Defense Industry Daily

KODEF ’11 slide
(click to view full)

South Korea has been thinking seriously about designing its own fighter jet since 2008. The ROK defense sector has made impressive progress, and has become a notable exporter of aerospace, land, and naval equipment. The idea of a plane that helps advance their aerospace industry, while making it easy to add new Korean-designed weapons, is very appealing. On the flip side, a new jet fighter is a massive endeavor at the best of times, and wildly unrealistic technical expectations didn’t help the project. KF-X has progressed in fits and starts, and became a multinational program when Indonesia joined in June 2010. As of March 2013, however, South Korea has decided to put the KF-X program on hold for 18 months, while the government and Parliament decide whether it’s worth continuing.

Indonesia has reportedly contributed IDR 1.6 trillion since they joined in July 2010 – but that’s just $165 million of the DAPA’s estimated WON 6 billion (about $5.5 billion) development cost, and there’s good reason to believe that even this development budget is too low. This article discusses the KFX/IFX fighter’s proposed designs and features, and chronicles the project’s progress and setbacks since 2008…

Changing Stories: The “F-33/ Boramae” KF-X Fighter Unofficial KF-X vid
click for video

Unrealistic early visions of an F-35 class stealth aircraft developed on the cheap produced some attention-getting models, but they appear to have given way to the idea of a fighter with slightly better kinematic performance than an F-16C/D Block 50, along with more advanced electronics that include a made-in-Korea AESA radar, the ability to carry a range of new South Korean weapons under development, and a better radar signature. The Jakarta Globe adds that the plane is eventually slated to get the designation F-33.

The project goes ahead, the 1st step will involve picking a foreign development partner, and the next step will involve choosing between 1 of 2 competing designs. The C103 design’s conventional fighter layout would look somewhat like the F-35, while the C203 design follows the European approach and uses forward canards in a stealth-shaped airframe. It’s likely that the choice of their foreign development partner will determine the design choice pursued.

Either aircraft would be a twin-engine fighter weighing around 10.4 tonnes, with stealth shaping. In order to keep ambitions within the bounds of realism, KFX Bock 1 fighters would only have to meet the radar cross-section of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet or Eurofighter Typhoon. Sources have used figures of 0.1 – 1.0 square meters.

Note that even this specification amounts to developing a plane similar to or more advanced than the JAS-39E/F Gripen, from a lower technological base, with less international help on key components, all for less development money than a more experienced firm needed to spend. South Korea’s own KIDA takes a similar view, questioning the country’s technical readiness for something this complicated, and noting an overall cost per aircraft that’s twice as much as similar imported fighters.

KFX Block 2 would add internal weapon bays. Present plans call for Block 1 would be compatible with the bays, and hence upgradeable to Block 2 status, but Block 1 planes wouldn’t begin with internal bays. The fighter’s size and twin-engine design offer added space compared to a plan like the Gripen, but this feature will still be a notable design challenge. Additional tolerance and coating improvements are envisioned to reduce stealth to the level of an F-117: about 0.025 square meters.

KFX Block 3 would aim for further stealth improvements to the level of the B-2 bomber or F-35.

No timeline has been discussed for Block 2 and Block 3 improvements. At this stage of the program, any dates given would be wildly unreliable anyway.

KF-X: Program & Prospects T-50 line
(click to view full)

The KF-X project remains a “paper airplane,” without even a prototype under construction. The program was reportedly postponed until April 2011 due to financial and technological difficulties, and now a second postponement appears to extend to June 2014. If South Korea elects to proceed at all. The ROK Agency for Defense Development says that if full-scale development begins in October 2014, the 1st KF-X Block 1 prototype flight wouldn’t take place until September 2020. Based on the history of other programs, the new plane would be hard pressed to enter service before 2025.

Indonesia is currently the only KF-X foreign development partner, with 20% of the project. The project is sometimes referred to as “IFX” (Indonesia Fighter eXperimental) in that country, whose huge archipelago leads them to value range. That could create a problem if the KF-X design shrinks, in order to present a lower cost profile.

Turkey is a big defense customer for South Korea, and discussions have been held concerning KF-X, but Turkey wanted more control over the project than a 20% share, and no agreement has been forthcoming. The TuAF is already committed to buying about 100 F-35As to replace its F-4 Phantoms, and many of its F-16s as well. They’re also investigating the idea of designing their own fighter, and have enlisted Sweden’s Saab to assist (vid. March 20/13 entry).

In the interim, KAI’s FA-50 is emerging as a low-end fighter to replace existing ROKAF F-5s and F-4s, and South Korea is scheduled to have its F-X-3 competition decided before the KF-X resumes. That could leave them with a high-end fleet plan of 80-100 stealth-enhanced F-15SE Strike Eagles, split between new buys and upgrades. It’s fair to ask where an expensive KF-X program would fit in that mix, especially when even on-budget performance of WON 14 billion for development and production could buy and equip over 110 more F-15SEs, instead of 130-150 “F-33s”.

ROK Flag

Moreover, if KF-X was developed, how big would the 2025 – 2040 export market really be? The Teal Group’s Richard Aboulafia is right that “The world fighter market needs a modern, F-16-class mid-market fighter.” With that said, even in a hypothetical market where F-16, F/A-18 family, Eurofighter, and Rafale production lines had all shut down, that would still leave South Korea competing for mid-tier purchases against China’s J-10, J-11, and “J-31”, Russia’s SU-35 and possibly its MiG-35, and Sweden’s JAS-39E/F.

On the other hand, KAI needs development work after the FA-50 is done. As one 2009 article asked, how far can industrial nationalism go? The next 18 months will offer an answer to that question.

Contracts & Key Events 2014-2016

K-FX C-501: no.
(click to view full)

May 27/16: General Electric is to provide its F414-GE-400 engines for South Korea’s KF-X fighter after beating a European consortium offering the Eurojet EJ2000. The deal is estimated to be worth up to $3.5 billion, and contracts are expected to be finalized and signed in June. Korea Aerospace Industries Ltd (KIA), who is developing the jet alongside Lockheed Martin, plans to develop and produce 170 twin-engined jets initially, with 50 destined for export to Indonesia.

April 21/16: South Korea looks set to decide on which engine provider will be selected for its KAI KF-X fighter as early as the end of the month. Suppliers looking to win the contract are European firm Eurojet Turbo GmbH and the US’s General Electric. Seoul is seeking to locally produce 120 twin-engine combat jets under the KF-X program that is estimated to cost some $16 billion. Deployment of the new planes is hoped to start in mid-2020 to replace its aging fleet of F-4s and F-5s.

January 25/16: South Korea’s KF-X fighter program has kicked off as officials from KAI, the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA), Lockheed Martin, the Indonesian Defense Ministry and PT Dirgantara Indonesia (PTDI) met in Sacheon, South Korea for the first time. Six prototypes of the fighter will be produced by 2021 with completion of the development due for 2026. 120 fighters will be produced by 2032 to replace the F-4 and F-5 jets in service. Collaboration in the program sees Lockheed Martin provide twenty-one key technologies used in the US F-35 fighter and the government of Indonesia is to provide $1.4 billion toward research and development in the project. Seoul will spend $7.1 billion in the project’s development.

December 28/15: South Korea’s Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) is set to sign a development contract with Korea Aerospace Industries for the continued production of the indigenous KF-X fighter. The news follows the granting by the US government for the transfer of 21 technologies used in Lockheed Martin’s F-35 which had been the subject of much wrangling over the last number of weeks. Washington had denied the transfer of four key technologies back in April citing security concerns. The contract will see the production of six prototypes by 2025 with an expected 120 jets produced by 2032.

December 7/15: South Korea’s Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) has been accompanied by high level diplomats to discuss the KF-X fighter program with Lockheed Martin. The trip to the US follows the visit by Lockheed staff to Seoul last month to discuss the transfer of 21 technologies from their F-35 fighter jet. The inclusion of diplomats shows that Korea is looking to bolster their bargaining power amid the refusal to allow the transfer of four key technologies by the US government. DAPA claimed that they are capable of developing these four key technologies, but failure to secure the remaining 21 would be of serious consequence to the development of Korea’s own indigenous fighter.

November 19/15: Lockheed Martin staff are visiting South Korea this week to further discuss the transfer of technologies in relation to the development of the $6.9 billion KF-X fighter program. The talks come following a recent refusal by the US to allow the transfer of the four core technologies necessary for the program which could put the future of its development in jeopardy. Despite this, both Lockheed and the South Korean government are confident that the transfer of another 21 technologies will go ahead as planned with possibly some minor alterations to the technologies initially listed. The State Department however did approve the sale of 19 UGM-84L Harpoon Block II All-Up-Round Missiles and 13 Block II upgrade kits totally $110 million.

October 30/15: A subcommittee in South Korea’s Parliament has passed a $58.8 million budget for the country’s indigenous KF-X fighter program, with the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) planning to press ahead with the development of critical technologies required for the jet, despite the US State Department preventing F-35 prime contractor Lockheed Martin from exporting four key technologies to the country. The country’s Ministry of National Defense will also stand-up a KF-X project team to manage the development of these four technologies.

October 26/15: South Korea’s defense acquisition agency is reportedly planning to press ahead with development of the four key technologies required for the country’s KF-X indigenous fighter program, refused by Washington in April. South Korea is thought to be capable of finding replacements for three of these technologies; however the acquisition of an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar system is a particularly difficult problem for Seoul. It was thought that the technology would be transferred as part of offset arrangements for the South Korean F-35 acquisition, with Saab reportedly offering to develop an AESA solution for South Korea, unveiling a new radar system earlier this month.

October 21/15: South Korea’s president has fired the country’s senior presidential secretary for foreign affairs Ju Chul-ki following failure to secure the transfer of four key technologies from the US required for the country’s KF-X indigenous fighter program. The blockage of the technologies in April – subsequently confirmed by the South Korean government in September – has also led to a criminal investigation into a senior security official in the country, as US SecDef Carter publicly reiterated the refusal to transfer the critical technologies last week.

October 7/15: South Korea and Indonesia look set to sign a set of agreements later this month to cement the two countries’ industrial commitments to the collaborative development of the South Korean KF-X indigenous fighter program. The two states signed an engineering and development agreement in October 2014, which split the development costs 80-20 to South Korea. The two countries reiterated their commitment to the program in May this year. Meanwhile, the South Korean Defense Acquisition Program Administration announced on Tuesday that a separate organization will be established specifically to manage the KF-X program.

September 28/15: South Korea’s $6.9 billion KF-X program has hit a major speed bump with refusal by the US government to approve the transfer of four core technologies from F-35 prime contractor Lockheed Martin to the country’s defense procurement agency, with the South Korean government now confirming that Washington refused the transfer back in April. The Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) will now have to look elsewhere to acquire these technologies, which include an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, EO targeting pod, RF jammer and IR search and track system. Lockheed Martin promised to transfer 25 technologies to the country when it signed a Foreign Military Sales contract for 40 F-35s in September, with the homegrown fighter project seemingly now in jeopardy.

April 10/15: GE to push engines. General Electric is reportedly looking to supply jet engines for the South Korea KF-X program, submitting a proposal to Korea Aerospace Industries, following the company’s selection as preferred bidder at the end of last month. The F414 engines GE is proposing has previously equipped the US Navy’s Super Hornets and Growlers, the Saab Gripen NG and the Indian Mk II Tejas.

March 31/15: KAL eliminated. South Korean manufacturer Korean Aerospace Industries (KAI) was selected as preferred bidder today in the country’s indigenousKF-X fighter program, South Korean media reported today, beating a partnership of Airbus and Korean Airlines. KAI are expected to partner with Lockheed Martin for the $7.9 billion program, which will replace the existing Korean fleet of F-4 and F-5 fighters, as well as equip the Indonesian Air Force, which joined the project in 2010.

Feb 23/15: KAL partners with Airbus.
On February 22, Yonhap reported that KAL indeed signed an MOU with Airbus to present a join offer.

Jan 27/15: KAL prospects dim. After proposals were sought on December 23, one government official was quoted as saying that price may be a controlling factor. That probably presupposes that KAL’s international partners, like Boeing, were staying with them, as they can help make up for the leaner engineering department at KAL. But one report indicated that Boeing was pulling out. The consortium, also to have included Airbus, would have pushed a revised F-18 model.

Oct 15/14: F-35 & KF-16. Korean media report that a proposed $753 million price hike for BAE’s KF-16 upgrade deal could result in cancellation. Lockheed Martin waits in the wings, and is reportedly extending an offer that would include more technical help with the multinational KF-X fighter program if the ROKAF switches.

The US government is reportedly demanding another WON 500 billion (about $471 million) for unspecified added “risk management,” while BAE is reportedly requesting another WON 300 million ($282 million) to cover a 1-year program delay. The Koreans are becoming visibly frustrated and distrustful, and have said openly that the deal may be canceled.

Lockheed Martin’s angle is a spinoff from their recent F-35A deal, which will supply 40 aircraft to the ROKAF. Part of their industrial offsets involved 300 man-years of help designing the proposed KF-X. They were cautious about providing too much help, but they reportedly see enough benefit in badly wounding an F-16 upgrade competitor to offer another 400 man-years of support for KF-X (total: 700) if the ROKAF switches. Sources: Chosun Ilbo, “U.S. in Massive Price Hike for Fighter Jet Upgrade” | Defense News, “F-16 Upgrade: Problems With S. Korea-BAE Deal Could Open Door to Lockheed” | Korea Times, “Korea may nix BAE’s KF-16 upgrade deal”.

Sept 24/14: F-35A. DAPA agrees on a WON 7.3 trillion deal for 40 F-35A fighters. including technology transfer in 17 sectors for use in KF-X. Transfers will include flight control and fire suppression technologies, and this appears to have been the final part of the KF-X puzzle. DAPA is said to have finalized their WON 8.5 trillion KF-X development plan, but it still has to be approved.

Subsequent reports indicate that Lockheed Martin has limited its proposed help with KF-X to just 300 man-years, rather than the 800 desired. In exchange, they offered a very unusual offset: they would buy a military communications satellite for South Korea, and launch it by 2017. Lockheed Martin isn’t saying anything, but Thales is favored as the source, as they provided the payload for South Korea’s Kopmsat-5 radar observation satellite, and have played a major role in KT Sat’s Koreasat commercial telecommunications satellites.

Why wouldn’t Lockheed Martin, which makes these satellites itself, just built one? Because this way, it doesn’t have to deal with any American weapon export approval processes and restrictions, which would have delayed overall negotiations and might have endangered them. That’s a lot of effort and money, in order to avoid ITAR laws. Or added help for KF-X. Sources: Yonhap, “Seoul to buy 40 F-35A fighters from Lockheed Martin in 7.3 tln won deal” | Defense News, “F-16 Upgrade: Problems With S. Korea-BAE Deal Could Open Door to Lockheed” | Reuters, “Exclusive: Lockheed to buy European satellite for South Korea in F-35 deal”.

Aug 31/14: DAPA gave public notice of KF-X bids this month, with plans to pick the preferred bidder (likely KAI) in November 2014, and sign a system development contract in December 2014.

The estimated WON 20 trillion development and production cost for 120 fighters is giving South Korea pause, especially with the ROKAF’s coming fighter fleet shortage (q.v. March 26/14). Sources: Korea Herald, “Fighter procurement projects pick up speed”.

Aug 21/14: Engines. GE declares their interest in equipping the ROKAF’s KF-X. The firm already equips some ROKAF F-15Ks (F110), Korea’s own T/TA/FA-50 fighter family (F404), Surion helicopters (T700-701K), and many ROK naval ships (LM2500). The F404, LM2500, and T700 are all assembled locally in South Korea. GE is promising to expand aero engine technology cooperation, increase the component localization rate, and support KF-X exports via joint marketing, while ensuring that over half of KF-X’s engine components are locally assembled.

GE’s F404, F414, and F110 jet engines are all viable possibilities. The key questions will involve matching their engineering specifications to the new platform: space, weight and balance, fuel consumption vs. onboard fuel, and twin-engine thrust vs. expected weight.

GE competitor Pratt & Whitney’s F100 engine equips some ROKAF F-15Ks, and all of its F-16s. Sources: Yonhap, “GE eyes S. Korea’s fighter jet development project” | Joong An Daily, “GE wants in on new fighter jets”.

July 18/14: Twin-engines. South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff endorse the plan to develop KF-X as a twin-engine fighter by 2025. That seems to pick the C-103/ C-501 (q.v. Feb 6/14), a twin-engine design that’s similar to the F-35 in overall shape. This decision an important step, but it isn’t a contract, or even a budget.

The state-funded Korea Institute for Defense Analysis (KIDA) didn’t favor the twin-engine option, because they believed it would increase the fighter’s cost, and wouldn’t have a competitive edge. There actually is an edge for twin-engine fighters in a number of markets, because they’re less likely to crash due to engine failure. A country with large or remote areas to cover – Indonesia, for instance – will benefit from that choice. As for increases in cost, fighters like the Anglo-French Jaguar and Taiwan’s F-CK are smaller twin-engine planes that were successfully developed at reasonable cost. The key cost factor isn’t engines, it’s overall specifications.

With that said, this choice does rule out KF-X’s least-cost, least-risk C-501/ KFX-E design, which would have been derived from the single-engined FA-50 that’s currently in production at KAI. Sources: Defense News, “S. Korea Opts for Twin-Engine Fighter Development” | Reuters, “S.Korea military chiefs endorse $8.2 bln development plan for home-built fighters”.

JCS picks twin-engine C-103 design

March 26/14: Fill-ins. The ROKAF needs to retire its fleets of 136 or so F-5E/F Tiger light fighters, and about 30 F-4 Phantom fighter-bombers. Meanwhile, The F-16 fleet is about to begin a major upgrade program that will keep part of that fleet out of service. The F-X-3 buy of F-35As is expected to be both late, and 20 jets short of earlier plans. The KF-X mid-level fighter project will be even later – it isn’t likely to arrive until 2025, if it arrives at all. The ROKAF is buying 60 FA-50s to help offset some of the F-5 retirements, but the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses (KIDA) sees this combination of events leaving South Korea about 80 planes short.

FA-50 deliveries only began in August 2013, and foreign FA-50 orders from Iraq and the Philippines are beginning to take up additional slots on the production line. As such, the ROKAF may be leaning toward a quicker stopgap:

“The Air Force is considering leasing used combat jets as part of ways to provide the interim defense capability because replacement of aging F-4s and F-5s wouldn’t take place in a timely manner,” a senior Air Force official said, asking for anonymity. “As midlevel combat jets are mostly in shortage, the Air Force is considering renting 16 to 20 used F-16s from the U.S. Air Force…. “The U.S. Air Force stood down some F-16s in the wake of the defense spending cut affected by the sequestration,” another Air Force official said, asking not to be named. “Under current circumstances, we can rent F-16s or buy used ones.”

It will be interesting to see if the USAF will let the ROKAF lease, or just have them buy the jets at cut-rate prices. Sources: Yonhap, “S. Korea considers F-16 lease deal to replace aging jets”.

Jan 5/14: Budget. The Korea Times reports that the 2014 defense budget has appropriated KRW 20 billion (about $19 million) to finalize KF-X’s design. A subsequent report from Aviation Week describes conditions that might be difficult for KF-X to meet:

“The latest South Korean budget provides 20 billion won ($19 million) to continue KF-X studies in 2014, hedged by two major conditions—development cost must be capped at just under $8 billion and be complete by 2025, and the aircraft must be approved for export by the U.S. An international partner must be found and contribute a 15% investment.”

A decision between the available design options is possible by February, and would be followed by detail design work. With respect to US export approval, AW confirms that “Eurofighter is still trying to offer South Korea 40 Typhoons, along with support for KF-X.” Unlike Lockheed Martin’s expected assistance, the vast majority of Eurofighter GmbH technology would be beyond American export approvals. Unfortunately, the ROK military’s short-circuiting of DAPA’s fighter competition (q.v. Nov 22/13) will expand the scope of possible American KF-X export clearance interference. Korea Times, “Military to flesh own fighter jet plan” | Aviation Week, “Fast-Changing Trends In Asia Fighter Market”.

Feb 6/14: KAI’s official blog talks about the prospects for the K-FX. It clarifies that the design decision will be between the C-103, which is a twin-engine design similar to the F-35 in overall shape, and the FA-50 derived C-501/ KFX-E. Sources: KAI Blog.

2011 – 2013

Program halt lifted, as specs get clearer; Indonesia confirms, then faces a delayed program again; Turkey invited, but seem to be going their own way. KAI’s FA-50
(click to view full)

Nov 22/13: KF-X moved up. South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff add urgency to proposed development of the local KF-X fighter, moving it from a long-range project to an intermediate-term project for development by 2020. Past timelines have given 7 years from the beginning of development to the end, which is already pretty fast. Even if KF-X receives follow-on approval and budgets, 7 years means development doesn’t end until 2022 or so.

They also announce that there will be no competition for F-X Phase III – the F-35 is the only option. As a result, Lockheed Martin is expected to lend its expertise to KAI for KF-X, as part of an industrial offsets program that will also include a new military communications satellite and a cyber-warfare training center. ROK’s Yonhap, “(LEAD) S. Korea decides to buy 40 Lockheed F-35s from 2018” | Aviation Week, “South Korea To Order 40 F-35s, Maybe 20 More Later” | E&T, “South Korea confirms F-35 fighter jet deal” | NY Times, “In South Korea, Delays Drag a Project to Build Homegrown Fighter Jets” | China’s Xinhua, “S. Korea picks Lockheed Martin’s F-35 as main fighter jet”.

Nov 5/13: Sub-contractors. Rockwell Collins is expressing interest in KF-X. They’re already a significant avionics supplier for existing T-50 family jets and Surion helicopters. Honeywell’s senior director of APAC Customer Business Mark Burgess:

“We are in discussions with KAI and Samsung Techwin to explore how Honeywell can contribute to the KF-X program.”

Oct 28/13: KF-X shrunk? Aviation Week reports that KAI has responded to the KF-X’s program’s stall with a smaller, single-engine “KFX-E/ C501” design that uses the F-35-style C103 design as a base, and proposes to reuse some systems from the FA-50. Overall weight would drop from around 11 tonnes to 9.3t (an F-16 is 8.9t), removing advance provision for an internal weapon bay, and leaving 2 underbody stations unused if a centerline fuel tank is carried.

Engine choices would involve the same PW F100 or GE F110 choice available to F-16s, leaving KFX-E vulnerable to US export bans. Avionics would come from LIG Nex1, and a Korean AESA radar with about 1,000 T/R modules and a claimed performance similar to the F-16E/F’s AN/APG-80 would be fitted. Unlike the F-35, the targeting pod would have to be carried externally, and self-protection antennas will be part of a carried package, rather than conformal. South Korea believes they can develop the targeting pod themselves, and they’ve already developed an ALQ-200K ECM pod that could be adapted for internal carriage.

The problem with all of this is that the design math is adverse. KFX-E’s ceiling offers poorer acceleration and range versus the F-16, a design that doesn’t appear to be optimized for maneuverability, and a radar that’s likely to be technically behind the ROKAF’s upgraded KF-16 fighters, all without the benefits of stealth in its initial configuration. The product would due to enter service the mid-2020s, and costs are difficult to predict but are unlikely to be less than a current F-16. This would augur poorly for exports, and makes the case for internal ROKAF adoption more difficult. Worse, launch partner Indonesia in particular values range, which would endanger their continued participation. KFX-E seems to be a formula that minimizes one type of risk, while increasing others. Sources: Aviation Week, “KAI Proposes Smaller KF-X Design” | IHS Jane’s, “ADEX 2013: KAI unveils new version of KFX fighter” (incl. picture).

July 30/13: Turkey. Hurriyet quotes “a senior official familiar with the program” who says that $11 – $13 billion would be a realistic development cost for Turkey’s planned TF-X fighter. That actually is a reasonable estimate for a 4.5+ generation machine, but even this figure adds $50 million per plane to a large national order of 200 fighters. Keeping costs within the official’s $100 million per plane target will be challenging, which means a 200 jet program would cost Turkey $31 – $33 billion if everything goes well. Which won’t happen, especially if Turkey pushes for ambitious specifications.

That math offers daunting odds for a national jet program, and much of the same math can be expected to apply to KF-X. Will sticker shock cause Turkey to take another look at collaboration with Korea? Push them to abandon TF-X and buy something else? Or just be ignored by local politicians looking to make big promises? Hurriyet Daily News.

May 23/13: EADS. EADS Cassidian reportedly announces that they would invest $2 billion in the K-FX fighter development project, and help market the plane internationally, if the Eurofighter is chosen for F-X-3. Investments would include a maintenance repair and overhaul (MRO) facility that could extend to the KF-X, and an aerospace software center.

It isn’t a bad idea for EADS. Barring multiple orders from new sources, it’s very unlikely that the Eurofighter will still be in production by 2022. Upgrades and maintenance will continue for some time, but the C-203 KF-X design could offer EADS a new option to sell, with a fundamental design that can improve toward stealth fighter status. The question is whether South Korea wants to go forward. Yonhap News.

May 16/13: Indonesia. Indonesian Defense Minister Purnomo Yusgiantoro says that they remain committed to the KFX/IFX program. The Jakarta Post:

“We have told our South Korean counterparts that we will continue doing our part. Whatever their decision is, and whatever technology they focus on, we will follow their lead and our 20 percent of share will remain,” Purnomo said…. TB Hasanuddin of House Commission I on defense and foreign affairs, said that about Rp 1.6 trillion ($164.8 million) was already spent on the project.”

The question is whether South Korea chooses to pick up the project again, after the 18-month delay is over.

April 29/13: Details. Aviation Week recaps the ROK ADD’s KF-X plan (q.v. Feb 18/13 entry), and quotes “a former air force officer who has been involved in planning for KF-X” to say that radar cross-section for Block 1 will be between 0.1 – 1.0 square meters. It adds that the choice between the conventional layout C103 and C203 canard design probably comes down to the development partner Korea chooses: C103 if American, C203 if European.

Candidate engines for the twin-engine design are reportedly the GR F404 used in the FA-50, Eurojet’s EJ200 used in the Eurofighter, or GE’s F414 used in the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, JAS-39E/F Gripen NG, and India’s Tejas Mk.II. Snecma’s M88, used in Dassault’s Rafale, reportedly isn’t a candidate. Aviation Week.

April 5/13: South Korean media detail a proposal from EADS to produce 80% of F-X Phase 3’s 60 fighters at KAI, if DAPA picks their Eurofighter. The Yonhap report also discusses this potential industrial boost for KAI in the context of the KF-X program,:

“Many have been calling on the Park Geun-hye administration to promptly make a decision to either go ahead with the large-scale airplane development project or put on the brakes if it is deemed economically unsustainable.”

The rest of the Yonhap report may be switching contexts to the F-X-3 high-end fighter acquisition, as it describes a decision to be made by June 2013, as part of a renewed emphasis on major defense projects in light of North Korea’s actions. That doesn’t entirely track with previous reports that place resumption of KF-X at June 2014, if it happens at all. It does track with reports concerning the F-X-3 program, so the confusion could just be poor writing. What is true is that provocations from North Korea are very much a double-edged sword for KF-X. On the one hand, they boost the idea of defense spending generally. On the other hand, they raise needs like anti-submarine warfare, missile defense improvements, etc. that will be higher priorities than KF-X. Yonhap News Service | Hankoryeh.

March 20/13: Turkey. The Turks appear to be picking an independent course toward their future fighter aircraft, in line with rumors that they wanted more control than the KF-X program could give them. Their SSM signed an August 2011 deal with Turkish Aerospace Industries (TAI) to carry out the conceptual design work, and recent reports add a preliminary agreement between TAI and Saab Group for technical assistance. Reports add that TAI is expected to acquire Saab’s aircraft design tools, which would make cooperation much easier.

These moves don’t completely rule out KF-X participation, but they do weight the odds the other way. Defense Industry Undersecretary Murad Bayar says that Turkey’s project began in 2012, adding that after some modeling trials, one of the designs has matured. After completing the design phase, the undersecretary will offer a program plan to Turkey’s Defense Industry Executive Committee.

Turkey faces some of the same dilemmas as South Korea. If 2023 is the first flight date for a 4.5 generation fighter, there’s a real risk that the design will be outmoded from the outset. On the other hand, designing and prototyping an indigenous jet from scratch takes time, and technical overreach versus current capabilities is incredibly risky. One “top official from a Western aircraft maker” told Hurriyet that Turkey may already be headed down that path: “…we had to step back when we understood that the technical requirements for the aircraft are far from being realistic.” Hurriyet | Hurriyet follow-on | AIN.

March 1/13: 2nd Delay. Indonesian Defense Ministry official Pos Hutabarat confirms that KF-X has been postponed by 18 months to June 2014, while President Park Geun-hye decides whether to continue the project, and secures Parliamentary approval for that choice. Indonesia signed a 2010 MoU to become part of the project. Reports indicate an investment to date of IDR 1.6 trillion (about $165 million), with 30 PT Dirgantara Indonesia engineers at KAI working on the project.

UPI says that the KFX/IFX fighter’s price has already risen to $50-$60 million per aircraft, and this is before a prototype even exists. That’s already comparable to a modern F/A-18E/F Super Hornet or JAS-39 Gripen, in return for hopes of similar performance many years from now. Jakarta Globe | UPI.

2nd program delay

Feb 18/13: Details. Aviation Week reports that the Korea Institute for Defense Analysis has given KF-X a sharp negative review, even though it’s a defense ministry think-tank. In brief: the ROK isn’t technologically ready, and the project’s KRW 10+ trillion cost will be about twice as much as similar imported fighters. The 2013 budget is just KRW 4.5 billion, to continue studies.

Those studies are coming to some conclusions. The ROK ADD would still have a pick a design if they go ahead: either the conventional C103 fighter layout, or the C203 design with forward canards. Either aircraft would be a twin-engine fighter weighing around 10.4 tonnes, with stealth shaping. Bock 1 would only have to meet the radar cross-section of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet or Eurofighter Typhoon. Block 2 would add internal weapon bays, which Block 1 would be compatible with but not have. Additional tolerance and coating improvements would reduce stealth to the level of an F-117. Block 3 would aim for further improvements to the level of the B-2 bomber or F-35.

The ROK Agency for Defense Development says that if full-scale development begins in October 2014, the 1st KF-X Block 1 prototype flight would take until September 2020. Based on the history of other programs, the new plane would be hard pressed to enter service before 2025. Aviation Week.

Oct 27/11: KF-X specs. Fight International:

“In 2013, South Korea and two national partners will start developing a medium-sized and probably twin-engined fighter. It will be more agile than a Lockheed Martin F-16, with an advanced sensor suite and fusion software on a par with the US company’s new-generation F-35. Aiming to enter operations in 2021, the new design will also carry a bespoke arsenal of indigenous missiles and precision-guided munitions. That is the vision for the KF-X programme, outlined on 21 October at the Seoul air show by South Korean government and academic officials.”

DAPA’s technical requirements reportedly include an AESA radar and onboard IRST (InfraRed Search and Track) sensors, standard fly-by-wire flight and HOTAS (hands on throttle and stick) pilot controls, an NVG-compatible helmet-mounted display, and sensor fusion to the large screen single display. That last bit is especially challenging, and DAPA acknowledged that foreign partners will be needed. They hope to begin flight tests in 2016-2017, with an 8-year system development phase and a 7-plane test fleet (up from 5 prototypes at the Indonesian MoU).

Under this vision, South Korea’s LiG Nex1 would also develop a compatible line of short and medium range air-to-air missiles, strike missiles, and precision weapons to complement DAPA’s 500 pound Korea GPS guided bomb (KGGB). That array will expand global weapon choices if DAPA follows through, but the challenge will be getting them integrated with other countries’ aircraft. Ask the French how that goes.

KF-X specs

July 14/11: Indonesia confirmed. About a year after the MoU, The secretary general of Indonesia’s defence ministry, Erris Heriyanto, confirms the MoU’s terms to Indonesia’s ­official Antara news agency. KAI EVP Enes Park had called Indonesia’s involvement unconfirmed at the November 2010 Indo Defence show, but the Antara report appears to confirm it.

Turkey unveiled indigenous fighter plans of its own in December 2010, with the aim of fielding a fighter by 2023, but they haven’t made any commitments to KF-X. Flight International.

April 2011: Postponement of the KF-X project is reportedly lifted, as South Korea gets a bit clearer about their requirements.

Resumed

2008 – 2010

Reality check scales back specs, before indecision suspends program; Indonesia signs MoU. T-129: Quid pro quo?
(click to view full)

Dec 27/10: Yo-yo. South Korea’s Yonhap News agency reports that South Korea’s military is trying to swing KF-X back to a stealth fighter program, in the wake of North Korea’s Nov. 23 shelling on Yeonpyeong Island.

Subsequent reports indicate that the uncertainty about KF-X requirements leads to a program halt, until things can get sorted out. Yonhap.

Aug 9/10: Turkey. DAPA aircraft programs director Maj. Gen. Choi Cha-kyu says that Turkey is actively considering the K-FX fighter program, and would bear the same 20% project share as Indonesia if they come on board.

There are reports that in return, Turkey wants the ROK to pick the T-129 ATAK helicopter under the AH-X heavy attack helicopter program. Turkey bought the A129 Mangusta design from AgustaWestland, as part of a September 2007 contract to build 51-92 helicopters for the Turkish Army. Korea Times | Hurriyet.

Now: TNI-AU F-16A
(click to view full)

July 15/10: Indonesia. Indonesia signs a Memorandum of Understanding to participate in KF-X. They’ll pay 20% of the estimated WON 5.1 trillion (about $4.1 billion) development effort, with 5 prototypes to be built before 2020, and commit to buying 50 of the fighters. South Korea has only committed to 60% of the development cost, which leaves 20% in limbo. DAPA’s KF-X program director Col. Lee Jong-hee says:

“There are two options on the table. One is to lure financial investments from other nations, such as Turkey and the United Arab Emirates. The other is to receive investments from Western aircraft makers wishing to participate in the KF-X.”

The Indonesian agreement follows a March 2009 Letter of Intent that was co-signed by South Korean President Lee Myung-bak. Indonesian MPs urged the government to conduct a feasibility test beforehand, but that wasn’t done. Key issues from Indonesia’s point of view include KF-X’s adequacy for the TNI-AU’s needs; technical and fiscal feasibility; technology and cost risk; the benefits to Indonesia’s aviation industry, given a break-even set by Aviation Week at 250-300 fighters for under $41 million each; and the role of 3rd country tech for engines. etc. which could still leave the fighters subject to foreign embargoes. Defense News | Jakarta Post.

Indonesia joins the program

Sept 12/09: KF-X drivers. Aviation Week offers their take on KFX’s positioning and industrial drivers:

“South Korea has decided that it can’t afford to build a cutting-edge stealth fighter…. it is considering building a gen-4.5 fighter, which might emerge as a jazzed up Typhoon or Super Hornet…. KFX would go into service in the early 2020s, perhaps a quarter of a century behind its technology level.

….Korea Aerospace will run out of fighter development work in a few years when the FA-50 is finished. It presumably does not have the technology to step straight from that to a combat drone. And it can’t spend next decade building up skills with an improved, single-seat FA-50, because the air force wants bigger aircraft…. the KFX would perhaps be an extreme example of sacrifices made in the name of self reliance or, perhaps, nationalism.”

July 23/09: KF-X. Defense News reports that “South Korea Drops 5th-Generation Fighter Plan,” but the title is misleading. The Weapon Systems Concept Development and Application Research Center of Konkuk University asked Boeing, Eurofighter, Lockheed Martin and Saab about their views on the per-plane cost estimate of $50 million, as well as budget-sharing ideas and technology transfer.

The problem is that South Korea’s specifications as described most closely mirror the ($150-180 million each, and $10+ billion development) F-22 Raptor, indicating that some reconciliation with reality is still necessary. The center will wrap up the feasibility study by October 2009, and DAPA is supposed to issue a decision on the KF-X initiative by year’s end. That will determine whether KF-X competes with/ supplants F-X-3, or proceeds as a separate program.

May 12/09: Changing gears. The Korea Times reports that the ROKAF’s Studies and Analyses Wing made an interim decision KF-X operational requirements in March 2009:

“Basic requirements call for a F-18E/F Super Hornet-class aircraft equipped with 4.5-generation semi-stealth functions, a domestically-built active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar [“based on accrued technologies from Israel”], a 32,000-pound of engine thrust and fully integrated weapons and sensors systems…. The KF-X aircraft would be either a single-engine fighter or a twin-engine one, [the source] added. It is the first time that KF-X operational requirements have been revealed.”

DAPA expects a final program decision around the end of 2009, and KF-X is expected to be part of the military’s 2010-14 force improvement package.

Jan 28/08: Reality check. The current program was scheduled to be followed by a KF-X program to develop and indigenous 5th generation/ stealth fighter to replace all F-5E Tiger IIs and F-4E Phantom IIs. After a feasibility study in 2008, the project would aim to produce the next-generation jets by 2020, with the goal of building 120 planes in a bid to secure proprietary technology and strengthen the country’s medium level fighter jet capacity. The goal is reportedly a single-seat, twin-engine plane with about 40,000 pounds of thrust from its engines, with more stealth than the Eurofighter Typhoon or Dassault Rafale, but less stealth than the F-35.

Now the Korea Development Institute has delivered a report concluding that the economic and industrial returns would be weak in proportion to its cost: about 3 trillion won/ $3 billion in returns, on a 10 trillion won investment. Papers quote foreign experts who estimate development costs of up to $12 billion. Korea’s Defense Acquisition Program Administration said the KDI report was for reference only, and the project decision would include other factors such as export prospects and technological capacity.

$7 billion is not a sum to be thrown away casually, and the difference would be very noticeable within South Korea’s defense budgets. Options like partnering with EADS on a stealthier version of the Eurofighter, for instance, might lower development costs and offer an additional option. Nevertheless, with F-X-3 likely to select a stealthy platform, a merger with the K-FX program and negotiation of an industrial deal seems more likely. Especially given South Korea’s demographic crunch, which will begin to bite by 2020. Chosun Ilbo | Korea Times.

Additional Readings The KF-X Program

• Aviation Week – KFX Timeline. To 2013.

• Aviation Week (Feb 3/14) – Fast-Changing Trends In Asia Fighter Market

• Flight International (Oct 27/11) – IN FOCUS: South Korea outlines strategy for indigenous fighter.

• World Politics Review (Aug 13/10) – Global Insider: Indonesia-South Korea Joint Fighter Project (subscription). Says that KF-X will be based on KAI’s T-50, and aims to produce a fighter on par with the F-16C/D Block 50.

• Defense News (July 15/10) – Indonesia Joins South Korean Fighter Effort

• The Jakarta Post (July 12/10) – RI-S. Korea KFX cooperation: The second best option?

• Aviation Week (Sept 21/09) – A Generation 4.5 Fighter for the 2020s

Related Programs

• DID – Korea’s T-50 Family Spreads Its Wings. Some accounts have KF-X as an FA-50 derivative.

• DID – Korea’s F-X Multi-Role Fighter Buys: Phases 2 & 3. The ROKAF’s high-end fighter plans.

Americas

• It may have been coming for some time, but the Pentagon has finally admitted that the F-35 will not be cleared for full rate production until 2018. Frank Kendell, the program’s chief weapons tester, had been warning of delays for some time; however, it had been maintained by some that the jet’s initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) would occur as planned in August or September 2017. Now that reality has hit home, the extra six months will be spent retrofitting the 23 aircraft required for IOT&E with the full 3F software and hardware patches.

• USS John Paul Jones was used to validate the ability of the Aegis Baseline 9 to track Medium Range Ballistic Missile (MRBM) targets within the Earth’s atmosphere recently. Supported by the Navy, Missile Defense Agency, and Lockheed Martin the use of the missile destroyer marks the first demonstration of Aegis’s ability to conduct a complicated tracking exercise against an MRBM during its endo phase of flight. The development comes as targets and threats have become more advanced, with Aegis BMD evolving over the last 20 years from a tracking experiment to today’s capability in which it can detect, track and engage targets.

Middle East North Africa

• Leonardo-Finmeccanica has announced that Pakistan will purchase an undisclosed number of AW139 helicopters for Search & Rescue missions. This will add to 11 already in service, and delivery is to commence in 2017. The contract is part of a fleet renewal program spread over several batches, including a logistic support and training package.

Europe

• Ukraine’s Antonov has been tipped as the favorite candidate in Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd’s. (HAL) medium military transport aircraft program. The company emerged as the frontrunner out of five bids received by the company after meeting all the necessary requirements alongside a recent design with state-of-the-art aviation systems like fly-by-wire, high-efficiency engines and all-weather operations. Antonov or AN class of aircraft have been part of the Indian Air Force (IAF) for over five decades. The IAF has more than 100 AN-32 aircraft recently upgraded on its inventory.

• Sweden’s air force looks set to advance a competition to select its new jet trainer to replace the service’s Saab 105 by the end of the decade. After an initial request for information was issued late last year, the air force and the state’s procurement agency now need to refine their exact needs for the right replacement. Sweden had initially expressed interest in participating in a proposed multinational Eurotraining project however that failed to materialize.

Asia Pacific

• An op-ed piece published last week, suggesting the US should supply AGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles to Japan has received a rebuttal from Chinese researchers. Experts from the China Institute of International Studies stated that while the idea of supplying the missile to Tokyo was not new, it would pose a threat to other countries in East Asia. The warning most likely comes following efforts started last year by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to pursue changing the country’s post-WW2 constitution to allow it to re-arm and expand its forces.

• Israel’s Rafael Advanced Systems looks set to win the Indian Army’s short-range surface-to-air missile (SRSAM) contest with its Spyder system. According to the Economic Times, the Spyder seems poised to win after offerings from Sweden’s Saab and Russia’s Rosoboronexport failed to comply with the Army’s requirements during technical trials. The competition has been running for five years.

Today’s Video

• The “Hell Cannon“: Homemade artillery of Syria’s rebel armies:

SPYDER Mobile Firing Unit
(click to view full)

Israel’s SPYDER air defense system follows a recent trend of using advanced air-air missiles designed for fighter jets as ground-launched surface-to-air missiles (SAM). This truck-mounted system mixes radar and optical tracking with any combination of short to medium-range Derby 4 and ultra-agile short-range 5th generation Python 5 air to air missiles, in order to create a versatile system adapted for a wider range of threats. Hence its inclusion in in our AMRAAM FOCUS article’s “international competitors” section.

India has become the system’s inaugural export customer. SPYDER will reportedly replace India’s Russian-made OSA-AKM/SA-8 Gecko and ZRK-BD Strela-10M/ SA-13 Gopher SAM systems, and the purchase has decisively shelved the Indian DRDO’s failed Trishul project.

More success may be on the way. As India’s Air Force gears up, the Army is reportedly about to follow suit with an even bigger contract.

The SPYDER System SPYDER Systems
(click to view full)

Each SPYDER ADS-SR Mobile Firing Unit can slant-launch up to 4 missiles in either lock on after launch (LOAL) mode, or lock on before launch (LOBL). This short-range version offers 360 degree quick engagement capability and 60-target tracking via IAI’s Elta EL/M 2106 ATAR 3D surveillance radar and TOPLITE optical sensor, a kill range of over 15 km, and openly advertised effectiveness from 20 – 9,000 meters (65 – 30,000 feet).

A new SPYDER ADS-MR 6×6 truck version was unveiled at Eurosatory 2006. It’s restricted to LOAL but offers 8 vertical-launch missiles in any mix, adds a dedicated radar vehicle with a more powerful radar, and puts boosters on all missiles, in order to improve advertised range to 50 km/ 30 miles, and performance to 16 km/ 52,000 feet.

A typical SPYDER squadron consists of 1 Mobile Command and Control Unit, plus 4 Mobile Firing Units with their own built-in power supplies and missile sets of 4-8 missiles.

Contracts and Key Events SPYDER MR vs. SR
(click to view full)

May 26/16: Israel’s Rafael Advanced Systems looks set to win the Indian Army’s short-range surface-to-air missile (SRSAM) contest with its Spyder system. According to the Economic Times, the Spyder seems poised to win after offerings from Sweden’s Saab and Russia’s Rosoboronexport failed to comply with the Army’s requirements during technical trials. The competition has been running for five years.

October 26/15: Vietnam has purchased [Vietnamese] SPYDER air defense systems, manufactured by Israel’s Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd. The surface-to-air missile system is capable of launching the company’s advanced Derby beyond visual range and Python-5 missiles, with it unclear whether the Vietnamese military has purchased the Short Range (SPYDER-SR) or Medium Range (SPYDER-MR) version, with respective ranges of 20km and 50km.

