Defense Industry Daily

KDX-III: DDG-991
(click to view full)

The Korean Destroyer eXperimental (KDX) surface combatant shipbuilding program involves 3 individual classes of ships. The 3 KDX-I Gwanggaeto Great Class ships are called destroyers, but at 3,800 tons, their size and armament more properly rank them as small frigates. The last ship of class was commissioned in 2000. The next 6 KDX-II Chungmugong Yi Sun-sin Class ships are indeed destroyers at 6,085 tons full load, with a hull design licensed from Germany’s IABG, and more advanced systems that include SM-2 air defense missiles. They were commissioned between 2003-2008.

With that experience under their belts, Korea entered the 3rd phase of the program. Their KDX-III King Sejong Great Class destroyers weigh in at 8,500 tons standard displacement and 11,000 tons full load. That’s heavier than the USA’s CG-47 Ticonderoga Class cruisers, making them the largest ships in the world to carry Lockheed Martin’s AEGIS combat system. They will form the high end of South Korea’s Navy, while offering a premium showcase for some of the new weapons and electronic systems developed by South Korea’s defense sector.

The KDX III Sejongdaewang-Ham Class KDX-III promo video
(click to view full)

The KDX-III is clearly intended to be a multi-purpose destroyer will full air defense, land attack, anti-shipping, and anti-submarine capabilities. It is also being designed with the ability to add tactical ballistic missile defense capabilities, and important consideration if North Korea is your neighbor. At present, however, the ships do not possess AEGIS BMD modifications, or SM-3 missiles. The ROKN has ordered 3 ships so far, and will add another 3 for delivery from 2023 – 2027.

These ships are larger than America’s Ticonderoga Class cruisers, and are Aegis cruisers themselves in all but name. Their range of capabilities falls short in the area of ballistic missile defense, but that could be changed for under $100 million per ship. In every other area, they make a competitive case to be the Pacific region’s leading modern multi-role heavy surface combatant, while providing an important platform for new South Korean weapons.

Size

Built by Hyundai Heavy Industries in Ulsan, 415 kilometers (257 miles) southeast of Seoul, the KDX-III King Sejong Class will be significantly larger than the 5,000t KDX-IIs. These ships are 166m / 544 feet long and 21m/ 69 feet wide, and 49m/ 161 feet deep, with a standard displacement of 8,500 tons, and a full load displacement of around 11,000 tons. A set of 4 ubiquitous GE LM2500 naval gas turbines provide main power, giving them a high top speed of 30 knots.

Hangars in the back allow carriage of 2 medium naval helicopters. The ROKN actually uses smaller Lynx family helicopters as their primary anti-submarine warfare platform, including the advanced new AW159 Wildcat.

Key Sensors

Sometimes described as an enlarged and updated DDG-51 Arleigh Burke Class, KDX-III will also use the advanced AEGIS radar & combat system (initially Baseline 7, Phase 1) combination, with the AN/SPY-1D (V) radar and the MK99 system of SPG-62 illuminators, etc.

France’s Sagem provides their Vampir long-range IRST (InfraRed Search and Track) system for passive day and night surveillance of ocean and land targets.

For underwater surveillance, a hull-mounted DSQS-21BZ (ASO 90 family) sonar from Atlas Elektronik is paired with a Korean LIG Nex1 towed sonar.

Weapons

Fixed weapons will include BAE’s 5-inch/ 127mm MK45 Mod 4 naval gun, a pair of 324mm triple torpedo mounts in KMK 32 configuration, a Raytheon RIM-116B Rolling Airframe Missile Block 1 for short-range air defense, and a 30mm Thales “Goalkeeper” CIWS system for close-in defense against aircraft and boats.

KDX-III ships real firepower lies their array of 128 vertical launch cells, which is slightly more than the American Ticonderoga Class cruiser’s 122 cells. On the Korean ships, these VLS cells come in 2 types.

The standard Mk 41 vertical launch cells are split 48 forward, and 32 aft, for a total of 80. Vertically-launched SM-2 Block IIIA/B surface-to-air missiles handle long-range anti-aircraft duties, and an upgrade to the SM-6 is planned. The ships could also upgrade to ABM-capable SM-3s, if accompanying modifications are made to the radar and combat system, but South Korean leaders aren’t interested. Mk.41 cells can also carry a wide variety of other payloads, including quad-packed RIM-162 anti-aircraft missiles, vertically-launched anti-submarine torpedoes, or Tomahawk cruise missiles. South Korea currently seems focused on filling them with SM-2s. This will give the destroyers 3-layer anti-aerial protection (SM-2/6, RAM, Goalkeeper).

