill equipped to create a working boom (boom and probe primarily used by the USAF, and products developed for the USAF, everyone else uses hose and drogue), was not accurate. They were already developing a boom for Australia (I guess for their F-111s, the F-18s use hose and drogue).

Furthermore, EADS was motivated to move work to the us, because they wanted to take advantage of the cheap dollar. That’s a reason that all the A330 freighter assembly will be moving to the US. It’s cheaper for them now.

For what it’s worth, The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) has issued a statement supporting the deal, so it met their snif test.

Boeing has now released the specifics of its complaint against the process:

  • That the formula used to rate the competitors was changed at the last minute.
  • That this changed favored EADS by making range and payload more important, and ramp space requirements less so.
  • That they failed to give Boeing credit for its commercial airliner experience.

My comment on the last point is that the DoD took a look at your contracting performance with them and decided that you sucked.

Another Argument for Abolishing the Airforce

No Comments

I really am getting sick and tired of the machinations of the fighter pilot Mafia.

Yes, General Bruce Carleson, who has raised insubordination to an art form, is saying that, “Air Force officials must develop and buy new aircraft or risk the service becoming irrelevant”.

In any likely conflict for the next 20 or so years, we are looking at a few weeks of the “kinetic” phase, followed by months or years of peacekeeping, where it does not matter if you are flying an F-16, F-22, or for that matter, a WWII era piston engined A-1 SPAD.

You are bombing and rocketing insurgents from a position of absolute air supremacy.

The Air Force as a combat service is largely irrelevant. What might be important is airlift, and there was just a 30+ billion award made on that a 2 weeks ago.

To the degree that you might need to exert “dominance” if challenged by a real air threat, the critical issue will be situational awareness and communications, which can be handled through system upgrades.

The Tanker Soap Opera, Part 1 of Way Too Many

No Comments

Well, you can check out just how aggressively the politicians from Boeing Washington and Kansas are flipping out, here, and here.

I haven’t heard such hystirical muddled thinking since I argued with someone over the lone gunman theory.

Mostly, I see this as parochial politics, though there are Democrats out there who also see it as a club to use against John McCain, who torpedoed the original, highly corrupt and expensive, deal, it what might have been the only time he’s been right in his entire career.

There is at least a small good coming from the folks running around like chickens with their heads chopped off though, it appears that the outbrief on the decision, giving a rundown of the competition, will be accelerated to provide data as soon as possible to lawmakers and the public.

Even so, I expect a challenge from Boeing that will not be resolved until 2009 at the earliest.

There are also some indications that Boeing was sloppy on its bid. It appears that they did not provide a lot of deal on some of their cost estimates, which led to some downrating.

DID also has an analysis of the 9 Key Performance Parameters (KPP) for the bid, and it’s pretty clear that EADS won or tied them all, and I would particularly note that it demolished the Boeing bid for cargo capacity, and tanking at 1000 and 2000 miles from a base, both of which are critical in the Pacific theater.

Defense Procurement Humor Down in Oz

No Comments

It’s a rare thing when you can put the term together the term defense* procurement with humor in a coherent manner, but this press release from the Australian Department of Defence regarding the cancellation of the Seasprite Helicopter program, which was 5 years late, well over budget, and simply did not work:

SEASPRITE HELICOPTERS TO BE CANCELLED

In late 2007 the Rudd Labor Government initiated a review of the Seasprite helicopter project, in line with the promises made prior to the election.

After careful consideration of all the issues involved, the Government has decided that it intends to cancel the project. Discussions will be commenced immediately with the contractor in relation to the legal and financial arrangements to facilitate this.

The Government will announce the details of arrangements with the contractor once mutual agreement on these matters has been reached, subject to any confidentiality issues.

Minister for Defence Joel Fitzgibbon said the decision was not one taken easily, but the Government was left with little option.

“Today’s announcement demonstrates our determination to make tough decisions whenever required for the security of the nation and the safety and capability of our Defence Force,” Mr Fitzgibbon said.

“The decision taken by the Rudd Labor Government is one that should have been taken by the Leader of the Opposition, Brendan Nelson, when he had the opportunity last year, but his Government decided to put its own political interests ahead of the national interest. Consequently, the responsibility of cleaning up the mess they created falls to us,” Mr Fitzgibbon said.

To ensure the Navy maintains an effective naval aviation capability, the Government has decided on two measures. First, our interim approach will focus on improving the operational availability of the current Seahawk fleet. Second, the Government will investigate the planned replacement of the Seahawk during its White Paper deliberations.

“The new Government will continue to work through the long list of Defence capability nightmares it has inherited from the former government. We are determined to ensure that the Defence Force receives the capability it needs, and Australian taxpayers receive value for their money,” Mr Fitzgibbon said.

(Emphasis mine)

*DefenCe for those down in Oz.

It’s Getting Ugly Over Tanker Decision

No Comments

I do not doubt that the A330 was technically superior.

The airframe and avionics are newer, the manufacturing techniques are more advanced, and the airframe is larger.

The reason I did not expect it to win was because of the USAF generals who wanted sweet retirement packages with Boeing, and the inevitable outrage from Congress.

Well, the sh%$ storm is here, care of Eisenhower’s military-industrial complex.

You can get a good Cliff Notes version of what is going on here.

Basically, a few years back, Boeing offered a lease deal which was really pretty awful. This deal was negotiated by a Pentagon official who was also negotiating with Boeing for a job as a VP.

John McCain looked at the deal, and smelled a rat, and for once, and it’s rare for him, he was right, so the contract was canceled, and a new one was put out for bid.

And now EADS has won with a clearly better plane, one that is already on order from a number of countries.

This won’t stop the poo from flying.

The Battle is Joined on the Tanker

No Comments

It appears that Seattle-area politicians are flipping out over the USAF tanker decision. No big surprise there.

Then again, this was the result to be expected if decided on the merits. The A-330 is larger, longer ranged, more modern, and not much more cost than the 767, which has never had the advances in manufacturing that were developed for the 777 and 787 incorporated back into its line.

That won’t prevent a knock down drag out fight, and it pretty much ensures that McCain loses Washington State, as he was the one who called out the USAF on the first tanker deal, correctly to my mind, on being a sweetheart deal for Boeing.

Report: USAF Selects EADS for Tanker Deal

No Comments

US Air Force makes a deal with foreign supplier

It’s a Malaysian news source, and I call bullsh$#. I just don’t see a way that a foreign contractor wins this outright, or even get over half of a split contract.

In either case, the winner(s) will be announced in the next week.

FWIW, the biggest critic of the original deal, which was largely a gift to Boeing, was John McCain, and he’ll be busy for the next few months.

Boeing Pitches Co-Development Deal on Advanced F-15/F-18 to Japan

No Comments

Japan wants to purchase F-22s to replace its locally produced F-4 Phantoms, which is nearing the end of its service life, but is looking at alternatives, since congress is showing no signs of changing the laws that forbids this.

As a result, Boeing is making proposals to the Japanese about co-developing an advanced version (paid subscription required) of either the F-15 or F-18.

According to the article, Japan is looking at the F-16 and Eurofighter Typhoon, with the defense minster favoring the latter, though that may be a tactic to get F-22s released to the JASDF.