Aug 18/09: Indian Army’s QR-SAM. The Times of India reports that India’s Ministry of Defence has finally given the go-ahead for the army’s INR 40 billion (about $820 million) Quick-Reaction SAM program. These mobile missiles would protect Indian maneuver elements like armored columns and troop concentrations, as well as important areas and installations. The Army seeks to equip 3 regiments with this contract, which is over twice the size of the IAF’s 18 squadron purchase. The Times of India:

“With the indigenous Akash and Trishul air defence projects not meeting its “user-requirements”… The Defence Acquisitions Council, chaired by defence minister A K Antony, discussed the entire matter on Monday. Though there was no official word, sources said the Israeli SpyDer QR-SAM systems had been selected for the project.

…The projects were in a limbo for quite some time now, with one of the main reasons being the naming of Israeli Aerospace Industries (IAI) and Rafael in the Rs 1,160-crore Barak-I deal kickbacks case by the CBI. The government, however, was reluctant to blacklist these Israeli armament firms because it held that it would prove “counter-productive” since there were several “crucial” defence projects underway with them.”

Jan 20/09: SR-SAM – Revenge of DRDO? India Defence reports that neither MBDA nor India’s state-run DRDO have given up on their “SR-SAM” short range air defense proposal. Rumors peg it as a combination of DRDO’s Trishul and MBDA’s VL-MICA system, though Trishul’s failure and VL-MICA’s techologies mean that claims regarding Trishul technology are likely to be about saving face as much as anything else.

The “Maitri” LLQRM proposal’s positioning would be directly competitive with RAFAEL’s SPYDER, and VL-MICA is deployable as a mobile system. That could affect SPYDER’s future expansion within the Indian military, and might even affect its prospects if program problems crop up. MICA’s capabilities mean that SR-SAM/Maitri would also be directly competitive with India’s indigenous Akash, and might even impinge on the proposed medium range MR-SAM deal involving a longer-range Barak missile.

Dec 11/08: The Indian Ministry of Defence confirms that it has signed the Spyder contract – and canceled Trishul. Defence Minister Shri AK Antony, in a written reply to Shri Tarini Kanta Roy in Rajya Sabha:

“Ministry of Defence has signed a contract with M/s Rafael, Israel to procure Spyder Low Level Quick Reaction Missile System (LLQRM) for the Indian Air Force.

The proposal for Trishul system was foreclosed due to its inability to meet certain critical operational requirements. However, it served as a technology demonstrator and the expertise acquired with the technologies developed during design and development phase of Trishul Missile System are being utilized for developing state-of-the-art Short Range Surface to Air Missile System.”

Costs were not disclosed, though some reports place the deal at $260 million; previous reports of R 18,000 crore would be about $362 million at current exchange rates. Nor was the future composition of India’s Spyder force; Spyder systems now come in the 8-pack, booster-enabled SPYDER ADS-MR, and the 4-pack SPYDER ADS-SR. Indian MoD | domain-b.

Oct 13/08: DNA India reports that a new order from the Union government downgraded both IAI and RAFAEL’s position as weapon suppliers to India, and may place the Spyder contract in jeopardy. The issue is not expected to sort itself out until after the 2009 Parliamentary elections. Read “India Downgrades Vendor Status of IAI and RAFAEL” for more.

Sept 1/08: The Spyder contract was delayed for almost 2 years by political accusations, but those have apparently been put to rest. Defense News reports that a $260 million contract has now been signed with Rafael. The Indian Air Force will receive 18 Spyder systems, with deliveries beginning in early 2011 and finishing by August 2012. Unusually, the contract will not include any mandatory industrial offsets.

March 19/07: Reports indicate that MBDA is working on a deal with the DRDO, whose Trishul short range anti-aorcraft missile project continues to flounder. DRDO’s Defence Research and Development Laboratory (DRDL) would team with MBDA to develop a “new-generation low-level, quick-reaction missile (LLQRM) system” known as ‘Maitri’, for the Indian Navy and Air Force. India Defence.

The project is said to be worth $500 million and is to be signed in May between the Hyderabad-based DRDL and MBDA. It is retry to revive the work done under the unsuccessful Trishul LLQRM project,

October 2006: India Defence quoted Air Chief SP Tyagi as saying India is close to wrapping up a deal to purchase quick reaction surface-to-air missiles from Israel as a mobile air defense system. Under the deal, India proposed to buy 18 SPYDER (Surface-to-air PYthon and DERby) missile systems and accompanying missiles in a deal worth more than Rs 1,800 crores (18 billion Indian rupees, or about $395.4 million at the time). RAFAEL would be the prime contractor, and Israel Aircraft Industries the major subcontractor.

Additional Readings

• RAFAEL – SPYDER ADS-MR

• RAFAEL – SPYDER ADS-SR

• RAFAEL – Python 5: Full Sphere IR Air-to-Air Missile

• RAFAEL – Derby: Beyond visual Range Air-to-Air Missile

• Israeli Weapons – SPYDER

• Army Technology – SPYDER Surface-to-Air Python 5 and Derby Air Defence Missile System, Israel

• DID – India’s IGMP Missile Programs. Including the canceled Trishul and the medium range Akash SAM.

• DID – India & Israel Introducing MR-SAM. Based on a longer-range version of the Barak missile.

Americas

• USAF commitments to maintain 1,900 aircraft beyond 2021 may be in trouble according to the Pentagon’s annual aviation, inventory, and funding plan for fiscal years 2017 through 2046. Budget constraints across the armed forces are requiring the Air Force to retire more aircraft than it procures; with the report predicting the fleet to reach its lowest in point 2031. The report notes that the service plans to sunset John McCain’s beloved A-10 between FY18 and FY22, but hints that those plans “are subject to change,” while Congress’s desire to restart the F-22 Raptor production line looks increasingly like a non-runner.

• Huntington Ingalls has been awarded a $152 million US Navy contact for advance planning for the construction of the aircraft carrier Enterprise (CVN 80). The third aircraft carrier in the Gerald R. Ford class was named in honor of the Navy’s first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, USS Enterprise (CVN 65). Work to be carried out includes engineering, design, planning, and procurement of long-lead-time material, and will be performed at the company’s Newport News Shipbuilding division through March 2018. Construction is to commence in 2018 and be delivered to the Navy in 2027.

• Weapons testers upgrading the Northrop Grumman RQ-4B Global Hawk have commenced laser-printing simulated ice for ice-shape testing on the UAV. Using a process known as “selective laser sintering,” it is possible to characterize ice buildup on the aircrafts wings and V-tail, a common problem found on most aircraft. The testing will now allow operators to know the airframe’s exact tolerance to buildup when carrying different fuel loads. In use since the late 1990s, the USAF is looking to extend the UAV’s lifetime through to 2034 instead of early retirement.

Middle East North Africa

• Saab has announced increased interest in its configuration of a Bombardier 6000 business jet with the company’s GlobalEye system for the UAE. The $1.27 billion deal will see the heavily adapted Global 6000 to be capable of conducting airborne early warning and control (AEW&C), maritime and land surveillance, and electronic intelligence duties. Included in the package is Saab’s improved Erieye ER active electronically scanned array radar, now capable of a 70% greater detection range than its previous sensor, and the ability to spot challenging targets, such as cruise missiles, small unmanned air vehicles and hovering helicopters. Combining its below-fuselage mounted maritime search radar and electro-optical/infrared sensor will enable operators to locate surface threats and submarine periscopes, while its primary sensor’s synthetic aperture radar and ground moving target indication modes will be used to locate land targets.

Europe

• The first two Dutch F-35As have successfully landed in the Netherlands, marking the Joint Strike Fighter’s first eastbound transatlantic journey. Dubbed AN-01 and AN-02, the fighters were welcomed by a crowd of 2,000 including Minister of Defence Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert. The aircraft will now spend the next few weeks conducting noise and environmental tests over the country, designed to determine the levels of noise disturbance the residents experience. The jets will perform flights over the North Sea range and then appear and fly at the Netherlands’ Open Days in June.

Africa

• After showcasing its Parabot super robot at this year’s SOFEX in Jordan, South Africa’s Paramount Group is setting its sights on increasing their defense collaboration with US firms. With partnerships already existing with Boeing, Airbus, and firms in Kazakhstan and Jordan, Paramount’s founder, Ivor Ichikowitz, believes the company has much to offer the US defense industry, not just in supplying technology, but in philosophy, as the US attempts to rethink how it acquires defense capabilities. Having known nothing but government budget restrictions since its foundation in early post-Apartheid South Africa, Ichikowitz said, “We’ve always had to come up with technologies that give our customers the most capabilities for the least amount of money.”

Asia Pacific

• The Indian Defence Research and Development Organisation’s (DRDO) successful test-firing of an indigenous Advanced Air Defense (AAD) missile interceptor on May 15 is being called into question following claims that the launch didn’t occur in the first place. Initially it was claimed that the missile successfully tracked, engaged and destroyed a naval version of the Prithvi missile, which was fired to simulate an enemy target. However “informed sources” talking to The Hindu newspaper claim that the test was a failure as the interceptor was never launched. Perhaps its back to the drawing board for the DRDO, again.

Today’s Video

• Recording of the F-35A’s arrival in the Netherlands:

Arabian/Persian Gulf
(click to view full)

In November 2009, Saab announced a 1.5 billion SEK (about $220 million) contract from the United Arab Emirates for 2 of its Saab 340 regional turboprops, equipped with Erieye active-array radars that can scan large airspace volumes, and with related command and control systems. The Saab 340 AEW contract also includes ground equipment, initial spares, and support services.

The UAE is just the latest buyer of Saab’s Erieye system.

The Erieye, and Its Competitors cutaway view
(click to view full)

The Erieye family of Airborne Early Warning & Control aircraft offer of small size, lower purchase price, dual air/sea scan capabilities, and comparatively cheap operating costs are making it one of the world’s most popular AEW systems. The antenna reportedly provides coverage out to 450km, with a detection range of 350km even inchallenging conditions. The Erieye Ground Interface Segment (EGIS) provides a 2-way exchange of data via an associated “Link-E” datalink sub-system, and the plane’s capabilities can can also reportedly be used to support border control or even rescue operations.

The UAE joins Sweden, Pakistan, and Thailand, who have all ordered systems based on Saab’s S340/S2000 regional passenger turboprops. Brazil, Mexico, and Greece all ordered R-99As/ EMB-145 AEW&Cs that pair Erieye with Embraer’s ERJ145 regional passenger jets.

Key global competitors for Erieye systems include Boeing’s developmental E-737 ordered by Australia, South Korea, and Turkey; Israel’s Phalcon system (active on 707, IL-76, and Gulfstream G550 jets), and Northrop Grumman’s carrier-capable E-2 Hawkeye. That may become relevant, as some reports depict the Saab 340 Erieye as an interim system for the UAE, on the way to a final purchase of additional AWACS platforms.

The UAE’s aircraft order also fits into a regional trend, as the Emirates move to establish a leadership position within the Gulf Cooperation Council’s accelerating command-and-control efforts. Over time, the GCC’s ability to fuse the UAE’s efforts with local infrastructure like long range radars, Saudi Arabian 707-based E-3 AWACS/TASS planes, and other assets, may begin to produce cooperative situational awareness on a regional level.

Contracts & Key Events Thai S340 Erieye
(click to view full)

May 25/16: Saab has announced increased interest in its configuration of a Bombardier 6000 business jet with the company’s GlobalEye system for the UAE. The $1.27 billion deal will see the heavily adapted Global 6000 to be capable of conducting airborne early warning and control (AEW&C), maritime and land surveillance, and electronic intelligence duties. Included in the package is Saab’s improved Erieye ER active electronically scanned array radar, now capable of a 70% greater detection range than its previous sensor, and the ability to spot challenging targets, such as cruise missiles, small unmanned air vehicles and hovering helicopters. Combining its below-fuselage mounted maritime search radar and electro-optical/infrared sensor will enable operators to locate surface threats and submarine periscopes, while its primary sensor’s synthetic aperture radar and ground moving target indication modes will be used to locate land targets.

February 18/16: Following a custom $1.27 billion two-aircraft deal to provide an early warning and control (AEW&C) system to the UAE, Saab has officially launched the new early warning aircraft to the wider market. The GlobalEye combines the Erieye ER active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar with Bombardier’s Global 6000 business jet. The Erieye had been previously offered on the Embraer 145, Saab 2000 and Saab 340, but its incorporation on the Global 6000 will allow it much greater altitude and endurance capabilities, flying at 11,000 ft for 11 hours. The business jet will likely be armed with Saab’s RBS-15 anti-ship missile and a lightweight torpedo; possibly a EuroTorp weapon. Saab’s announcement comes as they look to provide maritime, land, and air surveillance capabilities to countries increasingly involved in anti-terrorism, anti-piracy, or territorial monitoring operations.

November 10/15: Saab has received an order for two additional Airborne Early Warning aircraft from the United Arab Emirates in a deal valuing $1.27 billion. The Swing Role Surveillance System (SRSR) will incorporate the company’s Erieye radar and other sensors aboard two Bombardier Global 600 business jet platforms. The UAE already operates two Saab Erieye-equipped AEW turboprop aircraft, ordered in November 2009 through a $220 million contract.

March 16/11: The Khaleej Times reports that Sweden’s Saab Group will deliver the 2nd S340 Erieye to the UAE slightly late, in April 2011. It quotes Swedish Ambassador Magnus Scholdtz as saying that “We’ve offered to the UAE to sell 4 more such aircraft… it is up to the UAE to decide.”

Nov 17/09: 1.5 billion SEK (about $220 million) contract for 2 of Saab’s S340 Erieyes announced. An official statement hinted at more orders to come, saying that:

“The UAE Air Force & Air Defence is currently evaluating several options to purchase permanent solution Command and Early Warning aircraft to meet the UAE Armed Forces operational requirements.”

Local defense media picked up on this theme amd noted the order’s interim status, pending a wider buy that could involve more Erieyes, Boeing’s 737 AEW&C, or Northrop Grumman’s new E-2D Advanced Hawkeye. Deliveries of the 2 Erieye planes are scheduled for Q3 2010, and Q1 2011. Saab [PDF] | Arabian Aerospace | Dubai Airshow 09 | Khaleej Times | UAE’s The National.

Additional Readings

• Saab Group – Erieye AEW&C Airborne Border Surveillance

• DID – UAE Looking to Become a Regional C2 Leader. They bought the required back-end ground systems for national command and control first, so they could make full use of AEW&C systems when they finally bought some. Smart.

• DID (Oct 11/10) – Saab’s Mysterious S-2000 AEW&C Customer? Saudi Arabia. Essentially the same plane & system as the UAE is buying.

• Aviation Week (Feb 13/08) – Low-Cost and Effective AEW Systems Find Buyers

• C4ISR Journal (Jan 4/08) – AEW&C contenders confident as UAE decision nears

Americas

• Lockheed Martin has been awarded a $331.7 million foreign military sales contract by the US Army. The sale will see the company provide the defense departments of Israel, Singapore, Finland and Jordan with the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) which includes 290 alternative warhead rocket pods, 34 unitary rocket pods and 529 reduced range practice rocket pods. Work and delivery of the system is expected to be completed by March 31, 2018.

• Sikorsky’s HH-60W Combat Rescue Helicopter is to move into the detailed design phase after successfully passing an air vehicle preliminary design review by the US government. The UH-60 Black Hawk variant will now enter a 75-month engineering and development phase which will see nine aircraft produced, including five “system demonstration test articles” to support operational testing. The design includes air force and mission-specific avionics, equipment and defensive countermeasures, plus a larger internal fuel capability and cabin area when compared to its UH-60 cousin and is unique enough to warrant its own development phase and even a separate assembly line.

Middle East North Africa

• British-made cluster bombs have been discovered in a village in northern Yemen, all but confirming that the banned munition is being used by the Saudi-led coalition in the region. The BL-755 cluster bombs, originally manufactured in the 1970s, were purchased by the air forces of Saudi Arabia and UAE to be used on the British made Tornado fighters. Locals described the ordinance as “hanging off trees”and are believed to have been there since air strikes in July and August.

• An advanced missile approach warning system has been integrated on Israeli CH-53 transport carriers, giving the helicopters an extended service life until 2025. Dubbed Dragon Block 3, the system provides 360 degree coverage alongside a more effective warning of missile attack and fast activation of countermeasures equipment. The troop transports have had their fair share of trouble from rocket attacks having seen extensive use in conflicts in south Lebanon and the Palestinian territory of Gaza.

Europe

• Russia’s Defence Ministry looks set to become the first customer of the Mil Mi-38 multi-role helicopter. The helicopter’s manufacturer Russian Helicopters made the announcement in a press release last week, and it is expected to pass a series of flight tests according to the ministry’s requirements. Designed to take part in a variety of missions, the Mi-38 is capable of carrying either troops or cargo as well as participating in search & rescue and offshore operations.

• Italy is to release $179.5 million toward the development of the Centauro II wheeled tank program by the consortium of Italy’s Iveco and Leonardo-Finmeccanica. An update of the older Centauro wheeled tank, it will include a new hull, better armor and upgunning to a 120mm gun compared to the 105mm found on the original. However the cash injection will be lacking in other programs with the planned arming of Italy’s UAVs to be postponed and only $23.5 million made available for procurement of the light-weight Freccia armored vehicles.

Africa

• Prosecutors in South Africa are to appeal a court ruling that they should reconsider corruption charges against President Jacob Zuma. 783 charges against the controversial president were dropped just weeks before the 2009 election in which he was elected. The allegations stem from a $5 billion arms deal in 1999 which involved companies from Germany, Italy, Sweden, the UK, France and South Africa. In 2005, Schabir Shaik, Zuma’s former financial advisor was jailed in connection with the deal after being found guilty of soliciting a bribe on behalf of the president.

Asia Pacific

• US President Barack Obama has announced the lifting of a decades long arms embargo on Vietnam. Speaking in Hanoi with Vietnamese President Tran Dai Quang and under a looming bust of Communist leader Ho Chi Minh, Obama said that the move will end a “lingering vestige of the Cold War” and pave the way for more-normal relations between the two countries. The move comes as Vietnam looks to recenter allies amid a growing spat with China over ownership of islands in the South China Sea, while also looking to lessen their reliance on Russian weapons manufacturers, factors that may make Hanoi one of Washington’s new best friends in the region.

Today’s Video

• Boeing’s latest commercial for the Advanced F-15:

Americas

• Textron is currently testing their upgraded RQ-7 Shadow M2 unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), which they believe will allow the system to undertake increased mission capabilities currently reserved for larger UAVs such as the MQ-1 Predator. At present, Shadow V2s are used by the US Army in conjunction with AH-64 Apaches to fill the armed reconnaissance mission, following the retirement of the OH-58 Kiowa Warrior helicopter. The Shadow M2 will add longer endurance, more capable payloads, and more power than the M2 version, and also gain a satellite uplink that allows it to communicate beyond-line-of-sight.

• USAF’s fleet of more than 500 F-15s are to get a wheel and brake upgrade after successful flight testing. Once completed, F-15C/D/E fighters will be capable of undertaking 1,400 landings before having to swap out their brakes. The USAF stands to save over $194 million in F-15 maintenance costs once all of the aircraft are fitted with the upgrade, and this will be the first brake testing to be carried out on the jet since the 1980s.

• A USMC MV-22 Osprey has given a successful ground refueling of a Marine F-35B Joint Strike Fighter. The one-hour test consisted of hooking up fuel transfer lines between the two aircraft with the MV-22 fueling the F-35B with an aerial refueling to follow. Both aircraft will be used to allow the Marine Corps to employ assets in austere environments on short notice without having to rely on long-term planning and fixed facilities.

• The Missile Defense Agency has awarded a $235.3 million contract to Millennium Engineering & Integration to provide advisory and assistance services for test, exercise, and wargames in support of technical, engineering, advisory and management support. This contract provides support for the development, implementation, sustainment, and assessment of test processes, procedures, plans, and policies to support the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) through the test life cycle. Completion of the contract is expected for June 2020.

Europe

• The first prototype of the Ka-62 twin-engine helicopter successfully completed its maiden flight. Items tested on the multi-purpose rotorcraft included the main power supply systems and avionics during a ten minute hover flight at Progress Aircraft-Manufacturing Enterprise’s site in eastern Russia. Capable of undertaking a wide variety of missions, the Ka-62 has been designed for transportation, search and rescue, and for work in Russia’s oil and gas industry.

Asia Pacific

• Pakistan’s hope to procure subsidized F-16 fighters from the US has been scuppered by US Congress. State Department officials reported that if Islamabad wishes to purchase eight of the aircraft, it will cost up to $480 million, two and a half times the original cost. US foreign military financing of the deal had been criticized by many lawmakers who believed that Pakistan wasn’t doing enough to tackle Islamic militants operating in the country, and who would more likely use the F-16s against neighboring India than combating terrorism.

• Longbow LLC, a joint venture between Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, has been awarded a contract by the Indian government to provide fire control radar (FCR) systems with advanced air and ground targeting capabilities. The $57.1 million contract will see Longbow install 12 systems on India’s AH-64E Apache attack helicopters, and could be worth up to $116.7 million. The FCR’s air over-watch mode provides aircrews with 360-degree situational awareness, improving survivability and mission success.

• Japan and the Philippines will conclude talks this week to lease five Beechcraft TC-90 Kind Airs from the Maritime Self-Defense Force to Manila. Japan’s Defense Minister Gen. Nakatani will call his Filipino counterpart Gazmin today, May 2nd to finalize the deal. The aircraft will help boost the Philippine’s maritime security efforts, particularly patrolling territory in the West Philippine Sea.

Today’s Video

• Turkey’s indigenous Bayraktar TB2 UAV successfully dropped a Roketsan MAM-L laser-guided glide bomb on April 29:

RQ-7 Shadow
(click to view full)

By 2007, US Army RQ-7 Shadow battalion-level UAVs had seen their flight hours increase to up 8,000 per month in Iraq, a total that compared well to the famous MQ-1 Predator. Those trends have gained strength, as workarounds for the airspace management issues that hindered early deployments become more routine. Some RQ-7s are even being used to extend high-bandwidth communications on the front lines.

The difference between the Army’s RQ-7 Shadow UAVs and their brethren like the USAF’s MQ-1A Predator, or the Army’s new MQ-1C Sky Warriors, is that the Shadow has been too small and light to be armed. With ultra-small missiles still in development, and missions in Afghanistan occurring beyond artillery support range, arming the Army’s Shadow UAVs has become an even more important objective. It would take some new technology, but that seems to be on the way for the US Marine Corps RQ-7B Shadow UAV fleet.

Pieces of the Puzzle RQ-7 launch, Mosul
(click to view full)

SecDef Robert Gates’ has consistently offered strong support for more attention to the needs of the counterinsurgency fight. Surveillance is part of that, but it needs to be backed by action. Pending and emerging approaches tie UAVs, manned propeller planes, artillery, and helicopters into a cohesive, fast, and flexible solution for finding, identifying, and capturing or killing opponents.

Larger RQ-5 Hunters have been tested with Viper Strike mini-bombs, and MQ-1C Sky Warriors can carry up to 4 Hellfires – but both UAV types are far outnumbered by the Army’s smaller RQ-7 Shadows. Precision weapons can also be dropped by fighters or bombers, but the planes’ $10,000 – $25,000 cost per flight hour is prohibitive, they require extensive planning processes to use, and declining aircraft numbers affect their potential coverage and response times.

M270 firing M30 GMLRS
(click to view full)

Small UAVs can still pack a punch without weapons by providing GPS targeting data to M30 GPS-guided MLRS rockets, long-range ATACMS MLRS missiles, or 155mm Excalibur artillery shells – as long as those weapons are (a) appropriate and (b) within range.

Using an ATACMS missile to take out an enemy machine gun position seems a bit silly, but that’s exactly the sort of help that could really make a difference to troops on the ground – and has been used in urban fights, against building strongholds. With that said, maximum effectiveness comes when battalion-level “Tactical UAVs” like the RQ-7B Shadow can perform the full spectrum of missions: surveillance, laser or GPS target designation, or close support for infantry fights.

The U.S. Army’s Armament Research Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC) at Picatinny Arsenal, NJ has funded some R&D in order to provide “Tactical Class Unmanned Aircraft Systems (TCUAS)” with a low-cost weapon, US NAVAIR is busy developing a 5-pound missile called Spike, and global trends are pushing companies like Raytheon and Thales to invent designs of their own. The US Army ended up dragging its feet on arming its small tactical UAVs, but they are fielding GBU-44 Viper Strike weapons on MQ-5B Hunter UAVs, and have a small but growing fleet of Hellfire-armed, Cessna-sized MQ-1C Gray Eagle UAVs. The US Marines have no such option, and decided that arming their own growing fleet of RQ-7Bs was the way forward.

Step 1 requires a lightweight laser designator that would add the ability to actively mark targets for common helicopter and UAV weapons like Hellfire missiles, laser-guided 70mm rockets, or Paveway bombs. That way, the small and relatively cheap RQ-7s could mark targets for any component of Task Force ODIN, or its equivalent. That effort is already underway, across the board.

Step 2 involves arming even RQ-7 size UAVs, but their payload weight limits make that a very challenging task. Small missiles like the US Navy’s Spike are in development, in cooperation with Finmeccanica’s DRS, but parallel private developments

ATK: Hatchet. This 7-pound weapon is extremely small, and half its weight is warhead. GPS and GPS/laser guidance variants are both said to be possible.

GD: RCFC. General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems makes the US Army’s mortar rounds, and had an interesting idea. What if their 81mm mortars could receive a small add-on GPS guidance kit, similar to the JDAM kits used on larger air force bombs? The Army’s 81mm mortars weigh just 9-10 pounds each, and GD-OTS’ clip-on Roll Controlled Fixed Canard (RCFC) is an integrated fuze and guidance-and-flight control kit that uses GPS/INS navigation, replacing current fuze hardware in existing mortars. A standard M821 81mm Mortar with fuze weighs 9.1 pounds, and the same mortar with an RCFC Guidance system and fuze weighs just 10.8 pounds. US Army ARDEC funded their development testing.

The nose-mounted RCFC guidance has now been successfully demonstrated on multiple mortar calibers, in both air-drop and tube-launch applications. The tube-launched application has been successfully demonstrated at Yuma Proving Grounds, AZ in a tactical 120mm guided mortar configuration known as the Roll Controlled Guided Mortar (RCGM), which uses the existing 120mm warhead and the M934A1 fuze.

Lockheed Martin: Shadow Hawk. In 2012, Lockheed began discussing its “11 pound class”, semi-active laser-guided Shadow Hawk bomb.

Raytheon: Pyros. STM. Raytheon has a privately-developed effort called Pyros, a 22-inch, 13.5-pound bomb that uses dual GPS/INS and semi-active laser guidance. It also has also 3 warhead options: height-of-burst, point-of-impact or fuze-delay detonation.

Thales/ Textron: FF-LMM/Fury. Thales’ beam-riding Lightweight Modular Missile with its tri-mode (burst height, impact, delayed) warhead will equip Britain’s AW159 Wildcat helicopters, and single launchers are small enough to fit on tactical UAVs like Schiebel’s S1000 Camcopter. Removing the propulsion system lightens the missile even further as the Free-Fall LMM, which adds a dual-mode GPS-laser guidance system up front. A partnership with Textron is aimed at the US market, where the weapon is known as the Fury. It was tested from an RQ-7B in 2014.

These and other systems will offer the US Marines the options they need. In the end, however, they key change isn’t the individual weapons – it’s the concept. That concept’s influence will extend past small UAVs, in 2 ways.

MC-130W: next
(click to view full)

One is the growing trend away from sole USAF control of air support, and toward a much more responsive era of “federated airpower” that includes high-end aircraft and UAVs operated by the US Air Force, and lower-tier propeller planes and small UAVs operated by the US Army and Marines. Those lower-tier options use lower-cost platforms that are far more affordable to operate, which means they can be bought and operated in numbers that provide far wider battlefield coverage for small-unit engagements.

The USAF’s long-running and pervasive deprecation of relevant counter-insurgency capabilities, and strong institutional preference for high-end, expensive platforms, has left them vulnerable to lower-cost disruptive technologies that meet current battlefield needs. While the service still has a key role in maintaining American power, strategic control of the air, and high-end capabilities, the new reality involves a mix of high and low-end aerial capabilities, with a lot more aerial control nested closer to battlefield decision-making.

The other change is reaching beyond UAVs, and into USAF and USMC aircraft, which can carry larger weapons. Related tube-launched small precision weapons, which already include Raytheon’s Griffin missile, are finding their way to USMC KC-130J and Special Operations MC-130W Hercules, which are receiving roll-on/ roll-off weapon kits that can turn them into multi-role gunship support/ aerial tanker aircraft. Similar weapons, like Textron’s G-CLAW and many of the weapons discussed here for UAVs, will make it easier to equip more planes with more on-board weapons. As Airbus and Alenia both begin fielding smaller gunship aircraft of their own, and more countries begin arming other kinds of counterinsurgency aircraft, the market is expected to grow.

Contracts and Key Events Pyros strike
click for video

May 2/16: Textron is currently testing their upgraded RQ-7 Shadow M2 unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), which they believe will allow the system to undertake increased mission capabilities currently reserved for larger UAVs such as the MQ-1 Predator. At present, Shadow V2s are used by the US Army in conjunction with AH-64 Apaches to fill the armed reconnaissance mission, following the retirement of the OH-58 Kiowa Warrior helicopter. The Shadow M2 will add longer endurance, more capable payloads, and more power than the M2 version, and also gain a satellite uplink that allows it to communicate beyond-line-of-sight.

Sept 23/14: FF-LMM. Textron Systems touts a pair of successful live-fire demonstrations from an RQ-7 Shadow 200 UAV at Yuma Proving Ground, AZ, using its new GPS/laser guided Fury (FF-LMM) collaboration with Thales. Textron’s AAI subsidiary makes the Shadow, and the demonstration to TRL 7 levels (prototype tested in representative environment) took 15 months of planning and work with Thales.

As noted above, Fury is derived from Thales’ beam-riding Lightweight Modular Missile, but it uses a different guidance system and removes the rocket motor. It’s properly a glide bomb, which is true for the vast majority of entrants in this market niche. Sources: Textron Systems, “Textron Systems Fury™ Lightweight Precision Weapon Engages Target During Live-Fire Demonstrations”

July 13/14: FF-LMM. Thales unveils an unpowered version of LMM at Farnborough 2014, as a smaller and lighter option for use on tactical UAVs, as well as larger platforms. It’s 70cm / 2’4? long and 6 kg / 13 pounds in weight, with a combined GPS and laser guidance system. The initial model won’t have an airburst fuze, though. Sources: IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly, “Farnborough 2014: Thales unveils new LMM variant” | Aviation Week, “Thales Reveals 6-Kg Glide Bomb For UAVs”.

Aug 7/12: STM-II Pyros. Raytheon announces a successful test for their 13.5 pound “Small Tactical Munition,” now redesigned and named “Pyros.” The end-to-end test from a Shadow-sized Cobra UAV validated the weapon’s dual laser/GPS guidance, its height-of-burst sensor, electronic safe and arm device, and multi-effects warhead.

May 2/12: Shadow Hawk test. Lockheed Martin announces successful tests of its privately-developed Shadow Hawk bomb from an RQ-7B. The “11 pound class,” 2.5 inch diameter weapon is laser-guided, and hit within 8 inches of the target at at Dugway Proving Grounds in Utah after being dropped from 5,100 feet.

April 4/12: Army update. The US Army discusses its plans for the RQ-7 Shadow. The army’s product manager, ground maneuver, UAS is Lt. Col. Scott Anderson. He says the Army is observing USMC efforts to add weapons to the Shadow, but is more interested in giving the UAV a new engine to improve reliability. That multi-phase competition got 14 responses, and could indirectly help weaponization efforts, especially if the new engine also provides more power.

Jan 12/12: Armed to Afghanistan? Flight International reports that the USMC plans to send 8 armed RQ-7Bs to Afghanistan as a combat demonstration program, after 94 “high-value targets” escaped during a recent Marine unit’s deployment, even though they were spotted by RQ-7s circling overhead. There isn’t always someone else on hand to fire.

The goal is to arm the Shadows with guided bombs weighing under 25 pounds, which was cleared for treaty compliance (?!?) by the US State Department in July 2011, and reportedly followed by a $10 million December 2011 contract. Installation and certification is expected to take a year, followed by a $7 million follow-on contract for deployment. The magazine reports that the weapon isn’t Raytheon’s STM, MBDA’s SABER, or ATK’s Hatchet, but is “another guided weapon that already has been developed and fielded in secrecy.”

Dec 30/11: Laser designators. Textron subsidiary AAI Corp. in Hunt Valley, MD receives a $54.8 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to supply RQ-7B laser designator retrofit kits.

Work will be performed in Hunt Valley, MD, with an estimated completion date of March 31/14. One bid was solicited, with one bid received by US Army Contracting Command in Redstone Arsenal, AL (W58RGZ-08-C-0023).

FY 2011

STM-P2 on Cobra UAV
(click to view full)

Sept 16/11: STM-II test. Over at Yuma Proving Ground, AZ, Raytheon’s 12-pound, 22″/ 56cm Small Tactical Munition Phase II finishes captive carry tests on the company’s smaller Cobra test UAV, paving the way for full weapon tests.

STM Phase II is more than 2 inches shorter than the Phase I design, and has foldable fins and wings that allow it to be used from the U.S. military’s common launch tube. It uses both GPS and semi-active laser guidance. Raytheon is taking the production-ready mandate seriously, as well; STM Phase II is also easier to assemble than the Phase I design. Raytheon Nov 30/11 release.

Aug 17/11: Cleared to arm. Flight International, quotes US NAVAIR’s Small Tactical UAS program manager, Col. Jim Rector, who says that the Marines have received clearance from policymakers to arm the RQ-7 Shadow. The USMC made its intent to do so clear late last year (vid. Jan 18/11 entry). Field trials are to be performed on with unnamed munition selected by AAI, within the Marines’ request that it be a production-ready item. This evaluation process is scheduled to last 18 – 24 months.

Aug 15/11: Collision. When an RQ-7 flies into a C-130 Hercules, at least the latter gets to land in one piece. This time.

The incident underscores the role that “deconfliction” needs to play, when armed UAVs are used over the battlefield without “sense and avoid” technologies on board. Experiments are underway to give Shadow-sized UAVs those capabilities, but without that, expect sharp flight restrictions that emphasize long advance notice of flight plans, and narrow altitude bands. Those restrictions will reduce an armed “MQ-7C” Shadow’s potential value, which means the full impact of small tactical armed UAVs won’t be felt until that technical hurdle is cleared.

June 21/11: First test flight at Webster Field, MD of a RQ-7B Shadow UAS under the direction of NAWC Aircraft Division’s UAS Test Directorate. Col. Jim Rector, program manager for Navy and Marine Corps Small Tactical UAS program office (PMA-263), said:

“Having a RQ-7B at the UAS Test Directorate allows for the test and evaluation of system enhancements and ultimately provides the ability to quickly get new technologies into the hands of Marines”.

Rector was appointed in April after last serving in the V-22 program office (PMA-274).

May /11: Competition: T-20. Arcturus in Rohnert Park, CA has built the T-20 tactical UAV drone, whose wings can carry MBDA’s 10-pound Saber mini-missile.

The USMC has a few in testing now, and this wing-mounting capability may give Arcturus an opening to supplement, or even replace, AAI’s RQ-7 Shadow as the USMC’s armed tactical UAV.

Jan 18/11: USMC in. Flight Global reports that the US Marines have decided to arm Shadow UAVs as their own initiative, since the Army is dragging its feet, and the Marines don’t have a larger armed UAV like the Army’s MQ-1C Gray Eagle:

“Although the Army Aviaton [sic] and Missile Command issued a request for information in April seeking data on precision-guided weapons weighing 11.3kg (25lb) or less… and said as recently as October that it would take the lead on development of Shadow weaponisation with the USMC, the programme is no longer on the table for the army… says Col Robert Sova, capability manager for UAVs at the Army Training and Doctrine Command.”

The Marines reportedly want a solution fielded within 12-18 months. Beyond options like RCFC, NAVAIR’s Spike, etc., Raytheon has been pressing ahead with its 13 pound Small Tactical Munition (STM), with its dual-mode, laser/GPS guidance system.

Dec 3/10: R&D projects. Aviation Week reports that the US Navy is working on weapons that could give even the ScanEagle UAV hunter-killer capability – and implicitly, the Marines’ Shadow 200s as well.

The 2 pound next-generation weapon management system (WMS GEN2) is designed for use on small UAVs like the Shadow. It has been tested in the lab, and the development team is now looking at using the WMS GEN2 with the 5 pound NAWCAD Spike mini-missile, the Scan Eagle Guided Munition (SEGM), and a GPS-Guided Munition (G2M).

Oct 26/10: STM tests. Flight International reports that Raytheon has conducted tests of its 13 pound, unpowered Small Tactical Munition (STM) at the Yuma Proving Ground, AZ. The 2 successful tests used Raytheon’s Cobra UAV, which was picked because it’s close to the RQ-7 Shadow’s size. Raytheon estimates needing 12 to 18 months to get STM production lines running at quantity, and is readying the project in response to interest from the USMC and, they expect, from Special Forces.

FY 2008 – 2010

81mm RCFC test
(click to view full)

April 19/10: Army RFI. Looks like the US Army is getting more serious about fielding armed Shadow UAVs. US FedBizOpps solicitation #W31P4Q-10-R-0142 says that “Responses to this RFI will be used for information and planning purposes only and do not constitute a solicitation…,” but its issue does show a higher level of seriousness, and could well be a prelude to a real solicitation if an acceptable candidate emerges:

“The US Army Aviation and Missile Command (AMCOM) Program Executive Office (PEO) Missiles and Space (M&S), Program Management (PM) Joint Attack Munition Systems (JAMS), on behalf of the war fighter, seeks information from industry on weapons systems ready for production and suitable for integration on the RQ-7B with POP 300D laser designator payload Shadow Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UASs). Potential weapons systems must be ready to field within 12 months from the date of a potential contract award. The primary interest is in weapon systems approximately 25 lbs or less total system weight (to include munition, launcher, wiring, fire control interface, etc). The weapons system should be able to engage stationary and moving targets such as light vehicles and dismounted combatants in day and night conditions with low collateral damage when launched from a Shadow UAS flying at speeds of 60-70 knots and between 5,000 and 12,000 feet Above Ground Level (AGL). Terminal accuracy must be on the order of that demonstrated by currently fielded Semi Active Laser / Imaging Infrared / Millimeter Wave (SAL/IIR/MMW) weapons…”

That level of terminal accuracy may be an issue for RCFC mortars, depending on how the Army interprets it. SAL/IIR/MMW weapons are generally considered to be more accurate that GPS guidance, but if “on the order” means “approximately,” then a GPS guidance kit would qualify. It is intended that this RFI will be open for 21 calendar days from date of publication (to May 10/10).

April 1/10: RCFC test. General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems announces successful 81mm Air-Dropped Mortar guide-to-target flight demonstrations at Ft. Sill, OK. The RCFC weapon was released from a TUAV (Shadow) using the GD-OTS’ newly developed “Smart Rack” carriage and release system.

Feb 12/09: Laser designators. Textron subsidiary Army Armaments Incorporated (AAI) in Hunt Valley, MD receives a $9.3 million cost plus fixed fee contract modification, exercising options for additional engineering hours related to these Shadow UAV modifications. These services are related to low-rate initial production of Laser Designators, Tactical Common Data Link (TCDL) interoperability, and integration with the Army’s Universal Ground Control Station and Universal Ground Data Terminal.

Work will be performed in Hunt Valley, MD, with an estimated completion date of April 30/09. One bid was solicited and one bid received by the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command in Redstone Arsenal, AL (W58RGZ-08-C-0033).

Jan 21/09: Laser designators. Textron subsidiary AAI Corp. in Hunt Valley, MD receives a $12.2 million firm-fixed-price finalization of Letter Contract Modification P00012. It will purchase 25 Laser Designator Retrofit Kits for its RQ-7 Shadow Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS).

Work will be performed at Hunt Valley, MD, with an estimated completion date of Aug 31/09. One bid was solicited and one bid received by the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command in Redstone Arsenal, AL (W58RGZ-08-C-0023).

Dec 16/08: RCFC test. General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems announces that it has successfully demonstrated the ability to maneuver and guide 81mm air-dropped mortars to a stationary ground target after release from an aircraft. These test results in Kingman, AZ build on previous pre-programmed maneuver flight tests successfully conducted by General Dynamics in 2007, and use the company’s patented Roll Controlled Fixed Canard (RCFC) flight control and guidance system.

Additional Readings

• DID thanks subscriber Trent Telenko for his research assistance with this article.

The Trends

• P.W. Singer – Wired for War. Singer works at the Brookings Institution, one of Washington’s principal think-tanks. See also his DID article, “In the Loop? Armed Robots and the Future of War.”

• US Army (March 4/11) – Shadow defies gravity with success. Looks behind the scenes at how the RQ-7 became the Army’s workhorse UAV, and some of the mechanical and procedural changes used to give it a wider temperature range and lower the accident rate.

• Aviation Week (Feb 4/11) – Shadow Punches Above its Weight

• National Defense Magazine (April 2010) – Army on a Fast Track to Build its Own High-Tech Air Force

• National Defense Magazine (February 2010) – Army’s Shadow Unmanned Aircraft Receiving Upgrades For Longer Missions. The extended wings will also improve carrying capacity.

• DID (Jan 21/09) – Laser Designators for RQ-7 Shadow UAVs. That didn’t take long.

• StrategyPage (Jan 8/09) – Laser Precision In All Its Forms. The US military is also testing a laser designator that’s small enough for its RQ-7s. The UAVs can already use a laser rangefinder to geo-locate targets for GPS systems like Excalibur shells, GMLRS rockets, and JDAM/WCMD bombs. A lightweight laser designator would add the ability to actively mark targets for laser-guided weapons like Hellfire missiles, or Paveway bombs. As geolocation and laser designation continue to shrink and devolve to even smaller UAVs than the Shadow, it will change the way units can fight.

• WIRED Danger Zone (Oct 10/08) – New Killer Drones Could be Piloted by Teenagers. Includes trends re: adding weapons to Shadows.

• US Army Fires Bulletin (May-June 2008) – Fires for the 2007 Surge in Iraq: Lethal and Nonlethal [PDF]. See esp. the points re: the changing targeting chain.

• US Army Fires Bulletin (March-April 2008) – Revolutionary to Conventional – Evolution of GMLRS. Shadow drones can currently supply GMLRS GPS targeting via their laser rangefinders. Note, again, the changes in the Army kill-chain, and flattening of the surveillance – fire – approval structure using Army-owned air assets plus artillery. Arming those assets themselves is simply the next logical step.

The Weapons

Listed in alphabetical order of manufacturer.

• Flight International (April 20/11) – PHOTOS: Bits and bobs around Quad-A. Covers ATK’s Hatchet, reportedly funded by the US Air Force Research Laboratory.

• DID (Nov 16/09) – Boeing Team Gets USAF Contract for UAV Miniature Weapon Development.

• Designation Systems – NAWC/DRS Spike. Very short range (around 2 miles) powered missile with a 1 kg warhead, weighs only 5 pounds.

• Lockheed Martin (May 1/12) – Lockheed Martin’s Shadow Hawk Munition Launched from Shadow UAS for the First Time.

• DID – GBU-44 Viper Strike: Death From Above. Now owned by MBDA, and called Viper-E. GPS or dual GPS-laser guidance options, used from MQ-5B Hunter UAVs and slated for integration into the MC-27J Praetorian gunship. At 42 pounds, however, it’s a bit outside the Shadow’s class.

MBDA – SABER. Their Small Air Bomb Extended Range (SABER), whose unpowered version is about 10 pounds. The powered version of this GPS/laser guided weapon is 30 pounds.

• Defense Update (July 21/10) – MBDA Unveils Small Guided Bomb at Farnborough. SABER.

• Raytheon – Pyros: Small Tactical Munition.

• DID – Raytheon’s AGM-176 Griffin Mini-Missiles.

• Textron – Fury. A much smaller weapon that their 50-70 pound G-CLAW, which is dropped by aircraft. Collaboration with Thales (FF-LMM).

• DID – Direct Sting: Thales’ Small LMM / FASGW-L Missiles. FF-LMM/Fury is derived from it.

F-15C over DC
(click to view full)

“Array of Aging American Aircraft Attracting Attention” discusses the issues that accompany an air force whose fighters have an average age of over 23.5 years – vs. an average of 8.5 years in 1967. One of the most obvious consequences is the potential for fleet groundings due to unforseen structural issues caused by time and fatigue. That very fear is responsible for the #1 priority placed on bringing new KC-X aerial tankers into the fleet to complement the USA’s 1960s-era KC-135 Stratotankers.

It can also affect the fighter fleet more directly.