Weapons variety comes from a 3rd VLS set of 48 aft-mounted “K-VLS” cells, a Korean system that holds locally-designed weapons like Hyunmoo cruise missiles, SSM-700K Haesung anti-ship missiles, Red Shark “K-ASROC” vertically launched rocket-assisted anti-submarine torpedoes, or other compatible weapons.

Passive Defense

The ships are being designed with a number of low-observable features to reduce their radar profile. These measures also include advanced infrared signature reduction methods designed to give it an IR signature far superior to comparable ships, including its U.S. contemporary the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke class destroyer. If that fails, a locally-designed LIG Nex1 SLQ-200K Sonata ESM system helps the destroyers react to and attempt to jam incoming missiles.

The KDX-III Program KDX-III Destroyer concept
(click to view full)

Official statements said that the name Sejongdaewang-Ham (“King Sejong”) was chosen for the first ship because of this importance in Korean history. Besides supporting the creation of the Korean “Hangeul” alphabet, this 15th century Chosun Dynasty monarch is also known for strengthening the country’s national defense capability.

GlobalSecurity.org estimates that each of the first 3 ships cost about 1.2 trillion won (roughly $923 million equivalent, albeit in pre-2008 dollars).

• ROKS King Sejong’s official delivery to the ROK Navy took place at the end of 2008
  
• ROKS Yulgok Yi I was supposed to enter service in 2010, but took until 2011.
  
• ROKS Seoae Ryu Seong-ryong (was Kwon Yul), was commissioned at the end of August 2012.

Then what?

The program had options for another 3 ships, but the March 2010 sinking of the corvette ROKN Cheonan by a North Korean submarine temporarily shifted the ROKN’s focus away from the globe’s blue waters, and back toward its own littoral regions. Rather than continuing to build more KDX-III destroyers, there was talk in South Korea of modernizing the cheaper 5,000t KDX-II light destroyer design, giving the “KDX-IIA” ships stealthier radar and emissions signatures, and adding AEGIS radars and combat systems to give them better anti-aircraft coverage.

That talk died in 2013, with approval of a KRW 4 trillion/ $3.8 billion program to build another 3 KDX-III ships, and field them from 2023 – 2027.

The key consideration when deciding between KDX-IIA light destroyers and cruiser-sized KDX-III was the trade-off between having a larger number of modern ships in the water to handle submarines and Fast Attack Craft, vs. fleet capability for potential ballistic missile defense (BMD) missions. North Korea fields both kinds of threats, but it was the emergence of a territorially aggressive China and its Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) that turned the tide in favor of more KDX-IIIs. The KDX-III’s SPY-1D (V) radar, AEGIS combat system, and long-range anti-air and surface attack missiles make them a potent force for policing large naval territories.

North Korea couldn’t make that a South Korean national priority, but China did. Less than a month after China’s ADIZ was declared, South Korea had declared one of its own, and announced the KDX-III follow-on contract to give their claim more teeth.

The ships have a set upgrade path for missile defense, thanks to the US Navy’s program to retrofit DDG-51 ships, and the KDX-III destroyers should have enough on-board power and available weight/space growth to handle the BMD mission. Current plans call for adding SM-6 missiles, which are scheduled to gain a point defense BMD role in 2015 – 2016. Korea’s size and maritime geography may make that a perfectly appealing prospect, alongside land-based BMD systems with longer reach.

Contracts and Key Events

Contracts are covered where they are public, and traceable directly to the KDX-III program. This is not always true, for instance with weapons that serve on more than one ship type.

2014

USN SM-6 test
(click to view full)

June 11/15: South Korea has requested the sale of the Aegis Combat System through a Foreign Military Sale. The potential sale of three of the systems, as well as auxiliary equipment, could be worth $1.9 billion and comes weeks after the North tested a “submarine-launched” missile. The ACS comprises the SPY-1 radar, Display System and Underwater Countermeasure System, with the Aegis system also capable of operating in a Ballistic Missile Defense capacity.

Nov 5/14: KDDX. South Korea’s Daewoo shows off models of their proposed KDDX follow-on to the KDX-III. Ship size shrinks to 8,000t, and the number of vertical launch cells also shrinks (48 strike-length Mk.41 and 16 K-VLS, from 80/48), but it retains provision for 16 SSM-700K Haesung anti-ship missiles in dedicated launchers, and provision for a Phalanx CIWS or SeaRAM launcher. This preliminary set of attributes helps explain the proposed budget of $3.8 billion for 3 ships, which is actually a bit low for a KDX-III class ship. It also helps that South Korea may possess the globe’s best shipbuilding industry.

“According to a DSME representative at Indo Defence, the KDDX is being developped as a smaller, more compact and more stealthy follow on to the AEGIS KDX-III destroyers. The main requirements from the ROK Navy are lower maintenance and operating costs than KDX-III…”

Many aspects of the ship aren’t finalized yet, including the radar, but the proposed delivery timeframe of 2023-2027 would make America’s developmental AMDR radar a possible addition, allowing the ROKN to keep the Aegis BMD combat system. There is also talk of using other radars, but unless the ROKN wants to abandon Aegis and its ballistic missile defense modes, they would have to be integrated into the same Aegis combat system. Australia’s CEAFAR/ CEAMOUNT active array radars may be able to offer better radar performance and Aegis integration by then, if Australia invests in new frigates quickly enough. Or, the Koreans could try long-time supplier and Samsung partner Thales, who are working with the Dutch to create their own BMD capable radar (APAR & SMART-L) and combat system combination aboard the Mk.41 compatible De Zeven Provincien Class. Sources: Navy Recognition, “DSME showcasing its next generation KDDX Destroyer for ROK Navy at Indo Defence 2014″.

May 26/14: No SM-3s. South Korean official rule out any deployment of SM-3s for now. Defense Ministry spokesperson Kim Min-seok:

“We’ve never considered adopting the SM-3 missiles… Among issues under consideration is how to boost our maritime-based intercepting capabilities, but we’ve not yet reviewed any details…. Intercepting a missile in the ascending stage goes beyond what our military aims at. It is also beyond our capability…. The KAMD [land-based missile defense architecture] has been under development regardless of the U.S. system, and no changes have been made in our position.”

Planned SM-6 missiles will give the ROKN terminal BMD intercept capabilities around 2015-2016 if they add a combat system upgrade, and that seems to be enough. The national KAMD system currently includes Israeli Green Pine long-range radars, ex-German PATRIOT PAC-2 missiles, and an AMD-Cell command and control backbone. South Korea is about to to upgrade its PATRIOT batteries to PAC-3/Config 3, and add SM-6 missiles to KDX-III destroyers. They may also field Cheolmae 4 BMD-capable missiles in future, designed in collaboration with Russia. Sources: Yonhap, “Acquiring SM-3 missiles not an option for S. Korea: defense ministry”.

May 26/14: Weapons. South Korea has been working to resolve problems with its vertically-launched “Red Shark” (Hongsangeo) rocket-boosted torpedoes since a formal complaint was filed in July 2012. They’ve just finished their 3rd consecutive successful test, which has led DAPA to resume production.

About 500 of these ASROC-type weapons have been deployed on ROKN destroyers thus far, but FFX Batch II frigates are also expected to include them in future. Sources: Yonhap, “S. Korea to resume production of homegrown torpedo after quality improvement”.

2011 – 2013

3rd and last ship delivered; KDX-III ships are tougher than contemporaries; Destroyers used to track North Korean rockets; Chinese belligerence ensures more orders. DDG-991, RIMPAC 2010
USN LHD-6 & CG-65
(click to view full)

Dec 10/13: 3 more. The Joint Chiefs of Staff didn’t even wait until Dec 22/13. Shortly after Korea declared its own expanded air identification zone, JCS chairman Choi Yun-hee approves the KRW 4 trillion (about $3.8 billion) plan to field 3 new Aegis destroyers between 2023 – 2027. That price is much more realistic, but note that it’s still about 1/3 less than the USA pays for smaller Arleigh Burke Flight IIA Aegis destroyers.

The ROK MND later confirms that the new ships will be capable of conducting ballistic missile “detection and tracking”, which is more significant than it sounds. Adding that capability involves about $60 million in modifications to radar processing electronics and software, and once it’s installed, the SM-6 missile that South Korea plans to buy will offer last-stage terminal missile defense. It’s much more diplomatic to leave this as an implied capability, but it will absolutely be present, unless the ROKN elects to use an obsolete version of the Aegis system when the ships are built, rather than the AEGIS BMD 5.1+ system that will available by 2020. If South Korea wants to go beyond last-stage terminal defense, it will also have an inherent ability to add that by simply buying SM-3 missiles. Future events will drive that decision.