Following the crash of a Missouri Air National Guard F-15C aircraft Nov 2/07 (see crash simulation), the US Air Force suspended non-mission critical F-15 flight operations on Nov 3/07. While the cause of that accident is still under investigation, preliminary findings indicate that a structural failure during flight may have been responsible. In response, Japan suspended its own F-15 flights, which left them in a bit of a bind – even as Israel’s F-15s joined them on the tarmac. As the effects continue to spread and the USAF and others continue to comment on this situation, DID continues to expand its coverage of this bellwether event. A conditional restoration of the American F-15A-D fleet to flight status was soon overturned by the re-grounding of that fleet as a result of the report’s conclusions – a status that remains only been partially lifted. Meanwhile, the accident report has been released (compete with video dramatization) and the status of the remaining aircraft will have significant implications for the USAF’s future F-15 fleet size. Not to mention its other procurement programs.

Then, too, this is America. Now there’s a lawsuit.

F-15E, Afghanistan
(click to view full)

The F-15A reached initial operational capability for the US Air Force in September 1975, and approximately 670 F-15s remain in the USAF’s inventory. Current F-15 flying locations include bases in the continental United States, Alaska, England, Hawaii, Japan and the Middle East, and the aircraft are active on the Iraqi and Afghan fronts. The Missouri Air National Guard F-15C that crashed was built in 1980.

Lt. Gen. Gary L. North, US CENTCOM Combined Forces Air Component commander, is maintaining the newer F-15E Strike Eagles on ground alert, to be used if required. Otherwise, he says he will accomplish all assigned missions using a variety of fighter, attack and bomber aircraft, and unmanned aerial vehicles. Lt. Gen. North added that:

“I worry about the health of our aging fleet and how sometimes it is not well understood by those our Airmen protect… The investigation will get to the cause of the accident.”

USAF Chief of Staff Michael Moseley was even more specific in an Oct 30/07 interview with GovExec.com:

“The F-15s and F-16s were designed and built in the late ’60s and ’70s. Some of them were produced up until the early ’80s. But they’ve led a pretty hard life of 17 years of combat. So you have to replace them with something, because we were continuing to restrict the airplanes. In the F-15 case, we’ve got the airplane restricted to 1.5 Mach. It was designed to be a 2.5 Mach airplane. We’ve got it limited on maneuvering restrictions because we’ve had tail cracks, fuselage cracks, cracks in the wings. The problem with that is – and Mike Wynne uses this analogy – it’s almost like going to the Indy 500 race practicing all the way up until Memorial Day at 60 miles an hour, and then on game day, accelerating the car out to 200 miles an hour. It’s not the time to be doing that on game day.

So in our training models and in our scenarios, we’re limiting these airplanes because they’re restricted and getting old. So there’s two parts to the recapitalization of the fighter inventory. The first part is the existing stuff is old and it’s getting broke, and it’s getting harder to get it out of depot on time. And our availability rates and our in-commission rates are going down. The ability to generate the sorties on those old airplanes is in the wrong direction.”

And Flight International:

“A USAF F-15 crashed in the Gulf of Mexico in 2002 when it broke up after the leading edge of its left vertical stabiliser detached in a high-speed dive to Mach 1.97. The pilot was killed.

The USAF says it began replacing the leading edge and upper aft portion of the vertical stabilisers during depot overhaul and has so far completed 463 of its 664 aircraft. The F-15 involved in the Missouri accident had its vertical stabilisers repaired in August 2003, the service says.”

Further investigation focused on the plane’s longerons, which connect the aircraft’s metal ‘skin’ to the frame, and run along the length and side of the aircraft. Both the Accident Investigation Board and Boeing simulations have indicated them as a possible source of catastrophic failure; indeed, DID had wondered why structural failure was suspected immediately, and it with that revelation it began to make sense. As DID explained at the time, if one or more of those longerons had failed, the stresses on the airframe could have folded or broken the plane in half – a very unusual form of accident. Eventually, the publication of the formal report confirmed that hypothesis:

“The one longeron, already not up to design specifications, cracked apart under the stress of a 7G turn, the colonel said. This led to the other longerons failing as well, which then caused the cockpit to separate from the rest of the fuselage. The pilot was able to eject, but suffered a broken arm when the canopy snapped off.”

F-4EJ “Kai(zen)”
(click to view full)

Nor is this problem confined to the USA – or even to the here and now.

The Chinese government’s Xinhua agency reports that Japan has also grounded its F-15 fleet. Japan’s F-15Js were built locally under license, on a more recent production schedule, but their oldest planes do date back to 1980. This is a precautionary measure until more is known.

Since Japan’s F-16-derived F-2 fighters are also grounded in the wake of a recent crash at Nagoya, this leaves 1960s era F-4EJ ‘Kai’ Phantom IIs as Japan’s interceptor and fighter patrol fleet for the time being.

Israel confirmed to Flight International that it had also grounded its 70 F-15A-D air superiority aircraft, which are undergoing multi-role conversions, and its F-15I Strike Eagles. The Strike Eagles were later removed from the USA’s concern list, but its F-15 A-D fleet is an important component of Israeli air defenses alongside its larger F-16 fleet.

Gen. John D.W. Corley, the commander of US Air Combat Command, was not encouraged by the results of the report, and of the in-depth fleet inspections that led to 40% of the Eagle fleet remaining on the ground over 3 months after the investigation:

“The difficulty is that issues have been found with F-15s built between 1978 and 1985, across A through D models at several bases, so no one source of the problem can be isolated… This isn’t just about one pilot in one aircraft with one bad part… I have a fleet that is 100 percent fatigued, and 40 percent of that has bad parts. The long-term future of the F-15 is in question… We don’t have a full and healthy fleet, so we’ve gotten behind on training missions, instructor certifications, classes and exercises…

We’re going over each and every aircraft to make a determination. We will take some F-15s out of the inventory. It just doesn’t make sense to spend the time and money if it won’t be worth it for some aircraft.”

Updates F-15E, P-51, F-22A
(click to view full)

May 2/16: USAF’s fleet of more than 500 F-15s are to get a wheel and brake upgrade after successful flight testing. Once completed, F-15C/D/E fighters will be capable of undertaking 1,400 landings before having to swap out their brakes. The USAF stands to save over $194 million in F-15 maintenance costs once all of the aircraft are fitted with the upgrade, and this will be the first brake testing to be carried out on the jet since the 1980s.

May 26/09: Aviation Week reports that the USAF is looking into the possibility of a Service Life Extension Program for its F-15A-D fleet, designed to increase their service lives from 8,000 flight hours to 12,000.

The move is driven, in part, by the impending collapse of Air National Guard wings that can be used in domestic air sovereignty patrols, as older fighters retire and are not replaced. The USAF is accelerating the retirement of 250 F-16 and F-15 fighters in FY 2010, and current plans calls for 2 ANG air sovereignty mission units to get F-22s, 4 to get receive upgraded F-15A-Ds, and the remaining 12 are yet to be determined.

March 22/08: Maj. Stephen Stilwell, a pilot for Southwest Airlines whose Missouri Air National Guard F-15C’s mid-air crackup began the fleet groundings, has filed suit in U.S. District Court against claiming Boeing Corp. His injuries left him with a 10-inch metal plate in the injured arm and shoulder, and he reports that he has suffered from chronic pain since the accident.

Stilwell’s suit, filed by attorney Morry S. Cole, says that Boeing knew or should have know that the F-15 as manufactured allowed and permitted for catastrophic flight break-up, and adds that Boeing failed to notify the Air Force and Missouri Air National Guard of “the likelihood of excess stress concentrations, fatigue cracking, structural failure and in-flight aircraft break up as a result of the structural deficiencies.” St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

February 2008: The largest effects of the F-15 fleet’s grounding may yet play out on the procurement front. If many of the USAF’s F-15s, which were supposed to serve until 2025 or so, must be retired, how should they be replaced? Read “Aging F-15s: Ripples Hitting the F-22, F-35 Programs.”

Jan 21/08: This week’s edition of the “Today’s Air Force” show highlights how the Air Force carried on its mission while more than 700 of its F-15 Eagles were grounded. See “The Eagle flies once again!” on the Pentagon Channel, American Forces Radio and Television Service stations around the world, and video podcast [30 minutes].

Jan 14/08: Officials begin flight operations again as 39 of the 18th Wing F-15C/Ds at Kadena Air Base, Japan are cleared to fly again after remaining on the ground for more than 2 months as a result of a fleet-wide stand-down. See USAF story.

Jan 10/08: According to the Air Combat Command Accident Investigation Board report released on this day. Their conclusion? The plane was simply too old:

“…a technical analysis of the recovered F-15C wreckage determined that the longeron didn’t meet blueprint specifications. This defect led to a series of fatigue cracks in the right upper longeron. These cracks expanded under life cycle stress, causing the longeron to fail, which initiated a catastrophic failure of the remaining support structures and led to the aircraft breaking apart in flight… the pilot’s actions during the mishap sequence were focused, precise and appropriate. The pilot’s actions did not contribute to the mishap, said Colonel Wignall. In addition, a thorough review of local maintenance procedures revealed no problems or adverse trends which could have contributed to the accident.”

Col. William Wignall, the head of the accident investigation added that:

“We’ve had great involvement from Boeing during the investigation. In fact, they’re the ones who determined the longeron was the problem. This was then confirmed by the Air Force Research Laboratory.”

See the USAF’s “F-15 Eagle accident report released,” and the accompanying video dramatization, as well as “Air Force leaders discuss F-15 accident, future.”

Jan 9/08: Air Combat Command officials clear 60% of the F-15A-D fleet for flying status, and recommends a limited return to flight for those planes that have cleared all inspections. The decision follows detailed information briefed on Jan 4/08 to Air Combat Command from the Air Force’s F-15 systems program manager, senior engineers from Boeing and the Warner Robins Air Logistics Center; as well as a briefing received on Jan 9/08 from the Accident Investigation Board president.

The USAF report describes inspections as “more than 90% complete,” with remaining inspections focusing primarily on the forward longerons. Thus far, 9 other F-15s have been found with longeron fatigue-cracks, and almost 40% of inspected aircraft have at least 1 longeron that is thinner than blueprint specifications. ACC believes each affected F-15 will have to be analyzed to determine if there is sufficient strength in the non-specification longeron, and this analysis will take place at the Warner-Robbins Air Logistics Center over the next 4 weeks. A number of F-15s are scheduled to be retired in 2009, and calculating the cost of fixes and airframe life of fixed aircraft could have a substantial bearing on the size of the USAF’s future F-15 fleet.

Meanwhile, the 2-month grounding, which has been the longest of any USAF jet fighter, is a gift that keeps on giving. Fully 75% of US Air Force and Air National Guard F-15A-D pilots have lost their currency status for solo flight, and another week would have made it 100%. Instructor pilots have retained their currency and will begin flying F-15B/Ds with the other pilots, so the pilots can land the plane and regain their status. This will be followed by further pilot training, which is required to regain operational proficiency status. USAF report | Flight International.

F-15C CAP(Combat Air Patrol)
(click to view full)

Dec 27/07: The Associated Press details some of the ripple effects created by the F-15 A-D grounding. With the F-15s in Massachusetts out of commission, the Vermont Air National Guard (ANG) is covering the whole Northeast. The Oregon ANG’s fighters are grounded, so the California Air National Guard is standing watch for the entire West Coast plus slices of Arizona and Nevada. To meet that need, the Fresno, CA based 144th Fighter Wing has had to borrow F-16s from bases in Indiana and Arizona and trim back training.

The Minnesota ANG is manning sites in Hawaii, while the Illinois ANG covers Louisiana. In Alaska, the new F-22 Raptors are stepping in – and so are Canadian CF-18s, which have intercepted several Russian bombers near Alaska in recent weeks.

Dec 10/07: The F-15 A-Ds remain grounded. A USAF update informs us that throughout the Air Force, maintainers have found cracks in the upper longerons of 8 F-15s so far: 4 from Air National Guard 173rd Fighter Wing, Kingsley Field, OR; 2 from USAF 18th Wing, Kadena Air Base, Japan; 1 from 325th Fighter Wing, Tyndall AFB, FL; and 1 from ANG 131st Fighter Wing, St. Louis, MO.

Inspections are underway using previous methods, until the Warner Robins ALC develops new ones for the fleet. After the area’s paint is stripped and bare metal is exposed, Airmen apply chemicals that reveal cracks under a black light. “Other inspections in hard-to-see areas are done with a boar scope [sic… maybe they mean “borescope”?] – a tool that uses a tiny camera and fits in tight areas.” Inspection time per aircraft is 12.5 to over 20 hours, and the 2-seat B and D models are more time consuming because the rear seat must be removed to access the upper longerons. USAF story.

UPDATE from USAF: “Yes, other readers pointed that out as well (although yours was the funniest). The story was corrected…”

Dec 3/07: It’s now official. Gen. John D.W. Corley, the commander of Air Combat Command orders the stand-down of all ACC F-15 A-Ds until further notice, and recommends the same for all other branches of the USAF. The stand-down does not affect the F-15E Strike Eagle and its variants abroad.

Technical experts with the Warner Robins Air Logistics Center at Robins Air Force Base, GA are developing a specific inspection technique for the suspect area, based on the recent findings. However, unlike previous inspections, the inspected aircraft will not be returned to flight until the F-15 A-D model findings and data have been analyzed, required inspections have been accomplished, and the necessary repair or mitigation actions have been completed. To date, longeron cracks have been discovered in an additional 4 aircraft. USAF release.

F-15E: Mission executed.
(click to view full)

Nov 28/07: The accident investigation board (AIB) report leads to the recommended re-grounding of the USAF F-15 A-D fleet, and almost certainly those of other countries as well. The new AIB findings have drawn attention to the F-15’s upper longerons near the canopy of the aircraft, which appear to have cracked and failed. Longerons connect the aircraft’s metal ‘skin’ to the frame, and run along the length and side of the aircraft. In addition to the AIB’s conclusions, manufacturer simulations have indicated that a catastrophic failure could result from such cracks, which were also discovered along the same longeron area during 2 recent inspections of F-15C aircraft.

The commander of Air Combat Command has recommended the stand-down of all F-15 A-D model aircraft across the US military, and ordered a renewed fleet-wide inspection of all ACC F-15 A-D model aircraft using a very specific inspection technique for the suspect area. The multi-role 2-seat F-15E Strike Eagles, which were manufactured later and had several design changes made, remain exempt from these cautions and exceptions. USAF article.

Nov 21/07: All USAF’s F-15s are being returned to flight status, despite acknowledgment that the service is accepting a degree of risk in doing so. Gen. John D.W. Corley, commander, Air Combat Command:

“The cause of the mishap remains under investigation… At the same time, structural engineers have conducted in-depth technical reviews of data from multiple sources… First, we focused on the F-15Es. They are… structurally different than the A-D models. Problems identified during years of A-D model usage were designed “out” of the E-model… Next, we concentrated on the remainder of the grounded fleet. The AIB(Accident Investigation Board) is now focused on the area just aft of the cockpit and slightly forward of the inlets. Warner Robins ALC mandated a thorough inspection and repair of all structural components in this area. I have directed each F-15 aircraft be inspected and cleared before returning to operational status. Today, ACC issued (a flight crew information file) and Warner Robins ALC issued an Operational Supplemental Tech Order to further direct and guide your pre-flight and post-flight actions.”

There are 666 F-15s in the Air Force inventory. As of this day, 219 of the 224 E-models and 294 of the 442 A-D models in the USAF’s inventory have been inspected and re-cleared for flight.

Nov 19/07: Shortly after becoming the first deployed F-15E unit in the Air Force to return to full operational capability following the Air Force’s fleet-wide grounding of the aircraft, the 455th Expeditionary Maintenance Squadron at Bagram AFB, Afghanistan, began the move from 5-7 day phase inspections every 200 flight hours, to a phase inspection every 400 flight hours. This change isn’t slated for implementation until 2008, but it’s being implemented early at Bagram AFB to keep more F-15Es in the air and meet mission demands.

The USAF says that its engineers at the Warner-Robins Air Force Base Air Logistics Center, GA looked carefully at all the data after years of F-15E analysis and testing, before approving the change. USAF release.

Nov 15/07: A USAF release says that an order issued by Air Combat Command’s Commander Gen. John Corley on Nov 11/07 mandates a 13-hour Time-Compliance Technical Order (TCTO) on location for each of the USAF’s F-15E Strike Eagles, to inspect hydraulic system lines, the fuselage structure, and structure-related panels. Aircraft that pass this inspection may return to flight status, and similar procedures are likely to be underway for Israel’s F-15Is. ACC Combat Aircraft Division chief Col. Frederick Jones said that this was possible because:

“We were able to determine, based on initial reports from an engineering analysis, that the F-15E is not susceptible to the same potential cause of the Missouri mishap.”

The TCTO inspection is designed to confirm the engineering analysis, and aircraft deployed the CENTCOM has apparently completed inspections and returned to flying status. This still leaves 2/3 of the USAF’s F-15 fleet grounded, however, as the F-15A-D models remain under suspicion. The F-15Es are about 15 years old on average, but the F-15A-D models were introduced earlier. Maj. Gen. David Gillett, ACC director of Logistics said that:

“What we’ve got here is an example in the C model of what happens when you have an airplane that’s about 25 years old… What you find is that it becomes more and more expensive to modify [the F-15 airframe] over time… Our costs have gone up 87 percent in the last five years and continue to rise rapidly. Even when you invest in an old airframe – you still have an old airframe.”

Additional Readings & Sources

• Gannett’s Military Times – F-15’s midair breakup. Hosts the Pentagon’s Crash Simulation.

• DID Spotlight article – Aging Array of American Aircraft Attracting Attention. The problem is not at all unique to America.

• Reuters (Oct 15/08) – US Air Force eyes fighter cuts to boost modernization. The force cuts would reduce the reserve fleets by about 137 F-15s, but it would also cut 177 F-16 fighters and 9 A-10s. The goal is to save $3.4 billion, to be applied to F-35 purchases.

• Investors Business Daily (Dec 7/07) – The Eagles are Grounded. Quotes ACC chief Maj. Gen. Ronald Keys re: the slippage of fighter fleet average age from 1967 to the present.

• Flight International (Nov 6/07) – VIDEO: Israel and Japan join US in grounding F-15s

• USAF (Nov 6/07) – Mission continues during grounding of F-15s.

• US DoD DefenseLINK (Nov 6/07) – Air Force Grounds F-15 Fleet Following Crash

• Xinhua, via Military.com – Now Japan Grounds F-15 Fighters

• USAF (Nov 4/07) – Air Force suspends some F-15 operations

Americas

• Legislation being considered by the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) could see the last of the USAF’s F-117A Nighthawk fleet sent to the scrap yard. Retired since 2007, a fleet of the pioneering stealth aircraft have been kept in special climate controlled storage hangers in the event they were ever needed again. Now, Congress is considering removing those mothballed aircraft and having them scrapped and gutted for hard-to-find parts.

• With its fourth test aircraft up and running, Boeing has reported a $243 million pre-tax charge for cost overruns on the USAF’s KC-46A Pegasus tanker program. It is believed that the company has incurred out of pocket expenses for the tanker totalling around $1.5 billion since being awarded the the $4.4 billion fixed-priced KC-X development contract in 2011. In total, $6.4 billion has been spent on the tanker, and Boeing is anxious for more funds to be released under the low-rate initial production (LRIP) contract expected later this year.

• The USAF awarded an $82.7 million contract to Space Explorations Tech. (SpaceX) to launch a GPS III satellite in May 2018. The move represents a shift away from the decade-long monopoly held by giants Boeing and Lockheed Martin on military space launches. Work to be carried out under the contract includes production of a Falcon 9 rocket, spacecraft integration, launch operations, and space flight certification.

Middle East North Africa

• UAE has seemingly donated a number of Armored Personnel Carriers (APC) and military pick-up trucks to the UN backed Libyan government based in the city of Torbuk. The amount of vehicles sent by the Gulf emirate is unknown, but a picture posted by the Libyan National Army (LNA) shows dozens of what appear to be new Panthera T-6 light APCs and Toyota Landcruiser pick-up trucks. Together with Egypt and Jordan, the UAE has allegedly defied the UN arms embargo on Libya to become one of the most consistent supporters of the LNA since 2012.

Europe

• Airbus has reported further delays to the development of the A400M with the latest issue involving the engine gearbox of the military transport plane. In a statement following the the first-quarter financial results by chief financial officer Harald Wilhelm, he warned of “serious challenges for production and customer deliveries” of the A400M this year. Negotiations on a new delivery schedule are being held through OCCAR, the European procurement agency.

• Polish company WB Electronics has announced that it has sold a number of its Warmate micro combat unmanned air vehicles to two undisclosed export customers. The system operates as a scaled-down expendable loitering munition, aimed at detecting and countering targets including light tanks and armored vehicles. The Warmate can be operated as an autonomous system transported by the army or special forces, and can also be installed on board military vehicles and controlled through the vehicle’s electronics.

Asia Pacific

• Defense experts in Seoul have reported that North Korea carried out two test-firings of their intermediate range missiles on Thursday with both failing. The seemingly hurried tests involved a Musudan missile with a range of more than 3,000 km, followed later by a similar intermediate range missile, both of which crashed soon after take-off. North Korean missile testing in the face of the UN ban have been escalating as of late in the run up to the ruling Workers’ Party congress to be held on May 6.

• Efforts by India to increase their domestic weaponry and equipment output has hit a stumbling block as domestic and private companies are divided over a new not-yet-implemented Ministry of Defense procurement policy. When brought into force, the policy would identify a select few private sector defense companies to be named Strategic Partners (SP), who could then be nominated to big ticket defense projects. Opposition to the policy mainly comes from over 6,000 small and medium companies who fear that the use of SPs would leave very little for them to be involved in.

Today’s Video

• Iraqi army aviation helicopter strikes against ISIS targets west of Baiji (Salah Ad-Din province):

Falcon 9 Engines

DID has covered SpaceX’s role in DARPA’s Responsive Small Spacelift Launch Vehicles program with its Falcon I design, and noted the Low-Earth Orbit launch contracts it had secured for various customers. RSSLV is designed to create a less expensive, quick launch capability. Yet SpaceX is developing a whole family of launch rockets, and recently announced a much larger Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) class rocket called the Falcon 9.

It’s a long way from the venture’s beginnings, when PayPal founder (and SpaceX CEO) Elon Musk noted that “The computer and Internet revolutions have given a great deal of capital to the ‘Star Wars’ fans.” SpaceX stuck to its original plan – giving private firms and government agencies that want to launch satellites a $6 million alternative to the cheapest existing rockets, which now cost $30 million per flight. Now, it’s branching out.

The Falcon 9

SpaceX initially intended to follow its first vehicle development, Falcon 1, with the intermediate class Falcon 5 launch vehicle. However, in response to customer requirements for low cost enhanced launch capability, SpaceX accelerated development of an EELV-class vehicle, upgrading Falcon 5 to Falcon 9. SpaceX has sold a Falcon 9 launch to a US government customer, and still plans to make Falcon 5 available in late 2007. Their efforts are worth watching, and could affect the military satellite launch market.

With up to a 17 ft (5.2 m) diameter fairing, Falcon 9 is capable of launching approximately 21,000 lbs (9,500 kg) to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) in its medium configuration and 55,000 lbs (25,000 kg) to LEO in its heavy configuration, a lift capacity greater than any other launch vehicle. In the medium configuration, Falcon 9 is priced at $27 million per flight with a 12 ft (3.6 m) fairing and $35 million with a 17 ft fairing. Prices include all launch range and third party insurance costs, and SpaceX claims that this makes Falcon 9 the most cost efficient vehicle in its class worldwide.

Nine SpaceX Merlin engines power the Falcon 9 first stage with 85,000 lbs of sea level thrust per engine, for a total thrust on liftoff of 765,000 pounds. After engine start, Falcon is held down until all vehicle systems are verified to be functioning normally before release for liftoff.

Although in-flight failures are very rarely explosive, a Kevlar shield protects each engine from debris in the event of its neighbor failing. The second stage tank of Falcon 9 is simply a shorter version of the first stage tank and uses most of the same tooling, material and manufacturing techniques. This results in significant cost savings in vehicle production. A single Merlin engine powers the Falcon 9 upper stage, with dual redundant hypergolic igniters (TEA-TEB) with four injection ports for added reliability of restart.

Falcon Family
(click to view full)

SpaceX: Rocket Science With A Difference

SpaceX’s approach to vehicle design is interesting, and may make them a strong lower-budget alternative to Boeing and Lockheed – and a potentially strong competitor to Ariane or Russian launch options.

An overview of SpaceX’s Falcon family of rockets and launch schedules can be found here. Their designs incorporate a number of well thought-out approaches to balancing low cost and reliability.

SpaceX’s analysis noted that the vast majority of launch vehicle failures in the past two decades can be attributed to three causes: engine, stage separation and, to a much lesser degree, avionics failures. An analysis of launch failure history between 1980 and 1999 by Aerospace Corporation showed that 91% of known failures can be attributed to those subsystems.

Falcon 1

In response, they designed Falcon 1 to have only one engine per stage and only one stage separation event – the minimum pragmatically possible number. Falcon 9 uses similar engines, electronics, guidance & control and separation systems to Falcon 1, but is built on a different scale and uses multiple engines.

In the case of Falcon 5 and Falcon 9, the multiple engines are set up so that the vehicles will be capable of sustaining an engine failure at any point in flight and successfully completing their mission. These architectures are improved versions of those employed by the Saturn V and Saturn I rockets of the Apollo Program, which had flawless flight records despite losing engines on a number of missions.

SpaceX hold-before-release system is required by commercial airplanes, but rarely seen on launch vehicles. After first stage engine start, the Falcon is held down and not released for flight until all propulsion and vehicle systems are confirmed to be operating normally. An automatic safe shut-down and unloading of propellant occurs if any off nominal conditions are detected. It is, after all, cheaper to reset a launch than to replace a cargo that is often worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

Keeping the design to only one stage separation event, and adding triple redundant flight computers and inertial navigation, with a GPS overlay for additional orbit insertion accuracy, take advantage of design and lowering costs for electronics to address the remaining reliability issues while keeping the cost of launch economical.

Falcon 5 and Falcon 9 will also be the world’s first launch vehicles where all stages are designed for reuse.

Reuse is not currently factored into their launch prices, but SpaceX has publicly stated that it will make further reductions in launch prices when the economics of stage recovery and checkout are fully understood.

SpaceX: The Future

SpaceX founder Elon Musk has stated that eventually, he wants to pave the way for safe and reliable airplane-like trips to space. “If anyone can do it,” says Mike Griffin, a former NASA exec (at the time – he’s now NASA Administrator) and president of the venture-capital firm In-Q-Tel, “Elon can. He has an incredible track record.”

• So, Mike Griffin used to be a former executive of NASA and a current head honcho at In-Q-Tel. Now he’s a former In-Q-Tel executive and a current head honcho at NASA. Thanks to the readers who wrote in to point this out. Does this make him a “re-former” NASA executive? I guess we’ll see.

Updates

April 29/16: The USAF awarded an $82.7 million contract to Space Explorations Tech. (SpaceX) to launch a GPS III satellite in May 2018. The move represents a shift away from the decade-long monopoly held by giants Boeing and Lockheed Martin on military space launches. Work to be carried out under the contract includes production of a Falcon 9 rocket, spacecraft integration, launch operations, and space flight certification.

April 12/16: Last Friday saw SpaceX successfully land a first-stage Falcon 9 rocket on a barge in the Atlantic Ocean. This is the second time SpaceX has successfully landed a rocket back on earth after putting a payload in space, but the first such landing on an ocean-going barge. An earlier attempt at a similar landing failed last December when the first stage rocket tipped over and exploded. Friday’s flight saw the Falcon 9 deliver cargo to the International Space Station.

October 12/15: The Pentagon has denied United Launch Alliance a waiver that would have allowed the company to continue using Russian RD-180 rockets. SpaceX was unhappy that the company’s competitor for defense and intelligence satellite launch services requested the waiver, with ULA previously threatening to withdraw from future competition with SpaceX if the waiver was denied. SpaceX was cleared for national security launches in May, with Congress passing the 2015 defense authorization law in December 2014 to curtail the use of the RD-180 by ULA, resulting in protests from some within the Pentagon earlier this year.

May 28/15: SpaceX has been cleared by the Air Force for national security-related launches, injecting competition into a previous United Launch Alliance monopoly on private DoD launches. This is part of Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain’s efforts to end US reliance on the Russia-manufactured RD-180 rocket for space launches. However, the Pentagon has previously urged Congress to allow ULA to continue using the Russian rockets in order to “ensure access to space”.

Americas

• The forth and final test aircraft of Boeing’s KC-46A tanker program has made its maiden flight. While not kitted out for aerial refueling, the 767-2C aircraft will be used to conduct environmental control system testing for the program. The arrival of the latest tanker comes as Boeing scrambles to complete a “milestone C” review by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). A favorable review will unleash additional funds needed for the program, including a seven tanker production order, which the manufacturer had already begun producing out of its own pocket.

• Northrop Grumman has been awarded an $83.4 million modification contract by the US Army to provide logistics support for the Hunter Unmanned Aircraft System. Work will continue until October 30, 2016. Based on the Hunter UAV by Israel’s IAI, the RQ-5 Hunter has been used by the US Army as a short wave system, and has been operated extensively on missions in Afghanistan. While retirement of the Hunter was scheduled for 2013, the Army has issued a number of logistic and support contracts to Northrop since then, giving the RQ-5 a license to keep hunting for the time being.

• Efforts to prevent Canada’s $11 billion deal to sell light armored vehicles to Saudi Arabia have gone one step further after the filing of a legal challenge in the Federal Court of Canada by former MP and law professor Daniel Turp. According to Turp, the sale violates Canadian law, which prevents the export of military goods to a nation that abuses human rights or is engaged in an active conflict. However, the case may be over before it begins, as Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion quietly issued export permits for the bulk of the shipments earlier this month, and the deal has received its blessing from Canada’s media darling, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Saudi Arabia, accused of committing war crimes during its ongoing campaign in Yemen with western made weaponry, has purchased 1,400 LAVs from General Dynamics Land Systems with a variety of weapon systems, ranging from 25mm cannons to 90mm guns over the last 20 years.

Middle East North Africa

• Israel’s eagerness to customize its orders of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters has already seen its first app created for the next generation jet. Utilizing the open-architecture software design found in the Lockheed Martin designed fighter, Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) has developed its own command, control, communications, and computing (C4) system which will be equipped on the aircraft in December. The software is an upgrade of an existing C4 system the Israeli air force flies on its F-15 and F-16 fighters.

Europe

• After some guessing and speculation, the UK’s Protector unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) platform will be the Certifiable Predator B (CPB) UAV. The MoD had announced its plans to go ahead with its 10-strong MQ-9 Reaper Block 1 fleet replacement back in October 2015, but only now has its successor been revealed. The $606 million purchase from manufacturer General Atomic Aeronautical Systems will be facilitated through the usual government to government Foreign Military Sales with the US. Compared to the MQ-9, the CPB has 40% more endurance and four extra external store stations.

Asia Pacific

• After numerous delays in its maiden flight which occurred last week amid much excitement from manufacturer Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI), the X-2 stealth demonstrator will have a year long test campaign involving around 50 flights. With the maiden flight described as “ordinary” by Hirofumi Doi, manager of Japan’s Future Fighter Program at the defence ministry’s Acquisition, Technology & Logistics Agency (ATLA), future testing will help ATLA gather data on advanced fighter technologies such as stealth, thrust vectoring, data links, and other areas. Depending on this data, flight testing of the X-2 could easily be extended, leading the way for a potentially busy period for the demonstrator.

• Delivery of the S-300 air defense system to Iran is ahead of schedule after deliveries began earlier this month. The $900 million contract was initially signed back in 2007, but suspended when UN Security Council sanctions blocked the deal in 2010. A thawing in relations between the US and Iran over the latter’s dropping of its nuclear program has allowed Tehran to pursue additional military hardware, much to the chagrin of the US’s Gulf allies. Potential future arms contracts between Russia and Iran may involve weaponry that is not on the UN ban list, including air defense systems, small arms, and electronic warfare systems.

• France’s DCNS has been announced as the winner of the $38.7 billion Australian Future Submarine contract. The hotly contested tender for the 12 new subs also saw offers from Germany’s Thyssen-Krupp Marine Systems and the Government of Japan to carry out the build. The new design will be based on DCNS’s Shortfin Barracuda A1 submarine design, a conventionally-powered derivative of the nuclear-powered Suffren-class submarine now under construction for the French Navy. US made combat systems integrator and weapons systems will be installed by either Lockheed Martin or Raytheon in contracts expected to be announced shortly.

Today’s Video

• Live fire testing of a Russian Iskander-M Tactical Missile Launcher Cruise Missile:

Bridge to the future?
(click to view full)

In its 2009 White Paper, Australia’s Department of Defence and Labor Party government looked at the progress being made in ship killing surveillance-strike complexes, and at their need to defend large sea lanes, as key drivers shaping future navies. These premises are well accepted, but the White Paper’s conclusion was a surprise. It recommended a doubling of Australia’s submarine fleet to 12 boats by 2030-2040, all of which would be a new successor design that would replace the RAN’s Collins Class submarines.

The surprise, and controversy, stem from Australia’s recent experiences. The Collins Class was designed with the strong cooperation of ThyssenKrupp’s Swedish Kockums subsidiary, and built in Australia by state-owned ASC. The class has had a checkered career, including significant difficulties with its combat systems, issues with acoustic signature and propulsion, major cost growth to A$ 5+ billion, and schedule slippage. Worse still, reports indicated that the RAN can only staff 2 of its 6 submarines. High-level attention led to a report and recommendations to improve the force, but whether they will work remains to be seen. Meanwhile, the nature of Australia’s SEA 1000 future submarine project – and its eventual cost – remain unclear, with estimated costs in the A$ 36-44 billion range. This FOCUS article covers Australia’s options, decisions, and plans, as their future submarine program slowly gets underway.

Australia’s SEA 1000 Future Submarine Program Structure & Timeline

There is widespread skepticism that the Australian can handle this proposed project, especially after the failure of the Collins Class. Worse, a number of expert reports have pointed out that the next generation of submarines needs to be in the water before the Collins Class wears out. Many believe that the Collins’ original 2024 – 2031 range for safe and effective service is too generous (vid April 21/12 entry, below), which left very little time as of 2009.

Australia’s Labor government didn’t approach the problem with that level of urgency. The breadth and severity of problems with the Collins Class led to a number of reports covering failures in current submarine operations, and lessons learned. The good news is that this has given Australia a better foundation for its decisions, and improved the government’s understanding of its real needs and responsibilities. The bad news is that this approach delayed action on the May 2009 White Paper for almost 3 years. It’s likely to be 2017 before there’s a serious contract to build the new boats, and the schedule announced in May 2012 has already slipped slightly:

CIS re: ‘$40B mistake’

2012: The Government will make a decision on design and test facilities, including the Land Based Test Site, and will receive the Future Submarine Industry Skills Plan. Actual: That skills plan wasn’t publicly unveiled until May 2013.

2013: The Government will receive the results of the design, technical, and capability studies, and will make a decision on the combat systems, torpedoes, sensors and other weapons systems. Actual: The studies were received, and the combat system was decided on in May 2013, but not the other elements.

2013/2014: First Pass approval was scheduled for late 2013/early 2014. This would presumably involve a picked design. That hasn’t happened yet, and the new Liberal Party government is rethinking the entire short list.

2017: Second Pass approval is scheduled for around 2017, with construction expected to begin afterward.

These delays and replacement realities have forced to government to state that the Collins Class can operate safely and effectively to 2031 – 2038. Whether that’s true remains to be seen.

Submarine Choices S-80 cutaway, labeled
(click to view full)

Australia’s Labor government delayed making its decision, as it considered 4 broad options for the future diesel-electric fast attack submarines. By May 2013, however, it had decided to go with the riskiest 2 options for a purchase that’s supposed to be the RAN’s future centerpiece. If they get this wrong to the same degree that they botched the Collins Class, they will have crippled Australia’s future naval posture for a generation.

RAN needs

Off-the-Shelf. An existing design available off-the-shelf, modified only to meet Australia’s regulatory requirements. Australia looked at the AM-2000 Scorpene, U214/U216, S-80, and Soryu Class – see Appendix A for details. This option was eliminated in May 2013.

Picking this option would have ensured rapid delivery for the RAN’s strategic centerpiece. It also would cut the risk of technical failure by deploying proven systems, and offered greater cost certainty and savings. The price of this approach is that the submarine chosen might not fit Australia’s exact vision. Which leads to the question of how much that vision is worth, when the extra cost is judged by what else it could buy Australia. If the answer is “their entire future fleet of 72 F-35A stealth fighters,” decision-makers are going to stop and think carefully.

Modified. One way to get most off-the-shelf benefits is to buy existing design and make minor changes to incorporate Australia’s specific requirements, especially the RAN’s chosen combat systems and weapons. Accepting off-the-shelf choices for a new submarine class would force Australia to stock and maintain new types of torpedoes, anti-ship missiles, electronics, etc. Which could be done, but is expensive. Hence the potential attraction of a modified buy. This option was eliminated in May 2013, but it’s resurfacing under the new Liberal government.

Either Japan’s Soryu Class or TKMS’ U218SG would require some modifications along these lines. The Soryus would need to modify their combat system to be compatible with Australia’s chosen AN/BY-1G combat system and with its Mk-48 heavy torpedoes. The U218SG is less defined, but Singapore uses Finmeccanica WASS Black Shark torpedoes in its Archer Class, so unless Singapore plans to switch to torpedoes and use the American AN/BYG-1 combat system, switching the U218SG’s combat system and weapons will take similar design work.

Note that the ultra-cramped nature of a submarine’s internals means that modifying a submarine’s internal electronics is a bit more than a minor design swap-out, and carries expenses and risks of its own. The German/Singaporean U218SG and Sweden’s potential A26 would add the risks inherent to a new design. Hence Australia’s growing focus on Japan’s Soryus. There is talk that the entire set of 10 subs may now be built abroad; a weaker option would use the common approach of having 2-3 boats built in the foreign shipyard with Australian workers on site, and the rest built in Australia following that hands-on skills transfer period.

HMAS Rankin
(click to view full)

Evolved. An evolved design that enhances the capabilities of existing off-the-shelf designs, or of the current Collins Class design. Groups like ASPI suggest that Australia is moving toward an Evolved Collins Class design, but first, they had to remove a key roadblock noted in RAND’s December 2011 report (q.v. Dec 13/11 entry):

“One problem that hindered the Collins program was the lack of the intellectual property (IP) rights to the design of the basic platform and much of the fitted equipment. Not having the rights to Collins IP on future designs may constrain the design effort for the new submarine class that will replace the Collins. Although Kockums and the DoD reached a settlement in 2004 that provided ASC and its subcontractors access to Kockums’ IP, it still protected Kockums’ proprietary information to the point that no intellectual property from the Collins can be used in a new Australian submarine design [implied: absent negotiations & licensing].”

A May 2013 agreement with Sweden’s FMV procurement agency has settled that issue, but an Evolved Design option remains inherently risky, precisely because it’s so easy to pretend that the structural and electronic modifications to an existing class won’t really create much risk. Experiences in a range of Australian and Canadian programs show that this simply isn’t true. Both technical and cost risks can become serious problems, as demonstrated by the fact that the Collins Class was itself begun under those same auspices. Worse, ASC’s performance regarding Collins construction, and metrics far below global norms while building Australia’s new Hobart Class air defense destroyers, may be raising the risk profile so high that it destroys the Evolved option. Nevertheless, an evolved variant of the Collins Class remains on the table as a possibility.

SMX Ocean

One possible way to sidestep the Evolved Option’s issues is to choose DCNS’ SMX Ocean Class, a 4,000t+ design that’s evolved from France’s Barracuda Class nuclear submarines. That takes care of a big chunk of the R&D costs and risk, and offloads most of the rest to the vendor. On the other hand, Australia would still be the initial and only customer for a new design – one that will require replacement of its combat system, its standard weapons, and other key technologies.

New. An entirely new developmental submarine, designed in Australia.

The “New Developmental Submarine” option is, of course, the riskiest option of all. It’s also by far the most expensive, as a large amount of R&D must be financed. Since export sales from Australia are deeply unlikely, any R&D expenses are simply money down the drain.

With that said, the Swedish government may have a very interesting offer to make. They have broken off talks with Germany’s TKMS following accusations of bad faith in TKMS’ management of Kockums, which designed the Collins Class. In response, they’re working to revive a Swedish submarine industry at Saab. One possible solution is to continue taking those steps toward a Swedish submarine industry, but buy Australia’s ASC as well, and design their planned A26 successor submarine as a co-development project with Australia (q.v. April 12/14 entry).

Contracts and Key Events 2015 – 2016

April 28/16: France’s DCNS has been announced as the winner of the $38.7 billion Australian Future Submarine contract. The hotly contested tender for the 12 new subs also saw offers from Germany’s Thyssen-Krupp Marine Systems and the Government of Japan to carry out the build. The new design will be based on DCNS’s Shortfin Barracuda A1 submarine design, a conventionally-powered derivative of the nuclear-powered Suffren-class submarine now under construction for the French Navy. US made combat systems integrator and weapons systems will be installed by either Lockheed Martin or Raytheon in contracts expected to be announced shortly.

January 26/16: Japan and France are the front runners in providing Australia with its next submarine fleet. Germany’s ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems had also been considered, however recent worries over technical concerns may have them out of the running for the $34.55 billion contract. Japan has offered a variant of its 4,000-ton Soryu boats made by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Kawasaki Heavy Industries, where as France’s state-controlled naval contractor DCNS has proposed a diesel-electric version of its 5,000-ton Barracuda nuclear-powered submarine. The final decision will be made within the next six months ahead of Australian elections, with a slowing economy to be the main issue among voters. All competitors have agreed to build the new fleet in South Australian shipyards.

Feb 12/15: Bids to be competitive, just not too competitive. Japan is expected to be disappointed that Australia will have a competitive process for choosing submarine vendors. But it won’t be too competitive. Russia and North Korea have been excluded.

2014

New center-right gov’t and its supporters rethinking the program; Interest in Japan’s Soryu Class accelerates; Swedish sub turmoil could be Australia’s big opportunity; France steps in with SSN derivative; ASC may be losing its grip on sub construction. A26 concept

Dec 02/14: Love Me Tender. Treasurer Joe Hockey brushed aside the idea of running an open tender for new submarines as “a speculation process” that Australia no longer had time for. The opposition in return stuck to its support of local construction. This comes a week after Defense Minister David Johnston said that he wouldn’t trust ASC “to build a canoe”, a statement that he and his boss David Abbott only softly backpedaled later. In other words the government is clearly not softening the substance of its position, which is widely interpreted as favoring Japan as the closest thing to an off-the-shelf option.

Sources: The Australian: Joe Hockey rules out open tender for new submarines | Sydney Morning Herald: Defence Minister David Johnston ‘regrets’ his shipbuilder ‘canoe’ comments.

Nov 19/14: France. The CEO of France’s DCNS opens a DCNS Australia subsidiary during an official visit to Australia by French president Francois Hollande. DCNS can tout its FREMM frigates for Australia’s ASW program, but recent decisions pointing to the Hobart Class hull as a base give them few options. On the other hand, they are specifically touting their submarine:

“Xavier Mesnet (Submarines Marketing Director at DCNS) told Navy Recognition: “SMX OCEAN is more than a concept ship, it is a concept ship near to be realized”.”

The design’s touted 14,000 mile range would help Australia meet the recent promise of a sub with “longer range and endurance than any diesel/electric submarine currently available off the shelf” (q.v. Nov 12/14), and its SSN heritage removes some of the risks associated with a new boat. On the other hand, Australia is insisting on an American combat system and weapons, which would require design modifications. Then, too, several key technologies, like the propulsion system and fuel cells, come with all of the standard risks accompanying new technologies. Sources: Naval Recognition, “DCNS opens a subsidiary in Australia to better market its SMX OCEAN SSK for the RAN”.

Nov 18/14: Politics. The South Australian Economic Development Board commissions an analysis from the independent National Institute of Economic and Industry Research, to assess the economic ramifications of purchasing 12 submarines overseas versus building them in South Australia. The report finds no cost difference from building in South Australia, and a lot of negative economic impacts from building outside it. What a shock.

ASPI runs an article that attacks the study’s core assumptions. Past projects’ cost blowouts show that skill differences in Australia’s industry have predictable effects, and an unrealistic economic impact model assumes the highly-skilled people involved have no other job options. The Chair of the South Australian government’s Advanced Manufacturing Council replies, defending their costing model and shifting the argument about the input-output model to a discussion about spillovers from new knowledge – with a reference to Sweden’s JAS-39 Gripen fighter program. Sources: Government of South Australia, “New expert economic report supports an Australian submarine build” [PDF] | ASPI, “On economics and submarines” | ASPI, “Submarines: reader response.”

Nov 17/14: Politics. A Labor Party dominated Senate committee says that there aren’t any off-the-shelf submarine options for Australia, and pressures the government to adopt a competitive global tender.

The reasons behind the Liberal Party’s distrust of this option have been discussed (q.v. Sept 11/14), but their own defense minister may have given away their case this week by agreeing that no off-the-shelf option is possible. He’s narrowly correct, in that even Japan’s Soryu would need combat system and weapon swap-outs. On the other hand, there’s a difference between a contention like that, and a belief that the Australian design would be wildly different. The government hasn’t managed its message in a way that makes this clear. Sources: Melbourne Herald-Sun, “Give up on Japanese sub plan: committee”.

Nov 16/14: Germany & Japan. Australian media report that the TKMS proposal to biuld 1 submarine in Germany, and 11 more at ASC in Adelaide, is gaining traction within the Australian government.

If Australia can’t buy the Soryus, or Japan blocks the transfer of key technologies, the government is reportedly looking at having Japan build an evolcved version of the Soryu Class, then have it refitted in Adelaide. Sources: The Advertiser, “New German hope for multibillion-dollar submarine build at Adelaide’s ASC shipyards”.

Nov 12/14: Politics. The Minister for Defence speaks to the Submarine Institute of Australia Biennial conference. Sen. Johnston highlights the view that 2009 should have seen full approval for the next-generation submarine, and highlights the urgency of Australia’s shrunken replacement schedule:

“I am advised that by 2030, half of the world’s submarines will be in Australia’s broader strategic region…. the Government’s priorities are sustaining Collins, followed by the Future Submarine capability, schedule and cost. And I highlight the issue of schedule as being the most challenging constraint as I can not solve for time I don’t have…. Australia’s next submarine will have longer range and endurance than any diesel/electric submarine currently available off the shelf.”

That last quoted line is seized upon by the media, because it shifts the playing field against any off-the-shelf buy. That, in turn, makes anything other than a competitive procurement hard to justify. Which cuts the throat of efforts to keep the replacement schedule on an urgent track, or to build the boats much more quickly abroad. Sen. Johnston does make arguments about the industrial end, but they aren’t widely reported:

“There has been almost $1 billion worth of Defence procurement and sustainment work being undertaken in South Australia this year, and over the next four years, there will be up to $4.2 billion in Defence spending for building and sustaining defence materiel in South Australia…. It is well over 20 years since a submarine was designed for Australia and already over a decade since the last Collins class submarine was launched.”

The government also mentions that they are committed to the processes laid out in the Kinnaird Review, with 1st and 2nd pass approvals, but explicitly avoids committing to any kind of competition. The question is whether the minister has fatally undermined the sole-source option, even so. Sources: Australia DoD, “Minister for Defence – Opening address to the Submarine Institute of Australia Biennial conference, Fremantle WA” | The Australian, “Subs boost for SA — Defence Minister David Johnston rules out ‘off the shelf’ submarine purchase”.

Nov 8/14: Saab bids. Saab CEO Hakan Bushke will be unveiling Saab’s offer to Australia at the Submarine Institute of Australia’s centenary conference, but Australia’s government confirms that it has already received the unsolicited bid. At this point, all the report will say is that:

“It includes a lower price than its competitors and a smooth flow of Japanese submarine [propulsion] technology from the Soryu Class boat, because Sweden is a partner in the Japanese project. There will also be substantial technology transfer and industrial offsets for Australia, including jobs in Adelaide during the build phase.”

The question is whether there will be an open competition. Australia’s government has been handed a program that’s already badly behind, and an existing Collins Class fleet whose cost-effective and performance-effective lifecycle is being questioned. Japan’s Soryu Class is already designed, built, and in service, unlike its German and Swedish competitors. Meanwhile, state-owned ASC has lost this government’s confidence as a shipbuilder, and delays in awarding a contract make it harder to reduce ASC’s role. Sources: News Corp., “Australian jobs promise as Sweden’s Saab Group bids for Navy’s $20 billion plus submarine project”.

Sub advances

Oct 28/14: Enter France? DCNS unveils its 4,750t SMX Ocean concept design at EuroNaval 2014. This diesel-electric attack submarine design is much closer to reality than past SMX concepts, because it’s based on the basic SSN Barracuda nuclear fast attack submarine’s layout, masts, and combat system. Meanwhile, shifts in the global market toward the Pacific and Indian oceans are tilting requirements in favor of larger conventional submarines, with more range and endurance.

Switching out the nuclear reactor does create a bit more space, even with 2nd generation fuel cell technology added to give the submarine a submerged endurance of 3 weeks. A cable-and-collar “saddle” system can be added for deployment and retrieval of UUVs from a mid-body chamber, and a detachable mobile pod aft of the sail can carry a special forces swimmer delivery vehicle. Behind the UUV bay, a 6-shooter for vertically-launched cruise missiles like MBDA’s MdCN/ Scalp Naval is complemented by internal frontal space for 28 weapons in any combination of heavyweight torpedoes, Exocet anti-ship missiles, A3SM anti-aircraft missiles, or mine packages. Items like the Vipere tethered communications and surveillance buoy round out the package.

The key caveat is that this isn’t a prototype, or even a detail design that’s ready for manufacturing. If DCNS wants to compete at this level of capability in markets like Australia or India, they have an advance investment decision ahead of them. Their competitor TKMS already has a contract for the large U218SG, and Australia has also been discussing Japan’s 4,000t Soryu Class. Sources: DCNS, “DCNS unveils SMX-Ocean, a new blue-water SSK with expanded capabilities”.

Sept 15/14: Japan risks. As it becomes clear that Japan is the odds-on favorite, discussion of that choice’s particular risks is coming up. If Australia picks the Soryus, the risks it will accept include some level of opacity with respect to key technologies, like special steels for hull strength. Time will tell, but Japan is also said to be reluctant to transfer all of the boat’s key technologies to Australia. Noise reduction designs in particular transfer naturally, as part of giving Australia full local maintenance capability, but are highly sensitive.

These issues, and the complex nature of these technologies, have industrial implications. The ability to actually build the submarines at ASC would leave no middle ground regarding technology transfer. Worse, experts like Kazuhisa Ogawa and ex-submariner Toshihide Yamauchi estimate that an ASC build could double the cost to the full planned A$ 40 million. This compares rather unfavorably with TKMS’ reported bid submission, but that design promises serious performance and timeliness risks, along with the potential for unexpected costs. Pick your poisons.

Other risks are geopolitical. Hugh White is not a fan of local construction, but his questions go to the heart of the strategic risks:

“How sure can we be that within that time [of the submarines’ delivery and entire service life] Japan will… be a US ally? That it will not have restored its long-standing ban on defence exports? That it will not have become a compliant neighbour of a predominant China, or on the other hand have become China’s bitter enemy? What would happen to our new submarine capability in any of these contingencies?”

Fair questions. Does Australian participation in a project of this magnitude make some of these outcomes less likely? How much less likely, and what role will other macro trends play? Someone needs to be doing this kind of analysis, and Australia’s DoD hasn’t shown great proficiency in the past. Sources: Australia’s ABC, “Soryu submarine deal: Japanese insiders warn sub program will cost more, hurt Australian jobs” | Canberra Times, “Japanese submarine option odds-on favourite”.

Sept 11/14: Germany & Sweden. The Australia Financial Review says that they’ve “confirmed that German submarine builder ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) has submitted a bid for a joint venture with Adelaide-based ASC that comes in at under $20 billion.” What they don’t say are which model of submarine the proposal used, and how cost risk for going beyond that budget would be handled. For instance, an A$ 20 billion bid with 100% escalation risk to the government is effectively an open-ended contract for any amount; vs. an A$ 20 billion contract with a 50/50 sharing arrangement for cost escalation and a $30 billion government cap, which is an A$ 20-30 billion contract. Or a straight A$ 20 billion purchase and delivery contract, which remains at A$ 20 billion unless the government changes the design or decides to negotiate for other reasons. The details matter.

Australian Labor Party leader Bill Shorten has been invoking World War II a lot in his opposition to a built in Japan deal, which makes a collaborative offer from the other former Axis power a mite awkward. Meanwhile, Sweden is committed to making a strong bid, if there is an open competition. Saab CEO Haakan Bushke says that they’re willing to design a 4,000t submarine for Australia, and take ASC and Royal Australian Navy engineers and technicians to work on its new A26 design. He adds:

“As of July 2, Saab completed a full takeover of Kockums which is now Saab Kockums and the Swedish Kingdom now controls the intellectual property for… [Australia’s currently-serving] Collins class submarines…. If there is an open competition, Saab Kockums will be in it.”

The publicity and lobbying builds pressure toward an open tender, which would create 2 distinct policy problems for the Abbott government. One is a policy angle. The Soryu Class is a proven and built design, while TKMS and Saab’s offerings aren’t. This creates a real risk that the new submarines will be delayed (q.v. Sept 8/14), amid questions concerning the Collins Class’ costs and effective lifespan. The 2nd problem is political. Opening competition delays the contract, allowing ASC, unions and the Labor Party to spend a lot of time and effort lobbying. That raises the odds of having the contract outcome and costs dictated by political forces outside the government. Against those negatives, one must weigh the potential for really great competitive offers, which could avoid a complete breach of the Liberal Party’s pre-election commitment to building the boats at ASC. Sources: Australia Financial Review, “Germans undercut Japan on Australia’s submarines” | Australia Financial Review, “Swedes launch desperate bid for Oz submarine project” | Business Insider Australia, “Germany Joins The Race To Build Australia’s New Submarine Fleet” | Business Insider Australia, “Australia Could Get A Great Deal On Its New Submarine Fleet If Tony Abbott Wants It” | Manufacturers’ Monthly, “German company wants to build Australia’s submarines”.

Sept 8/14: Japan. News Corp. reports that the government is fast-tracking their pursuit of Soryu Class submarines, because of growing concerns about the $2+ billion cost of maintaining the Collins boats beyond 2026; some estimates put that cost at more than $2 billion. The government also seems focused on a proven solution; TKMS’ U218SG isn’t, and neither is Saab’s A26. DCNS’ Scorpene, meanwhile, lacks the size and range Australia wants. Hence Soryu, especially given Australia’s urgency:

“The Government cannot afford a submarine capability gap and every day past 2026/27 when Collins class is due to begin decommissioning, adds days of risk,” a senior defence source said.”

Controversy. A second consequence of the government’s risk and cost aversion is that ASC Pty’s performance on the Air Warfare Destroyer project may have relegated them to a service role for the future submarines. In other words, construction in Japan. ASC and the Labor Party are understandably unhappy, arguing that the industry is strategic and that the Collins Class’ reported 21,300 km range is 88% better than even the Soryus. Australia would also need to either modify the Soryus to use American torpedoes, or switch as a fleet to the class’ natural weapon set of American UGM-84 Harpoon missiles and Japanese Type 89 torpedoes.

Cost. A Japanese build would be a big, big geopolitical deal, but the headline’s A$ 20 billion figure is unreliable because it’s based on a statement by Germany’s TKMS, regarding a different submarine. Another report costs a program for 10 Soryu Class boats at A$ 25 billion. Note that even A$ 25 billion is just 69% of the original A$ 36 billion projection for ASC. For perspective, this inherently optimistic build cost means that switching to Soryus leaves about enough money to cover current official costs for Australia’s 2 Canberra Class LHDs and 3 Hobart Class Air Warfare Destroyers. If build-out cost in Australia were to hit A$ 40 billion, which is very possible, savings from a Japanese build would pay the estimated A$ 15 billion cost of Australia’s F-35A stealth fighter program.

Politics. Does that level of cost savings negate the political blowback from cutting out ASC? It might, but there are risks. Australia is a Parliamentary system, but Abbot’s government relies on a coalition of 4 parties in the House. If the Liberal Party’s partners don’t bolt the coalition over the issue, and the plan goes forward, the question becomes whether Parliamentary maneuvering can force an issue vote in the Senate. There, the government would need 6 of 8 non-Labor and non-Green votes outside of its own coalition.

Basing. To make things even more interesting, there are also reports that Australia is considering a basing shift to HMAS Coonawarra, up near Darwin in the north. That would drastically improve deployment into theater, as the sailing difference between HMAS Coonawarra and the current submarine base in Australia’s southwest at HMAS Stirling is almost 5,000 km / 2,700 nmi. Unfortunately, HMAS Coonawara is currently just a patrol boat base, and creating a full submarine and support base would be expensive. Especially if the natural harbor isn’t super-deep. The other problem is that basing the RAN’s most strategic assets near Darwin makes it much easier to reach them with weapons like cruise missiles. A forward base near Darwin is possible for refueling and minor service, and it would basically cancel the range difference between the Collins and Soryu classes, but a full basing switch is unlikely.

Sources: News Corp., “New Japanese submarines to cost Abbott Government $20 billion” | Australia’s ABC, “Submarine policy: [Independent Sen.] Nick Xenophon urges PM to ‘end the uncertainty’ over SA project” | The Australian, “Submarine plan a threat to national security: Labor” | 7News, “Darwin submarine base ‘won’t happen’, Australian Defence Association chief Neil James says”.

Japan buy: key issues

July 8/14: Japan. Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe sign the “Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Japan Concerning the Transfer of Defence Equipment and Technology” at a ceremony in Canberra.

It isn’t the full security cooperation policy mooted in previous reports (q.v. May 28/14), but it’s an immediate step. As expected (q.v. April 6/14), they’re leading off with a joint Marine Hydrodynamics Project between Australia’s Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO) and Japan’s Technical Research and Development Institute (TRDI). In English, they’ll analyze propulsion and water resistance around submarine hulls – and, implicitly, torpedoes. Sources: Australian DoD, “Minister for Defence – Defence Minister David Johnston hails defence science and technology accord with Japan”.

May 28/14: Japan. Reuters reports that Japan is warming to the idea of selling submarines to Australia, but what they want in return is something Australia will need to think about:

“Japan is considering selling submarine technology to Australia – perhaps even a fleet of fully engineered, stealthy vessels, according to Japanese officials. Sources on both sides say the discussions so far have encouraged a willingness to speed up talks…. Japanese military officials and lawmakers with an interest in defense policy have signaled a willingness to consider supplying a full version of the highly regarded Soryu to Australia if certain conditions can be met. These would include concluding a framework agreement on security policy with Canberra that would lock future Australian governments into an alliance with Japan, the [Australian] officials said.”

China’s likely reaction would create diplomatic complications, and limit Australia’s future political options. On the other hand, the Japanese have the one proven design that meets Australia’s needs. Just don’t expect rapid decisions. That isn’t usually the way things are done in Japan. Sources: Reuters, “Japan & Australia consider submarine deal that could rattle China”.

April 12/14: Swedish option? The Collins Class was built around a Swedish design, News Corp Australia says that Saab and the Swedish Government have been engaged in secret talks around a joint submarine effort. That proposed approach may have the potential to cut through many of the dilemmas faced by Australia’s government, and Sweden’s as well. Here’s Australia’s problem, as explained in the SMH:

“This week the Australian Strategic Policy Institute hosted a conference billed as the “Submarine Choice” – but the arguments simply shot past each other. Nothing connected. The Navy stressed its strategic need for submarines without reference to the budget; industry obsessed about the business case without worrying about how such massive expenditure would severely unbalance the forces; while politicians agonised over the need to save jobs and save money, despite the fact these objectives stand in direct contradiction to one another. In the meantime, the bandwagon rolls remorselessly onwards.”

The reported Swedish solution would buy ASC, and embark on a fully cooperative joint design for Sweden and Australia’s next submarines. Australia would receive a design that’s explicitly built for Australia’s needs – a necessary compromise for Sweden, whose needs are different. It’s also worth noting that the Japanese Soryu Class propulsion system that has attracted so much interest from Australia’s Navy is part Swedish. From industry’s point of view, making ASC part of Saab removes any conflict of interests with a foreign firm that acts as the project lead, and creates both development jobs/skills and production work. From the politicians’ point of view, a program that includes Sweden and Australia offers the added security of shared risk, and shared acquisitions. As a starting point, Saab soon buys Kockums from TKMS, after hiring away many of its engineers. Read Saab Story: Sweden’s New Submarines for full coverage.

April 8/14: Minister for Defence Sen. David Johnston gives the speech, but says that the government is still evaluating options and has made no decisions. Since his party had campaigned on building 12 submarines in Australia, he also needs to qualify his way out by invoking his statement that “…if anything the Minister has said is based on fantasy, we’ll tell you and we’ll revisit this.” He does put industry on notice that the priority is performance rather than jobs, and adds that the priority isn’t X number of submarines, but a stable submarine capability that matches what Australia can afford and operate.

Taken as simple logical propositions, both points are extremely sensible. The government can expect to face strong lobbying from the shipyard and its associated unions, and that’s already starting, but the sheer size of the price tag involved means that the unions’ traditional allies on the left aren’t going to fight very hard alongside them. Observers are speculating that that the minister’s framework means 6-9 submarines, but no-one knows at this point. Sources: Australia DoD, “Minister for Defence – Speech – Address for the ASPI conference” | Australia DoD, “Minister for Defence – [Q&A] Transcript – ASPI Conference” | ASPI, “The Submarine Choice: ASPI’s International Conference, Canberra” | State-owned ABC, “Submarines off-the-shelf would breach promises to South Australia, says Penny Wong” | The Age, “Why do we need more submarines?” | The Australian, “Cheaper submarines ‘risk the lives of sailors’”.

April 7/14: Rethink? Looks like the stirrings of discontent earlier this year (q.v. Jan 29/14, Dec 17/13) are about to become more real. Minister for Defence Sen. David Johnston is scheduled to make a speech at ASPI on April 9/14, and there’s considerable speculation that he will change the submarine program in 3 important ways. One, he may choose to cut the program from 12 boats to 9, on both cost and operational capacity grounds. Two, he will force ASC to make a case to win the work, saying that the Navy’s strategic centerpiece “is not a job-creation program”. Third, there’s the clear implication that if the ASC case isn’t good enough, some or all of the submarines may be built abroad. As a final wrinkle, talks continue with Japan regarding their large Soryu Class boats, shortly after Japan relaxes their restrictions on exporting weapon technologies:

“When asked yesterday what aspects of the Japanese boats might be included in an Australian design, a senior government source replied: “Everything.”…pressed on whether that included buying the boats off-the-shelf from the Japanese the answer was an emphatic “yes”.”

The usual approach is to build the first few boats aboard, with some local workers sent to participate, and then begin production locally. That would create an industrial timing problem for ASC, but if the government replaces 3 submarines with a 4th Hobart Class air defense destroyer, it could enhance Australia’s naval and missile defense options while covering the industrial gap. Sources: News Australia, “Australia in talks to buy Japanese submarines to upgrade fleet” | Sydney Morning Herald, “Coalition casts doubt on plan to replace Collins Class submarines”.

April 6/14: Japan. Jane’s reports that Australia and Japan have agreed to start talks on creating a framework for defense technology co-operation, with an initial project involving joint research into marine hydrodynamics.

“An official at the Japanese Ministry of Defence (MoD) told IHS Jane’s said this would include the analysis of propulsion and water resistance around submarine hulls.”

The message to Jane’s also suggested that the propulsion technology that so interests in Australians was deemed too sensitive. Instead, Japan’s Technical Research and Development Institute and Australia’s DSTO would begin collaboration here. Japanese decision making processes are slow, especially in an area so likely to create tensions with China. Will they be too slow for the decisions Australia needs to begin making? Sources: IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly, “Japan, Australia agree to joint research on submarines, hydrodynamics”.

March 6/14: Evolved Collins. It isn’t new to say that Australian politicians seem to be leaning toward an evolved Collins Class submarine, given the riskiness of designing a new boat. The political dynamics at work are more interesting:

“An evolved Collins-class has emerged as the favoured option for Australia’s next generation of submarines amid signs the much maligned existing boats will remain in service beyond 2030…. Few sources close to defence believe it will opt for a new design given the risk of having an orphan boat class. Treasurer Joe Hockey is said to be uneasy with the mooted pricetag of $36 billion. Defence Minister David Johnston has also cast doubt on whether Australia will double its fleet to 12, saying the number first mooted in the former prime minister’s 2009 white paper has never been justified.”

The report also says that decision makers are more comfortable leaving the Collins Class in service until 2030 – ironically, because they’ve been defective so often and spent so much time out of water. Sources: Australian Financial Review, “Evolved Collins favourite but timing unclear”.

Jan 20/14: Political pushback. The A$ 30-40 billion size of the future submarine project guarantees political scrutiny, but that won’t really begin until it’s a near-term project rather than just funded studies. The Sydney Morning Herald decides to start as the new center-right Liberal Party government prepares its 1st budget, and it’s coming from a right-wing source:

“Whatever one may think of [new Board member] Mirabella [q.v. Dec 17/13], she is an economic dry and does not shirk the dirty work of confronting spendthrift bureaucrats, military brass and trade unions, all of whom have treated the Australian Submarine Corporation and the Defence Materiel Organisation as a giant honey pot.

Both organisations are impervious to competence…. The idea that Australia should produce a dozen submarines in South Australia, at a projected cost of about $3 billion a vessel, is madness…. The new submarines will have a unit cost that dwarfs the Collins-class subs if built here, or roughly three times the cost of acquiring the submarines from foreign shipyards. The navy disputes this disparity but history does not.”

As many observers have noted before: please tell us how you really feel, Paul Sheehan. More seriously, this is an early sign that Abbott’s traditional allies may not be solidly behind the program as currently conceived. Meanwhile, the Labor Party is no longer in power, and hence no longer really bound to defend a program that will demand many more dollars for national defense. Sources: Sydney Morning Herald, “Future Submarine project a farce that has missed a mention”.

2013

Combat system picked. Potential work with Japan? click to read

Dec 17/13: ASC Board. Former Liberal Party MP Sophie Mirabella, a 12-year incumbent who was the only party incumbent to lose her seat in the recent election, is appointed to ASC’s Board of Directors by Prime Minister Tony Abbott, alongside new members Peter Iancov and Paul Rizzo.

Ms. Mirabella does have qualifications as the Coalition’s Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry and Science while they were in opposition, and is known as a strong opponent of public sector waste. It’s arguable that ASC could use both, given the scale and importance of the projects they’re handling, and will soon begin to execute. Prime Minister Abbott could certainly use a critically-minded loyalist on the inside, to avert problems or at least give him advance warning of any nasty surprises. Now he has one. Sources: Minister for Finance, “Appointment of Three New Board Members to ASC Pty Ltd” | Sydney Morning Herald, “Coalition appoints Sophie Mirabella to board of government-owned shipbuilding firm”.

May 16/13: IP deal. Australia’s government signs a deal with Sweden’s FMV procurement agency, Intellectual Property rights for submarine design and technology. As RAND’s 2011 report had noted (q.v. Dec 13/11), this was a major stumbling block for any sort of Evolved Collins design.

The agreement covers use of Collins Class submarine technology for the Future Submarine Program. It also creates a framework and principles for the negotiation of Intellectual Property rights, if Australia wants to be able to use and disclose other Swedish submarine technology for an Evolved Collins solution. Disclosure is included because there are sub-contractors et. al. who require some level of disclosure in order to work on the project. Defense Ministers Joint Communique | Australia DoD.

Swedish Intellectual Property Agreement

May 2/13: White Paper. The Labor government’s 2013 defense white paper rejects the safer and quicker options of buying or modifying an existing class from abroad. Instead, they’ll focus on options #3 & 4: an evolved design of the Collins Class, or a completely new Australian design. As part of that decision, they’re going to continue with the American AN/BYG-1 combat system as their standard. It equips every class of American nuclear submarines thanks to a combination of initial installs and systems modernizations, and a BYG-1(V)8 variant was inserted into the current Collins Class as Project SEA 1439 Phase 4A.

This is a decision that exacerbates both the performance risks so amply illustrated by the Collins Class to date, and the risks of delayed in-service date for new boats. Which is why it shouldn’t surprise anyone that the government has extended their estimates of how long the Collins Class can serve. Unless they want a gap where Australia loses its submarines entirely, or operates with a much-reduced force, delays and decisions to date mean that the government can’t say anything else. Whether their study’s carefully-couched conclusion is true in an operational sense is a different question.

On the topic of performance risks, even with the new Submarine Propulsion Energy Support and Integration Facility, the submarine skills plan, and government plans to improve productivity in Australian shipbuilding, the new submarine decision expands almost every possible risk facing the Australian Navy’s future strategic centerpiece. It may be that a new propulsion system can fix some of the Collins Class’ problems, but the boats’ problems over the years have stemmed from a wide variety of defects and failures, across multiple systems. There are conflicting reports regarding the extent and success of the fixes tried to date, and one can be forgiven some skepticism that the same organizations responsible for the present situation can create or insert new designs that solve all of their previous mistakes. Since the systems will be new, or at the very least not proven in operations with the boat they’re inserted into, it’s also more than possible that “unforeseen” delays will make it hard to get new boats into service before the existing fleet becomes unfit for purpose.

In exchange, of course, the government gets to promise more spending with a state-owned firm (ASC) and its sub-contractors, on behalf of a Labor Party whose political standing is shaky, a few months before an election. Future Submarine Industry Skills Plan | Australia DoD release | ASC | ASPI | ASPI Shipbuilding timeline.

2013 White Paper, Combat System picked

Feb 13/13: Japan. The New Pacific Institute reports that Japanese media are now openly discussing a Soryu Class deal with Australia, and chronicles the process so far. Bottom line: If a deal is consummated, it’s going to be a delicate process of mutual trade-offs, not a straightforward transaction:

“The article did not offer much additional detail about how the process from here is likely to unfold, although it did frame the technology transfer as part of a supposedly mutual desire to balance against Chinese naval activities. It nevertheless suggests that defense officials are still considering the plan and that the chances are good that something will come out of the process notwithstanding any domestic or international backlash. The main issue for the Japanese side likely revolves what level of information and access to provide to the Royal Australian Navy.”

The relaxation of Japan’s export laws was meant to support joint development projects like the SM-3 Block IIA, rather than a 1-way transfer of technology to a foreign shipbuilder. Japan sees submarines as a strategic technology for its own preservation, and must weigh the risk of dissemination against the potential benefits. NPI doesn’t believe that complicating China’s life is enough of an inducement all by itself. Meanwhile, Australia knows that it wants a large diesel-electric sub, and believes that Japan has a reliable propulsion system design. Cooperation that stops short of full-scale licensed submarine construction might be an option for both parties.

2012

Initial studies budget; Is the project about pork-barrel politics, at the expense of defending Australia? Japan’s Soryu Class enters the mix; Kokoda’s shoddy study. JS Soryu
(click to view full)

Nov 15/12: Requirements. David Feeney, Parliamentary Secretary of Defence, speaks to the Submarine Institute of Australia Biennial Conference. He describes regional trends that could see A$ 44 billion spent by 2021 and up to 150 diesel-electric submarines operational, offers a naval “sea control” doctrine formulation straight from Sir Julian Corbett, and adds more clarity to his government’s expectations for the future submarine:

“Denial retains a place, but sea control operations ensure that Australian response options are not constrained and our freedom of action is not threatened. It is inconceivable that Australia can achieve sea control – a requirement for successful maritime power projection – without submarines.

Government is resolved that the Future Submarine will have greater range, longer endurance on patrol, and expanded capabilities (i.e. communications) as compared to the current Collins Class submarine. The Future Submarine must be able to carry different mission payloads such as uninhabited underwater vehicles (UUVs)… conduct strike operations against military targets, including an adversary’s operating bases, staging areas and critical military infrastructure.

Relative to other nations that operate diesel-electric submarines, the Future Submarine must operate across exceptionally vast distances… Asia-Pacific possesses numerous critical maritime nodes – notably the Malacca Strait, Sunda Strait, and Lombok Strait- all of which are critical to the global economy. These nodes are 2,000 or even 3,000 nm from [naval base] HMAS Stirling.”

The problem is that those requirements amount to a unique requirements set that will add massive costs to the project, along with risk that the next batch will fail like the Collins Class. Industry infrastructure is acknowledged to be shaky. Could the same money be used to buy an existing design, along with the sub tenders needed to give it all of that range and more? Or a set of submarines plus other critical sea control forces (like maritime aircraft)? Very likely. But the “made in Australia” rhetoric is all about jobs and perceived government largesse first, and defense second. Australia DoD Transcript.

Nov 14/12: Jobs justification. Jason Claire, Minister for Defence Materiel, speaks to the Submarine Institute of Australia’s 6th Biennial Conference. He begins by justifying the need for large submarines, on the grounds that they need to operate at long ranges. There are other approaches which could address this issue, but it makes for a useful uniqueness justification when he gets to the speech’s point – justifying his decision to build all of the submarines in Australia.

That approach significantly raises the risks of program failure, and of failure to replace existing boats in time. If the submarines really were a strategic priority, an approach that had the first 2-3 subs built abroad with Australian engineers on site, and the rest built locally as expertise grows, would be the obvious plan. Note, too, Claire’s use of the word “design,” indicating that despite government assurances, use of an existing submarine design isn’t getting serious consideration from this government:

“…will create thousands of jobs and work for hundreds of Australian companies. More than this it will create a new Australian industry… It will take decades to build 12 submarines, and by the time the last is built the first will need to be replaced. It’s not a short project. It will go on and on. It will create an industry that could last for a century or more. That industry should be here. That industry also has flow on benefits. It will build skills useful for other industries and technology… also build the capabilities and skills of our universities and our technical colleges… it is important we have an indigenous capability that can design, develop, build and maintain submarines.

That is not something we can or should do on our own… But we also can’t, and shouldn’t, outsource the whole task… Acquiring nuclear powered submarines… [means] outsourcing the construction, maintenance and sustainment of the submarines… built overseas, they would have to be fuelled, docked, defueled and disposed of overseas. That means tens of billions of dollars for acquisition and sustainment over decades that could be invested in Australia, spent overseas.

We have got a valley of death between the last AWD and the start of construction of the first future submarine. It’s a valley where jobs are lost and the skills we need will disappear… We need to fix this. This is the job of the Future Submarines Industry Skills Plan that I will receive next month.”

Sept 6/12: Infrastructure. Australia’s government announces that the Future Submarine Systems Centre will be based in Adelaide, South Australia. There had been some concern that the work might migrate elsewhere, but this is where Australia’s naval shipbuilding infrastructure is located.

The Systems Centre is set to formally open in 2013 as the home of the Future Submarine program, much as the AWD Centre in Adelaide has been the home of the A$ 8 billion Air Warfare Destroyer program. There are already staff working on the project, but they are based at state-owned shipbuilder ASC. Once they move, the center will be used to conduct evaluation of options, design work, program management, engineering, logistics and production planning. Over the next few years, it will grow to include hundreds of Defence personnel from Navy, the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO), the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO), and defense contractors.

There has also been a steady drumbeat of criticism over Australia’s slow decision-making, and the government’s readiness to choose an industrial structure that will roughly double the program’s cost to A$ 36 billion or more, and introduce significant risk. Even as the RAN has extreme difficulties sustaining and manning its existing fleet of 6 Collins Class subs. The government is sticking to the 2009 plan of 12 new submarines to be assembled in South Australia, with the same 4 options under study, etc. The minister adds that this commitment will be reinforced as part of the 2013 Defence White Paper.

Aug 28/12: Where’s Coles Review 2? Liberal Party opposition defense critic Sen. Johnston releases a statement:

“Part 2 of the Coles Review of the Sustainment of Australia’s Collins Class Submarines was expected to be handed to the Minister in April, but in spite of the Minister declaring Collins Class sustainment was at the top of the Government’s Project of Concern List, it is still nowhere to be seen… I can see why the Defence Minister isn’t exactly pushing down Mr Coles’ door as Part 1 of his report was a damning indictment… Senator Johnston said this year alone taxpayers will spend close to $1 billion on maintenance and sustainment of the Collins Class with only one, sometimes two out of six submarines operationally ready at any one time.”

The review doesn’t arrive until mid-December 2012.

July 25 – Aug 3/12: Breakdowns & delays. After reporting a successful torpedo firing and sinking exercise during RIMPAC 2012, Australia’s DoD reveals that a leak is forcing HMAS Farncomb to return to port immediately. The Liberal Party’s shadow defence minister, David Johnston, reminds Sydney Morning Herald readers that these kinds of breakdowns are all too common, while highlighting the timing problem that could leave Australia without a viable fleet. The time for a decision, he says, is now:

“The ASPI report described the gap between when all the Collins Class have been retired and the time it would take to build a replacement as “nothing short of catastrophic”… three years “of no submarines at all”… After some prodding the Minister also declared [in May 2012, 3 years after the White Paper] a final decision on the replacement would not be made until late 2013 or 2014 – in other words, not until after the next election… all against the backdrop of our submarines being so operationally fragile that competing in exercises with allies becomes a case of going in with fingers crossed… We also have our submariners reluctantly leaving the Navy because they simply don’t get time at sea doing what they signed up to do.”

July 9/12: Japan’s Soryu? RAN Future Submarine Program head Rear-Admiral Rowan Moffitt, and DMO Chief Defence Scientist Dr. Alexander Zelinsky are traveling to Japan to look at the country’s new 4,200t Soryu (“Blue Dragon”) Class/ 16SS submarines.

Japan relaxed its ban on weapon exports somewhat in December 2011, which opens up the possibility of an Australian-built submarine derivative. On the flip side, the previous ban means that Japanese firms lack the same kind of technology transfer and off-site quality control experience that has been earned over the years by Germany’s HDW (Greece, India, South Korea, Turkey), and France’s DCNS (Brazil, India).

The Soryus have a Stirling Air Independent Propulsion system, and began service just 3 years ago. They’re also much larger than competitors like France’s 2,060t MESMA AIP equipped AM-2000 Scorpene. That makes the Soryus attractive to Australia, and some think they might have the range and capacity Australia needs. It’s worth noting that smaller submarines like Germany’s 1,830t U212As have traveled thousands of miles while submerged, and technically have a longer range than the Soryus. Still, bigger is better to some. The Japanese subs do offer a lot more space for weapons, and a similar submarine design might offer interesting opportunities for Australian-Japanese operational cooperation. Adelaide Now | Sydney Morning Herald.

May 3/12: Initial budget & plans. Australia’s Labor Party government announces a budget of another A$ 214 million for the next stage of the Future Submarine Project, and appoints Mr. David Gould as the DoD’s General Manager of Submarines, working within the DMO and reporting directly to its CEO. The initial budget will pay for detailed studies and analysis to inform the design choice, the cost/ capability tradeoffs, and the workforce skills requirements to build them in Australia. Those funds are on top of the government’s December 2011 RFI, and the contract with Babcock for a land-based propulsion testing site.

Overall, the Government announces that they’re considering 4 broad options for diesel-electric fast attack submarines, as outlined above. with respect to the studies and work conducted:

Scientific and technological studies will be conducted primarily by the Australian DoD’s Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO).

The off-the-shelf studies will be undertaken with same trio of firms who were sent the December 2011 RFI: DCNS (Scorpene), TKMS HDW (U212A/214), and Navantia (S-80). TKMS Kockums will perform the evolved design studies for the Collins Class, as they were its original designers.

An interesting 2nd look will happen within the AUSMIN framework agreed in November 2010. US technical cooperation will involve capability modeling for both off-the-shelf and evolved Collins options. Systems Performance and Analysis, and GD Electric Boat, will do that work under a US Foreign Military Sales case.

The workforce skills plan will be developed by a team be led by the DoD’s Defence Materiel Organisation CEO, Mr. Warren King, and supported by an Expert Industry Panel headed by Mr. David Mortimer, AO. The Expert Industry Panel will include representatives of the Navy; DMO; the Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education; Skills Australia; unions; the CEOs of ASC, Austal, BAE Systems and Forgacs Engineering; and the Australian CEOs for local subsidiaries of Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, Thales, Saab Systems and BAE Systems. Australia DoD.

Budget & Studies

April 23/12: An interview with Minister for Defence Stephen Smith touches on the Collins Class’ ongoing problems, and the decisions to be taken regarding Australia’s future submarines. An excerpt:

“So there are capability issues [with the operating ranges required for Australian submarines] but no decisions have been made other than the Government ruling out a nuclear [propulsion] option… Australia does not have a nuclear industry, and if we acquired nuclear submarines that would effectively see the outsourcing to another country of our maintenance and sustainment… We remain committed to 12 submarines assembled in Australia.

“…Whether there is a gap in capability will in the end depend upon the decision that we make about the new submarine, firstly; secondly, the length of life or the life of type of the Collins Class Submarine. That is currently not known… one of the studies we have currently under way is a study trying to better define the life of type of the Collins Class Submarine… it would have been in my view wrong – indeed, irresponsible – to have leapt into a Future Submarine Project without trying to address the long-standing endemic, systemic difficulties that we’ve had with the Collins Class Submarine.”

April 21/12: Captain’s Critique. Commander James Harrap, a 20-year navy veteran, resigns from the RAN after commanding both HMAS Waller and HMAS Collins. While the boats and their crews had “serviced the navy well and achieved much,” the media obtain a copy of his overall assessment. It is stark and scathing: scrap the class.

“I don’t believe the Collins-class are sustainable in the long term and many of the expensive upgrade plans which have been proposed would be throwing good money after bad… Over the last two years, I believe these problems have become worse… Throughout my command of both Collins and Waller, full capability was never available and frequently over 50 per cent of the identified defects were awaiting stores… Collins has consistently been let down by some fundamental design flaws, leading to poor reliability and inconsistent performance. The constant stream of defects and operation control limitations makes getting to sea difficult, staying at sea harder and fighting the enemy a luxury only available once the first two have been overcome.”

The submarines’ diesel engines come in for special criticism, but they are far from his only target. His final conclusion has special relevance to Australia’s next-generation program: “I do not believe we have the capability to independently design and build our own submarines.” The Australian.

Jan 19/12: Kokoda criticized. The Kokoda Foundation releases its study “Sub Judice: Australia’s Future Submarine,” written by former ASC employee Brice Pacey. It concludes that no off-the-shelf conventional submarine can meet Australia’s requirements, and that a nuclear submarine program is unaffordable and unmanageable. Instead, it recommends “an evolution of the Collins design,” and claim that “the cost of building the submarine will be markedly less than some published estimates… there is no cost penalty for an Australian build.” These statements are from the foundation’s release; the full document itself is a for-fee publication.

While there is widespread agreement that nuclear-powered SSN fast attack boats are not a realistic option for Australia, the foundation’s other 3 conclusions draw fire. First, submarine-builder ASC’s sponsorship of the paper has led several observers to question the study’s seriousness and objectivity. The critics add that requirements themselves are arbitrary, unless the gaps involving current state-of-the-art submarines create serious mission problems, and the cost to field a 100% solution is acceptable. Given the demonstrated capabilities of submarines like the U214, they see the capability gap as too small, and the price gap as too large.

On which topic, reports indicate Kokoda estimates of just A$ 18 billion for the 12 boats, which is, indeed, significantly less than other published estimates. The history of the Collins Class, with respect to both build costs and performance, is not overly encouraging, and the credibility of this estimate has been deeply doubted. ASPI analyst Andrew Davies summed up this view with a Carl Sagan quote: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Kokoda Foundation release [PDF] | Canberra Times | Lowy Institute for International Policy.

2011

German “Type 216”?; Learning from other submarine programs – including Australia’s. U214 cutaway
(click to view full)

Dec 28/11: Type 216? HDW has released details of a 4,000t “Type 216” concept design, which appears to be targeted at Australia’s SEA 1000 future submarine program.

Australian sources have expressed concerns that the U214, and other boats investigated in the RFI, may not have the size and range to meet Australia’s specification. This may or may not be accurate, but a larger design could conceivably appeal to customers like Australia, India, and possibly Canada one day.

With doubts growing that an Australian-designed successor to the Collins class boat cannot be ready by the 2025 deadline, HDW might find some traction with a large submarine that offered 10,400 nm/ 19.240 km notional range, Air-Independent Propulsion for long underwater patrols; and the ability to launch cruise missiles, a special forces swimmer delivery vehicle, or UUVs. The flip side is that first-of-class boats can be problematic, even if the class is designed by a very experienced and skilled firm. The Greek experience with the 1st of class Papanikolis (U214) is instructive here. Canberra Times | Navy Recognition (incl. drawings).

click to read

Dec 13/11: Studies & Contenders. The Phase 1 Coles Review into the Collins Class’ difficulties is released, and goes as far as calling Australia’s approach to managing submarines “unfit for purpose.” The same day, Australia’s DoD releases RAND’s requested report of lessons learned from US, UK, and Australian submarine programs, and discusses the class options they’re investigating:

“Options for the Future Submarine range from a proven fully Military off the Shelf design through to a completely new submarine. All options are being considered, other than nuclear propulsion which the Government has ruled out… The Government has approved the release of Requests for Information to three overseas submarine designers… [to] provide a better understanding of the capabilities of off-the-shelf options.”

The list deals a blow to recent reports, as it’s made up of France’s DCNS (Scorpene), Germany’s TKMS HDW (Type 214), and Australia’s biggest shipbuilding partner, Spain’s Navantia (S-80). TKMS’ Swedish Kockums subsidiary, who worked with Australia to design the Collins Class, didn’t see its developmental A26 Class make the list.

The government isn’t stopping there. Australia’s DoD has signed a contract with Babcock Australia to study a land-based propulsion systems test facility, and the Defence Materiel Organisation has been ordered to develop a Future Submarine Industry Skills Plan, in consultation with Australia’s defense industry. Meanwhile, the Government refers to the discussions and agreement with the USA at AUSMIN 2010, regarding Australian-United States cooperation on submarine systems, which “will extend into future submarine acquisition program.” That could add one more advantage to Navantia, whose S-80 uses a number of American technologies. Australia DoD | RAND Report | Coles Review, Phase 1 [PDF].

Coles Review & RAND Report

Oct 15/11: The Labor Party government’s leader in the Senate, Chris Evans, indicates that components and possibly modules of Australia’s future submarines are expected to be built beyond South Australia, and even overseas. This is not a surprising plan, given the history of the Collins Class, but it creates political sparks. ASC, of course, is lobbying to keep everything it can in-house. The Australian | Adelaide Now.

Oct 15/11: Australian media report on the Collins Class’ annual costs, and future sub competition:

“Figures obtained by the Herald Sun, show the six Collins subs cost about $630 million a year – or $105 million each – to maintain, making them the most expensive submarines ever to put to sea… A US Navy Ohio Class nuclear attack submarine – more than three times the size of a Collins boat – costs about $50 million a year to operate.

The cost figures are revealed as Defence officials say at least two possible contenders for the navy’s new submarine fleet – the Spanish S-80 and French-Spanish Scorpene class boat – have been ruled out of the future submarine project.”

If true, one wonders what’s left. Sweden is just beginning to design a new A26 Class, and Germany’s HDW has its U214. Russian designs aren’t a realistic option. The other possibility is that Australia might seek, once again, to design its own submarine. Herald Sun | Courier Mail, incl. infographic | Australia’s Daily Telegraph.

July 25/11: The Australian reports that Australia’s DoD:

“…will seek US help with Australia’s plan to build 12 big conventional submarines to replace the navy’s six troubled Collins-class boats… After initial problems with the Collins fleet a decade ago, the US provided a state-of-the-art combat system and the latest technology to improve the subs’ propulsion systems and make them less noisy.”

July 19/11: Coles Review begins. Labor Party Defence Minister Stephen Smith admits that there are “long-term difficulties” with the Collins Class submarine fleet, and announces a full independent review led by British private sector expert John Coles. The Minister cites too many stretches where only 1-2 submarines have been available, and there are reportedly doubts that the subs’ diesel engines are robust enough to last until 2025 as planned:

“These problems are significant and highly technically complex. At times we have seen as few as one Collins Class submarine available for operations. This situation is unacceptable but will not be addressed simply by continuation of the status quo… As a consequence, the Government will conduct a review into the optimal commercial framework for the conduct of Collins Class Submarine sustainment… My ambition is that the Coles Review will do for the Collins Class Submarine what the Rizzo Report has done for our amphibious fleet capability: a clear sighted path to improve the sustainment and availability of the Collins Class Submarines… Without having confidence in our capacity to sustain our current fleet of submarines, it is very difficult to fully commence, other than through initial planning, the acquisition program for our Future Submarine. This is consistent with the absolute necessity to work very hard in the early days to get projects right and thereby avoid, reduce, and minimise project difficulties down the track.”

The Coles Review has been asked to provide an interim report by December 2011, and a final version by March 2012. The key questions are how long this will delay Australia’s future submarine program, and whether the review will include political-structural weaknesses in the program, or confine itself to procedures. Minister for Defence ASPI transcript | ASC release | Adelaide Now | Australian Broadcasting Corp. and ABC AM radio | Canberra Times | Queensland’s Courier-Mail | Sydney Morning Herald | The Australian.

May 15/11: Australia’s Kokoda Foundation releases “Under the Sea Air Gap: Australia’s Anti-Submarine Warfare Challenge. The study “attempts to identify issues surrounding Australia’s Anti Submarine Warfare capabilities that will require greater scrutiny in the period leading up to the 2014 Defence White Paper.”