We’d also like to point out the amusing refusal of China’s Xinhua to mention that Korea’s new ship decision was prompted in part by China’s new ADIZ. South Korea’s MND is diplomatic, but “ocean sovereignty defense” is pretty clear. Sources: South Korea MND, “Additional securement of three Aegis ships by the mid 2020s” | Yonhap, “(EALD) S. Korea to build three more Aegis destroyers ” | China’s Xinhua, “S.Korea to increase Aegis destroyers to six by 2027″ | ROK Drop, “South Korea Declares ADIZ That Overlaps With Chinese Zone”.

3 more approved

Dec 1/13: 3 more? Yonhap reports that China’s aggressive Nov 23/13 “East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone” declaration, which includes key natural gas fields and ROK facilities like Ieodo Ocean Research Station, is changing South Korea’s defense plans.

A proposed $2.8 billion buy of 3 more KDX-III destroyers was probably going to lose out to other priorities, but now it’s an urgent priority for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The proposal is now expected to be finalized during a Dec 22/13 meeting, and the destroyers are expected to enter service between 2022 – 2028. Note that $2.8 billion for 3 ships would be about half of what the US Navy pays for smaller DDG-51 Aegis destroyers. That would be amazing, given the 40%+ standard cost share for (often foreign) mission equipment vs. the assembled ship.

All this, and F-35s too. Lockheed Martin says Happy Cyber Monday and Merry Christmas to you too, Xi Jinping. Sources: “S. Korea to OK plan to build three more Aegis destroyers: source”

June 11-12/13: SM-6. The Yonhap news agency quotes “a senior government official,” who says that its KDX-III destroyers will have their SM-2 missiles supplemented by SM-6 purchases as of 2016, as part of KAMD. The SM-6 will complement the ROK’s existing SM-2s. By 2016, they’ll be usable as terminal point defense against ballistic missiles, while also providing long-range air defense against enemy fighters, cruise missiles, etc. If the 2016 delivery date is fixed, it implies a 2014 order for SM-6 missiles. It also implies a future system upgrade for the ships, from a standard Aegis combat system to Aegis BMD 5.0.

KAMD would integrate the ROK’s Green Pine radar, PATRIOT missile batteries, naval missile defense assets, and other surveillance systems into a single “kill chain”, reducing Korea’s dependence on American help. On land, South Korea is looking to upgrade its PATRIOTs to the latest PAC-3/Config-3 standard. The question is how compatible that system will be with the USA’s missile defense systems. A working group has been set up with the USA, and findings are expected in early 2014. South Korea hopes to have KAMD v1.0 fully ready by 2020. Sources: Yonhap, “S. Korea to deploy new surface-to-air missiles for Aegis destroyers” | Global Post, “S. Korea aims to establish missile destruction system by 2020″.

Naval BMD OKed

April 5/13: Amidst the standard threats of war that accompany changes in South Korean administrations, the South Korean military has deployed 2 of its KDX-III destroyers to the East and West Seas, as North Korea reportedly prepares to launch a mobile Musudan/ Nodong-B missile from somewhere along the east coast.

The class isn’t equipped for full ballistic missile defense, but it can pick up missile launches and track them for a period of time. Arirang News.

Dec 12/12: An Unha-3 long-range rocket launched by North Korea is detected by a KDX-III destroyer in the Yellow Sea 94 seconds after its 9:51 am launch. The 1st stage passed over the northernmost island of Baengnyeong one minute later and the 2nd stage flew west of Japan’s Okinawa.

North Korea claims that the rocket is part of a space program. Everyone else understands it as an ICBM test vehicle. A similar launch in April 2012 broke apart shortly after lift-off. Korea Times.

Aug 30/12: #3 delivered. The ROK Navy takes delivery of ROKS Seoae Ryu Seong-ryong [DDG-993], at Hyundai Heavy Industries’ No. 6 dockyard in Ulsan. She will be deployed for combat around mid-2013, after a 9-month trial period. Navy Recognition.

KDX-III #3 in service

July 16/12: #2 trials. ROKS Yulgok Yi I [DDG-992], successfully completes at-sea Combat System Ship Qualification Trials (CSSQT) for the ship’s Aegis Combat System, supported by the U.S. Navy and Lockheed Martin.

Qualification took place at the Pacific Missile Range Facility off the Hawaiian island of Kauai. The trials are the final tests of system design, hardware and software integration, ship construction and crew training. The anti-air warfare exercises included manned aircraft raids, electronic attack scenarios and live air-defense engagements. Lockheed Martin.

June 1/11: #2 in service. The ROKN places the 2nd KDX-III destroyer, ROKS Yulgok Yi I, into service after 9 months of test operations, and assigns her to their Navy’s 7th fleet. South Korea’s Yonhap | NTI | China’s official Xinhua.

KDX-III #2 in service

March 24/11: #3 launched – last? The South Korean Navy launches DDG 993 Seoae Ryu Seong-ryong, named after a leading scholar of the 16th century. Hyundai Heavy Industries SVP Park Sang-cheol is quoted as saying that:

“The Seoae Ryu Seong-ryong is quite different from other existing aegis vessels. Over 100 tons of steel are attached on both sides to prevent damage from explosions in and outside of the ship. This system for a destroyer is not seen anywhere else in the world.”

This ship will be the 3rd – and possibly the last – KDX-III destroyer. The ROKN anticipates commissioning the Seoae Ryu Seong-ryong in late 2012, following various sea trials. Operational deployment isn’t expected until mid-2013. After that, the question is whether the ROKN picks up the program’s 3 options, or decides to build a larger number of lighter and less expensive ships. Meanwhile, the Chosun Ilbo reports that the military is thinking of supplementing or replacing the KDX-IIIs’ medium range SM-2 anti-aircraft missiles with the new active-seeker SM-6, once the U.S. finishes developing it. Hyundai Heavy Industries | Lockheed Martin | Ariang TV | Chosun Ilbo | Forecast International | Korea Herald.

Jan 5/11: Aegis. Lockheed Martin Mission Systems and Sensors in Moorestown, NJ receives a $40.6 million cost-plus-fixed-fee letter contract with performance incentives for combat systems engineering and installation and test aboard the “DDG 993 Kwon Yul,” the KDX-III program’s 3rd ship (which was renamed by March 2011). Requirements include the necessary combat systems engineering, computer program development, and ship integration and test support to deliver a variant of the U.S. Navy Aegis baseline 7, phase I computer program and equipment. This contract also funds an integrated test team to assist the Korean shipyard in performing installation and testing of the Aegis Combat System.

Work will be performed in Ulsan, Korea (48%); Moorestown, NJ (44%); Kongsberg, Norway (7 %); and Dijon, France (1%), and is expected to be complete by September 2012. This contract was not competitively procured by US Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington Navy Yard, DC (N00024-11-C-5103, Foreign Military Sales case KS-P-LPN).

2000 – 2010

2nd ship delivered; Red Shark K-ASROC missile ready to add to KDX-III; Software glitch impairs radar tracking. ROKS King Sejong the Great
(click to view full)

Aug 31/10: #2 delivered. Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering delivers the Yulgok Yi-I to the ROK Navy, as the 2nd ship of class [DDG 992]. KBS.

ROKS Yulgok-Yi I

July 29/10: #1 qualified. Lockheed Martin announces that ROKS Sejong the Great successfully completed a 3-week series of Combat System Ship Qualification Trials (CSSQT), at the US Navy’s Pacific Missile Range Facility off of Kauai, HI. During the CSSQT, the ship’s Aegis Combat System faced comprehensive surface, subsurface and anti-air warfare exercises, as well as thorough testing of the system’s tactical data link capabilities. The anti-air warfare exercises included manned aircraft raids, electronic attack scenarios, and live Standard Missile-2 and Rolling Airframe Missile air defense engagements.

March 26/10: Sinking Shock. The Pohang Class corvette ROKS Cheonan is attacked and sinks, killing 46 of the 104 crew members. Subsequent investigation shows that it was sunk by a North Korean torpedo, fired from a submarine with what was apparently complete surprise.

The attack causes South Korea to re-evaluate its defense plans. The FFX project may end up receiving a boost, at the expense of high-end ships like the KDX-III AEGIS destroyers. Wikipedia re: Cheonan | Chosun Ilbo | JoongAng Daily | NY Times || ROK ambassador to US CSIS presentation [PDF] | Korea JoongAng Daily re: force rethink.