Author Brice Pacey is concerned that the design for Australia’s next-generation submarines might not be complete until 2019, and the first boat might not be ready until 2030. With the Collins Class scheduled to begin retiring in the mid-2020s, that would present a problem. Australia would need to either extend the lives of a class that has not performed well or reliably, or accept a vestigial submarine fleet even as it neighbors build up their capabilities. See also Adelaide Now.

April 14/11: Australia’s ASPI think-tank releases “The once and future submarine – raising and sustaining Australia’s underwater capability.” Based on past acquisitions, beginning the future submarine program immediately would only deliver the 1st boat in 2025; further delays would create timing issues with the Collins Class’ retirement. On which subject:

“…the boats have spent so little time in the water due to maintenance and crewing problems that the hulls have not been pressure cycled anywhere near to the extent anticipated. However, a life-of-type extension for the Collins is not an especially appealing prospect for a number of reasons. To start with, the drive train in the Collins has been problematic since day one, and attempts to keep the fleet going into the late 2020s would almost certainly require work to replace the highly problematic diesel engines (which are already ‘orphans’ in the world of maritime diesels). That alone is an undertaking requiring major engineering work, not to mention a lot of money. It is a simple fact of geometry that the engines can only be removed by cutting the pressure hull. Given that less complex mid-cycle dockings are taking 100 weeks to complete (against an anticipated 52 weeks), this exercise would result in considerable downtime. It could be that every five years of additional life would come at the cost of one or two extra years out of the water and/or conducting sea trials for each boat being upgraded. This would further exacerbate the already disappointingly low availability of the fleet.”

2009 – 2010

Australia’s White Paper sets an ambitious target. Collins Class
(click to view full)

Jan 27/10: Australian DoD:

“There have been inaccurate reports today that the Rudd Government was reconsidering its decision to build our future submarines in Adelaide[, Australia]. These reports are false. The Rudd Government is fully committed to building our new future submarines in Adelaide.”

Jan 25/10: The Collins Class submarine HMAS Farncomb encounters a generator failure, which reduces Australia’s operational Collins Class submarine fleet to 1 boat in 6. The cost of repairs is not yet predictable, and the mechanical issue could extend beyond HMAS Farncomb.

Continuing issues with the class also lead to questions concerning the feasibility of, and proposed strategy for, Australia’s next-generation submarine program. Read “Australia’s Submarine Program in the Dock” for full coverage.

Nov 5/09: Acting Minister for Defence Greg Combet highlights the major challenges facing Australia’s next generation submarine project in a speech to the Sydney Institute. Excerpts of “From Collins to Force 2030: The Challenge of the Future Submarine“:

“…the White Paper recognises that the aim of establishing sea and air control in our primary operating environment does not entail a purely defensive or reactive approach. Rather, we must be able to conduct proactive combat operations at a distance from our shores. This demands a mix of intelligence, defensive and strike assets to ensure both deterrence and, if that were to fail, an ability to impose unacceptably high costs… Put simply, we need to be able to take warfare to an adversary’s front door. Submarines are able to stop an adversary from deploying its’ fleet by maintaining sea denial. By imposing disproportionate costs on an adversary, submarines represent an asymmetric threat well suited to Australia’s defence.

…In planning for the future submarine, we need to consider a range of engineering and production solutions, ranging from the acquisition of a Military Off The Shelf (MOTS) design, options consistent with the Kinnaird/Mortimer reforms, to a developmental solution designed indigenously… Electric Boat have a rule known as the ‘law of 1:3:8’, that is, a task that takes an hour in module construction takes 3 hours when the hull has been assembled and 8 hours when the submarine is in the water. In other words, make sure the design is mature before you start cutting steel.

…Studies have shown that 90 per cent of the discretionary decisions that affect the outcome of a project are made in the first 7 to 12 per cent of the project’s life. There are three things that we must get right… adequately define the operating concepts and requirements for the future submarine… develop a sophisticated acquisition strategy [which may include rolling production or batch buys]… understand the interaction between capability and the acquisition strategy. It is often the interaction between these two processes that leads to trouble.

One of the matters that we will need to tackle early in the project is the need to invest in and develop a sustainable industrial base that is capable of designing, constructing and maintaining 12 large submarines [which will include cooperation with US Navy facilities].”

Nov 3/09: RAND study commissioned. The Sydney Morning Herald quotes Acting Defence Minister Greg Combet, who says that the USA’s RAND Corporation will be conducting a study related to the submarine project, due in February 2010:

“(Defence) is undertaking a number of studies to identify and explore all the options to ensure we have the appropriate design capability to support our submarines throughout their life.”

See also SpaceWar article.

Oct 29/09: The Australian Strategic Policy Institute releases “Strategic Insights 48 – How to buy a submarine: Defining and building Australia’s future fleet.” ASPI projects an $A 36 billion (currently about $32.6 billion) cost to field 12 built-in-Australia diesel-electric submarines – a sum comparable to buying 12 of the USA’s most advanced SSN-774 Virginia class nuclear fast attack submarines. OIt adds:

“As described, the resultant boats are likely to be the largest, most complex and, at $3 billion each, the most expensive conventional submarines ever built. The industrial capacity and capability to produce these vessels does not exist in Australia at the moment. By the time construction commences, it will be over fifteen years since the last Collins-class submarine was launched. Hard-earned lessons from that process will need to be re-learned in many cases and the required engineering and construction skills will have to be built up to the required level… This paper, authored by Sean Costello and Andrew Davies, surveys the complexities that have to be negotiated and suggests a way ahead that makes best use of the resources available to government.”

See also Full report [PDF].

May 2/09: Australia’s 2009 Defence White Paper is released. One of its goals is a fleet of 12 non-nuclear diesel-electric submarines with Air-Independent Propulsion, capable of launching land attack cruise missiles, to be assembled in South Australia. Design to be determined. ASC is not guaranteed the contract, however, something Fitzgibbon had pledged during the election.

The subs could be upgraded versions of the existing Collins class, or a foreign partnership around a sub like Spain’s S-80, which will already be designed to launch Tomahawk missiles.

The Collins class will also receive sonar and other upgrades during their lifetime.

White Paper

Appendix A: Foreign Contenders CM-2000 Scorpene
(click to view full)

Once Australia decided to field new submarines, the next question was “which submarines”? Off-the-shelf designs, or a modified variant that kept the structure but used Australian combat systems and weapons, were 2 of the 4 options under consideration until May 2013.

The 4 contenders that evaluated as potential off-the-shelf or modified design buys were:

• DCNS’ Scorpene, which has been bought by Brazil, Chile, India, and Malaysia. It includes an option to add the MESMA AIP(Air-Independent Propulsion) section, for longer underwater running time.

• Navantia’s S-80. So far, only Spain has bought it, but it’s designed for size, range, and compatibility with American systems & weapons. Navantia is also the RAN’s biggest shipbuilding partner, with very deep experience and partnerships thanks to the Air Warfare Destroyer and LHD projects.

• TKMS HDW’s U212A/U214, which has been sold to Germany, Greece, Italy, South Korea, and Turkey. South Korea’s world-leading shipbuilding firms can even build the design under license, which may create interesting collaboration opportunities in Australia. The class comes with AIP built-in, and has undertaken some long trips in German service. A larger 4,000t U218 design has also been discussed by TKMS, and sold to Singapore.

• Japan’s new 4,200t Soryu Class, which is far larger than any of the European submarines. It’s also an AIP submarine, using a Stirling system from TKMS in Sweden. Japan changed some of its laws in December 2011, allowing it to export some items to vetted allies.

Additional Readings

• Australia DoD – Defence Capability Plan 2009 Public Version: SEA 1000.

• DID – Australia’s Submarine Program In the Dock. Covers issues with the Collins Class.

• The Submarine Institute of Australia. Wide-ranging work in this general area, and on this program specifically. See their May 5/11 “FAQ for the Future Submarine,” among others.

• Project Gutenberg – Some Principles of Maritime Strategy by Sir Julian Stafford Corbett. His theories of naval power are similar to Australia’s goals and vision for their submarine force.

Official Reports

• Australia DoD (May 2013) – Government releases 2013 Defence White Paper.

• Australia DoD (May 2013) – Future Submarine Industry Skills Plan.

• Australia DoD (July 2012 – Dec 2012) – Coles Review: The Study Into the Business of Sustaining Australia’s Strategic Collins Class Submarine Capability.

• DID – Australia’s 2009 Defense White Paper.

Other News & Reports

• The National Interest (Sept 18/14) – U.S. Submarines: Run Silent, Run Deep…On Diesel Engines? Suggests buying a squadron of Soryus for the USN. Tremendous obstacles, but the author is a US Naval War College professor, and co-author of a defining work analyzing the Chinese naval buildup: “Red Star Over the Pacific”.

• Naval Technology (Feb 19/14) – Sink or swim: Sweden’s new A-26 next-gen submarine in doubt.

• Wall St. Journal (March 23/14) – Dispute Threatens ThyssenKrupp’s Submarine Business.

• SvD Naringsliv (March 18/14) – Sverige tar tillbaka ubåtarna. Mentions Australia and Poland as potential collaborators on a Swedish submarine design.

• Defense News (March 2/14) – Saab Maneuvers To Buy Swedish Submarine Maker. Following a late February decision by Sweden’s FMV to give Saab a $3.87 million contract. The point? To study Saab’s ability to produce Sweden’s next-generation submarine, instead of Kockums.

• Sverige Radio (Feb 27/14) – Osäker framtid för Kockum. “Uncertain future for Kockum”.

• The Local – Germany (Nov 29/13) – Poland gives thumbs down to German subs. “…but sources have told The Local that on the back of a landmark naval deal between the two countries, Poland is likely to lease two subs anyway.” Over the longer term, could Poland become a partner?

• Polish MON (Nov 15/13) – Okrety podwodne – rozmawiajmy o faktach. Excerpt Trans.: “The Polish Navy, according to the approved Technical Modernisation Programme 2013-2022, is expected to receive three new submarines. Two will go to its facilities by 2022 – a third by 2030.”

• Sydney Morning Herald (Aug 3/12) – Time for talking on new submarine is over. Explains the program’s timing issues, and also ongoing problems with the Collins Class.

• Kokoda Foundation (January 2012) – Sub Judice: Australia’s Future Submarine [PDF, Release]. A number of observers weren’t impressed, questioning its seriousness, objectivity, and conclusions – see Jan 19/12 entry.

• RAND 2011 – Learning from Experience: Lessons from the Submarine Programs of the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia. Covers SSBN/SSGN Ohio, SSN-21 Seawolf, and SSN-774 Virginia programs in the USA, Britain’s Astute SSNs, and Australia’s Collins Class SSKs (Volume IV).

• Australian DoD (Dec 13/11) – Collins Class Sustainment Review Phase 1 Report [PDF]. Also known as the “Coles Review”. Delivered to government Nov 4/11.

• Kokoda Foundation (May 25/11) – Under the Sea Air Gap: Australia’s Anti-Submarine Warfare Challenge. “This study attempts to identify issues surrounding Australia’s Anti Submarine Warfare capabilities that will require greater scrutiny in the period leading up to the 2014 Defence White Paper.”

• ASPI (April 14/11) – “The once and future submarine – raising and sustaining Australia’s underwater capability.

• Australian Defence magazine (April 1/10) – Size Matters, by Rex Patrick. A wide-ranging and educational look at trends in submarine warfare.

• The Australian (Feb 9/11) – Nuclear or not, we’ll need prefab subs. Amidst calls for SSN nuclear-powered fast attack subs, the article looks at the shortcomings of existing diesel-electric SSKs – and of Australian submarine experiences to date.

• ASPI in Brisbane Courier (Feb 1/10) – Royal Australian Navy lumbered with sub-par hardware.

• ASPI (Oct 29/09) – Strategic Insights 48 – How to buy a submarine: Defining and building Australia’s future fleet.

• DID (May 25/09) – ADF: An “Aren’t Deployable” Force?.

• ELP Defens(c)e Blog – Defence White Paper Fantasy. About the most critical coverage of the 2009 White Paper that we found.

• Australia DoD (July 1/99) – Mcintosh-Prescott report. Covering the shortcomings and issues with Australia’s Collins Class submarine program.

• Naval Technology – Collins class submarines.

Potential Contenders

• DID – Saab Story: Sweden’s New Submarines. Began as the A26; how will it end up?

• Spanish Navy – Submarine S-80.

• DID/DII – S-80: A Sub, for Spain, to Sail Out on the Main. Technical issues remove it as an export option until they’re fixed.

• Naval Technology – SSK Scorpene. India and Malaysia will operate this in the neighborhood.

• Naval Technology – SS Soryu Class Submarines, Japan.

• Naval Technology – U212/ U214 Type Submarines.

• TKMS – Type 216. About 4,000t, much larger than all but Japan’s Soryu. A customized version will become Singapore’s U218SG.

• Defense Update (Dec 5/13) – Singapore’s Type-218SG – Forerunner of a new Submarine Class? Says the U216 is designed to be scaled up or down.

Regional Developments

• DID/DII – India’s Multi-billion Dollar Scorpene Sub Contract. Includes a snapshot of Chinese developments.

• DID – Scorpene’s Sting: Liberation Publishes Expose re: Malaysia’s Bribery & Murder Scandal.

• DID – KSS-II: South Korea Orders 6 More U-214 AIP Submarines. They can build/assemble them, and may be about to begin exporting them.

& DID – Submarines for Indonesia. South Korean built, reportedly modified Chang Bogo Class U209s.

• DID – Thailand’s New Second-Hand Submarines. Reportedly 6 of the 500t U206As – but Thailand ended up backing out.

• SLD (Jan 9/14) – From Dynamic Defense to a “Comprehensive Defense Architecture”: Japan Re-Shapes Its National Security Strategy. The changes affect Australia’s plans, and expand the windows for cooperation.

• Senang Diri (Dec 4/13) – Republic of Singapore Navy Type 218SG submarine buy caps 18-year journey in underwater warfare.

• Singapore MINDEF (Dec 2/13) – MINDEF Signs Contract to Acquire Two Submarines. The U218SGs.

• TKMS (Dec 2/13) – ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems receives major submarine order from Singapore. For its U218SG. Switches them away from traditional provider Kockums, after TKMS blocked attempts by their subsidiary to sell new submarines to Singapore.

• The Diplomat (July 16/13) – The Submarine Race in the Malaccan Strait.

Americas

• The US Navy has delivered the first fixed-wing aircraft variant of the Advanced Precision Kill Weapons System (APKWS), to be attached to AV-8B Harriers and operated by the Marine Attack Squadron (VMA). Initially integrated onto MH-60S, MH-60R, and AH-1Z helicopters, the new design just took seven months to be incorporated onto the Harrier. The new capability will quickly provide the AV-8B with a low-cost, low-collateral damage, high-precision weapon in support of combat operations.

• Sales of the Yak-130 jet trainer are expected to make their way to a number of Latin American countries according to Anatoly Punchuk, the deputy director of the Russian Federal Service of Military-Technical Cooperation. It is hoped that the combat training aircraft is selected as a number of air forces plan to renew their current fleets of flight equipment. Punchuk’s comments were made as he participated in the FIDAE-2016 arms exhibition in Chile, where foreign experts were allowed to test the aircraft for themselves.

• Embraer has announced that their KC-390 cargo aircraft is now back on schedule, after delays last year ran the risk of affecting potential customers. A direct challenge to Lockheed Martin’s Hercules, the KC-390 promises capabilities to fly higher, fuller, and faster, at a lower price than its competitor. Customers for the Brazillian airlifter include 28 contracts to deliver the KC-390 to Brazil, and 32 “letters of intention” with other countries, including South American neighbors Chile, Argentina and Portugal.

Middle East North Africa

• A request has been made by Algeria to test the Su-35 as a number of countries have expressed interest in the fighter. This adds a new dimension to the negotiations surrounding the purchase of Su-32 bombers which started last November, expected to cost between $500-600 million. After the Algerian Air Force’s testing of the Su-35, it’s expected they would purchase at least ten of the fighters, which would come with a price tag of around $900 million.

Europe

• The Bulgarian government has approved the purchase of up to 19 fighter aircraft for its air force. $1.4 billion has been allocated in an investment plan to go toward keeping its current MiG-29 planes operating while investing in new warplanes and naval patrol ships. The aircraft procurement will come in two stages with eight planes acquired between 2018-2021 with a further eight coming between 2022-2023. Meanwhile, its naval procurement plan will see the Navy acquire two multi-purpose patrol ships with a modular design to be implemented over the next five years.

• The Royal Air Force (RAF) has tested the BriteCloud decoy during a Tornado GR4 jet strike. Successful trials of the new radar-jamming anti-missile countermeasure may see the RAF become the first buyer of the system with negotiations under way between the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and the British arm of manufacturer Finmeccanica. BriteCloud is a self-contained unit with a battery-powered digital radio frequency memory (DRFM) jammer, that can be ejected from fighter aircraft, in a straight swap for the existing 55mm flare, to counter the threat from the latest air-to-air and surface-to-air radio frequency guided missiles.

Asia Pacific

• Contracts have been signed between India and the US Department of Defense for the purchase of Raytheon’s FIM-29 Stinger missiles. 245 of the air-to-air munitions will be fitted on the 22 AH-64 Apache helicopters currently on order by the Indian government. The Apache purchase was part of a $2.5 billion deal which included not only Apaches, but also 15 CH-47F Chinook helicopters.

• Guidance systems initially used for air-to-air missiles may soon find themselves adapted for civilian uses according to the Mitsubishi Electric Corp. The manufacturer of the Japanese military’s missile needs have been working to use components such as millimeter-wave radars, sonars, sensors and cameras for automated cars and vehicles due to hit the road in 2020. Their experience in military guidance systems has allowed the company to catch up with competitors Continental AG, Denso Corp. and Hitachi Automotive Systems Ltd. in providing assistance technologies with components for lane-keeping and automatic braking systems due for manufacture next year.

Today’s Video

• A look at the Russia’s new T-14 main battle tank:

KC-390 refuels AMXs
(click to view full)

Global competition in the 20-ton air transport segment continues to intensify, with Brazil’s launch of its KC-390 program. Embraer figures reportedly place the global C-130 replacement market at around 700 aircraft. In response, it will develop a jet-powered rival to compete with Lockheed Martin’s C-130J, the larger Airbus A400M, Russia’s AN-12 and its Chinese copy the Yun-8/9, and the bi-national Irkut/HAL MRTA project. Smaller aircraft like the EADS-CASA C-295M, and Alenia’s C-27J, represent indirect competition.

Embraer is extending its efforts and markets by crafting a jet-powered medium transport with a cargo capacity of around 23 tons, that can be refueled in the air, and can provide refueling services to other aircraft by adding dedicated pods. The KC-390 has now become a multinational program, and may be shaping up as the C-130’s most formidable future competitor. A tie-up with Boeing underscores the seriousness of Embraer’s effort, which is now a production program…

The KC-390: Program KC-390 schedule, 2010
(click to view full)

Brazil’s aerospace industry has made impressive global gains in the civilian business and regional jet segments, and in the military market for primary trainer and counterinsurgency aircraft. Slumping civilian demand recently led to layoffs, but rising Brazilian defense budgets give the government a lever to inject funds into the company, while completing a strategic project that has been under consideration for a couple of years.

Overall, Embraer reportedly bases its business case on a break-even point of 120 orders, or about 1/7th of the tactical transport market outside of China, Russia, Ukraine and the USA.

The initial Brazilian contract covered R&D, and called for 3 development aircraft, with a 28 plane production order to follow. Brazil has held to that, which will allow the KC-390 to restore an existing FAB shortfall and replace the Brazilian Air Force’s 21 C-130E/H and 2 KC-130H Hercules planes. The FAB flew 10 aged DHC-5 Buffalo tactical transports for many years, but had to replace them recently with C295s from Airbus Military. The C295s are very useful for smaller cargo loads, but they have limits as tactical airlifters, so the added KC-390s will fully restore the FAB’s status quo ante.

To date, possible orders stand at 60, including Brazil’s confirmed 28, plus possible orders from Argentina (6), Chile (6), Colombia (12), the Czech Republic (2), and Portugal (6). South Africa’s cancellation of its A400M order may create another opportunity, and Brazil’s F-X-2 fighter competition may lead to even more European orders. Sweden promised to consider the KC-390 to replace its recently-upgraded C-130s with the KC-390 if the JAS-39 Gripen won, and so it will probably become Sweden’s next airlifter at some point.

Embarer’s boast that it has 32 Letters of Intent from various countries indicate that this customer list could grow quickly. Note, however, that there aren’t any formal contracts yet for these export orders. Until prospective orders turn into firm contracts, relying on any numerical commitments is premature.

Meanwhile, development continues on an aggressive schedule. The first prototypes are expected to fly by the end of 2014, with acceptance by Brazil’s air force beginning in 2016.

The aircraft design itself will belong to the Brazilian government, with Embraer as the lead technical and industrial partner. All talks to join the program will be conducted at a government-to-government level, and the process of adding “risk sharing” partners will be a top-down process that results in directives handed down to Embraer.

Note that this kind of arrangement can create program risks, and obstacles to an aggressive schedule, if the partners selected by the Brazilian government fail to perform on an industrial level. Joint Definition Phase partnerships & commitments to date include:

The KC-390: Aircraft Initial dimensions
(click to view full)

The C-390 was originally supposed to be a militarized ERJ-190 jet that competed in a unique niche between EADS-CASA’s C-295M and Lockheed Martin’s C-130 Hercules, with Brazil’s postal service as its launch customer. The more the engineers worked, the more it diverged from that idea, until it assumed it present T-tailed, high-winged, hump-backed form as a full military aircraft and C-130 competitor.

Compared to a stretched C-130J-30, the renamed KC-390’s cargo compartment is now 17.75m long (vs. 16.9m) and 3.45m wide (vs 3.12m); 2.9m high forward of the wing (vs 2.74m) and 3.2m aft of the wing. The KC-390’s wings were lengthened to 35.03m during the configuration phase, in order to allow helicopter refueling at speeds around 120 kt. With the right engines, the Force Aerea Braziliera (FAB) has confirmed that each aircraft will carry up to 80 troops, or a 23.0 tonne/ 25+ ton total cargo load. That surpasses initial expectations of 19t, and places it slightly above competitors like Lockheed Martin’s C-130J (21.8t).

The airplane will incorporate a modern, night-vision compatible Pro Line Fusion avionics system, including 2 Head-Up Displays (HUD), and will use fly-by-wire technologies instead of all-mechanical control systems.

KC-390 range
(click to view full)

The most unusual feature in current mockups may be a movable pressure bulkhead that retracts into the roof and descends to seal the cargo cabin. While it shortens the cabin from 17.75m to to 12.78m when deployed, it could allow high altitude airdrops from the space behind, without depressurizing the entire cabin. In order to improve airdrop accuracy, the KC-390 will use Computed Air Release Point (CARP) technology integrated with the fly-by-wire system.

As the aircraft grew, its thrust requirement grew beyond the 27,000 pound class. Embraer eventually picked the International Aero Engines joint venture’s V2500-E5, which can supply up to 31,330 pounds of thrust. It beat GE/Safran’s CFM56-5B, which competes with IAE to power many Airbus narrowbody passenger jets.

A complete self-protection system will also be fitted, and Elbit’s AEL has been announced as the key supplier. Other firms may also become involved in supplying warning elements and decoys, to integrate with AEL’s SPS controller and DIRCM.

Contracts and Key Events 2014 – 2016

Core production contract from Brazil and significant funds released; KC-390 Rollout; 32 Letters of Intent?; Argentina finally ready to produce parts. Embraer re: KC-390

April 1/16: Embraer has announced that their KC-390 cargo aircraft is now back on schedule, after delays last year ran the risk of affecting potential customers. A direct challenge to Lockheed Martin’s Hercules, the KC-390 promises capabilities to fly higher, fuller, and faster, at a lower price than its competitor. Customers for the Brazillian airlifter include 28 contracts to deliver the KC-390 to Brazil, and 32 “letters of intention” with other countries, including South American neighbors Chile, Argentina and Portugal.

October 29/15: Embraer’s KC-390 transport aircraft has resumed flight testing following an eight-month break, forced on the program by a falling Brazilian Real and slow payments to the company by the Brazilian Defense Ministry. The aircraft’s schedule has been pushed back, with the company signing an agreement in late July to extend the KC-390’s entry into service from late 2016 to 2018.

Aug 3/15: Brazilian flagship firm Embraer has been hit heavily by a falling real and defense sector cuts, downsizing its 2015 revenue forecast by $300 million. The delivery of first KC-390 transport aircraft to the Brazilian Air Force (FAB) has been pushed back by eighteen months, to the first half of 2018. Certification is now scheduled for the latter half of 2017, with the tactical transport/tanker registering its first test flight in February.

Oct 21/14: Rollout. Embraer rolls out the 1st of 2 KC-390 testing prototypes during a ceremony at its Gaviao Peixoto plant. The event was attended by the Brazilian Minister of Defense, the Commander of the Brazilian Air Force,, and delegations and representatives from more than 30 countries. Looks like the statements about widespread Letters of Intent (q.v. May 21/14) were on the money, though even this turnout is just 30 of the claimed 32.

Next steps: initial systems evaluations before the 1st engine run, then ground vibration tests and the other planned ground tests en route to 1st flight. Sources: Embraer, “Embraer rolls out KC-390 military airlift”.

Rollout

Oct 1/14: Brazil’s COPAC has approved $1.926 billion for Embraer to buy materials and begin production of 28 KC-390s (q.v. May 21/14, part of a BRL 7.2B / $3.26B deal), with funds released according to the physical and financial schedule of the contract, effective until 2026. COPAC chair Air Brigadier Jose Augusto Crepaldi Affonso says there will be enough resources over time to produce the batch of 28 aircraft plus ground support equipment, initial logistics and pilot and mechanic training. On the other hand, he also says that some potential shortfalls are being worked out:

“Quanto aos valores que estavam contingenciados (cerca de R$ 500 milhoes segundo o Valor apurou), o brigadeiro da Copac disse que todo o orcamento previsto para 2014 foi liberado, mas que ainda ha carencias de recursos. Ele ressaltou, no entanto, que o projeto continua com andamento normal, buscando as solucoes necessarias em coordenacao com os orgaos do governo.”

Sources: Brazilian Government, “Extrato De Inexigibilidade De Licitacao Nº 1/2014 Nº Processo: 67701.003019/2014-95.” | defesanet, “KC-390 – Recebera U$ 1,9 Bi”.

Oct 4/14: Argentina. It took a lot of work and investment, but Fabrica Argentina de Aviones, which was forcibly nationalized in 2009, has finally made good on the 2011 MoU and opened a production line for KC-390 parts. They’ll make wing spoilers, flap fairings, nose landing gear doors, a tail cone, and the ramp door. Their journey shows why partner readiness cannot just be assumed in extended supply chains.

The former Lockheed Martin facility had a lot of work to do after 2011, but the 10-year agreement led the state to allocate over $35 million dollars to upgrade the Cordoba factory, which has added 180 direct jobs. It has tripled its capacity in composite materials, added advanced machining centers, and brought in equipment for forming, processing and heat treating primary aluminum parts. That was accompanied by about 80,000 hours of training and AS9100 certification, which triggered improvements to production processes and non-destructive testing. Sources: defesanet, “KC-390 – FAdeA Inaugura Linha de Producao de Componentes”.

Aug 18/14: Embraer personnel from the KC-390’s interior outfitting, test, and training groups have been participating in Brazilian operations, from the recent Campo Grande exercise to C-130 operations in Antarctica. Some design changes have dropped out of the Antarctic operations in particular, which the Swedes will certainly appreciate once they become customers. The FAB release also implied that interior placement of wiring and outlets had changed, in order to accommodate medical equipment.

Continued refinement is commendable, but shouldn’t these efforts and changes take place before design finalization (q.v. March 11-22/13)? Sources: Brazil FAB, “Embraer participa de exercicio da FAB para aperfeicoar nova aeronave”.

May 21/14: Brazil. Embraer signs the core BRL 7.2 billion ($3.263 billion) KC-390 series production contract for 28 planes, plus spare parts and maintenance. They also hold the opening ceremony for the 30 million square meter KC-390 production line, with President Dilma Rousseff in attendance.

The KC-390 program directly employs about 1,500 workers, which will expand with more orders. Embraer Defense & Security President Jackson Schneider adds that they have 32 Letters of Intent signed with other countries, which goes far beyond announced candidates. The challenge now involves converting some of them into orders, and the opening of the production line starts that clock running in earnest.

Embraer will formally enter Brazil’s contract on its books within 90 days, when the complementary documentation goes into effect. Deliveries are expected to begin in 2016. Sources: Ministerio da Defensa, “Com presenca da presidenta da Republica, FAB assina contrato de compra do aviao brasileiro KC-390” | Embraer, “Embraer opens final assembly hangar for the KC-390, in Gaviao Peixoto, SP, Brazil” | Brazil Poder Aero, “Com Dilma, Embraer inaugura ‘linha de montagem’ do KC-390”.

Brazil orders 28

May 20/14: Engines. International Aero Engines AG announces that they’ve shipped all 6 prototype V2500-E5 powerplants for Embraer’s new KC-390, which are rated for 31,330 pounds of thrust. They’ll be used in KC-390 flight tests, set to begin in 2014, and civil certification for the E5 engine is expected in Q3 2014.

The engines are assembled at UTC Pratt & Whitney’s Engine Center in Middletown, CT, then shipped to UTC Aerospace Systems – Aerostructures in Foley, AL to install the nacelles, thrust reversers and engine build-up equipment. The first 3 were delivered to Embraer ahead of schedule earlier in 2014, and the remaining 3 instrumented powerplants were shipped earlier in May 2014. Sources: IAE, “V2500-E5 Engines Shipped to Embraer”.

2013

Agreement with Boeing; CDR; Embraer & forecasters on the addressable market; Opportunity in Sweden, just not immediately; KC-390 officially ready for sale. KC-390 concept
(click to view full)

Nov 19/13: Sub-contractors. BAE Systems announces that they’ve finalized an industrial cooperation contract with the Brazilian Air Force, as part of an agreement to provide the flight control system and active side sticks for Embraer’s KC-390. BAE General Manager of Commercial Aircraft Solutions and Dr. Ehtisham Siddiqui says that it involves “…software development training and maintenance, repair, and overhaul services for the KC-390 flight control system that will be performed in Brazil. BAE Systems has also proposed performing some final assembly work for its KC-390 products in the country.” Sources: BAE, “Brazilian Air Force Receives More Than Just Flight Controls for KC-390”.

Dec 18/13: Sweden. A somewhat unexpected announcement by the Ministerio da Defesa confirms that Brazil has picked Saab’s Gripen-NG as their preferred bidder, and expects to buy 36 planes for $4.5 billion. That’s currently just an estimate, as negotiations need to sort themselves out, including financing and industrial offset arrangements. A final contract and financial arrangements are expected in December 2014, and deliveries are expected to begin 4 years later.

Sweden is now almost certain to fly the KC-390 after its 8-plane C-130H2 Hercules fleet retires (q.v. Oct 4/09), but in-depth upgrades performed from 2006 – 2009 mean that they won’t be needing new transports any time within the next few years. One obvious alternative involves replacing existing Swedish Saab 105/ SK60 trainers with the Super Tucano. That needs to happen around 2017, and Saab’s recent tie-up with Boeing to produce a supersonic jet trainer for the USAF’s T-X doesn’t change that. The SK60 jet is used in a basic-intermediate trainer role, and the Flygvapnet’s 18 serving JAS-39D Gripens won’t be upgraded to Gripen NG status. That would give them the option to use Gripen-Ds for use as lead-in fighter trainers to the JAS-39E, while still needing to replace the SK60s.

The coming year of Gripen NG negotiations will involve the Swedish government, and the agreement’s provisions could tip the scales on Swedish acquisition plans as well. Read “F-X2: Brazil Picks Saab’s JAS-39 Gripen-NG over Rafale, Super Hornet” for full coverage.

Aug 22/13: Turkey. Turkey and Brazil are forming a number of working groups on defense cooperation. Their release specifically mentions that the aeronautics working group will be studying the assembly of Turkish helicopters in Brazil. The T129 is the only candidate that fits. Note that Brazil already fields a handful of Russian Mi-35M attack helicopters, with a limited secondary capability as transports. On the other hand, they could definitely use more armed helicopters, and local production appeals to them.

The flip side is that Turkey would be studying the assembly of Brazilian aircraft in Turkey. Embraer offers the Super Tucano, a number of military aircraft based on their ERJ 145 regional jetliner, and the KC-390 medium transport. Turkey is committed to buy 10 A400M medium transports, but they have 32 C160 and C-130 medium transports to replace, so a future KC-390 buy is possible. Other possibilities are more restricted, as Turkey already has projects or orders in those categories: KAI’s KT-1 for training, Boeing’s E-737 AWACS for aerial surveillance, and Airbus ATR-72s and CN-235s for maritime patrol. Sources: Brazil MdD [in Portuguese].

June 18/13: Boeing agreement. Embraer and Boeing sign an agreement to market the KC-390 in limited international venues, building on the June 26/12 MoU. Boeing will be the lead for KC-390 sales, sustainment and training opportunities in the USA, UK and “select Middle East markets.”

The UK has committed its defense airlift budgets to a combination of C-130Js, A400Ms, and C-17s, so their inclusion doesn’t mean much. The USA is also an unlikely customer, as Lockheed Martin has a hard lock on the medium tactical airlifter segment. Absent some angle on civil sales, US SOCOM is about the only (remote) possibility. The Middle East offers a more promising market, with interest already expressed by Boeing’s C-17 customer in the UAE, but it will depend on which countries are within the agreement’s scope.

The biggest effect will probably be felt elsewhere, as one more positive factor in Boeing’s competition to supply its F/A-18E/F Super Hornets as Brazil’s new F-X-2 fighter. Boeing | Embraer.

May 29/13: Sub-contractors. Curtiss-Wright Controls, Inc. announces a new 5-year agreement from Embraer to harmonize flight test data-gathering equipment and database structures across the firm. The KC-390 is the 1st platform, using an Acra KAM-500 system with 46 chassis and 14 network switches.

This initial contract is $4 million, within an overall agreement whose lifetime value could rise to $30 million. Shipments of data acquisition units began in Q4 2012, and will continue in line with Embraer’s flight test programs.

April 9-13/13: For Sale. Embraer Defense & Security uses the LAAD 2013 expo to officially announce that the KC-390 is finalized and available for sale on the global market, with a 23-ton capacity and a maximum cruising speed of 465 knots (860 km/h). Engineering drawings are being released to suppliers, and Embraer maintains its promise to hold its 1st flight by the end of 2014.

Hopes of landing the plane’s 1st sale at LAAD were dashed. Embraer | Flight International.

April 3/13: KC-390’s origins. Defense News interviews Embraer CEO Luis Aguilar, which provides an interesting insight into the plane’s origins:

“When we thought about this airplane, it was the first time we looked at the international market also, not just the Brazilian requirements…. We looked at the market and then came back to the Brazilian Air Force to talk with them about what they think about their cargo airplanes for the future. They said they were probably going to replace with more C-130s, and we started talking and showed them we were able to develop something in a very feasible way. It took two years working together to launch and sign the contract. It was a much more sophisticated process. We are on schedule, and I think we have a great chance to sell abroad.”

April 2/13: Forecasts. Flight International takes a closer look at Embraer’s evolution, from its 2012 dependence on major aviation projects for 75% of its defense revenue, to a projected figure of just 58% by 2020. Domestic security and surveillance offerings are expected to grow in relative importance over that time, thanks to experience and products developed under Brazil’s $400 million SISFRON project, its 50/10/40 Haripa UAV partnership with Avibras and Elbit Systems, etc.

There are rumors that the LAAD 2013 expo will see Brazil announce the initial production order for 28 planes, but the larger question is how many orders Embraer can expect over the longer term. Rebecca Edwards of Forecast International says Embraer hopes to convert all of their MoUs into 60 firm orders by the end of 2013, and sees potential for production of 98 KC-390s by 2021, and up to 234 by 2027. The Teal Goup, on the other hand, sees most of the KC-390’s target market locked up in the USA, and only 25 planes built by 2021. Given a break-even production run of 120, Embraer has to hope that FI’s prediction is closer to their 2021 reality. For Teal, the key to the KC-390’s success is a price point in the $50 million range, but that won’t be easy:

“One factor which could drive up prices is that the Brazilian government has mandated the use of as many local suppliers as possible, depriving programme managers of the ability to choose the best components at the lowest possible cost, [Teal’s] Aboulafia says. Local subsystems tend to cost more than their international counterparts because of economies of scale and development costs. “It’s not a killer, it’s just something that hobbles designers, especially when they’re trying to keep costs down,” he says.”

Teal sees the KC-390 as more of a straight cargo plane than the C-130, with higher load capacity, modern features like fly-by-wire, and a faster cruising speed. The C-130’s use of turboprops is better for avoiding foreign object damage from unimproved landing strips and for low altitude operation, which makes them better suited to roles like special forces support. Flight International.

March 11-22/13: CDR. The Brazilian Air Force (FAB) and Embraer Defense & Security successfully conduct the KC-390’s Critical Design Review (CDR) at Embraer’s facilities in Sao Jose dos Campos.

The aerodynamic and structural configurations are now set, along with the architecture and systems installations. The next step is to begin building the prototypes. Embraer.

CDR

Feb 1/03: Forecasts. Aviation Week talks to Embraer about its schedule and forecasts. The firm forecasts a total market for 700 medium tactical transport aircraft over 10 years, worth more than $50 billion. The grounds for this number is that there are currently more than 2,000 older airlifters, mainly Lockheed Martin C-130s and Russian Antonovs, that will need replacing within 10 years. Which is true, but many are in countries like the USA. The KC-390 is competing well elsewhere, however, and it seems that summer 2013 will begin the big push for contracts:

“The [Critical Design Review] is to be completed by this quarter. “[By June] we will be ready to go to market with terms and conditions and a final configuration,” says [Embraer DS CEO] Luiz Carlos Aguilar…. following the April 2012 signing of a memorandum of understanding with Boeing…. “We will partner with them in some specific countries,” he says. “We are still discussing that, and will announce a commercial agreement in a few months.” Meanwhile, a “sharing process” is under way with Boeing engineers visiting Embraer, and vice versa.”

2012

Limited Boeing partnership; Sub-contractors picked; Possibilities in Canada & Indonesia? KC-390 concept
(click to view full)

Nov 15/12: Canada? The Ottawa Citizen’s David Pugliese writes:

“The recent industry day on the Canadian Forces fixed wing search and rescue (FWSAR) project brought a new player into the mix. Brazilian aircraft manufacturer Embaer was invited to attend.”

The KC-390’s faster cruising speed would give it advantages in a SAR/special forces role, and Embraer might be tempted to offer Canada a deal, in order to secure a high-end market endorsement. The bad news for Embraer is that they’re seen as a major competitor by Canadian aerospace firms, and especially by Bombardier. FWSAR’s rear ramp requirement caused Bombardier to bow out of the recent Industry Day. The political optics of shutting out Quebec’s flagship firm Bombardier, while giving the contract to their biggest competitor, make a KC-390 victory almost impossible to imagine.

Sept 26/12: Sub-contractors. Embraer picks 2 Brazilian companies to provide KC-390 components. Aerotron in Itajuba, Minas Gerais, will provide ballistics protection for the entire aircraft. LH Colus, from Sao Jose dos Campos, Sao Paulo, will provide seats and stretchers. Embraer.

Aug 13/12: Indonesia. Aviation Week reports that Indonesia is considering the KC-390. They’re already a customer for Embraer’s armed EMB-314 Super Tucano turboprop, but at the same time, earlier C-130 Hercules versions already serve with Indonesia’s TNU-AI. With respect to Indonesia’s choices:

“Asked if the Brazilians have been pitching the KC-390 to Indonesia, [Air Marshal Eris Herryanto] replied: “Yes. Prior to meeting you, we were shown a mockup today [Aug. 7] of the KC-390.” He says Indonesia needs a lot of military transports and wants to strengthen its capability to carry out disaster-relief operations.”

The other option for Indonesia, given its vast spaces, is to solve its issues with a larger number of smaller transports, like the Airbus Military CN-235s and C295s that IAe already manufactures. Indeed, industrial considerations are likely to play a significant role in any Indonesian buy, for reasons that go beyond the country’s procurement culture of corruption and bribes. A bill is being introduced to standardize required defense industrial offsets for equipment bought abroad, and it’s likely to raise the bar when it passes. Indonesia didn’t get its desired co-production deal from Embraer for the EMB-314 turboprops, but the KC-390 is also a different opportunity case. Within the Southeast Asia region, Australia (C-130J), India (C-130J, Irkut MTA), and (Malaysia A400M) are already committed to other medium transports. Bangladesh can’t afford much more than modernization of its aged C-130Es, and Myanmar doesn’t offer much potential. That leaves Vietnam, whose Russian and Indian relationships make a future MTA buy more likely, or C-130 customer Pakistan. This constellation means that some sort of regional sales arrangement for the KC-390 would be much more of a low-risk, good payoff venture for Embraer, as opposed to the medium risk, low to negative payoff option represented by Embraer/IAe co-production and marketing.

June 26/12: Boeing steps in. Boeing and Embraer announce an agreement to share some specific technical knowledge regarding the KC-390, and to evaluate markets where they may join their sales efforts for medium-lift military transports. It’s part of a broader agreement signed in April 2012, and its immediate significance is limited. On the other hand, it has the potential to turn Boeing into a medium transport rival to C-130 maker Lockheed Martin, while extending Embraer’s marketing reach to match Lockheed Martin and Airbus. Embraer Defense & Security CEO Luiz Carlos Aguiar:

“Boeing has extensive experience in military transport and air refueling aircraft, as well as deep knowledge of potential markets for the KC-390, especially those which were not considered in our original marketing plan.”

That’s the sort of thing that could change the KC-390’s global prospects, but it’s still too early to tell. Boeing | Embraer.

May 8/12: Sub-contractors. Thales announces a contract by Embraer Defence and Security to provide their civil-certified High Performance Inertial Reference System (HPIRS) as the KC-390’s Inertial Navigation System/ GPS navigation system.

May 7/12: Sub-contractors. United Technologies’ Goodrich Corp. is picked to provide more KC-390 components. Their SmartProbe air data system eliminates pneumatic lines, ice detectors, and they’ll also be supplying windshield ice protection controllers, and fuel gauges that include built-in-test capabilities. Initial hardware deliveries from Goodrich’s Sensors and Integrated Systems teams in Minnesota and Vermont are expected to begin in 2013. Goodrich.

April 18/12: Sub-contractors. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. announces that Embraer is continuing their decades-long partnership by equipping the KC-390 with Goodyear military aviation tires.

Jan 19/12: Sub-contractors. Embraer adds the KC-390’s Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) to Hamilton Sundstrand’s responsibilities.

APUs are small gas turbine engines that provide electric power, instead of propulsion. They’re used most often on the ground, providing electricity, compressed air, and/or shaft power for main engine start, air conditioning, electric power and other aircraft systems. They can also provide backup electric power during in-flight operation. The KC-390’s APU is derived from a commercial unit, adapted to military specifications. Hamilton Sundstrand.

Jan 18/12: Sub-contractors. Embraer picks Safran Group subsidiary Sagem DS to supply the KC-390’s Horizontal Stabilizer Trim System. It uses electric actuators, instead of hydraulic systems. Development work will be carried out at Sagem’s R&D center in Massy, near Paris. Sagem DS.

2011

Sub-contractors picked; Civil C-390 confirmed; Portuguese subsidies; Design changes. KC-390 concept
(click to view full)

Dec 14/11: Sub-contractors. Embraer picks United Technologies Corp. subsidiary Hamilton Sundstrand in Windsor Locks, CT to supply the KC-390’s Electric Power Generating System. The system will be based on the firm’s 90 kVA integrated drive generator, which is currently used in a variety of military and commercial applications. Hamilton Sundstrand.

Dec 14/11: Sub-contractors. Portugal takes another step. Embraer Defense and Security signs a partnership contract with OGMA Industria Aeronautica de Portugal and Empresa de Engenharia Aeronautica, for the KC-390 program. Reports indicate that EEA and the Centre for Excellence and Innovation in the Automotive Industry (CEIIA) will do engineering work for 3 unspecified segments of the jet. The segments designed and tested in Portugal will then be manufactured by OGMA, along with a central fuselage section.

The industrial contract follows Portugal’s Sept 10/10 Declaration of Intent to replace its 6 C-130H/C-130H-30 transports with 6 KC-390s. That purchase contract is the next step. Note that state-owned OGMA was privatized in 2003, and its ownership structure is now 45.5% Embraer, 19.5% EADS, and 35% government. Embraer | Macau Hub | Portugal Daily View | See also Flight International follow-up | Flight International on 2003’s A400M backout.

Nov 10/11: Portugal. Diario da Republica announces that Embraer is expected to receive up to EUR 87 million from Portugal’s National Strategic Benchmark Framework (QREN), or other public funding sources, in order to establish the necessary industrial infrastructure for KC-390 work. Macau Hub.