ROKS Cheonan corvette sunk

Nov 17/09: Aegis. Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems & Sensors in Moorestown, NJ received a $41.1 million modification to a previously awarded contract (N00024-03-C-5102) for combat systems engineering (CSE), installation, and testing aboard KDX-III Ship 2. This award includes CSE, computer program development, and ship integration and test support to deliver a variant of the US Navy Aegis weapon system Baseline 7 Phase I computer program and equipment to support the construction of the 2nd Korean ship in the KDX-III class. In addition, this contract funds an integrated test team to assist the Korean shipyard in performing installation and testing of the Aegis Combat System.

This contract involves purchases for the Republic of Korea under the Foreign Military Sales Program. Work will be performed in Moorestown, NJ (53%) and Korea (47%), and is expected to be complete by December 2010. The Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington DC issued the contract.

July 20/09: New squadron concept. The Korea Times reports that their Navy plans to establish a strategic mobile fleet of 2 destroyer-led squadrons by February 2010, in a bid to develop blue-water operational capability beyond coastal defense against a North Korean invasion.

Each mobile squadron would initially consist of a KDX-III Aegis destroyer, 3 4,500-ton KDX-II destroyers, and maritime aircraft. That would be augmented by submarines and smaller ships like the FFX frigates, once a forward naval base is finished on the southern island of Jeju, around 2014.

June 22/09: Red Shark ready. The Korea Times reports that the indigenous Hongsangeo (Red Shark) replacement for American VL-ASROC anti-submarine missiles has completed its 9-year, $80 million development program, and will begin deployment in 2010.

The state-funded Agency for Defense Development (ADD) has also worked with Hongsangeo manufacturer LIG Nex1 to develop the conventional Cheongsangeo (Blue Shark) light torpedo and Baeksangeo (White Shark) heavy torpedo. The Red Shark system uses a Blue Shark torpedo, with a rocket booster for vertical launch and added range.

June 3/09: Glitched. As North Korea prepares to test another long-range ballistic missile, The Korea Times reveals quotes an anonymous Navy source, who said that software glitches in its missile tracking radar system may keep ROKS Sejong the Great in repairs. The ship arrived at the Naval Logistics Command in Jinhae, South Gyeongsang Province on May 23/09. According to their source:

“A flaw in the data transmission system linked with the missile tracking radar in the Aegis destroyer was found. Engineers from the Navy and Lockheed Martin are trying to fix the problem and reconfigure the radar system… The Navy has actually not been able to test the Aegis radar’s maximum capability so far due to the software glitch… We’re not sure at the moment if Sejong the Great will be able to participate in detecting a North Korean ballistic missile this time.”

AEGIS software problem

2005 – 2008

Ship #1 from launch to active service; Ship #2 launched; Will the destruction of ROKS Cheonan change South Korea’s naval plans? DDH-991 launch
(click to view full)

Dec 22/08: Active service begins. ROKS Sejong the Great [DDG 991] enters active service, making it the 94th AEGIS-equipped ship fielded and making South Korea the 5th nation to field such ships.

ROKS Sejong the Great achieved the impressive feat of on-time, on-budget delivery for a first-of-class ship. It was built and tested at Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI) in Ulsan, Korea and commissioned in Pusan, and completed its combat system test program ahead of schedule. Lockheed Martin.

KDX-III #1 in service

Dec 1/08: Aegis. Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems & Sensors in Moorestown, NJ received a $19.2 million modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-03-C-5102) for AEGIS Weapon System Inter Site Data Link (ISDL) integration efforts and delivery of the Baseline K1.1 Aegis Weapon System computer programs integrating this capability into the KDX-III Sejong the Great Class destroyers.

The contractor shall provide program management, system engineering and computer program development, ship integration and test, and technical manual services. This contract involves purchases for the Republic of Korea under the Foreign Military Sales Program. Work will be performed in Moorestown, NJ (90%) and Ulsan, South Korea (10%), and is expected to be complete by November 2009. The Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington DC issued the contract.

Nov 14/08: #2 launched. The 2nd KDX-III destroyer, Yulgok Yi I [DDG 992], is launched at Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering (DSME) in Okpo, Korea. Yi I was a prominent Confucian scholar of the Joseon Kingdom (1392-1910). Korea Times | Lockheed Martin.

Nov 7/08: #1 accepted. ROKS Sejong the Great [DDG 991] has its delivery accepted by the Republic of Korea Navy. Lockheed Martin.

ROKS Sejong the Great

May 25/07: #1 launched. The first KDX-III destroyer, the ROKS King Sejong [DDG 991], is launched in a ceremony at Ulsan shipyard in the southeastern port city. KOIS report | Hyundai Heavy Industries release.

March 1/07: Navigation. DRS Technologies Inc. announces a $7 million contract from the Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering (DSME) Co. Ltd. to provide FODMS Navigation Sensor Distributors for the 2nd KDX-III destroyer, ROKS Yulgok Yi I [DDG 992]

2002 – 2005

South Korea picks AEGIS system for KDX-III, Kongsberg ASW system.

Apr 25/05: Fiber network. Fresh off of a win to build fiber-optic multiplexing systems for American Arleigh Burke Class DDG 110-112 AEGIS destroyers, DRS Technologies Inc.’s EW & Network Systems unit in Buffalo, NY won a $9.2 million contract to build a fiber-optic network system for the Republic of Korea Navy’s related KDX-III King Sejong Class AEGIS destroyer.

DRS EW&NS will build the Fiber Optic Data Multiplex System (FODMS), a general purpose, dual-network system that provides data and integrated communications among propulsion and power control systems, steering, navigation sensors, weapons systems, alarms, indicators, bridge systems and the Aegis combat system, and ensures interoperability between legacy systems and off-the-shelf systems. Work will include the development of design documentation and installation drawing, installation and performance testing of the system. Work will commence immediately, and continue through January 2010.

The Special & Naval Shipbuilding Division of Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. in Ulsan, Republic of Korea, awarded the contract. DRS’ news release noted that the company also expects to receive future contracts of this nature, as the ROKN deploys additional KDX-III destroyers.

June 26/03: Aegis. The U.S. Navy today awarded a $267.5 million contract to Lockheed Martin to provide combat systems engineering, computer program development, and ship integration and test support, as part of the U.S Navy and Lockheed Martin’s responsibility to provide the Aegis Weapon System for its KDX-III Destroyer Program. Lockheed Martin’s release adds that the Korean Navy selected the U.S Navy and Lockheed Martin to equip KDX-III with AEGIS “in late 2002.”

June 18/03: ASW combat system. Lockheed Martin and Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace (KDA) announce a $21 million contract today for the KDX-III destroyers’ anti-submarine warfare control system. The contract expands a trans-Atlantic naval business relationship that began with work on Norway’s F310 Fridtjof Nansen Class AEGIS frigates.

June 17/03: VLS. Lockheed Martin announces an initial $67 million contract to continue production, delivery and installation of the MK 41 Vertical Launching System (VLS) for the U.S. Navy. An additional contract option of $129 million to support of Korea’s KDX-III shipbuilding program could raise the contract’s total value to $196 million. United Defense, LP of Aberdeen, SD (now BAE Systems), will be issued a major subcontract to produce major subassemblies for the MK 41 VLS, as will Metric Systems in Fort Walton Beach, FL.

July 25/02: AEGIS picked. Lockheed Martin wins the contract to provide South Korea’s navy with weapons control systems for the 3 KDX-III destroyers, beating European rival Thales SA. The KDX-III will be equipped with the SPY-1 passive phased array radar and AEGIS combat system, rather than Thales APAR active array radar that serves on the German and Dutch F124 air defense frigates.

AEGIS/SPY-1 beats APAR

March 18/02: AEGIS request. The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) announces [PDF] South Korea’s formal request to buy 3 Lockheed Martin AEGIS air defense systems, worth a potential US$1.2 billion, to arm the ROKN’s 3 new KDX-III destroyers.

The order will include 3 AEGIS Shipboard Combat Systems, 3 AN/UPX-29 (V) Aircraft Identification Monitoring System MK XII Identification Friend or Foe systems, 3 shipboard gridlock systems, 3 Common Data Link Management System/Joint Tactical Distribution Systems, 3 MK 34 gun weapon systems, 3 Navigation Sensor System Interfaces; plus testing and combat system engineering technical assistance, computer program maintenance, U.S. Government and contractor engineering and technical assistance, testing, publications and documentation, training, spare and repair parts, and other related support.