Oct 25/11: Sub-contractors. Elbit Systems wins an initial order worth $25 million. They’ll supply the KC-390’s pilot Head-Up Display, the Self-protection suite to coordinate warning systems and decoy/jammer defenses, and the DIRCM jammer for use against infrared guided missiles. All equipment will be provided through their Brazilian subsidiary, AEL, which also supplies the KC-390’s mission computer. Elbit Systems | Embraer.

Oct 19/11: Sub-contractors. Embraer and the Brazilian Air Force hold a workshop, to encourage more Brazilian companies to bid as suppliers of KC-390 parts, components, systems and services. The Nationalization Index of the aircraft, as calculated according to the criteria of the Brazilian Economic and Social Development Bank (BNDES), is currently estimated at 60%.

Embraer notes that the NI can’t realistically rise above 70%, since there is no Brazilian manufacturer for the engines. It’s also realistic to expect downward pressure on that Brazilian “nationalization” from foreign workshare, which will be required as part of export efforts. At the same time, the KC-390 is part of an industrial strategy for Brazil, whose government will want to see a wider group of Brazilian firms involved. Around 80 Brazilian companies participated in the workshop. Embraer.

Sept 29/11: Sub-contractors. Safran Group’s Hispano-Suiza gets the award to supply the KC-390’s Emergency Electric Power Generator System (EEPGS). The EEPGS deploys in dire emergency situations, and uses the guaranteed existence of airflow to create power and keep key on-board systems running. It includes a Ram Air Turbine (RAT), RAT electric generator and generator control unit, and a deployment/ restow mechanism.

Sept 8/11: Sub-contractors. Cobham is picked to put the ‘K’ in “KC-390,” and supply its wing-mounted Aerial Refuelling Pods. That’s followed by an order with an initial contract value over of US$60 million. Cobham is a leading global supplier of such systems, which equip Airbus’ A330 MRTT, as well as the new Boeing KC-46A. Embraer | Cobham plc [PDF]

Sept 8/11: Sub-contractors. Embraer Defense and Security picks Italy’s SELEX Galileo to supply their T-20 Gabbiano Tactical Radar.

The T-20’s solid state amplifier technology is designed for better Mean Time Between Failures, reduced energy consumption, and smaller size relative to previous generation technologies. What’s even more important to Brazil is the fact that it’s usually carried on UAVs and surveillance aircraft, and can perform basic land and sea surveillance, in addition to navigation functions. Embraer | SELEX Galileo [PDF] | Gabbiano Family product sheet [PDF].

Sept 8/11: Sub-contractors. Embraer picks Elbit’s Brazilian subsidiary AEL Sietemas to supply the KC-390’s mission computer. AEL has worked with Embraer to supply mission computers and full avionics systems for most Brazilian combat aircraft, and losing the KC-390’s avionics suite competition to Rockwell Collins was a disappointment. This award gets them back into the program. AEL [in Portuguese]

July 26/11: Sub-contractors. Embraer Defense and Security chooses BAE Systems to provide some flight control electronics hardware, embedded software, system design and integration support. BAE has a history of producing fly-by-wire systems, and the firm will supply flight control computers and actuator control electronics for the KC-390. The system will be developed in Rochester, United Kingdom; and Johnson City, New York, USA. Embraer.

July 26/11: Sub-contractors. Embraer chooses Goodrich Corp. to provide the electro-hydrostatic actuators (EHA), electro-backup hydrostatic actuators (EBHA), actuator electronics, and electrical controls for the KC-390’s primary flight control system. Goodrich will develop and deliver the system through the joint efforts of its businesses Actuation Systems and Engine Control & Electrical Power Systems, as well as the Goodrich Electronic Systems Center. Embraer.

July 25/11: Sub-contractors. Embraer chooses International Aero Engines AG’s V2500-5 engine for the KC-390. Engineering work on this military variant of their V2500 engine has already started at IAE’s shareholder companies, and 1st deliveries of powerplants for prototype aircraft are scheduled to begin in 2013, with flight tests to start in 2014. Production engines are anticipated for 2015, with entry into service projected for later that year. Deliveries are anticipated to last at least through 2030. Embraer | IAE.

June 22/11: Civil C-390. Embraer confirms plans to launch a stretched C-390 for the civil cargo market, adding a section ahead of the wing for a cargo door, and a section behind for balance and space. If launched, it will compete with offerings like civil Hercules aircraft, cargo conversions of passenger narrowbody planes like the 737, a possible commercial version of Kawasaki’s similar C-2, etc.

This is not an unexpected move, vid. the Feb 18/09 entry, and also the need for 120 orders to break even (q.v. April 5/11 entry). On the other hand, crossovers in this area are less common than you’d think, because the key traits of military and civil cargo planes don’t quite line up. Civil operators want low-cost operation, and generally transport predictable palletized loads. Military operators want performance for operations like fast ingress/egress, short runways, and loads that place a lot of weight on smaller sections of the plane. That often leads to higher-cost tradeoffs like more powerful engines that consume more fuel, highly strengthened floors that add more weight, and airframes optimized for lift rather than super-efficient cruise. The steady progression of the KC-390 design away from a standard Embraer ERJ 190 airframe is a classic example of those tradeoffs at work.

Embraer officials are nonetheless predicting 200-250 C-390 orders, from the plane’s projected launch in 2018 to 2030 or so. If they can sell even half that number, the military program will become more competitive as costs and prices drop, and Embraer will do extremely well financially. They do have a slight advantage in that their original intended C-390 customer, Brazil’s postal service, is almost certain to be their launch customer. Beyond that, their target market is likely to be with operators serving sectors like resource industries, who can use them to haul medium loads into remote locations. See Flight International.

Note that by the mid-2020s, their most significant competitor may not be an airplane at all.

June 21/11: Sub-contractors. Embraer Defense and Security announces that Esterline Control Systems in Sylmar, CA, USA will supply the KC-390’s autothrottle system. Modern aircraft have a significant computer control element. The autothrottle system’s 2 throttles and integrated controls calculate and transmit thrust demands from aircrew controls or autopilot functions, to the Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) electronics running the engines. Embraer.

June 16/11: Sub-contractors. Embraer Defense and Security announces that Liebherr-Aerospace Toulouse SAS in Toulouse, France will provide the KC-390’s environmental and cabin pressure control systems. The firm has a long-standing civil relationship with Embraer in this area, and the KC-390’s system will feature an integrated control architecture along with the pneumatic and mechanical components. Embraer.

May 5/11: Sub-contractors. Embraer picks Rockwell Collins’ Pro Line Fusion avionics system for the KC-390 cockpit, which will feed into 5 high-resolution 15″ LCD displays. It will include:

– An Integrated Flight Information Systems (IFIS) with electronic charts and enhanced maps;
– Advanced Flight Management Systems (FMS) with Wide Area Augmentation System that supports Localizer Performance with Vertical guidance approaches; (WAAS/LPV) and Required Navigation Performance (RNP) capabilities
– Advanced graphical flight planning capability; and
– An Information Management System (IMS) to manage databases and facilitate wireless interaction with ground systems.

Rockwell’s system already complies with the most recent CNS/ATM requirements for flight in international civilian airspace, and the Pro Line fusion cockpit will give KC-390s commonality with the systems on some of Embraer’s Legacy business jets. Because it’s a commercial system, it also sidesteps any American ITAR legal restrictions on future aircraft sales. The loser is IAI/EAE, whose proposal (vid. Jan 5/11 entry) failed to win. Embraer | Rockwell Collins | Flight International.

April 13/11: Sub-contractors. At the LAAD Defense and Security conference in Rio de Janeiro, Embraer Defense and Security signs contracts with the Czech Republic’s Aero Vodochody and Fabrica Argentina de Aviones to join the KC-390’s Joint Definition Phase, and produce parts for the program. Their acceptance is another step toward the commitments each government has made to buy the production aircraft.

Aero Vodochody will supply the rear fuselage II section, crew and parachutist doors, emergency door and hatches, cargo ramp and fixed leading edge for the prototypes, and for the future serial production aircraft. Embraer.

FAdeA will manufacture the spoilers (plates on the top surface of a wing for controlling wing lift), doors for the nose landing gear, ramp door, flap fairings, tail cone, and electronic cabinet. Embraer.

Embraer adds that “The program is running on schedule. Production of the first prototype is expected to start in 2013, followed by the first flight in 2014.”

April 6/11: Sub-contractors. Embraer publicly designates its subsidiary ELEB Equipamentos Ltda. of in São José dos Campo, Brazil to develop and produce the KC-390’s landing gear.

April 5/11: Break-even = 120. A Flight International report places the KC-390’s break-even point at 120 aircraft sold, about double the current commitments if all parties follow through.

That’s about 17.1% of the expected available tactical airlifter market, which Embraer reportedly places at of 700 or so replacement aircraft outside of China, Russia, and the USA. On its face, that seems a somewhat challenging but achievable total, given that other key buyers like India (MRTA with Russia) are also no-go markets. Contemplation of how many customers that entails at various purchase numbers, however, makes one wonder if their 700 aircraft figure has become too optimistic. A long future of austerity budgets due to the welfare state’s fiscal explosions may restrict remaining sales opportunities in “advanced” markets, to the point that even an expected uptick in rising regions like Asia and parts of Africa can’t compensate. Even a smaller overall market wouldn’t make Embraer’s success impossible, but it would change the relative ratio of required wins against powerful competitors.

Break-Even = 120

March 22/11: Sub-contractors. Finmeccanica subsidiary DRS Training & Control Systems in Fort Walton Beach, FL gets an undisclosed contract from Embraer S.A. to design, develop, test, produce, and support the KC-390 Cargo Handling and Aerial Delivery System (CHS/ADS).

The KC-390 CHS/ADS is one of the 5 major aircraft subsystems, used for loading both palletized cargo and rolling stock onboard, and for rolling out cargo on paradrops. CHS/ADS includes an electrical pallet locking system, an electronic load master control subsystem with DO178 level A software certification, retractable guide-rails, invertible cargo rollers, tie-down devices, and other floor panel components. DRS Technologies.

Feb 25/11: Sub-contractors. Embraer has frozen the configuration of its KC-390 tanker/transport, and plans to begin the joint definition phase in May 2011, once final decisions are made on major sub-contractors. Aviation Week describes a full scale mockup at Embraer’s plant in Sao Jose do Campos.

Recent KC-390 changes include longer wings (now 35.06 m), to enable slower 120 kt flight for helicopter refueling with the hose-and-drogue pods. Some customers are reportedly interested in a refueling boom as well, and Embraer is looking into this but doesn’t have a design it likes yet. The most unusual feature may be a movable pressure bulkhead that retracts into the roof and descends to seal the cargo cabin. While it shortens the cabin to 12.78m, it would allow high altitude airdrops from the space behind, without depressurizing the entire cabin.

Jan 5/11: Flight International reports that IAI and Synergy’s EAE joint venture is offering cockpit avionics and aircraft self-protection systems for the KC-390, under a 2009 cooperation pact.

IAI already has a presence in Brazil, supplying radars and maintenance services, and rumors of electronic intelligence or airborne early warning system KC-390 variants would play to IAI strengths. It’s worth remembering, however that both Embraer (ERJ-145 based R-99A) and IAI (Gulfstream G550 based CAEW) already have established AWACS offerings based on efficient, long endurance business jets. This makes the business case for an E-390 AWACS offering problematic for both parties.

2010

Letters of Intent from Argentina, Chile, Colombia, and Portugal; UAE may be interested; Infrastructure in Portugal. Looking beyond.

Nov 23/10: Portugal. Embraer begins the 1st phase of its new EUR 48 million, 330,000-square-foot (30,660-square-meter) facility in Evora, Portugal, dedicated to manufacturing complex airframe structures and components in composite materials. Construction is expected to be complete by the end of 2011, though production phase wouldn’t start until 2013. A 2nd phase will focus on metallic airframe structures.

Evora lies in the Alentejo region, 130 km east of Lisbon. Recently, the city developed an aerospace sector by creating a 9.4 million-square-foot (873,290-square-meter) aerospace industrial park, located near the municipal airfield. Embraer was the first investor. Ramos Catarino S.A. in Febres, Portugal is handling the excavation work, foundations and infrastructures. Construction was spurred by a wider strategy, but If Portugal goes ahead with a KC-390 buy, these facilities will already be in place for industrial offset work, and their construction costs may also count. Embraer.

Oct 29/10: Argentina intent. Embraer announces that:

“As a result of the conversations held between the Brazilian and the Argentine Defense Ministries, the ministers Nelson Jobim and Nilda Garre signed, this week, a Declaration of Intent regarding the South American neighbor’s participation in the development program of the KC-390 military transport jet. The agreement marks the beginning of negotiations for the involvement of Fábrica Argentina de Aviões “Brig. San Martín” S.A. – FAdeA in the manufacture of the new airplane, as well as the future acquisition of six KC-390 aircraft by the Argentine government.”

FAdeA was Lockheed Martin Aircraft Argentina during its privatized period, but is now state-owned again. The firm has collaborated with Embraer on a twin-prop regional airliner (the canceled CBA 123) and refurbished C-130s, but it also has a long history of aircraft development. Its best-known product is probably the IA-58 Pucara counter-insurgency aircraft, and they are currently developing an IA-73 basic jet trainer to go with their IA-63 Pampa advanced jet trainer. Flight International.

Argentina intent: 6

Sept 21/10: UAE. Reports indicate that Brazil and the UAE are negotiating an an umbrella agreement for military cooperation, with sales of Super Tucano trainer/light attack turboprops and KC-390 transports as key building blocks. Brazilian defense minister Nelson Jobim told reporters that Brazil would present the UAE with a draft agreement within 2 weeks, and hopes the deal could be signed within 2 months of a mutual draft.

The UAE would be a very significant customer. It has modernized its transport capabilities with a major C-17 buy, but negotiations to complement its 6 C-17As with 12 C-130J-30 Super Hercules planes have been bogged down for 18 months. A switch to the KC-390, and participation in its development, would attract considerable notice in global military circles, and offer a bridge to further middle eastern sales. Abu Dhabi’s The National.

Sept 13/10: Sub-contractors. The Brazilian and Czech Ministries of Defence sign an agreement for Aero Vodochody a.s. to cooperate with Embraer in developing and building the KC-390. The firm has considerable experience in aerostructure manufacturing, and the Czech defense ministry believes they could end up manufacturing the KC-390’s rear fuselage, doors, and wing leading edges

Specific terms are expected to be signed by the end of 2010, and the Czech Republic is reportedly looking to buy up to 2 KC-390s as a complement to their C-295M fleet. Aero Vodochody | Aviation Week | Flight International.

Czechs join – up to 2?

Sept 10/10: Portugal intent. Portuguese defense minister Augusto Santos Silva, signs a Declaration of Intent to join the KC-390 development program, and begin negotiations to finalize the terms and buy up to 6 planes.

The 6 KC-390s would replace the current fleet of 6 PoAF C-130H/C-130H-30 Hercules turboprops. Embraer | Reuters | In Portuguese: Portugal’s MDP | EFE | O Globo.

Portugal intent: up to 6

Sept 1/10: Colombia intent. Colombian defense minister Rodrigo Rivera announces that the country is negotiating to join the KC-390 partnership, and have signed a Declaration of Intent. They are reportedly interested in buying up to 12 planes to replace their existing fleet of 7 C-130B/H Hercules aircraft, and possibly other models in the FAC’s inventory. In return, they would join as industrial partners, via Colombian Aeronautics Industry Corp. The FAC is familiar with Brazilian aircraft, flying EMB 312 Tucanos, EMB 314 Super Tucanos, and a pair of EMB 110 Banderiante twin-turboprop light passenger/ transport planes.

The DoI was signed along with a broader set of agreements between Colombia and Brazil, covering economics, technology, environment and security. Marco Aurelio Garcia, a special adviser on Brazil’s international affairs, reportedly reaffirmed that the conflict with FARC’s narco-guerillas was solely Colombia’s internal issue, and Brazil would become involved only if Colombia requested it. That declaration is an obstacle to efforts by FARC and its backers in countries like Venezuela, who wish to pressure Colombia by internationalizing the conflict. Aviation Week | Defense News | defpro | Flight International | China’s Xinhua || In Spanish: La Republica | Terra Colombia | Vanguardia Liberal || DID: Colombia’s Defense Modernization

Colombia intent: up to 12

.

Aug 24/10: Chile intent. Embraer publicly announces an signed Declaration of Intention from Chile to join the KC-390 program. That allows Chile’s Empresa Nacional de Aeronautica (ENAER) to join discussions about participating in its development, and acting as a supplier to the KC-390 and other programs. Embraer’s Phenom 100/300 and Legacy 450/500 business jets have been mentioned in that context. The DoI also begins negotiations with Chile’s FACh to buy up to 6 planes.

Chile has been discussing the purchase of 3 Airbus A400Ms for over 5 years now, but had not come to any agreement. It seems likely that any KC-390 purchase would supplant that buy. ENAER has been supplying structures for Embraer’s 50-seat ERJ 145 regional jet since the 1990s, and Chile’s FACh already flies 12 of Embraer’s EMB-314 Super Tucanos. Embraer | Defense News | Mercopress. In Spanish: Diario Financiero | EFE. In Portuguese: O Globo | ANSA Latina | DCI.

Chile intent: up to 6

July 21/10: Brazil to buy 28. At the Farnborough 2010 show, Embraer and the Brazilian Air Force (FAB) announced the FAB’s intent to buy 28 KC-390s, and reveals additional details about the design.

The preliminary studies phase is done now, including wind tunnel tests, and aerodynamic, structural, and systems designs are all frozen. First flight is expected in 2014 and entry into service expected at the end of 2015. Embraer.

Brazil intent: 28

May 31/10: Brazil’s FAB offers an update, in the wake of their initial Workshop on KC-390 Offsets, held with 16 foreign firms at the Technology Park of Sao Jose dos Campos (SP), on May 25-26/10. Brazil’s Department of Aerospace Science and Technology (DCTA) organized and promoted the workshop.

Some of the KC-390’s equipment, from engines to instrumentation, will come from outside Brazil. Those firms will be required to offer industrial offsets to Brazilian firms, as the price of their participation in the project. Offsets could include production contracts for the KC-390 or other sales, or a range of activities from staff training, technology transfer, joint development of systems and supply of machine tools, etc.

The FAB adds that according to studies made by Embraer, there is a potential market of 700 aircraft in this class over the next 10 years. That may be so. Embraer will have to beat plenty of competitors, in order to secure its share of those orders. Brazil’s FAB [in Portuguese].

2007 – 2009

Development contract; Program will be international; Links to Brazil’s potential fighter buy. KC-390 sign-on
(click to view full)

Oct 4/09: F-X2 & KC-390 linked? Brazil’s FAB confirms that revised bids are in from all 3 short-listed fighter contenders, and Saab’s offer clearly has significant support from the Swedish government.

Gripen International’s revised bid offers a wide range of elements, including: Full involvement in the Gripen NG development program; Complete technology transfer and national autonomy through joint development; Independence in choice of weapons and systems integration; Production in Brazil of up to 80% Gripen NG airframes, via a full Gripen NG assembly line; and Full maintenance capability in Brazil for the Gripen NG’s F414 engine. That last offer would largely remove the threat of future American interference, and it would be interesting to see how Gripen International proposes to achieve it. Gripen International touts “significantly lower acquisition, support and operating costs” for its plane, and all this would be backed by a firm proposal for full long-term financing from the government’s Swedish Export Credit Corporation.

The additional offers are equally significant. Brazil will have the sales lead for Gripen NG in Latin America, with joint opportunities elsewhere. Saab would join the KC-390 program as a development and marketing partner, and Sweden will evaluate the KC-390 for its long term tactical air transport needs, as a future replacement for its recently-upgraded but aging C-130 Hercules aircraft. Saab also proposes to replace Sweden’s aged fleet of about 42 SK60/ Saab 105 jet trainers with Embraer’s Super Tucano, but it received a SKr 130 million ($18.8 million) deal in September 2009 to upgrade the planes’ cockpit systems, and current Swedish plans would see the SK60s continue in service until mid-2017. FAB release [in Portuguese] | Gripen International release.

Sept 5/09: France. Brazil’s Ministerio Da Defesa announces that Brazil has secured French cooperation to develop Embraer’s KC-390 medium transport. Other reports indicate that France is set to buy 10-12 of the aircraft when they’re introduced. This would give the Armee de l’Air a small fleet that would offset the risks of late A400M delivery, provide a second source of immediate relief for the ancient C-160 Transall fleet, and offer a lower-capacity option that could either be used as a transport supplement, or converted to specialty roles.

The KC-390 announcement is part of an incipient deal for France’s Rafale fighters, and French technology transfer across a broad range of projects was reportedly the critical factor in the deal. President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva described the Rafale buy as “definitively consolidating a strategic partnership we started in 2005.” Brazil will now produce helicopters (EC725), submarines (nuclear-powered and diesel-electric), transport aircraft (KC-390) and possibly fighters (Rafale) in cooperation with France, under a broad strategic partnership in the defense arena. MDD announcement [Portuguese] | Agence France Presse | France24 | CS Monitor | Reuters.

June 15/09: International. Aviation Week reports that Brazil is in talks with other countries to make the KC-390 an international program. Embraer’s EVP for defense and government programs, Orlando Jose Ferreira Neto, expects that foreign partners could be added as early as the end of 2009. He adds that it will be a top-down government process, with accompanying directives handed down to Embraer.

The article adds that Embraer’s choice of its 27,000 pound thrust class engine will also be made in the next 24 months. Safran has reportedly said they will bid one of their GE partnership’s CFM engines. Pratt & Whitney and Rolls Royce are also obvious contenders.

May 1/09: South Africa. South Africa’s Engineering News reports interest among South African industry, but the country is already committed to buying 8-14 of Airbus’ larger A400M transport. Some of the skills involved in that order would definitely transfer, but a South African KC-390 order would be fiscally difficult. Excerpt:

“In February, Denel Saab Aerostructures (DSA) CEO Lana Kinley told Engineering News Online that “we are very interested in having Embraer as a customer, and in being a risk-sharing partner on the C-390″. DSA sister company Denel Dynamics is already involved in a partnership with the FAB to develop the A-Darter air-to-air missile.”

April 14/09: Development contract. At the 7th Latin America Aero and Defence (LAAD) trade fair in Rio de Janeiro, Embraer announces a contract from the Brazilian government to develop the KC-390. Figures are not disclosed, but the project’s scope is reported in other venues as around $1.4 – 1.5 billion over 7 years, with the aim of manufacturing 23 planes for Brazil, and inducting the first operational aircraft in 2015.

Embraer Defence VP Orlando Ferreira Neto tells Aviation Week that the program will help Embraer toward the goal of increasing its defense business to 20% of revenues, from 8% in 2008. As noted below, Colombia has expressed interest in a partnership. South Africa’s Engineering News reports that South Africa’s Denel Saab Aerostructures may also be interested in part

Americas

• The Pentagon’s joint program office (JPO) is expecting a slimmed down Gen-3 helmet by November for rollout in 2017. The announcement makes the Rockwell Collins design’s introduction sooner than initially expected. Earlier versions of the helmet were revised due to a potential for causing neck injury. Problems with the F-35’s ejector system had resulted in potential injuries for lightweight pilots, however fixes have been made including a switch on the Martin Baker US16E (MK16) ejection seat that delays the parachute’s opening “by milliseconds” when occupied by a lightweight pilot, plus a head support panel sewn between the parachute risers. However, a weight reduction for the third-generation helmet from 2.3kg (5.1lb) to 2.1kg (4.6lb) has also been required.

• Negotiations between Venezuela and Russia over a deal for 12 Su-30 have come to conclusion. Moscow has sent an offer for the sale, and an answer is expected shortly according to Anatoly Punchuk, deputy head of the Russian Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation. Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro had announced his intention to purchase the aircraft last November. The fighters will fill a multitude of roles, including anti-drug trafficking missions, particularly against those coming from neighboring Colombia.

Middle East North Africa

• A $7.5 billion deal between Qatar and France has concluded, with Qatar to purchase 24 Rafale fighters alongside MBDA missiles, and training for 36 pilots and some 100 mechanics.The deal had been initially estimated to be $6.9 billion, but extra cruise missile orders pushed up the price. The contracts were signed by French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian and his Qatari counterpart, Sheikh Khalid Al-Attiah, on the opening day of the Doha International Maritime Defence Exhibition and Conference. Despite this, the UK’s defence minister stated that a deal with Qatar to sell them Eurofighter Typhoon warplanes was “definitely still on the table” when speaking in Doha on Tuesday.

Europe

• Russian military action in Syria seems to have been a good advertisement for the Su-34, as a number of Middle East countries have expressed interest in acquiring the fighter. The news was broken by Rosoboronexport official Sergey Goreslavsk on Tuesday at the Defexpo India-2016. As well as countries from the Middle East, potential negotiations have started with a number of countries from Latin America and Africa, although he refused to name any of the buyers. While Goreslavsk is keeping mum on who is interested, the next few weeks may bring out some of the usual suspects of regular buyers of Russian weaponry.

Africa

• A weakening Rand, and a 10% defense budget cut may see the South African Air Force retire some of its current Gripen or Hawk jet aircraft. The defense cut coupled with the decrease in currency value has come as a double blow; affecting replacement parts for military jets as they are paid in either dollars, or in the case of the British built Hawks, in pound sterling. SAAF efforts to cut down on costs have seen five Hawk jets scrapped for parts, three of which were grounded after accidents. Furthermore, of the 24 Hawks initially acquired, there are only seven qualified pilots, while of the 26 Gripens in use (half of which are in storage), there are only five qualified pilots to operate the aircraft.

Asia Pacific

• This week, it’s been all about India! Thales and BEL-Thales Systems Limited (BTSL), the joint venture between Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) and Thales, have signed a partnership agreement for the joint development of the PHAROS fire control radar. The deal was finalized at this year’s Defexpo India. PHAROS is a tracking radar for gun and missile control which provides defense against small, fast moving and highly maneuverable air and surface targets.

• Vladimir Drozhzhov, deputy director of Russia’s Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation (FSMTC) has told reporters flocking to Defexpo that they are awaiting a response from India on their potential purchase of the S-400 air-defense system. The contract could potentially cost $6 billion, according to local media sources, after New Delhi initially approved the purchase at the end of 2015.

• Saab and India’s Tata Power SED have

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/land/2016/03/29/saab-partner-tata-power-manufacture-leds-india/82379922/">joined forces to manufacture the Land Electronic Defense System (LEDS). The agreement marks the first time that the system will be produced in India, but more significantly, the first time it has been produced outside of South Africa. Before now, the system was produced by Saab’s South African subsidiary, Saab Grintek Defence, but now will have the Indian LEDS 50 units initially manufactured at Tata Power SED’s eleven-acre manufacturing facility in Bangalore.

Today’s Video

• Russian Army training in the Arctic:

Sea Giraffe 1X 3D
(click to view full)

Swedish defense giant Saab is to offer its Sea Giraffe 1X 3D, active electronically scanned array (AESA) naval radar to the US market, showcasing it at the Maritime Security East Conference in Norfolk, Virginia this week. At 650 pounds, the radar is suitable for small patrol boats, giving them the ability to detect unmanned aerial vehicles for the first time. With no forced cooling requirements, and a minimal number of line-replaceable units (LRUs), it requires little power or upkeep. All maintenance, including LRU repair, can be performed by low-level trained engineers.

Americas

• The USMC is to receive upgrades to their Amphibious Assault Vehicles (AAV) as their replacement, the Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV), will not be operational until the 2020s. 392 AAV7A1s are to receive an extensive survivability upgrade in a $194 million contract. The USMC has found that AAVs have been vulnerable to improvised explosive devices (IED) and other weapons when operating in Iraq and elsewhere. Improvements to be made include flat-sided buoyant ceramic armor panels, new shock-mitigation seats, replacing benches in older AAVs, and a new transmission, increasing the vehicle’s top speed.

• Raytheon has been awarded a $573 million contract for the production and supply for Lot 30 of the AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air to Air Missiles (AMRAAM) and other AMRAAM system items to the USAF. Work is expected to be completed by February 28, 2019. The USAF contract follows the $95 million Foreign Military Sale of the missile to Indonesia earlier this month, and marks continued sales of the advanced missile for Raytheon. Since December 2014 the Air Force has placed AMRAAM missile orders with Raytheon worth more than $1.5 billion.

• A new weapons kit system for Black Hawk helicopters are in the works according to officials from Sikorsky. The move comes as the company is looking at adding some versatility to the utility helicopter in order to cater to market needs and increase desirability to foreign markets. The US military may not be interested in such kits, instead preferring separate attack and utility helicopter fleets, but the strategy may appeal to global markets looking to get the best value for their money. The announcement marks a proactive move by Sikorsky to exploit potential markets and new opportunities, likely influenced by new parent company Lockheed Martin.

Middle East & North Africa

• Negotiations between Russia and Egypt over communications equipment for the Egyptian Navy’s two new Mistral-class helicopter carriers is progressing well. The French made vessels initially intended for Russia had several armament, command-and-control, navigation systems, as well as radio and electronic equipment taken out in accordance with the terms of the cancellation of the sale. The Egyptians now seem to be turning to Russia to help provide these systems, after purchasing navalized Ka-52 helicopters from Moscow. It’s believed that Cairo is seeking radio and electronic equipment worth at least $1 billion USD to equip and operationalize the carriers, amounting to a nice chunk of money for Russia.

Europe

• The German Air Force may look to acquire additional transport aircraft alongside its procurement of Airbus A400Ms. Sources within the government and military have denied that the new buys are in relation to ongoing problems with the A400M; however, as many as ten new aircraft may be purchased. Potential models for the Germans could be Lockheed’s C130 Hercules, as the A400M is too wide and heavy to land on some runways.

• Norway’s Kongsberg has bought a 49.9% stake in Finnish company Patria in a deal worth $307 million. The new industry partnership will be seen as a significant strengthening of the Nordic defense industry. Kongsberg will benefit from Patria’s 50% stake in the Norwegian ammunition manufacturer Nammo, and Patria’s extensive experience of the aircraft composite industry, namely for their work on the Airbus A400 and the NH Industries NH90 helicopter.

• As of January 2017, Finmeccanica will be known as Leonardo. The rebrand of the Italian aerospace and defense giant was announced alongside a strong financial performance for 2015, ending half a decade of financial and legal turmoil. 2011 saw a net loss of more than $2.6 billion in heavy losses in power and road and rail in addition to an $848 million write-down against defects in fuselage sections and horizontal stabilizers supplied to the Boeing 787. However, for 2015, revenue was up 1.8% to $15.6 billion, and profit before interest and taxes soared 48% to $1.36 billion; return on sales increased by 1.6%, to 9.3%.

Asia Pacific

• The March 7 test by the India’s Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) of a K-4 submarine launched ballistic missile (SLBM) has been successful. The missile was launched from a submerged pontoon in the Bay of Bengal. The missile was ejected from the launch tube underwater, ignited its engines, and proceeded to hit its target. The 10-metre tall two-stage missile has a launch weight of 20 tonnes can strike a target 3,500 km away. It is capable of carrying more than 2,000 kgs of warhead, both conventional and nuclear.

Today’s Video

• The GaN-based AESA radar technology in Raytheon’s Patriot system:

A400M rollout, Seville
(click to view full)

Airbus’ A400M is a EUR 20+ billion program that aims to repeat Airbus’ civilian successes in the full size military transport market. A series of smart design decisions were made around capacity (35-37 tonnes/ 38-40 US tons, large enough for survivable armored vehicles), extensive use of modern materials, multi-role capability as a refueling tanker, and a multinational industrial program; all of which leave the aircraft well positioned to take overall market share from Lockheed Martin’s C-130 Hercules. If the USA’s C-17 is allowed to go out of production, the A400M would also have a strong position in the strategic transport market, with only Russian AN-70, IL-76 and AN-124 aircraft as competition.

Airbus’ biggest program issue, by far, has been funding for a project that is more than EUR 7 billion over budget. The next biggest issue is timing, as a combination of A400M delays and Lockheed’s strong push for its C-130J Super Hercules narrow the field for future exports. This DID Spotlight article covers the latest developments, as the A400M Atlas moves into the delivery phase. Will Airbus’ 3rd big issue become its own customers?

The A400M Program History A400M concept
(click to view full)

The original EUR 16 billion A400M Letter of Intent was signed in December 2001 for development and production of 196 aircraft, with a 1st flight in 2006 and initial deliveries in 2008. A EUR 20 billion contract was eventually signed between the EU’s OCCAR agency and Airbus Military in May 2003, for 180 planes. June 26/08 saw the first A400M aircraft rolled out at the final assembly line in Seville, Spain, but aircraft weight growth became a critical issue, testbed issues slowed engine certification, 1st flight slipped to December 2009, and the 1st delivery to a customer (France) took until July 2013.

A 2009 French Sénat report estimated that A400M production would ramp up only in 2014, and that it would take until 2020 to clear the backlog introduced by development delays, assuming acceptable settlement of contractual and development issues. Costs per A400M aircraft were placed at EUR 145 million.

The beginning of deliveries is a key milestone, and its lateness escalated into a significant issue. In September 2008, EADS CEO Louis Gallois reportedly sent a letter to the governments of 7 countries who had ordered the A400M, asking them to waive the contract’s built-in penalties for late delivery. Their alternative was a freeze in production from Airbus. Their core customers refused to budge, the freeze came to pass, and it took until November 2010 before a revised OCCAR contract got the project moving again.

Future

The full details of Airbus’ revised deal can be found in Appendix A, but the gist is that the core countries paid more, including “loans” whose conditions make repayment unlikely. The program was overhauled, and the timeline changed. Overall, A400M deliveries would be an average of 3.5 years late, with an initial plane for France scheduled in March 2013 (it was actually July 2013). The 2012 – 2024 delivery schedule from the revised 2010 agreement is reproduced below:

Unfortunately, as of 2013, this schedule is already obsolete. Airbus Defence & Space’s biggest challenges are fourfold: schedule, shifted orders, second-hand sales, and speed of delivery.

Schedule. In the 2010 deal, France and Spain initially decided to space the same number of planned aircraft over a longer delivery time. Subsequent budgets indicate further delays in France, and other customers are also looking to delay their deliveries. That will “save” money in a particular budget year, but stretching out production means paying fixed costs over a longer period of time. Which means higher costs per plane, unless additional orders fill out the production line and make up the difference.

Shifts. Unfortunately, other core customers are making that difficult. In the 2010 deal, Germany and Britain responded to budget pressures by reducing their orders slightly, while remaining within the contract. Their “options” will almost certainly never be exercised, which means a de facto order reduction of 10 planes.

Second-hand Sales. Airbus’ biggest deal concession was subtle, but its effects are even more far-reaching: customers are allowed to re-sell their aircraft on the global market. So far, at least 26 A400Ms will be up for sale from the core group: 13 from Germany, and 13 “austere configuration” planes from Spain. Both countries need the initial deliveries to keep their aged airlift fleets running, but the “zu verkaufen” signs should start going up around 2018. France is also considering such sales, but in a more abstract way. For now, their immediate and urgent need for aerial transport capacity will keep them squarely focused on bringing the A400M Atlas into their operational fleet.

Speed of delivery. A lack of serving aircraft to act as an example and qualification, and a backlog of almost 200 planes, have already cost Airbus potential opportunities in Norway, Canada, and India. Lockheed Martin is using that time to solidify the C-130J variant’s position as a transport and special forces aircraft with roll-on special mission options, including precision weapons and maritime patrol. Meanwhile, Embraer’s jet-powered KC-390 is putting its own plans and customer base together on 2 continents.

A400M: Tech Specs and Issues Airbus on A400M

According to the February 2009 report from the French Sénat, serious development problems and delays have arisen in the aircraft’s digital engine controls, navigation and low-level flight systems, horizontal tail surfaces, and the definition of the wing design. The November 2010 agreement involves an interim standard that would not be capable of the more sophisticated flight modes, until avionics issues have been resolved.

The key specifications change to date involves base weight estimates that have risen by 12t/ 26,500 pounds. Airbus isn’t proposing to change the aircraft’s 37t carrying capacity, which implies a new maximum landing weight of 134t instead of 122t. That means that the most likely performance changes will be to speed (300 knots target), unrefueled range (3,450 nm target for 20t C-130J class payload; 1,780nm target at maximum 37t), and to the length of runway required for takeoff (914 m/ 3,000 feet target) and landing (822 m/ 2,700 feet target) when fully loaded.

A400M cockpit
(click to view full)

A cruise speed of Mach 0.68 – 0.72 would have approached the C-17 strategic transport’s Mach 0.74 – 0.77, and significantly bettered the C-130J’s Mach 0.56 – 0.59. Testing of production aircraft will reveal where the A400M ultimately ends up, and how much of a competitive advantage it can retain. After 2015 or so, the jet-powered Embraer KC-390 will put even more pressure on the A400M to offer competitive performance in this area.

Takeoff and landing distances are also worth watching. Some customers and potential customers may have issues if performance changes extend those runway lengths extend too far, and begin to exclude a number of bases currently in use by Lockheed’s competing C-130 family.

A400M: Industrial Team

Technically, the OCCAR contract is with Airbus Military Sociedad Limitad (AMSL). AMSL includes various divisions of EADS (90%), Turkish Aerospace Industries (5.6%), and Belgium’s Flabel (4.4%). Industrial roles include:

Contracts & Key Events 2014 – 2016

Malaysia’s delivery schedule. 1st UK delivery and schedule. RAF Brize Norton

March 18/16: The German Air Force may look to acquire additional transport aircraft alongside its procurement of Airbus A400Ms. Sources within the government and military have denied that the new buys are in relation to ongoing problems with the A400M; however, as many as ten new aircraft may be purchased. Potential models for the Germans could be Lockheed’s C130 Hercules, as the A400M is too wide and heavy to land on some runways.

February 25/16: Following a 2015 filled with delays, fines and threats of lawsuits, Airbus aims to double deliveries of their A400M transport aircraft in 2016. Having only completed 11 deliveries last year, the company’s chief executive Tom Enders has vowed a target of “20-plus” deliveries in 2016. Stable revenues in Airbus’ defense and space division has helped the company, which is trying to realign their delivery and upgrade schedule to make up for delays. But upgrades regarding the aircraft’s military capabilities remain a challenge.

January 11/16: Problems surrounding the Airbus A400M acquisition by a group of European NATO members are set to continue as Turkey expects not to receive any deliveries this year. Ankara was expecting two of the heavy cargo planes to arrive during the year as part of an order for ten made in 2003. The initial schedule would have already seen Turkey take possession of six by 2016, but only three are now in operation. Delays to the schedule seem to have stemmed from the May 2015 A400M crash in Spain which saw four airmen killed. As a safety precaution, all deliveries of the aircraft to customers were stalled. The news comes as others in the program, such as France, have looked elsewhere to make up for the temporary shortfall.

December 16/15: Turkey has received delivery of its third Airbus A400M after the first two had been sent back to Spain for retrofit and software work. The delays in their flights came following the crash of an A400M in Spain during the summer. Disputes have arisen between the Turkish government and Airbus over delays and production problems, but they are not the only country to have done so. While Germany has started to receive initial orders of the plane, it fined Airbus $14 million in November over delays to deliveries.

December 4/15: Germany has received the first Airbus A400M cargo aircraft, with a second planned to be delivered by the end of the year. Five were initially to be delivered to Germany in 2015, but delays have caused this to be scaled back to just two. Slow production of the aircraft has led to delays in deliveries to seven European NATO members involved in the A400M program. Germany fined Airbus $14 million last month once the late delivery was announced. Germany has ordered 53 of the aircraft in total which is Europe’s most expensive aircraft acquisition program.

December 3/15: The Spanish government has come to an agreement with Airbus to decrease its order of A400M cargo aircraft. Spain is legally obliged to continue with the purchase of the full fleet of 27, but this has been postponed. Instead, a temporary reduction in the order will be allowed with 14 planes being delivered by 2022. Discussions will then continue as to what will be done with the remainder of the acquisition. Problems with the order arose after the Spanish Air Force found it difficult to fund the full order on time. The Airbus A400M Atlas program was developed for the requirements of seven European NATO members. At a cost of $22 billion, it is Europe’s biggest arms contract, but had been initially fraught with delays and technical problems. One of the planes crashed in May, just north of Seville, during an air force test flight.

November 27/15: Airbus is to offer surveillance and intelligence reconnaissance upgrades for its A400M and A330 Airborne tanker planes. The announcement comes at a time when governments are seeking a short-cut to enhance intelligence gathering capabilities, as action against the Islamic State increases along with operational requirements. The ability for these aircraft to hold all required fuel in their wings allows for existing off the shelf equipment to be installed with ease. Airbus has orders for these planes from France, Britain, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, all of whom are currently taking action in the Middle East. This could be seen as an attempt by Airbus to boost the usability of their aircraft amid a decrease in sales of the A400M. The drop is a result of the crash of one of the planes in Spain earlier this year.

November 16/15: Germany has reportedly fined Airbus €13 ($14) million for its failure to deliver on time two A400M military transport planes. This follows reports from earlier this year of the German Ministry of Defense seeking €300 ($280) million compensation from the company over its delays and France cancelling its order in favor of C-130 Hercules from Lockheed.

October 12/15: Egypt is showing interest in the Airbus A400M, according to two Spanish press reports [Spanish]. With potential deals falling through with South Africa and Chile (which opted for the Embraer KC-390), the North African country would be the first export customer after Malaysia joined the program in 2005, as well as the first customer following the crash of one A400M in May. Egypt operates 24 C295 transports, also manufactured by Airbus.

September 11/15: The Royal Air Force appears to have taken delivery of its fourth A400M aircraft, with 70 Squadron’s Twitter account posting a photograph of the new transporter at RAF Brize Norton. A third aircraft was delivered in July, with a total of 22 on order from Airbus. The Ministry of Defence’s Defence Infrastructure Organisation began work in August to expand the Brize Norton airbase to accommodate the growing fleet.

August 6/15: With the delivery of a third Airbus A400M transporter to the Royal Air Force in July, the UK’s Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) has begun construction of a new maintenance facility for the fleet. The $65.7 million project at RAF Brize Norton is slated for completion next year, with the RAF expecting the delivery of nineteen more A400Ms.

May 11/15: Following the crash of an Airbus A400M transport aircraft in Seville, Spain on Saturday, the Royal Air Force, Luftwaffe and Turkish Air Force have grounded their fleets. The aircraft was on an Airbus test flight, with the crash killing four crew members. The destroyed aircraft was due for delivery to Turkey in June, which would have made it the third Turkish A400M, following a 2003 contract for ten of the aircraft.

March 17/15: First delivery to Malaysia. Malaysia
received the first of four Airbus A400 transport aircraft, with this being the first export customer for the model.

Jan 30/15: Military aircraft chief fired over delays. Airbus sacked its military aircraft chief as European partners chafe at continuing delays in the delivery of the A400M heavy lift plane. Domingo Ureña Raso is out and the program’s industrial activities will be transferred to another unit. A wider reorganization is underway, the details of which are to be announced in late February.

Dec. 8/14: MRO. The UK’s Defence Equipment & Support and France’s DGA finalized their joint support contract with Airbus via the OCCAR agency, whose terms had been a point of contention for years (see Oct 12/11 entry). In the meantime France had put an ISS contract in place back in February 2013. The two countries will share spares inventory and maintenance services. Sources: UK MoD | DGA.

Nov. 28/14: UK schedule. Since the 1st delivery was delayed and acceptance is taking more time than expected, one or two of the UK’s first 4 A400Ms may now be delivered in early 2015. Officials hope to reach initial operating capability later that year with 7 aircraft, and reach the total of 22 deliveries by 2018. Standard Operating Clearance 1.5 has slipped into 2015, when the aircraft should demonstrate tactical capabilities that are still unmet.

Source: AviationWeek: A400M Capability Delays Won’t Impact U.K. Operations.

Nov 17/14: UK 1st delivery. Following its maiden flight in August, the UK received its first A400M aircraft at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire, where the fleet will be based. This comes about 6 weeks behind the expected date.

UK’s 1st

Nov 14/14: Airbus outlook. Airbus announced strong financial results 9 months into 2014 but had this to say on the Atlas:

“The A400M programme industrial ramp-up is ongoing and entering into progressive enhancements of military capabilities but with some delays incurred. The sequence of progressive enhancements and deliveries is under negotiation with customers and related costs, risks and mitigation actions are under assessment. A contractual termination right became exercisable on 1 November 2014. However, management judges that it is highly unlikely that this termination right is exercised.”

Final assembly

Sept 23/14: Malaysia. Airbus announces that the 1st of 4 aircraft ordered by Malaysia is under final assembly in Seville, Spain, and will be delivered at the beginning of 2015, presumably before the LIMA ’15 airshow. Two more deliveries are to follow through 2015, and a final one in 2016. Malaysian pilots are currently being trained by the company. With just 4 planes this will complement rather than replace the existing fleet of C-130s.

The program’s cost comes to MYR 3.5 billion (around $925 million at 2005 exchange rates) including training and logistics, according to the Malaysian Air Force. That’s a sizable investment for a country whose entire defense budget barely reached $5 billion in 2014 (MYR 16.1 billion), with just $850 million (MYR $2.7 billion) available for “development” (i.e. procurement) according to the Treasury.

IHS Jane’s has the cost at a much higher MYR 8 billion. We think that’s just wrong. It contradicts official figures, and even after a sizable industrial offset with Composites Technology Research Malaysia (CTRM) as part of the original deal, it’s way out of scale with both the aircraft’s known flyaway cost and the country’s finances. Sources: Airbus, Malaysian Air Force and Treasury websites | IHS Jane’s: “First A400M for Malaysia takes shape” | See also MYR 3.5 billion figure in 2012 Malaysia Star, “A400M airlifter gets RMAF chief’s seal of approval”.

Sept 22/14: Germany. Several German newspapers report that an internal memo exchanged last month between the Defense Ministry and federal government auditors states that the government reserves the right to push for price reductions or even terminate the order on a case-by-case basis for any aircraft that falls short of its contractual configuration. The Bundeswehr will need the aircraft soon if it wants to help in interventions from Western Africa to Iraq, as its 5-decade-old Transalls are creaking and some parts are no longer available. There is always the SALIS fallback, which is starting to look long in the tooth for an “interim” solution. Sources: Reuters: “Germany pushes Airbus for cost cuts on A400Ms” (sourced on tabloid Bild am Sonntag) | Die Welt: “So marode sind die Maschinen der Bundeswehr”.

MSN15

Aug 29/14: UK 1st flight. Airbus announces that MSN15, the 1st of 22 aircraft order by the RAF, made its maiden flight, one month ahead of its scheduled delivery.

Aug 28/14: Aerial Refueling. An Airbus A400M test plane successfully performs 5 air-to-air refueling tests with a Spanish EA-18 Hornet fighter, with 33 dry contacts and 35 wet contacts that dispensed 18.6 tonnes of fuel.

The A400M has a basic fuel capacity of 50.8 tonnes, which can be expanded using optional extra cargo hold tanks. Full provisions for Air-to-Air Refueling (AAR) operations come installed as standard, but the A400M requires the installation of an air-to-air refueling kit with the requisite pods, etc. in order to become a tanker.

A400M: Short take-off

July 24/14: A400M Batch I. Aircraft MSN10 (4th production A400M, France’s 3rd) becomes the first of its type to be produced in “Batch 1” version, with a fuel inerting system, and improvements in the avionics and cargo system. In addition:

“To enable the delivery of MSN010, OCCAR-EA has prepared and signed in behalf of France a Contract Amendment related to the implementation of the LPM (Loi de Programmation Militaire) conditions and has signed in behalf of France and the UK a contract amendment related to the definition of “Batch 1 aircraft”, including FR/UK swap of production aircraft. This concludes extensive work performed by all parties that define the conditions of delivery for the four FR Batch1 aircraft (MSN10, 11, 12 and 14) and that update the A400M delivery schedule.”

Sources: OCCAR, “First A400M in “Batch 1″ configuration delivered”.

July 16/14: Aerial Refueling. Airbus performs the first aerial refueling of the A400M, using an RAF A330 Voyager with a Fuselage Refueling Unit. In the course of 4 flights, by day and night, in southern Spain, the A400M received more than 80 tons of fuel in 100 “wet contacts.”

The A400M relies on its probe for refueling, and requires a drogue hose from its refueling tanker. Sources: Airbus DS, “Airbus A330 tanker aircraft refuels A400M”.

July 7/14: Turkey. Turkey’s A400M Atlas complete its 1st international flight, carrying the TuAF’s Soloturk F-16 demonstration team to London for Farnborough on July 2, and touching down in Luxembourg on its way back. Sources: Hurriyet, “Turkish A400M carries military equipment in debut international flight”.

July 2/14: Sub-contractors. South Africa’s Denel Aerostructures announces a 6-year, R 260 million (about $24.2 million) sub-contract from Airbus to manufacture a combination of aluminum rails and cross-tracks for the A400M’s cargo hold. It was reportedly a competitive tender bid.

The firm is already building the plane’s center wing box top shell, and the cargo hold components are expected to begin delivery to Germany by September 2014. Sources: The Citizen, “Denel Aerostructures land military airbus deal”.

May 22/14: Germany. Diehl Defence announces that it will work with its long-time partner Elbit to supply defensive systems for the German A400M fleet. Their cooperation would combine 3 of Elbit System´s J-MUSIC systems into a multi-turret DIRCM (Directed Infrared Counter Measure) system with 360 degree protection.

MUSIC comes in podded (C-MUSIC) and DIRCM solutions, and is designed to protect civilian airliners as well as military aircraft. Existing MUSIC military customers include Italian Air Force C-130J and C-27J military transports and AW101 CSAR helicopters, and Brazil’s KC-390 military transports. Sources: Diehl Defence, “Diehl signed a cooperation agreement with Elbit Systems on A400M protection system” | Defense Update, “Israeli DIRCM laser to protect German A400M transport planes”.

April 4/14: Turkey. Airbus announces that Turkey finally accepted its 1st A400M, and “following today’s contractual transfer of title, the aircraft will be flown to Kayseri air base in central Turkey, where it will initially be used for training.” Airbus CEO Tom Enders had denounced (q.v. Feb 27/14) the Turkish Air Force’s earlier refusal of the aircraft delivery as pure bargaining. Sources: Airbus, “Airbus Defence and Space delivers A400M to Turkish Air Force.”

Feb 27/14: Chile. Infodefensa reports that Chile has sent Airbus an RFI in September 2013 regarding 4-6 C295 light tactical transports, and is also expressing interest in up to 6 A400Ms. Chile actually signed a Declaration of Intent to buy up to 3 A400Ms in July 2005, but they formally switched their interest to Brazil’s smaller jet-powered KC-390 in 2010. Their tactical airlift fleet certainly needs some help, as it’s composed of 3 very aged C-130B/H Hercules medium tactical transports, 3 old C-212 light tactical transports, and about 13 DHC-6 Twin Otter “bush planes”.

The C295 is already in Chilean service as a maritime patrol aircraft, and Chile is reportedly interested in signing a deal for a couple of transport variants before the end of the year. C-212s suffered a series of lethal accidents in 2012, including a Chilean crash that killed 21 people. Their replacement is a high priority. The A400M vs. KC-390 question is less clear, as Chile’s delivery timeline is closer to “end of the decade.” The 2010 MoU with Embraer isn’t binding, and Chilean sources told Infodefensa that:

“Lo que se hara sera evaluar las prestaciones de ese avion, cuando hayan ejemplares de produccion, para determinar si satisface los requerimientos operativos de Chile, sin descartar otras opciones que puedan cumplir dichos requerimientos en mejor forma”

Translation: “When the KC-390 has a flying plane to evaluate, we’ll see if it satisfies our requirements. But we reserve the right to pick something else first, if we think it meets our requirements better.” The A400M is a larger plane that will carry heavier loads, by a margin of around 10t, and may also perform better in Chile’s dusty environs. The flip side is that it’s a significantly more expensive plane, but Chile might be able to get a deal on some of the 13 “austere configuration” aircraft that Spain plans to sell. FACh commander in chief Gen. Jorge Rojas Avila happened to be in Spain at the time of the report, and toured Airbus Military’s factory in Getafe. Sources: Infodefensa, “Chile, interesada en adquirir aviones C-295 y A400M” | Chile’s Defense & Military, “Is Chile Bailing Out on Embraer’s KC-390 Cargo Plane?”.

Feb 27/14: Turkey. Airbus CEO Tom Enders isn’t super-happy with Turkey these days, because they haven’t accepted delivery of production aircraft #3. The plane made its maiden flight on Aug 12/13, and its 1st flight in TuAF colors on Aug 28/13. Enders says that:

“The aircraft is ready to go…. It’s the same aircraft that we delivered to the French Air Force that has been instantly operational and fit for flight. I find the situation increasingly unacceptable…. I constrain myself to one word. Bargaining…. In a multinational program that’s really a problem. How can you efficiently ramp up production if you have no certainty that your customers are taking those aircraft?”

Enders has a point, and subsequent statements imply that Airbus will look to press its case via OCCAR and other core countries, if things don’t settle soon. On the other hand, the Turks didn’t just make a random decision. Undersecretary for Defense Murad Bayar has said they don’t believe that production aircraft #3 meets their contract’s specifications and capabilities. Which is no surprise, given recent German reports (q.v. Dec 11/13). So, yeah, bargaining. Sources: Bloomberg BusinessWeek, “Airbus CEO Says Turkish Delay in Taking A400M Threatens Ramp-Up” | Turkish News, “Airbus and Turkey dispute over A400M military aircraft ” | Airbus Military, “First Airbus Military A400M for Turkish Air Force makes maiden flight” and “Airbus Military A400M flies in Turkish Air Force”.

2013

France accepts 1st production A400M, but long-term fleet size in question; Spain will sell 13 A400Ms, bringing the second-hand pool to 26 now; French initial support agreement; UK long-term training contract; LAIRCM for UK A400Ms, but no refueling pods. French A400M
(click to view full)

Dec 11/13: Germany. The German defense ministry says that they expect their 1st A400M in November 2014 as planned, but it will not have the full military capabilities ordered. That will require retrofits after delivery, and they’re only expected to be complete by mid-2015. Sources: Reuters, ”
Germany may get full-spec A400M airlifter later than planned”.

Oct 3/13: Training. France signs an agreement with Germany to harmonize training, and share facilities. Training for maintainers and type rating for flight crews will take place at Wunstorf AB, Germany beginning in summer 2015. Operational aircrew training will take place at Orleans AB, France beginning in 2014, and German students will begin training there from 2018 onward.

This isn’t the only multinational effort underway: France in discussing a joint A400M support deal with Britain (q.v. Feb 18/13), and there are efforts within the EU’s EATC to define common operational procedures and common training. Sources: French Air Force, “A400M : Signature d’un partenariat de formation franco-allemand”.

Joint training: France & Germany

Oct 1/13: The economic challenge. Defense-Aerospace points out that the initial A400M ceremony is just the beginning of the real challenge, which is profitability. His core point is simple: 174 planes might keep a production line going for 6-7 years at rates below their 30 planes per year peak, but won’t recover even R&D and launch costs, let alone pay off additional terms from the 2011 deal.

Giovanni de Briganti further calculates that around 1/3 of the core customer planes have disappeared (3 Britain + 7 Germany now options, 13 German and 13 Spanish to sell, and possibly another 10-15 French to sell = 51/174, or 29.3%), and notes that most of the disappearances will compete with Airbus in the export market.

On the bright side, Airbus can look forward to selling one of very few global options during its production run. The C-17 line is about to close, and the Chinese aren’t quite ready to join the inter-theater airlift competition with their Y-20. That leaves the A400M up against the smaller C-130/ KC-390 class 20-ton capacity intra-theater transports, Ukraine’s comparable but ailing An-70 turboprop program, and Russia’s IL-476 jet. Airbus officials tout Lockheed Martin’s super-long sales period for the C-130, but that’s only because it had enough domestic and foreign orders to keep its line open continuously. If Airbus’ core customers cannibalize its near-term export sales and shut the production line, the program may not have a long term to sell in. Sources: Defense-Aerospace, “Ceremony Opens A400M Profitability Challenge”

The Big Ceremony
click for video

Sept 30/13: France. A delivery ceremony for the 1st A400M is held at the Airbus Military Final Assembly Line in Seville, Spain. French and Spanish dignitaries are present, and other deliveries are expected to take place soon. The end of August saw a new A400M flown in Turkish colors, and Sources: French Air Force, “L’A400M Atlas arrive dans les forces” | Airbus Military releases: Aug 28/13, Sept 30/13.

Sept 4/13: Testing. More than a week of gravel airfield testing at Ablitas in northern Spain goes well, with the runway still usable after 25 landings, and no issues with the engines or cockpit, and damage to the A400M “minimal and within expectations.”

Demonstrations included ground maneuvering, rejected take-offs, and propeller reverse thrust at speeds as low as 70kt / 130 kmh, both with and without the optional nosewheel deflector. Sources: Airbus Military, Sept 4/13 release.

Aug 2/13: France. French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian confirms France’s official target of 50 A400Ms by 2025, but also confirms that the new defense budget would see only 15 A400Ms delivered by 2019, instead of the 27 envisioned in the 2010 agreement. He adds that after 2019, those requirements could change:

“Je n’ai pas fait mes arbitrages pour savoir ce qu’il y aura apres 2019…. Le nombre d’A400M sur le total d’avions de transport dont nous aurons besoin n’est pas fixe.”

France can’t reduce the 50-plane order without heavy financial penalties. What they could do is add more A400Ms to a growing second-hand sales pool, stifling Airbus exports (q.v. July 26/13). Les Echos [in French].

Aug 1/13: France. France accepts delivery of the 1st production A400M. It will head immediately to Orleans-Bricy air base, where it will be used as a training platform. The plane will eventually become part of the French Air Force operational transport fleet. France DGA [ in French] | Airbus Military.

France accepts 1st A400M

July 26/13: Spain. The Spanish government approves an extra EUR 877.33 million (about $1.165 billion) in their 2013 budget, in order to finance payments that have come due on several major weapons programs. Just EUR 46.6 million of that total involves the Airbus A400M. At the same time, they will look to sell half of their proposed A400M fleet, and make cuts in other programs, in order to finance investments in their troubled S-80 submarine program, and purchases of their Pizarro (ASCOD 2) tracked IFVs:

“Contractually, Spain has to take all of the 27 A400Ms it has ordered,” a spokesman for Airbus Military told defense-aerospace.com July 29, “but if it wants to sell some of them, we have nothing to say.” He also said that the first 14 aircraft are due to be delivered by 2020, and that a decision to sell off the aircraft on will not be taken until after then, “so it’s still some time off.” He added that Spain’s final 13 A400Ms would be delivered in an austere configuration, without many mission systems, to reduce cost.

Germany also intends to sell 13 of their A400Ms, as a Parliamentary condition of accepting the revised 2010 deal. That cut-rate pool of 26 second-hand planes is larger than orders in all but 2 core countries, which means it’s going to put a crimp in export orders. That isn’t ideal for Airbus, but it isn’t completely negative. If they don’t meet their export targets for new-build planes, they don’t have to pay back their EUR 1.5 billion “Export Levy Facility” loan from the core partner countries. Sources: Defense-Aerospace | Publico [in Spanish].

July 21-22/13: Certification. France may be proceeding to military type certification of the A400M, but Der Spiegel reports that Germany will have serious trouble. Germany is behind France in its delivery schedule, but close enough to delivery that certification needs to start now. Unfortunately, the commercial/ OCCAR approach to certification is incompatible with German law. It needs official Bundeswehr approval from the Federal Office of Bundeswehr Equipment, Information Technology and In-Service Support (BAAINBw), working with the quality standards authority in Koblenz or the Military Technical Department 61 in Manching, Bavaria.

The bad news? Instead of the dozen qualified inspectors they’d need, a decade of steady cuts has left the BAAINBw with no qualified inspectors, and misplaced confidence in an external solution has left them with no legally-compliant plan. Both problems might have been solved with the planned Europe-wide military certification, but Europe hasn’t established any such system. Meanwhile, Airbus Military points rather inflexibly to the production contract, which doesn’t have any provisions for German inspectors to oversee final assembly.

As a result, plans explicitly designed to cut the cost of German licensing may end up backfiring, and create a situation in which the German inspectors who must be involved in certification can’t obtain the information they need to certify, but are still held personally responsible under German law in the event of an accident.

BWB undersecretary Stephane Beemelmans has formed a working group (q.v. Dec 20/12), whose May 31/13 memo recommends the immediate hire of 6 people at basic salaries up to EUR 108,000 per year, and the eventual creation in Cologne, Munster, or Manching of a national military certification agency of up to 400 employees within 4 years. Meanwhile, he’s trying to push the concept of a “virtual” national military aviation authority for the operation to certify the A400M. The legality of that approach could end up being decided by a court, and if it is, German A400M flight operations would be placed in a precarious legal position.

Germany’s defense ministry responds to subsequent questions from Bloomberg by emailing a response that doesn’t answer any of the key questions: “The timely delivery of the German A400M, according to the contract changes from 2010, is secure at this time.” Maybe, but delivery doesn’t mean you can fly them. Der Spiegel | Bloomberg.

July 19/13: Certification. The Certification and Qualification Committee of experts from the 7 A400M partner countries recommend its certification to France’s DGA, who is expected to accept that recommendation and issue a certificate in time for final acceptance of the 1st plane. The DGA acts as France’s technical authority, which is responsible for issuing a military type certificate allowing A400M flights.

Civil certification by EASA is its own separate process, and so is military qualification by the EU’s managing Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation (OCCAR). DGA [in French].

April 22/13: UK Costs. In response to a Parliamentary question from Angus Robertson [SNP – Moray], UK Secretary of State for Defence Dunne says that their A400M program is likely to come in around GBP 770 million over initial approval costs (around $1.23 billion), despite a cut in the fleet’s size from 25 to 22 planes. As Dunne explains, however:

“It should be noted that the cost variation quoted is assessed against MOD project approval figures, which represent the total MOD costs for any particular project. They therefore do not necessarily reflect contractual obligations. Project performance can be affected by a number of reasons, not all of which are in the contractor’s control.”

Dunne also acknowledges a conflict between this information and his written answer to Mr. Robertson on Nov 6/12, which listed EADS as having 0 projects over budget. The difference? This answer acknowledges Airbus Military as part of EADS, and it also addresses forecast costs rather than budgets to date. Mr. Dunne adds “the passage of time” to that list, making one wonder what has changed in the last 5 months. UK Hansard.

March 14/13: UK. UK minister for defence equipment, support and technology Philip Dunne confirms to Flight International that new RAF A400Ms won’t have in-flight refueling pods added to let them perform as aerial tankers, because:

“The Ministry of Defence has recently refreshed its study into requirements for air-to-air refuelling capability. This concluded that Voyager will meet all requirements; therefore, there is no need for an air-to-air refuelling capability by the A400M Atlas.”

Does Mr. Dunne even read his own press releases? The RAF’s new A330 Voyager MRTTs lack key defensive systems, in order to avoid conflicts with their secondary use as civil charter planes. Those kinds of warning and decoy systems are necessary for refueling aircraft in hazardous environments, as several Parliamentary reports have noted. Dunne’s own March 4/13 announcement touted their importance to the A400M. Flight International.

March 13/13: EASA cert. Airbus Military announces full EASA (European Aviation Safety Agency) civil Type Certification for the A400M. Civil certification is and long and arduous process, and its completion means that the A400M will be able to take advantage of fuel and time saving civil air routes.

French military certification trials continue, but they’re a separate issue. So, too, are other ongoing tests for advanced military functions, including air-to-air refueling when equipped with hose & drogue pods, airdropping of supplies and paratroopers, and low-level flight. Airbus Military.

Full EASA Type certification

March 6/13: Testing. Maiden flight of the 1st production-model A400M, which will be delivered to the French Armee de l’Air. Airbus Military.

March 4/13: UK LAIRCM mods. The UK MoD announces a GBP 80 million (about $120 million) contract to develop and install A400M modifications that would let it support Northrop Grumman’s LAIRCM defense system against optically-guided missiles. Those kinds of systems provide, in the words of UK minister Phillip Dunne, “essential defensive capability and peace of mind when operating in hostile environments.”

LAIRCM is designed to equip large aircraft, rather than fighter jets. It detects incoming missiles, and fires a laser at the seeker head. It isn’t powerful enough to destroy the missile, but by varying the pulses, it can provide massive false returns to the seeker. UK MoD

March 4/13: UK. The UK Ministry of Defence signs an 18-year, GBP 226 million ($340 million) contract with Airbus Military and Thales UK to supply RAF A400M training services. The contract is technically with the A400M Training Services Ltd. joint venture between those 2 firms. The contract will design, build, and manage the A400M Atlas Training School for aircrew and ground crews at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire, including the full flight simulators and all synthetic training equipment, and support the RAF’s own course design team and training staff.

The simulators will be built at Thales UK’s facility in Crawley, West Sussex. They’ll include 2 full flight simulators for RAF pilots, a specialist workstation to train loadmasters, a cockpit simulator to train engineers, and a suite of computer-based training equipment.

Note that this is not the same as the joint support deal said to be in negotiations with France, but this infrastructure will accompany that eventual solution. UK MoD | Airbus Military.

UK training facilities

Feb 18/13: France. The EU’s OCCAR signs an initial 18-month In-Service Support (ISS) contract, on behalf of the French Armee de l’Air. The amount isn’t revealed, but it covers industrial on-base maintenance support, spares management, extended query answering service, etc. for the initial operating base at Orleans.

In November 2012, Airbus Military proposed that this 18-month period should be followed by an extension that adds the UK. “The parties concerned are currently discussing this offer with an expectation to reach an agreement during the second semester of this year.” Airbus Military.

Initial support: France

Jan 15/13: MSN7, the 1st production A400M, rolls out of the Seville hangar in French air force colors. It’s scheduled for delivery around mid-2013. Airbus Military.

2012

A400M becomes “Atlas”; French Senat report concerned about support; Initial certifications. Final assembly
(click to view full)

Dec 20/12: Germany. Germany’s defense ministry approves he formation of a working group to “develop an organization for the safe use of Bundeswehr aircraft and aviation equipment for transportation.” The deadline for their initial report in May 31/13.

What they really mean is that the A400M’s flight certification process doesn’t mesh with German laws, and they need a fast fix. See July 22/13 entry for more. Source: Der Spiegel.

Dec 10/12: Airbus Military has successfully completed the 300 hours of Function & Reliability (F&R) flight-testing, which had been interrupted by engine troubles. This is the last major step toward full certification. Airbus Military.

Aug 31/12: Engines. Airbus Military re-confirms that it will deliver the expected 4 A400Ms in 2013, though France’s 2nd plane will be a bit late within the year.

They also discuss the engine problems that kept them out of Farnborough air show (vid. July 4/12), which also suspended EASA full Type Certificate (TC). The problem was apparently a crack of a cover plate isolating elements within the Propeller Gear Box (PGB), and Europrop is currently validating a new design. As a consequence, the civil Type Certification and military Initial Operating Capability (IOC) will now move into Q1 2013.

July 9/12: Training. Britain places a GBP 50 million order for its first A400M Full Flight Simulator (FFS) and Simulator Support System (SSS), to be co-located with the A400Ms at RAF Brize Norton. It will be delivered in spring 2014, ahead of the first delivery to the Royal Air Force later in 2014. The FFS will be maintained by a joint venture consisting of Airbus Military and Thales UK’s Training & Simulation Ltd (TTSL). The 2 firms have been working on these simulators since 2007, with Airbus providing the data and software package to faithfully simulate its A400M, and Thales providing the simulator.

These simulators are developed and produced in Crawley, UK, and this is actually the 4th FFS. Airbus Military’s International Training Centre in Seville, Spain ordered the 1st, and France and Germany ordered #2 and 3. UK Prime Minister’s Office | Airbus Military.

July 7/12: The EU’s OCCAR and the A400M program countries give their transport an official operational designation: “Atlas.” That’s better than some of the suggestions out there, vid. July 19/10 entry.

The previous “Grizzly” moniker was an unofficial handle, used for the test planes. Airbus Military | UK MoD.

A400M Atlas

July 5/12: French Senat support report. With deliveries about the begin, the French Senate committee on foreign affairs and defense releases its examination of the A400M’s certification and support arrangements, while expressing the hope that budget austerity won’t cut existing A400M orders any further. They’re concerned that the support agreements look set to be a series of individual country arrangements, especially for the engines, and that basic provisions like a common spare parts pool aren’t being established. That will be much more expensive, and the Senat explains that 2/3 of a plane’s total lifetime cost is tied up operations & maintenance (in French, the acronym is MCO). On the other hand, individual arrangements would also let each country support its own local aerospace companies with maintenance contracts. All politics is local, so the French will have a very difficult time realizing the Senat’s ideal:

“En particulier, le principe du juste retour doit être définitivement abandonné et liberté doit être donnée aux industriels contractants de choisir leurs sous-traitants en fonction de leurs compétences et non pas de leur nationalité.”

The Senat may have more luck with their push for a common certification process, especially in light of the multi-national EATC transport pool. Common certification would simplify multi-national deployment of planes in the pool, but the Senat also sees a European military flight certification process as an important brand item for weapons exports. Senat Release | Full report [PDF, all documents in French]. See also Oct 12/11 entry.

Senat report: MCO

July 4/12: Atlas shrugs. Unexplained metallic shards in an engine gearbox will keep the A400M from performing its flight display at Farnborough 2012. The plane will be on static display instead.

The British event is the world’s most important airshow, and engine problems also cut short its planned flights at the Paris Air Show (“Le Bourget”) last year. This is a sensible precaution under the circumstances, but none of this will improve the already-poor relations between Airbus and Europrop. Bloomberg | Reuters.

No Farnborough flight

May 29/12: Engines. Flight International looks at the TP400-D6 turboprop engine sub-program’s progress and history. EPI President Simon Henley describes it as designed “for a civil-standard life, with all of the commercial reliability and availability aspects you’d design, but in a military environment.” Other key excerpts:

“An in-flight shutdown in June [2011] led to redesign of the engine’s idler gear, while the inlet vane was tweaked after the discovery of high-pressure compressor blade fatigue… In the course of bringing the TP400-D6 to series production, assembly was consolidated at MTU Aero Engines’ Munich facility and pass-off testing at MTU’s site in Ludwigsfelde, near Berlin… Having the TP400-D6 line at Munich was seen as a route to greater efficiency for MTU, which could move manpower between different lines – commercial and military… ramp-up plans provide for annual production to reach a peak of 120 in 2015. EPI aims to reduce the time to assemble and test a TP400-D6 from an initial 60 days to 30 days. The engine is flat-rated at 10,000shp (7,460kW) at sea level, and has an uprated take-off capability of 11,000shp for hot and high conditions.”

May 30/12: South Africa. Denel Aerostructures (once Denel Saab Aero) is still losing money, and has pushed expected profitability back to 2016/17. They’re on track to deliver their first A400M parts this year, reportedly losing money on producing A400M parts, but have renegotiated with Airbus and raised prices. They’d better, because Airbus appears to be their only large customer. They just received a R700 million (currently about $82 million) capital injection from the National Treasury. IOL BusinessReport | Mail & Guardian.

May 5/12: EASA RTC. Airbus Military has received the A400M’s initial Restricted Type Certificate from the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). Full EASA civil certification is expected in mid-2012, and military Initial Operating Clearance is expected later in 2012. Certifications are often overlooked, but without them, new aircraft usually won’t be accepted into military service.

Europrop International has been ahead of the overall aircraft in this respect: its TP400-D6 engine got EASA type certification in May 2011, while the propeller was certified in March 2012. Relations with Airbus Military are still poor, however, as emphasized by this excerpt from the Airbus release:

“The fleet of five A400M development aircraft continues to make good progress in the intense flight-test campaign in order to ensure delivery of a reliable aircraft to our customer and has now completed more than 3,100 hours in the air, despite continued engine challenges.”

Certifications

March 30/12: High altitude testing. Airbus Military announces that A400M “Grizzly 2” recently visited La Paz, Bolivia, to perform high-altitude tests from an airport located more than 13,000 feet above mean sea level.

The firm also used the trip to do some promotion, showing the plane at the FIDAE airshow in Chile, and visiting Lima, Peru. Chile had an option for up to 3 A400Ms, but seems set to order Brazil’s KC-390s instead. Peru may prove to be more promising.

March 22/12: Prop certified. The European Aviation Safety Agency grants United Technologies Hamilton Sundstrand subsidiary Ratier-Figeac a FH385/386 propeller system type certificate. This is an important certification milestone for the platform, and for the 11,000 hp engine that drives the 8-bladed, all-composite, 17.5 foot diameter propellers.

This is the largest all-composite propeller in production, which handles twice the power of any existing in-service propeller. The firm says that it offers a thrust efficiency peak close to 90% at high cruise speeds, and each wing features a pair of clockwise and counter-clockwise rotating propellers for added aircraft stability and control.

In addition to the propeller system, Hamilton Sundstrand and its subsidiaries supply the A400M’s Secondary Electrical Power Distribution Center (SEPDC), Auxiliary Power Unit (APU), Ram Air Turbine (RAT) emergency power system, Trimmable Horizontal Stabilizer Actuator (THSA), and the Throttle Control Assembly (TCA). Hamilton Sundstrand.

2011

Series production restarts, but engine still a source of friction; Export targets? Certifiable
(click to view full)

Oct 12/11: MRO. The head of France’s DGA, Laurent Collet-Billon, has told the Assemblée Nationale’s defense commission that Airbus’ maintenance proposals have not been satisfactory, “…notably as regards to the engine.” Without a negotiated maintenance contract, the DGA is threatening to refuse to accept the planes, which would hold up the associated payments.

France is due to be the plane’s 1st operational customer, in March 2013. That requires a first-increment maintenance contract, until Britain begins to receive its planes and a joint maintenance contract can be signed. Les Echos is reporting that the price gap in current negotiations is around 20%.

Kepler Capital equity analyst Christophe Menard also points out that European MRO budgets are set to decline on average by 3.8% per year between 2010-2015, which helps explain the DGA’s drive for savings. On the other hand, Airbus can’t afford to bleed a lot more cash on the A400M project, and they can’t agree to another unrealistic plan like the A400M’s ruinous design phase. To make matters worse, ongoing distrust between Airbus and Europrop appears to be pushing Airbus to seek a significant margin of financial safety, before they will commit to a maintenance contract that includes the A400M’s engines. Aviation Week | Dow Jones | Les Echos and Commission de la défense nationale et des forces armées [both in French].

Sept 17/11: Testing. A400M “Grizzly 1” performs the grueling “high-energy rejected take-off test.” That means it was loaded to the maximum take-off weight, then made a take-off run that was aborted at the V1 decision speed – the maximum speed at which the pilot has to decide whether to continue a take-off. Grizzly-1 blew out 3 tires stopping the plane, which isn’t unusual under the circumstances, and the test was considered a success. Airbus Military.

June 12/11: Marketing. Aviation Week talks to Airbus Military SVP of commercial business, Antonio Rodriguez Barberan. He sees the A400M as dominant by default within a decade, as Boeing’s C-17 line shuts down. Airbus Military’s estimate is 2,450 heavy transport aircraft around the world that are on average 26 years old. 1,015 are in North America, followed by Russia with 475:

“Barberan and his team know which countries to target when they ramp up marketing next year: those with major air forces and a large number of old transport aircraft – such as C-130s, C-17s and Ilyushin Il-76s. “In the next 10 years Asia will be a major market,” he says, except for China… Other candidates include Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates… “In the medium-to-long term the U.S. market is huge and there is a capability gap which the A400M would fill in due time.” This is also true for Australia, which recently procured C-130s, “but in 20 years, when these are becoming old, we will be there.” No presentations have yet been made to India, “but due to the size of the market the A400M would be perfect,” he says.”

May 6/11: Engine cert. Europrop International GmbH (EPI) announces that their TP400-D6 engine has received European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) type certification. It is the first large turboprop engine to have been certified by EASA, and the first military engine to have been certified by EASA to civil standards from the outset. EPI.

May 3/11: Europrop International GmbH (EPI) announces that have finalized an amendment to their agreement with Airbus Military SL for the TP400 engine. The firm says that the amendment resolves all existing issues, but doesn’t give details.

See also March 16/11 entry. EPI | Flight International.

Europrop settlement & certification

March 24/11: Testing. The A400M completes Vmu tests for the lowest feasible takeoff speed. Airbus Military.

March 16/11: Aviation Week reports that the qualified progress between OCCAR and Airbus Military could lead to agreement between the Europrop International (EPI) TP400-D6 engine consortium and Airbus Military, to settle conflicting compensation claims over engine-related delays. Airbus wants EUR 500 million in damages from EPI, and EPI counterclaims EUR 425 million from Airbus. The overall program’s limbo has had a predictably chilling effect on settling this issue.

Former Europrop EVP Jacques Desclaux, who left in January 2011, says the firm is already working according to the broad terms of the OCCAR-Airbus agreement, and believes the OCCAR deal will finalize “within a few weeks.” Meanwhile, engine FADEC software is now flying on 2 of the 4 development aircraft, with software and A400M civil certification planned for the end of 2011. European Aviation Safety Agency engine certification wasn’t really set up for turboprops, just turbofan jets. EASA certification is expected soon, however, and initial production deliveries of the 11,000 shp engines are expected to start in April 2012, with 8 (2 aircraft sets) delivered by the end of 2012, and 16 by the end of 2013. Production won’t really take off until 2014, in part as a result of lessons from the A380 to go slow and incorporate changes that emerge from testing.

Desclaux does say that in at least one instance, debris ingestion during a test of unprepared/rough runway performance forced a safe shutdown, without internal failures in the engine, and subsequent engine removal. That’s not alarming, but it is a good example. The A400M is supposed to handle those conditions, and depending on what engineers find, there could be design changes.

March 9/11: ELF payments. France pays EUR 417 million into the Export Levy Facility, as its share of the EUR 1.5 billion total. The money will be paid back as (or rather, if) the plane reaches specific export targets outside the consortium.

Meanwhile, consortium member Belgium has paid EUR 200 million to Airbus so far, of its EUR 891 million bill for 7 A400Ms to replace its current fleet of 11 C-130s. L’Express | Belgium’s 7 Sur 7.

March 9/11: Leadership. EADS announces that the first 4 production (non-test) A400Ms will be produced in 2012, adding that the production rate will gradually be ramped up to 2.5 aircraft per month by the end of 2015.

They are also replacing program head Rafael Tentor, who has led the programme for the last 4 years, with EADS Sogerm President & CEO Cedric Gautier. Tentor will in turn take over all other Airbus Military programs, covering the C212/ CN235/ C295, as well as the A330 MRTT and all other tanker conversions.

March 7/11: Reports surface that last-minute negotiations with Britain and Turkey have prevented the A400M consortium deal from unraveling, but as of March 9/11, A400M production is restarting without agreement from those 2 countries. Defense News | Reuters.

March 3/11: Testing. Airbus Military has successfully completed the number of required simulated flight-cycles on a full scale test airframe to achieve European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) civil type certification for the A400M.

The MSN5001 test specimen at Dresden has undergone 1,665 cycles, about 5 times the maximum number of flights expected to be recorded annually by each A400M in service. By mid-2012, 25,000 simulated flights will be performed – about 2.5 times the A400M’s design-life. See also Jan 18/11 entry. Airbus Military.

Cold weather

Feb 8/11: Testing. The A400M does initial cold weather trials in Kiruna, Sweden, accompanied by an Airbus A340-300 carrying support equipment and the test team. It will experience further cold weather testing in Kiruna and at other locations this winter and next. Flight International.

Jan 25/11: 40 for Germany? The governing German Free Democrats’ deputy caucus leader, Juergen Koppelin, says that Germany will stick to its pledge of 53 A400Ms plus 7 options. On the other hand, the options are dead, and Germany now plans to retain a fleet of only 40, and resell 13 on the global market. AP | Defense News.

Jan 20/11: Training. CAE announces a contract from Airbus Military to design and manufacture an A400M cockpit maintenance operation simulator (CMOS) based on CAE Simfinity virtual maintenance trainer (VMT) technology, to support maintenance technician training. The training device will feature virtual displays of the A400M aircraft, cockpit and maintenance accessible areas to provide familiarization, troubleshooting and procedural training for maintenance technicians.

The A400M CMOS will be and will be delivered to the Airbus Military training centre in Seville, Spain in 2012. The base contract includes options for CAE to develop additional A400M CMOS devices, as well as other A400M training systems for maintenance technicians. The contract’s value is cloaked by its presence within a scattershot set of announcements worth a total of “more than $140 million.”

Jan 20/11: Germany. Lawmakers from Germany’s Free Democratic Party symbolically delay their approval of Germany’s EUR 500 million share of the A400M loan agreement. German approval is seen as the last hurdle to signing the program’s contract changes. The vote is now on the Budget Committee’s agenda for next week, where it is expected to pass. Bloomberg.

Jan 18/11: Testing. Airbus Military announces that:

“Major fatigue testing of the Airbus Military A400M has begun on schedule in Dresden in January (see attached photos). The test airframe, known as MSN5001, will be subjected to a punishing regime of loads, 24 hours per day, for an initial four weeks, eventually simulating 160 flights per day. The first 1,665 simulated flights are required for European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) type certification of the A400M, but over the next 18 months a total of 25,000 simulated flights will be performed – equating to 2.5 times the A400M´s design-life. Static testing of another A400M test airframe, MSN5000 was completed in Madrid in September 2010. That airframe continues to be used for further fatigue tests of composite structures which will last until early 2012.”

Jan 12/11: A400M series production restarts, as EADS lifts its suspension. EADS CEO Louis Gallois says the firm still believes there will be global demand for 400-500 A400Ms, but added that EADS will not mount an export sales campaign until the A400M is flying with the launch customers. EADS plans to deliver the first A400M in Q1 2013, which means the decision will give competitors like the C-130J and KC-390 a substantial window of opportunity. Defense News.

Re-start

2010

Re-negotiated contract is the year’s big focus, and event; South Africa cancellation still at loose ends; CEO jumps from A400M. No pressure…
(click to view full)

Dec 20/10: Testing. “Grizzly 4” makes its first flight, and the fleet of A400M development aircraft completes just over 1,000 hours flight-time and 300 flights n 2010. The overall flight test program will include 5 aircraft and over 3,700 flight hours. Airbus Military

Nov 13/10: CEO jump. A 10-man team of project staff jumps from A400M “Grizzly 3’s” ramp over the La Juliana drop-zone near Seville, Spain. Talk about pressure: it includes Airbus President and CEO Tom Enders, and OCCAR’s A400M Programme Manager Bruno Delannoy. Both men are experienced skydivers, and the team of 10 had 35,000 previous descents between them.

A stunt? A lark? Both – but also a compelling and dead-serious way of putting oneself behind the company/ team’s products, so soon after the very 1st jump. Color us impressed. Airbus Military.

Nov 12/10: Malaysia. Malaysia’s official Bernama press agency reports that Malaysia remains committed to its order for 4 Airbus A400Ms, adding that “It was reported last year that Malaysia, which would receive the planes in 2013, would not have to fork out extra money for the four air-lifters it ordered in 2005.”

A400M flight-test
(click to view full)

Nov 5/10: A contract at last. An agreement was signed March 5/10, but that wasn’t a contract, and some details remained. The terms of the finalized negotiations with OCCAR and the 7 A400M launch customer nations (Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Spain, Turkey) are mostly the same as the March 5/10 announcement: Another EUR 2 billion for system design & development, EUR 1.5 billion repayable pending exports, accelerated pre-delivery payments from 2010-2014, and a EUR 1.8 billion FY 2009 write-down that turns EADS’ income negative for that year.

Britain has reduced its order from 25 to 22 planes, and there were rumors that Germany would drop its order from 60 to 53, losing a total of 10 confirmed orders. Later reports indicate that the final agreement converted those 7 German and 3 British planes into options instead, which is much the same thing. It also reportedly removed automated low-level flight technology, allowing Germany to save EUR 670 million (about $940 million). The remaining sticking point remains the timing of those accelerated payments, which will now be negotiated in a contract amendment. EADS | Bloomberg BusinessWeek | Reuters India.

New contract

Nov 4/10: Testing. “Grizzly 3” is used for the A400M’s first paradrop, as 6 freefall paratroopers from the UK armed forces (2), French armed forces (2), and the French Centre d’Essais en Vol (2) jump in separate passes from 6,000 feet, at the Fonsorbes drop zone near Toulouse, France. Four of them jumped from the left-hand side door, and two from the ramp.

The paratroopers reportedly liked the A400M as a jumping platform. That may be related to the plane’s low 110 kt/ 203 kmh stable air speed, and also to a pair of small deflectors installed ahead of the side door, after previous tests with balloons and dummies noted turbulence and noise problems inside. Airbus Military | Flight International.

Aug 4/10: Testing. Airbus Military announces that the A400M’s all-composite wing has passed stress tests that subjected the design to 150% of the maximum bending load expected during the type’s operational life, which moved the aircraft’s wingtips upwards by 1.41m/ 4.6 feet. Airbus Military | Flight International.

July 29/10: Program update. During an investors’ briefing, EADS reports a more than 50% decrease in profit in first half underlying earnings compared to 2009, “weighed down mainly by exceptional negative foreign exchange impacts.” They also had this to say:

“The percentage of completion methodology was resumed on the A400M programme. In the second quarter, based on the allocation of internal milestones, around [EUR] 300 million in revenues were booked on the programme. Customer Nations and EADS continue working towards a contract amendment. In the meantime, the A400M flight test programme is progressing better than expected; however, the development of the Flight Management System is on the critical path, with more challenges than expected. Risk mitigation actions are being undertaken. Management assumptions of March 2010 underpinning the A400M provision calculation remain valid. As previously indicated, reassessment of these assumptions could have a significant impact on future results. “

See EADS | Defense News.

July 19/10: A400M-T Grizzly. The A400M gets a name: “A400M Grizzly,” after the North American bear. The name has been in unofficial use by the aircraft’s flight test crew for some time. “Atlas” was one of the more commonly-floated alternatives. Slyer suggestions included “Airavata,” the name of the Indian deity Indra’s white elephant. Technically, this designation applies only to the 5-plane test aircraft fleet. Airbus Military had this to say:

“The new name is not the product of an expensive marketing study, nor something devised by a team of branding experts, nor the result of months of debate among the sales team. Instead it is the affectionate nickname given to the aircraft by the close-knit group of flight test pilots and engineers who first saw it safely into the air… The Flight Test Team seized on the resemblance between the mighty airlifter’s hunched appearance and the muscular shoulders of the grizzly bear… By the time of the first flight on 11th December, the name had stuck sufficiently firmly that it was adopted as the aircraft’s radio callsign – Grizzly One.

Furthermore, a little-known fact is that the first flight also carried a party of non-human passengers – teddy bears to raise funds for the EADS-sponsored charity Aviation Without Borders – a nice reminder of the Grizzly’s future role in civic and humanitarian missions. The name rapidly spread throughout Airbus Military and beyond, and at the ILA Berlin airshow in June 2010 an informal Grizzly One logo appeared on MSN1 when it made its first public airshow appearance.”

July 11/10: South Africa. South Africa canceled its 8-plane order in November 2009, but the exact terms must be negotiated. A January 2010 deadline has passed, and the South African government has put Airbus on legal notice to recover its deposit. Airbus Military has already canceled one of South African A400M supplier orders (to Denel Saab Aerostructures) and expressed its intent to cancel its other orders and industrial offset investments without South African orders. It has also reportedly made an offer to supply 4 A400Ms at ZAR 4.3 billion (about $570 million), without the first 2 years’ maintenance costs, with credit given for South Africa’s ZAR 2.9 billion deposit. IOL.

July 7/10: Germany. Germany is reportedly considering dropping its A400M orders from 60 to 53, and taking 15 of its aged 83-plane C160 transport fleet out of service, as part of EUR 9 billion in long term cuts. That could be challenging, as the new agreement allows for a 10-plane cut, and Germany and Britain together would take up all 10. That may create resistance, if partners like Spain also wish to cut their orders. Reuters.

July 7/10: France. A parliamentary defense committee hearing gets initial details from defense minister Herve Morin re: future programs. Morin said that the French A400M orders would go ahead as planned, as would its Barracuda nuclear-powered fast attack submarine, Felin advanced infantry set, FREMM multimission frigate, Rafale fighter and VBCI armored vehicle.

Plans to field 14 new A330 MRTTs to replace France’s C-135FR aerial tankers would be delayed, and so would a EUR 700 million life extension and air defense upgrade for France’s Mirage 2000D strike aircraft, a major upgrade to the national airspace command-and-control system, and elements of the Scorpion land systems modernization program. Defense News.

July 7/10: Testing. Test aircraft MSN 3 makes its first flight, joining MSN 1 & 2 in the air at the same time. The fleet passes the milestone of 100 test flights and 400 flight hours. Airbus Military.

June 8/10: 1st public flight. As ILA 2010 kicks off in Berlin, the A400M made its first public flight – but German Defense Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg chose not to attend. Bloomberg reports that despite the March 2010 financing agreement:

“Since then, the two sides have failed to produce a written contract, as European states grapple with the fallout from deficit crises gripping the region… [The agreement] allowed the ordering countries to cut the total number of planes by 10. The U.K. took up the offer first, saying it would take as many as three fewer A400Ms. Germany has also said it will likely take fewer than 60 units. Negotiations remain difficult because of the number of countries involved and the challenging economic climate, Domingo Urena, who heads Airbus Military, said at the show today. Urena oversees the A400M, the A330 tanker and smaller transport planes. “I cannot deny that the economic situation is making things more difficult,” he said.”

See also OCCAR pictures and video of the flight demonstration.

March 29/10: UK. The UK MoD announces that its still in the A400M program, but may be buying fewer aircraft than the 25 originally planned:

“…Following discussions between Partner Nations and Airbus Military, an agreement in principle has been reached… which will provide the basis for a formal contract amendment in the coming months. Under the revised agreement, Airbus Military will deliver at least 22 aircraft.”

Though this is not yet set in stone, Aviation Week wonders about Germany in particular as it asks: “Who Will Cut A400M Next??”

March 24/10: France. French DGA head Laurent Collet-Billon tells a French parliamentary defense committee that the A400M contract is expected to be finalized in June 2010. The 10% increase in cost per aircraft can be handled within existing budgets, but France’s EUR 400 million contribution to the export levy will come from the general budget, appearing after 2020 and being staggered over several years. Exact numbers won’t be clear until the 2010 -2014 payment plan becomes clear.

In order to keep the base program within France’s budgets, delivery delays mean that the Armée de l’Air will have just 35 A400Ms by 2020. Meanwhile, its 51 Transall C-160s, 14 C-130Hs and 19 Casa CN-235s can only meet 25% of the freight target set by France’s most recent defense white paper.

France is in talks with Britain and Spain on a common A400M maintenance program, but Germany has opted to go its own way. Defense News.

March 12/10: Marketing. Airbus says that it expects production of the A400M’s limited operational configuration to begin in 2010.

It also has visions of selling 210 A400Ms to the US government, despite the now-entrenched position of Lockheed Martin’s C-130J in the USAF and SOCOM fleets, and the object lesson of being shoved out of the KC-X aerial tanker competition. Associated Press | Dow Jones | Business Week

March 10/10: Testing. A400M MSN1 performs a test flight from Seville, Spain, then flies on to Toulouse, France for further testing. The humidity associated with Seville’s recent weather had been affecting the instrumentation on the turboprop blades.

So far, MSN1 has logged 39 flight hours, flying up to 30,000 feet and reaching its maximum operating speed of 300 knots (555 km/h) and Mach 0.72, and down to its stall warning speed. MSN2 has been handed over for flight tests with the same heavy test instrumentation as MSN1; MSN3 is in production ground tests, and is slated for flight testing with medium instrumentation in mid-2010; and MSN4 is in final assembly and scheduled to begin flights with medium instrumentation by the end of 2010. The 5th aircraft, MSN6, will be the first built to production standards, and fitted with light instrumentation. Airbus Military release.

March 6/10: MSN2. Test aircraft MSN2 is handed over. Source.

A400M: timely aid
(click to view full)

March 5/10: Negotiations – initial agreement. EADS officially announces that an agreement has been struck to continue the A400M program. Governments will add an additional EUR 2 billion in funds, and EUR 1.5 billion in loans that would be repaid as exports are booked – and presumably not repaid if exports flop. In addition, the agreement waives all late penalties, and will accelerate pre-delivery payments from 2010-2014 – a form of stealth contribution due to net present value considerations, whose exact amount have not been finalized. Formal approval by European defense ministers is expected March 8/10.

The A400M will also enter service with reduced capabilities. Cargo capacity will go down by “several hundred kilograms,” but the Germans will not budge on their insistence that the A400M be able to transport their 31.45t/ 34.667-ton Puma IFVs in Class A armor configuration. They have reportedly relented on their unique requirement for a sensor-coupled autopilot system that would handle the dangerous task of very low-level flying, in order to assist with special forces insertions and remain below hostile radars. The A400M’s air-air refueling capabilities have not been scrapped, but they have reportedly been pushed back to a future upgrade.

In response to the deal, EADS is raising its FY 2009 loss provisions for the A400M to EUR 1.8 billion pre-tax, turning its EBIT and net income negative. EADS’ 15% shareholder Daimler AG may also face a writedown, in Q1 2010. Exact results will be released at EADS’ Full Year 2009 disclosure on March 9/10, but this addition to previous write-downs would reportedly push EADS’ realized losses to EUR 4.2 billion.

As an additional industrial twist, Reuters reports that Spain has submitted a written proposal to relocate jobs, tools and machinery from Filton, UK to the final assembly site at Seville, Spain, if Britain weakens its purchase commitment in the next defense review, or balks over its share of additional costs in the re-negotiated agreement. Britain has yet to agree on what form its extra financial commitment should take. The key manufacturing obstacle would involve transferring Filton’s massive jigs that hold the wings in place. There are reports that Spain’s government, already hurting from Greek-level annual deficits and depression-level unemployment, would pay for their disassembly and transport. EADS release | French DGA [in French] | AP | AP re: capabilities reduced | Aviation Week | BusinessWeek | UK’s Daily Telegraph | Defense News | Deutsche Welle | Flight International | Sweden’s The Local | NY Times | Reuters | Reuters re: Spain vs. UK | Seattle Post-Intelligencer | Wall St. Journal | WSJ re: Daimler.

Feb 15/10: Negotiations. EADS receives a new offer from the A400M’s 7 member governments. There are reports that it includes another EUR 1.5 billion in loan guarantees and EUR 2 billion in additional payments, which falls short of the EUR 4.4 billion in additional government costs that EADS had sought. At the same time, the German government has been forced to deny reports that it would tap guarantees from the Deutschland Fund state aid pool and loans from the KfW state development bank, in order to make its contribution.

Financial Times Deutschland reported that options on the table from Airbus’ end may include a stripped-down initial version of the A400M that seeks only civil certification, with subsequent upgrades to the full military version.

EADS spokesman Alexander Reinhardt says the company is now studying the offer and “we will answer it in due time.” EADS has said it needs a decision so it can book its share of the cost overruns in its 2009 financial results to be released on March 9/10, rather than carrying them over into 2010. AP | Aviation Week Ares | Bloomberg | Capital Business | Defense News | New York Times | Reuters | Straits Times.

Jan 1-7/10: Negotiations. Airbus spokesperson Stefan Schaffrath admits that a cancellation of the A400M project has become a realistic scenario, and appeals to customer nations to reach a financing agreement by the end of January 2010. Defense representatives of the 7 European partner governments are expected to meet on Jan 14/10, in order to discuss this issue.

Reports also surface in newspapers like Financial Times Deutschland that cost overruns are now estimated at up to EUR 11.3 billion total over the original EUR 20 billion program cost, with EUR 5.3 billion (currently about $7.62 billion) sought as additional customer funding. While various unions are lobbying their member governments to keep the program, reports indicate that Airbus may be offered less than this amount, and Airbus head Thomas Enders reportedly sees odds of an agreement as only 50-50. He has recommended sacrificing the A400M if continuing it will continue to hurt Airbus’ profitable civilian aircraft business, by bleeding its available cash and engineering talent. More to the point, Airbus spokesman Schaffrath confirms that Airbus has developed detailed plans to move all of the A400M program’s engineers to important civilian projects like the A350XWB.

On the flip side, Airbus would have to repay EUR 5.7 billion in development funding, over and above losses already taken. The additional financial impact would be that payout, minus any future loses the company would avoid by canceling the project. If European governments decide to lowball EADS, therefore, it’s likely to be finely calculated to have EADS lose just a bit less than it would lose under a contractor cancellation scenario. With estimates of up to 40,000 direct and indirect jobs depending on the program in Europe and the UK, however, and European prestige on the line, Airbus has some leverage of its own in these negotiations. Financial Times Deutschland [in German] | Agence France Presse | AP re: SAS union | Bloomberg | Der Spiegel | Deutsche Welle | UK Financial Times | Handelsblatt [ in German] | UK’s The Independent | Reuters | UK’s Telegraph | UK’s Times Online. See also Leeham News: “Outlook for Airbus, Boeing in 2010“.

2009

Maiden flight; South Africa cancels order; Negotiations over core country contracts, as French Senat examines what went wrong and EADS takes a big writedown. Cue Violins…
(click to play video)

Dec 11/09: The A400M performs a 3:47 maiden flight, following its take-off from Seville, Spain at 10:15 local time. Airbus Military said that aircraft MSN 1 and its 4 Europrop International TP400D turboprop engines performed as expected. For its first flight, the aircraft took off at a weight of 127 tonnes (metric tons, about 280,000 pounds) rather than its maximum take-off weight of 141 tonnes, carrying 15 tonnes of test equipment that included 2 tonnes of water ballast. A 6-man crew explored the aircraft’s flight envelope within a wide speed range, and tested lowering and raising of the landing gear and high-lift devices at altitude.

MSN1 takes off
(click to view full)

In the first half of 2010, MSN 1 will be joined by MSN 2 and MSN 3. they will be followed by MSN 4 by the end of 2010, and a 5th aircraft in 2011. This fleet will be used for some 3,700 hours of test-flying before the first production A400M delivery to the French Air Force at the end of 2012, then used for additional military development flying. At least, that’s the hope. After reports that the project faces over EUR 5.3 billion in production cost overruns, Airbus CEO Tom Enders reminded reporters that current financing arrangements for A400M development do not work, and some rather large issues remain to be solved:

“I hope we can soon provide certainty that we are able to continue the A400M programme. This is expected by those at Airbus, our partners and suppliers worldwide who contributed so strongly to today’s success as well as by the air forces who wait for their plane.”

German Chancellor Angela Merkel added emphasis to this point, when she said in a Dec 11/09 speech that the flight was good news and that Europe needed a new transport, but added that they could not afford to wait forever for it. Stamford, CT’s Hexcel Corp., which produces composite structures for the A400M, saw the day as unalloyed good news, as its shares jumped on news of the first flight. Airbus military release | Agence France Presse | Barcelona Reporter [incl. video] | Bloomberg | Deutsche Welle | UK’s Financial Times | London Free Press | NY Times | Reuters re: program audit | Reuters re: Merkel | Reuters re: German order | Seattle Post-Intelligencer | UK’s Telegraph | Connecticut Post.

1st flight

Dec 2/09: Negotiations. Officials from the 7 European governments that launched the troubled A400M military transport plane met to try to overcome the program’s contract deadlock. Despite reports that EADS is consideration cancellation of the aircraft, EADS CEO Louis Gallois says that there is no “Plan B”. Meanwhile, the 7 European countries involved in the program will create a panel of industry experts with members from each contract country, in order to advise them as they work toward a new contract. Forbes | NY Times | Reuters | UPI | Wall Street Journal.

Nov 25/09: Negotiations. EADS issues a release that reiterates the Nov 16/09 statement, and:

“…explicitly cautions against the misinterpretation of figures taken out of their context as long as negotiations with the customer OCCAR and the launch nations are ongoing.”

Nov 18/09: Engines. Airbus starts the A400M’s engines at its Seville, Spain facility using the built-in Auxiliary Power Unit instead of external sources, and runs all 4 Europrop International (EPI) TP400 engines on a production aircraft. This is a first for the program, and follows dry and wet cranking the propellers, and tests of the APU.

The engines on aircraft MSN01 were successfully run at low power settings in ground-idle and flight-idle modes for 4 hours. After the first full run, during which the engines performed flawlessly, the engine cowls were opened and inspections showed that there had been no hot-air or fluid leaks. Tests running the engines up to maximum take-off power are planned soon, in line with promises that the aircraft’s first flight would occur by the end of 2009. Airbus Military release.

Nov 16/09: Negotiations. An EADS disclosure statement says that:

“Under a continuation scenario, which is deemed the most probable, the A400M provision for which [EUR] 2.4 billion in charges have already been accrued has a wide range of possible outcomes depending on the negotiation process and could substantially alter the financial statements of EADS in the future.”

Nov 6/09: Agence France Presse reports that Malaysia still intends to remain a customer, but delivery will be delayed by at least 3 years to 2016 or even 2017.

Nov 5/09: SAAF cancels. South Africa announces that it is canceling its A400M contract, and seeking R2.9 billion (about $380 million/ EUR 256 million) in returned payments. Read “South Africa to Cancel its A400M Order” for more.

Oct 8/09: South Africa. Airbus Military Sociedad Limitada says that there will be minimal degradation to the aircraft technical baseline, but confirms a 4-year delay to the South African A400M order, which could extend to 5 years depending on the Test Flight Programme results. South Africa’s Minister of Defence and Military Veterans adds that:

“It was during this interaction that it became clear that the acquisition costs will increase by more than 25% and another 15 – 20% increase to the initial logistic package which translates to an overall programme cost increase to over R 30 billion [DID: $3.955 billion on this date, almost $495 million per plane] by the time we take delivery of the first aircraft.”

South Africa cancels

Sept 25/09: Negotiations. Aviation Week reports that Airbus has come to an agreement in principle with A400M launch customers to restructure the contract for the airlifter, and is keeping to its objective of performing a first flight in 2009.

Aug 28/09: South Africa. Denel Saab Aerostructures is one of the partner firms being hurt by A400M program delays. South Africa’s Engineering News quotes Denel Saab Aerostructures (DSA) CEO Lana Kinley:

“This is a high fixed costs business… You need to bring in revenue. We are not doing particularly well at the moment. Essentially, it is all about getting more order cover. “The A400M delays have created a big hole in our work. We expected to be in production by now, and we’re not. We’re still doing design work on the A400M.”

July 28/09: $$$. EADS announces its first half 2009 results. On the bright side, the 1st A400M development aircraft is being prepared for engine fitting, the 2nd aircraft is assembled and has entered systems testing, and final assembly has begun for the 3rd. The C-130 flying test bed for the Europrop engine has successfully performed 12 flights with more than 35 flight hours, and a first version of the revised engine software FADEC is showing good initial results in testing.

On the flip side, EADS is taking further writedowns related to the A400M project (all Euro symbols replaced by EUR):

“Due to the continuing high level of uncertainty on the programme, EADS retained the early stage accounting treatment of this programme

• . This resulted in an EBIT* impact of EUR -191 million for the first six months… -120 million taken in the first quarter. Substantial negative income statement impacts may still have to be booked in future periods… Airbus Military revenues accounted for EUR 855 million (H1 2008: EUR 898 million) of the Airbus total benefiting from an increase in tanker as well as medium and light activities. This was more than offset by the difference between the absence of the Power On Milestone – booked in the first quarter of the previous year – and the revenues booked as the recoverable part of the A400M costs. Accordingly, EBIT* stood at EUR -36 million (H1 2008: EUR -20 million).”

See: EADS: First Half 2009 results | EADS release.

July 27/09: $$$. Thales Group announces a EUR 102 million write-down connected to the A400M project, and says that it will seek compensation from Airbus for the project’s delays. Thales makes the A400M’s avionics and flight management system.

The firm actually caught both barrels in this financial report, as Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner delays also delivered a blow to their profitability. Thales: First Half 2009 Results | Reuters | London Telegraph

July 24/09: Negotiations. The A400M partner nations relax the negotiation timeline, and move the decision back from end of July to the end of December 2009. Britain’s change of mind is key to that agreement, and is partly influenced by a major “root and branch” review planned for all defense programs. That review could not possibly be complete by the end of July, and a first draft is due in early 2010. That fits far better with the proposed French and German end of 2009 timeline. Agence France Presse | BBC | BBC re: UK defence review | Deutsche Welle | NY Times | Seattle Post-Intelligencer. EADS release.

Final design?
(click to view full)

June 22/09: Negotiations. The Ministers of Defence of the 7 program partner nations (Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, Luxemburg, Spain, Turkey) met to receive and analyze the “Group of Experts” report analyzing the A400M program and its way forward. The official release notes that:

“A number of issues still need to be resolved, before a negotiation phase can be entered. Therefore, in order to ensure ourselves that the conditions offered by industry fully satisfy the Nations, it has been decided to allow, in agreement with industry, an extension to the standstill period, with a decision being taken by Partner Nations by the end of July.”

Defense-Aerospace reports that France and Germany had been pressing for an extension of the moratorium period to the end of 2009, but Britain vetoed that proposal. In the end, the moratorium was extended only to the end of July 2009. A technical committee will now examine all aspects of the aircraft’s production plans, which will lay the groundwork for key decisions, and re-negotiation on production, delivery and financial schedules. Defense-Aerospace | Joint A400M partners release: PDF format [in English] Spanish Ministry of Defense [in Spanish].

June 13/09: Negotiations. Defense-Aerospace reports on a Le Bourget 2009 briefing by EADS CEO Louis Gallois, Airbus CEO Tom Enders, and other EADS executive. Gallois said that EADS has already spent all EUR 5.7 billion in A400M development funds, and has lost EUR 2.8 billion on the initial contract for 180 aircraft, with an ongoing burn rate of “over 100 million euros” of its own money every month.

EADS is reportedly betting on future exports beyond the initial European nations, in order to justify the program. EADS North America CEO Ralph Crosby reportedly confirmed that the A400M had been offered to the US Air Force, though those rumors were mostly tied to a special operations contract won by the MC-130J Super Hercules.

Operationally, EADS has launched an initiative, overseen by Airbus COO Fabrice Bregier, to enhance program management throughout the group. The A400M’s first flight is tentatively scheduled for late December 2009, but could slip slightly into early January 2010. EADS CEO Louis Gallois hopes that can coincide with the end of contract re-negotiations. He adds that Britain is taking part, saying:

“We need the UK, we want to have the UK with us… but I don’t think it would kill the contract if the UK withdrew.”

June 5-15/09: France. With a fleet of aging C-160 and Lockheed Martin C-130H tactical transports that continue to see heavy demand, France is looking at the one option its government had said would not be considered. French Defense Minister Herve Morin is quoted as saying that the government has expanded its stopgap options to include lease or purchase of some C-130Js; and Bloomberg reports that France has officially requested C-130J availability and performance data for review. France has also approved the modernization of its 10 newest C160 Transalls so they can remain in service until the first A400Ms arrive, which is now expected to happen in 2014-15.

Other possibilities for France include stepped up per-hour leasing of Russian AN-124s under NATO’s SALIS pool, per-hour C-17 leasing under NATO’s SAC pool, acquisition or lease of EADS’ smaller C-295Ms, or advancing their planned Airbus 330 MRTT aerial tanker & transport buy.

These interim options group themselves by tradeoffs. Some contenders (C-295M, A330 MRTT) lack the reinforced floors required for dense tactical loads like armored vehicles. Others (AN-124, A330 MRTT, C-17s to lesser extent) require longer runways, which removes some of their utility as front line delivery aircraft. Range and refueling capability are potential issues for some (C-295M, some C-130Js), while maintaining overall fleet strength and front line airlift availability is a concern in other cases (AN-124, C-17, A330 MRTT to some extent). The C-130J offers less capability than the A400M, but it sits in the middle of many of these tradeoffs, which may be why it has climbed back into interim consideration. Aviation Week | Bloomberg News.

A400M wing cover
(click to view full)

March 30/09: Negotiations. Airbus CEO Thomas Enders sits down for a feisty interview with Germany’s Der Spiegel, and talks about the A400M. The firm later issues a release reiterating its commitment to the A400M, which is obvious from reading the interview but bears repeating in these situations. Key excerpts:

“Objection! If we can manage to get the program back on course now, the A400M will be a success story. That is what we want — but not at any price. In any case, we cannot build the plane under the conditions that we’ve had up to date… Our American competitors would never have accepted such conditions. We’ve made big mistakes, and errors have also been made on the customer side. We should now rectify these together.

…We submitted a few proposals back in December. This basically concerns three issues. First, …the risks and opportunities are appropriately shared by the customer and the industry… Airbus will no longer carry the risks alone of engineering the engine… Engineering, flight tests and the start of production have to be optimized… to minimize the risks of series production. And third, studies need to be conducted… It could save everyone a great deal of time if [some promised capabilities] were only introduced step by step…”

Enders also stresses the “enormous financial and industrial challenges” presented by the A350 XWB and A380 super-jumbo programs, as a key consideration when deciding how much A400M program risk Airbus is willing to accept. Full Der Spiegel interview | EADS release.

March 17/09: France. Laurent Collet-Billon, the DGA’s recently appointed Director General, says that France is looking at the possibility of leasing or buying alternative transport aircraft to meet the shortfalls created by late A400M delivery. The DGA is also contemplating refusing at least some of the late A400M aircraft. Collet-Billon:

“It is one of the alternatives which we have to examine. We have not yet finished examining the capacity gap and that could lead to a reduction in the target (of 50 aircraft).”

That is partly because France has multi-year military budgets, so paying for bridging capabilities means subtracting money from something else. While Lockheed Martin’s C-130J is completely ruled out as a bridging solution, France does have options that include buying more flight hours of Russian AN-124s and IL-76s under NATO’s SALIS program, joining NATO’s SAC pool of C-17s, or accelerating buys of Airbus tanker-transport aircraft to pick up some of the load.

Meanwhile, a 3-month program moratorium imposed by OCCAR will allow all parties re-visit the technical specifications, the schedule, price, and project organization. Reuters | Aviation Week.

March 5/09: UK. Britain’s RAF is under strain, trying to sustain an aerial supply bridge for 8,000 deployed troops in Afghanistan. With its 20 C-130Ks (C1/C3) being forced toward retirement, Aviation Week reports that Britain is looking at the possibility of leasing 5 C-130Js as a potential “bridge” until the A400Ms can begin to arrive, and/or finding ways to add to their 6-plane C-17 fleet [DID: Britain ended up buying 2 more C-17s, and cut its A400M order by 3].

Senior British Defense Ministry officials are believed to have met on March 4/09 to examine proposals for the ministry’s next “Planning Round 09.” Airlift and budget issues would have been prominent within those discussions.

Feb 10/09: French Senat report. France’s Sénat release a full report [in French] detailing their investigation into the A400M program, and their recommendations. They recommend that the EUR 20 billion euro contract be renegotiated, in order to preserve a program they see as critical to Europe’s aerospace industry. They also cite life expectancy issues with France’s current C160 Transall fleet, and reveal that the A400M faces a number of challenges which have not previously been made public.

The report faults EADS for failure to grasp the project’s complexity. It faults participating governments for rushing into a program whose structure made failure likely; and for relying on the EU’s OCCAR for oversight it lacked the authority or resources to perform, instead of appointing one of their national procurement agencies to lead the project. France’s own DGA has performed this role for other multi-national projects, notably the stealthy nEUROn UCAV.

With respect to the A400M program’s problems, blame is cast widely, but the core problem is identified as the 2001 contract, which was amended in 2003. The Senat report believes that the A400M program was almost guaranteed to fail, thanks to its call for simultaneous development of a new airframe, a new engine and new avionics; without the EUR 500 million risk reduction studies recommended by industry; and with tight timelines that left no allowance for delays. French Senat report [HTML, in French] | French Sénat Report [PDF, in French] | Defense-Aerospace highlights [English].

Senat report

Feb 9/09: Negotiations. Britain’s Financial Times reports a “major row” over the integration of Airbus Military in Spain, and the parent company’s efforts to bring the A400M project under direct control. It adds that “There have been mounting tensions between Tom Enders, Airbus chief executive, and Carlos Suarez, head of the military division,” and hints at accompanying national political complications. Mr. Enders declined comment when asked about this, but the Financial Times article also quotes an EADS statement:

“EADS is not aware of any political issues with the Spanish government over the integration of the military division. Carlos Suarez is still fully in charge. We are still in the process of integrating our military division into Airbus.”

Meanwhile, Reuters UK reports that first delivery will not happen before the end of 2012, and quotes a report from Le Figaro that places the expected overall cost to Airbus at EUR 5 billion total (about $6.45 billion). It could be higher, according to French Senator Jean-Pierre Masseret, who notes that the terms of the initial contract contain a release clause that allows the governments to pull out if the plane hasn’t flown 14 months after a stipulated milestone. EADS’ reported plans for first flight in 2010 would miss that April 2009 deadline.

France’s Sénat is issuing a report which argues that the program is critical to Europe’s aerospace industry. That argument is likely to fly with major customers like France, Germany, and Spain, though it offers a strong opportunity for expanding NATO’s SAC C-17 pool as a interim step. It may carry less weight with customers like Britain, however, who already fly their own C-17As and competing C-130J-30 Hercules, and who might see a contractual exit as a cost-savings measure. Financial Times | CNN | Reuters UK | EADS general release re: A400M program.

Jan 24/09: Negotiations. An EADS release formally denies any intent to withdraw from the A400M program.

Jan 14/09: Defense Aerospace’s “EADS Draws Battle Lines for A400M Negotiations” discusses key elements of the firm’s position, based on statements made during EADS annual press conference. Referring to John Hutton’s statements, EADS CEO Louis Gallois states that:

“We share his frustration… We signed the contract, and have our share of responsibility, but we were not alone to have underestimated the program… [the governments and EADS] thought [the A400M] was a flying truck, but in fact it is a civil aircraft certified by civil aviation authorities and a military aircraft, with full military capabilities… it is more complex than Rafale or Eurofighter… We have to discuss risk sharing [and a split of costs over expected amounts] with our customers.”

In return for joint sharing of financial consequences, the article also reported that EADS would offer affected governments a partial bridging solution involving other Airbus aircraft. The A330s mentioned could not carry tactical vehicles, but they could serve to ferry personnel long distances.

Jan 12/09: Negotiations. British Defence Secretary John Hutton tells Parliament that:

“We cannot accept a three to four year delay in the delivery of these aircraft. It is going to impose unnecessary and unacceptable strain on our air assets and we, along with all of our partner nations, will have to consider very carefully indeed what the right response now to this problem is as we go forward…”

For Britain, the most likely course of action would involve additions to its fleet of 6 C-17s, involving either additional purchases or participation in NATO’s SAC C-17 pool. A speedup of its FSTA public-private partnership involving 14 Airbus A330 MRTT aerial tanker/transporters is another likely response. Britain also operates Lockheed Martin’s C-130J, however, and could decide to augment that fleet instead if other options prove difficult to execute, or too expensive for its budget. A report in The Guardian quotes Lockheed Martin representatives as saying that the A400M’s delays could spur sales of “dozens more” C-130Js to various nations.

The markets also reacted poorly, as EADS shares fell 5% on the news. Evolution Securities analyst Nick Cunningham is quoted as saying that Airbus could face as much as $6 billion in total cost overruns on the program, a figure that could rise further if the company has to pay damages to customers over the late deliveries. Meanwhile, Merrill Lynch analyst Charles Ermitage estimates that EADS may have to take an additional writedown of EUR 2.6 – 3.9 billion, which produces a figure of EUR 4.3 – 5.6 billion (about $5.8 – 7.5 billion) when added to the EUR 1.7 billion 2008 writedown. Reuters UK | Marketwatch | defpro op-ed and analysis | The Guardian re: Lockheed Martin.

Jan 9/09: A New Deal? Airbus Military and EADS have proposed a new program approach for the A400M, as well as “changes to other areas of the contract including in particular certain technical characteristics…” Outside reports are pointing to likely changes in aircraft rage and lifting capacity. Range has some room for movement, given the plane’s installed mid-air refueling capability. Payload could become very problematic if payload falls below 33 tonnes/ 36 tons, as a number of armored vehicle programs are already in motion that will depend on this capability.

Negotiations are taking place with the respective governments through Europe’s OCCAR joint procurement agency, which manages the A400M program. With respect to costs, Airbus Military and EADS will not commit to figures until a finalized industrial plan, “including the availability of systems,” is complete and OCCAR has reacted to this proposal. EADS also continues its public friction with the Europrop consortium by adding:

“Airbus Military is still working with the engine consortium to firm up a date for the first flight.”

Airbus continues to hold to its position that series production should resume only when “adequate maturity is reached, based on flight test results.” This prevents future contract issues around upgrades of the initial aircraft to production configuration, but delays delivery. Indeed, EADS itself admits that first delivery of the A400M would not occur for 3 years after first flight – a flight that has yet to happen.

The net result of these changes is that the A400M project is effectively in limbo until these issues are resolved. Analysts are beginning to see 2013 as the likely first delivery date, a date that will stress the aging tactical transport fleets of many of the A400M’s partner countries.

2008 and earlier

Airbus Military suspends production over contract dispute; Project delays and cost overruns confirmed. A400M asembly
(click to view full)

Nov 14/08: $$$. EADS releases its Q3 2008 results, which include considerable discussion of the A400M. Key excerpts:

“The pressure on the A400M programme remains… EADS is more determined than ever to get this complex programme under control… In the A400M programme, the unavailability of a committed and reliable schedule for the propulsion system, which compounds unresolved issues with certain equipment supplies as well as equipment and systems integration, will lead to further delays… EADS has started to discuss with its main customers to define next steps. Once a schedule update is achieved, EADS will resume the milestone accounting and further update the A400M charge, for which [EUR] 341 million have been recorded in the third quarter of 2008… [an additional revenue boost of EUR] 803 million resulting from the move to the early stage accounting methodology in the A400M programme applied in Q3 2008… revenues include the A400M Power-On milestone revenue recognition – shifted from 2007 and worth around [EUR] 400 million.”

“As the outcome of the A400M construction contract cannot be estimated reliably, EADS can currently not comply with all requirements to account for the contract under the estimate-at-completion accounting methodology… EADS has suspended the application of estimate at completion methodology accounting [“milestone accounting” for the A400M project] and has then recognised contract costs incurred to date as an expense directly in the income statement as well as corresponding revenues as far as such contract costs incurred are expected to be recoverable under the “early stage” method of accounting. The loss-at-completion provision was then updated only to cover additional losses under the contract which EADS was able to estimate reliably.”

Nov 4/08: Reuters relays a report from the French newspaper Les Echos that Airbus Military has suspended A400M production, and the first flight. A new planning schedule for the project is not expected before December 2008.

At present, 2 planes have been assembled, a 3rd is mostly complete, and some plane sections have been built or are undergoing assembly. The French newspaper quoted a source close to the program, which translates as:

“If the rate isn’t slowed down, the problem is one will end up with lots of aircraft parked up that risk having to be taken back [to fix the issues that one always finds in flight testing].”

See: Les Echos [in French] | De Tijd [in Dutch] | Reuters.

Production suspended

Oct 29/08: Negotiations. In the wake of cabinet approval for France’s 6-year defense planning law, Reuters quotes French defense minister Hervé Morin:

“I told (EADS CEO Louis) Gallois I agreed to look at things with regard to penalties. With the explicit condition that if one day we were ready to close our eyes to a certain number of penalties, EADS commits itself to a precise, firm and definitive delivery date.”

slow starter?
(click to view full)

Sept 25/08: Engines. Safran Group, part of the EuroProp International consortium building the A400M’s TP400-D6 engines, issues a release in response to EADS. It says:

“SAFRAN, along with its partners in EPI, the European consortium in charge of the engines for the A400M military transport, would like to clarify the following points.

1) The eight TP400 turboprop engines for the first two A400M flight test models have been delivered to Airbus Military.

2) The control software for these engines, also covering control of the propeller and the nacelle, which are the responsibility of Airbus Military, are currently in the final phase of compliance with civil aviation standards. However, prior to the first flight of the A400M, this software will integrate adjustments following the completion of engine test flights on a C-130. These tests, which are under the responsibility of Airbus Military, have not yet started; EPI delivered the test engine in late 2007, and received flight readiness approval for the engine and associated software on the C-130 in April 2008.”

Translation: if there are program delays look to EADS Airbus, not EPI.

Sept 25/08: Engines. An EADS release confirms that the A400M’s first flight will be delayed, but will not commit – yet – to early 2009:

“…because of the unavailability of the propulsion system. The first flight actually depends on the results of the test campaign to be done on the flying test bed, which should start in the coming weeks, and on the readiness of the propulsion system. Only after this and further discussions with customers, the financial, technical and schedule implications can be reliably assessed. The 2008 guidance of the group is not changed at this point.”

June 26/08: Rollout. The 1st A400M aircraft test aircraft is rolled out at the final assembly line in Seville, Spain. EADS.

A400M Rollout

Nov 5/07: $$$. EADS announces major financial charges, related to its “reassessment” of A400M delivery delays:

“While the calculations are not yet finalized, EADS now believes it will need to expense between € 1.2 billion and € 1.4 billion, of which more than € 1 billion for Airbus. This estimate is the best that can be established at this point of the programme development, and is consistent with the delays of 6 months, with a risk of a further slippage of up to a half year, that were announced on 17 October 2007. This figure does not include new potential issues… [and] forces EADS to discontinue its EBIT

• guidance for 2007, which will be replaced by an updated guidance on 8 November, along with the disclosure of third quarter earnings.”

April 26-27/07: Delays. A Reuters news agency report quotes an official from A400M supplier Zodiac company as saying that the A400M deliveries will be delayed for 3 months, and may be delayed for 15. EADS responds by citing private decisions within the consortium and says:

“This re-adjustment to the production programme has been undertaken in order to ensure optimum flow-through of assemblies and sub-assemblies to the Final Assembly Line in Seville. The customers were duly informed of the decision and are satisfied that the measures will not affect the aircraft delivery schedule. It is categorically denied that a further twelve months’ delay is or has been contemplated and any such comments by outside parties are speculative and without foundation.”

In light of subsequent events, the kindest thing that can be said about this official statement is that it was mistaken. EADS.

Appendix A – The A400M Program: Dilemmas & a Deal The Dilemmas A350XWB
(click to view full)

Former EADS CEO Louis Gallois has been quoted as saying all expected profits from the initial 180 orders are already invested, adding that the A400M is “a heavy lossmaker” which was creating problems for EADS’ financial performance. He reportedly added in his September 2008 letter that the present position was “untenable”, unless a deal is agreed that “keeps everyone happy.”

That took until November 2010, and involved a production freeze from Airbus along the way. Why were they so willing to confront so many customers over this issue?

Money played a big role, as EADS was facing several major investment sinks. One was the ongoing effort to address issues with its A380 super-jumbo, which had cost the firm billions of euros. Another was the decision to develop the A350XWB as a major new technology project, after existing customers told Airbus that its plan for incremental improvements to existing designs would not be able to compete with Boeing’s 777. Then there’s the market for “single-aisle” airliners like Airbus’ A320 family, which makes up the bulk of Airbus’ orders. With Boeing working on a 737NG project to bring the next generation of aircraft to market in that class, Airbus had to invest billions of its own to create the A320neo, or face the prospect of a serious strategic setback.

The A400M’s issues flew the project directly into this financial storm. Project delays are already costly, and a November 2007 release from EADS reported a EUR 1.2 – 1.4 billion charge to earnings flow (up to $2 billion) as a result of the delays to that point. Payment of the EUR 1.2 billion penalty clauses on its first 180 aircraft would make those figures much worse, and might even have made it impossible for the A400M project to ever hope to turn a profit.

With anticipated A400M profits already invested, every dollar of profitability slashed would have to be replaced with investment dollars, during a major downturn for the airline industry, at a time when multiple investment projects were already straining Airbus’ capacity. All without any assurance that the A400M’s initial margin issues would be made up with enough subsequent orders at full rate to create an acceptable average return.

Worse, Airbus’ classic resort to government subsidies for investment dollars was constrained by a trade dispute with the USA over that exact issue, at a time when a $35 billion aerial tanker contract that Airbus had originally won hung in the balance.

Outright A400M cancellation is not possible without customer unanimity, and that will never be forthcoming. Liquidated damages may be possible for individual governments, however, if they refuse to accept late aircraft. That gave both parties considerable leverage in the run-up to the November 2010 contract.

The Deal A400M for loadmasters
(click to view full)

Under that deal, EADS ended up funding EUR 4.2 billion of the EUR 6.2 billion cost overrun to that point. That meant another EUR 1.8 billion write-down.

In exchange, EADS received 4 concessions that justified resuming production. The 1st was another EUR 2 billion for system design & development funding from the 7 partner nations: Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Spain, and Turkey. Each country would contribute funds in proportion to their number of orders. The 2nd contribution was another EUR 1.5 billion paid to Airbus as an Export Levy Facility quasi-loan, repayable by Airbus Military if the A400M wins enough exports beyond the initial group of 7 partner nations to reach 280-300 aircraft ordered over a 30-year period. To date, existing, potential, and withdrawn A400M customer include:

The 3rd concession involved a new project baseline for deliveries, and a full waiver of the EUR 1.2 billion in late penalties based on the old project baseline. The 4th concession accelerated pre-delivery payments from 2010-2014, in order to help Airbus’ cash flow. The 2012 – 2024 delivery schedule from the revised 2010 agreement is reproduced below:

Overall, A400M deliveries would be an average of 3.5 years late, with an initial plane for France scheduled in March 2013 (it was actually July 2013). Unfortunately, as of 2013, this schedule is already obsolete.

In the 2010 deal, France and Spain initially decided to space the same number of planned aircraft over a longer delivery time. Subsequent budgets indicate further delays in France, and other customers are also looking to delay their deliveries. That will “save” money in a particular budget year, but stretching out production means paying fixed costs over a longer period of time. Which means higher costs per plane, unless additional orders fill out the production line and make up the difference.

Unfortunately, other core customers are making that difficult. In the 2010 deal, Germany and Britain responded to budget pressures by reducing their orders slightly, while remaining within the contract. Their “options” will almost certainly never be exercised, which means a de facto order reduction of 10 planes.

Airbus’ biggest concession was subtle, but its effects could be far-reaching. Its customers are allowed to re-sell their aircraft on the global market.

Additional Readings Background: A400M Program

• Airbus Military – A400M: The Versatile Airlifter

• EuroProp International – Official site for TP400-D6 engine.

• Rolls Royce – TP400-D6

• Reuters – Timeline: Fraught journey of A400M transport aircraft. From 1982 to June 2010.

• Flight International (May 29/12) – IN FOCUS: EPI’s bid to ramp up A400M engine production

• DID – Europe’s Air Transport Command Agreements. The A400M is likely to be heavily involved in this aircraft pool, which may extend to cover maintenance and certification.

• DID Spotlight – SALIS’ Sibling: NATO’s C-17 Pool Inaugurates In-House Heavy Lift. NATO could expand SAC beyond the 3 C-17s.

News and Views

• French Air Force (Sept 26/13) – L’A400M Atlas arrive dans les forces.

• Aviation Week, via WayBack (Feb 3/11) – A400M, KC-390 Will Reshape Transport Market.

• Leeham News and Comment, via WayBack (Jan 4/10) – Outlook for Airbus, Boeing in 2010. Aerospace analysts at Leeham look at a number of programs, including the A400M, and set them in context with respect to the firms’ overall transport/passenger aircraft portfolios.

• Financial Times of London (Sept 21/08) – Berlin snubs EADS plea [subscription req’d]. “The reply from Berlin, which officials said was made after consulting with partner governments including France and the UK, is bad news for Mr Gallois, who has said the A400 will never make a profit under the seven-year-old contract.”.

• Agence France Presse, via WayBack (Sept 20/08) – EADS could freeze A400M production amid late-delivery row.

• Reuters (Sept 20/08) – UPDATE 1-EADS pleads not to be fined for A400M delay -FTD.

• South Africa’s Engineering News (Sept 19/08) – SA aviation company admits to challenges with A400M. Cites weight growth issues, and adds: “South African aircraft components manufacturing and aircraft assembly company Denel Saab Aerostructures (DSA) has had to redesign some of the components it is producing for the multinational Airbus Military A400M transport aircraft project, owing to a number of critical factors affecting the basic design. DSA is also considering joining the [DID: C-130 sized] Embraer C390 military transport aircraft project…”

• Flight International (Sept 17/08) – A400M gets a boost, as TP400 engine hits full power. First time achievement on the testbed aircraft. The engines are designed to generate 11,000 shp.

• Aviation International News, via WayBack (Sept 16/08) – Testbed Problems Add To A400M Delay. “AIN understands that the problems have included vibration in the fuselage from the eight-blade propellers, and the need to protect the C-130’s rear wing and flap from the much greater heat produced by the TP400…In the 14 weeks since the TP400 was first ground-run on the C-130, only six hours have been logged. Program officials previously said that 30 hours of ground running would be required before the testbed could fly, and 50 hours of flight time would be required before the A400M could make its first flight.”

• EADS, via WayBack (June 26/08) – First A400M Military Transporter Rolled Out.

• DID (Nov 5/07) – Airbus A400M Program Delayed 6-12 Months. Expected first flight moved from January 2008 to summer 2008. It will later be moved again.

• domain-b, via WayBack (May 28/03) – EADS signs [EUR] 20-billion contract for A400M military aircraft. Also a contract between Airbus military and OCCAR.

• Defense Daily (Dec 19/01) – $16 Billion A400M Contract Signed by Airbus Military and Klaus von Sperber, the director of Europe’s Joint Organization for Armaments Cooperation (OCCAR).

• Flight International (April 12/01) – French twist partners’ arms on A400M contract.

AAV7 to LHD 2
(click to view full)

The USMC needs to keep its 40+ year old AAV Amtracs in service, after destroying the EFV amphibious armored personnel carrier replacement program in 2011 with over-ambitious requirements. Iraq taught the USMC that the Amtracs didn’t offer enough protection, and so the latest refurbishment effort plans to improve the AAVP-7A1 personnel carrier’s protection levels. Deliveries are expected to take place between 2018 – 2023…

Contracts & Key Events AAV7P1 Amtracs
(click to view full)

As things stand now, the follow-on Armored Combat Vehicle Phase 1.1 will involve 300 commercial off-the-shelf wheeled armored vehicles. A true swimming AAV replacement won’t arrive until ACV Phase 1.2, but the USMC is still estimating a Phase 1.2 cost of $12-14 million per vehicle, even after reducing the EFV’s requirements. Phase 1.2’s timing will coincide with the beginning of a demographic fiscal crunch, in parallel with increased operations and maintenance costs for the high-maintenance platforms (esp. MV-22 and F-35B) the USMC has been buying lately. That doesn’t augur well, and implies that the AAV7 fleet will remain important for a long time.

SAIC video

March 18/16: The USMC is to receive upgrades to their Amphibious Assault Vehicles (AAV) as their replacement, the Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV), will not be operational until the 2020s. 392 AAV7A1s are to receive an extensive survivability upgrade in a $194 million contract. The USMC has found that AAVs have been vulnerable to improvised explosive devices (IED) and other weapons when operating in Iraq and elsewhere. Improvements to be made include flat-sided buoyant ceramic armor panels, new shock-mitigation seats, replacing benches in older AAVs, and a new transmission, increasing the vehicle’s top speed.

May 9/14: USMC Systems Command in Quantico, VA issues a pair of $27.8 million firm-fixed-price contracts to design and develop AAV7 protection improvements for the USMC’s existing APCs. Work is expected to be complete in February 2015, at which point the USMC will pick a design. The winner will receive an implementation contract option, raising the total value they receive to somewhere between $163.5 million and $206 million, and extending their individual contract until September 2019.

This contract was competitively procured via FBO.gov, with 4 offers received. The 2 development contract winners were:

BAE Systems Land & Armaments, Santa Clara, CA. Work will be performed in York, PA (65%); Santa Clara, CA (30%); Aiken, SC (4%); and Sterling Heights, MI (1%). Contract M67854-14-C-0001.

Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC) in McLean, VA. Work will be performed in Charleston, SC (24%); Ontario, Canada (20%); Langley, British Columbia, Canada (15%); Lansing Charter Township, MI (7%); Oceanside, CA (7%); Sterling Heights, MI (5%); Columbus, Indiana (4%); McLean, VA (3%); Plymouth Township, MI (2%); Benton, AR (2%); Detroit, MI (2%); Minneapolis, MN (2%); Chandler, AZ (2%); San Diego, CA (1%); Baltimore, MD (1%); and various other locations less the 1% (3%). Contract M67854-14-C-0002.

Development contracts

Oct 29/13: RFP. The USMC issues their AAV Survivability Upgrade RFP, covering up to 396 AAV7s. An initial development phase will be followed by upgrades to 396 AAV7s.

The USMC wants basic internal systems improvements, along with better protection of the underbelly and sides, blast attenuating seats that hang instead of jarring with every blast to the vehicle’s bottom, and spall liners that keep enemy fire from blasting lethal metal shards out of the vehicle’s inside walls. The systems need to be in production or close to it, with a Tech Readiness Level of 6 (tested prototypes) at the outset. The vehicles still need to be seaworthy when everything is done, and the USMC also hopes to improve on corrosion resistance.

Test vehicles will need to demonstrate adequate performance, including 75% vehicle availability. Low-Rate Initial Production deliveries would begin in Q1 2018 at 4 vehicles, with deliveries rising to 24 per quarter in Q2 2021. The program would end at the end of FY 2023. The government will receive either unlimited data rights, or government-purpose rights to the final design. The difference between those classifications may matter, because the US military aren’t the only ones using the AAV7.

Additional Readings

• FBO.gov (Oct 29/13, #M67854-14-R-0001) – AAV Survivability Upgrade.

• DefenseMediaNetwork (Nov 6/13) – AAV Survivability Upgrade Moves Forward: Select fraction of aging AAVs will undergo upgrade to hold the line until ACV fielding.

• DefenseMediaNetwork (July 16/13) – Marine Corps Explores AAV Reset Options.