The principal contractors will be Lockheed Martin Naval Electronic Systems and Support of Morristown, NJ; Raytheon Company in Andover, MA; General Dynamics Armament Systems in Burlington, VT; and Lockheed Martin Naval Electronics Systems and Support in Eagan, MN. One or more proposed industrial offset agreements may be related to the proposed sale, but that hasn’t been finalized. If the sale does go through, South Korea will need 50 contractor representatives for approximately 5 years, to support integration and testing of the AEGIS Combat Systems.

AEGIS export request

Additional Readings Background: The Ships

• Republic of Korea Navy – KDX-III Page. Includes both English and Korean text. Note comparison of the USA’s Arleigh Burke, Japan’s Kongo/Atago, and Korea’s KDX-III AEGIS destroyers.

• Navy Recognition – Sejong the Great class Destroyer – ROK Navy: also known as KDX-III, Sejongdaewang class AEGIS Destroyer.

• Wikipedia – King Sejong the Great class destroyer.

• Ask Asia – King Sejong the Great and the Golden Age of Korea.

• Davis Engineering (Sept 2002) – KDX-III Advanced IR Design.

Background: Ancillary Technologies

• Lockheed Martin – AEGIS, Shield of the Fleet.

• Lockheed Martin – Aegis Combat System.

• LIG Nex1 – Lightweight Torpedo (Blue Shark).

• Thales – Goalkeeper – close-in weapon system.

• LIG Nex1 – Surface-to-Surface Missile (Hyun Mu).

• LIG Nex1 – Korean Anti-Submarine Missile (KASM, Red Shark).

• DID – Naval Swiss Army Knife: MK 41 Vertical Missile Launch Systems (VLS).

• BAE Systems – Mk 45 Mod 4 Naval Gun System.

• DID – RAM (Rolling Airframe Missile) Systems: Contracts & Events.

• LIG Nex1 – SLQ-200K Sonata. ESM emissions locator.

• DID – Raytheon’s Standard Missile Naval Defense Family (SM-1 to SM-6)

• Sagem – Vampir NG long-range IRST (InfraRed Search and Track).

• DID – Pining for Control: South Korea’s KAMD Buying ABM Radars, AMD C2. The core of South Korea’s ballistic missile defense system, which will include the KDX-III ships and SM-6 missiles as the naval component.

News & Views

• DID – Pining for Control: South Korea Buying ABM Radars, AMD C2. Green Pine BMD radars from Israel, and advanced command and control infrastructure.

• Navy Recognition (Nov 5/14) – DSME showcasing its next generation KDDX Destroyer for ROK Navy at Indo Defence 2014. Smaller 8,000t follow-on class.

• ISN (May 26/14) – South Korea’s Air and Missile Defence: Below the Threat Level.

• Yonhap (May 26/14) – Acquiring SM-3 missiles not an option for S. Korea: defense ministry.

• The Diplomat (Oct 23/13) – Why South Korea’s Building an Impressive Navy. Note, this was before the China ADIZ provocation.

• Yonhap (Oct 15/13) – S. Korea seeks multi-layered missile defense against North.

• The Diplomat (July 26/13) – South Korea Goes All In On Missile Defense.

• RUSI (March 13/13) – South Korea’s Emergent Missile Defence Capabilities.

AIM-120C from F-22A
(click for test missile zoom)

Raytheon’s AIM-120 Advanced, Medium-Range Air to Air Missile (AMRAAM) has become the world market leader for medium range air-to-air missiles, and is also beginning to make inroads within land-based defense systems. It was designed with the lessons of Vietnam in mind, and of local air combat exercises like ACEVAL and Red Flag. This DID FOCUS article covers successive generations of AMRAAM missiles, international contracts and key events from 2006 onward, and even some of its emerging competitors.

One of the key lessons learned from Vietnam was that a fighter would be likely to encounter multiple enemies, and would need to launch and guide several missiles at once in order to ensure its survival. This had not been possible with the AIM-7 Sparrow, a “semi-active radar homing” missile that required a constant radar lock on one target. To make matters worse, enemy fighters were capable of launching missiles of their own. Pilots who weren’t free to maneuver after launch would often be forced to “break lock,” or be killed – sometimes even by a short-range missile fired during the last phases of their enemy’s approach. Since fighters that could carry radar-guided missiles like the AIM-7 tended to be larger and more expensive, and the Soviets were known to have far more fighters overall, this was not a good trade.

Some MRAAM History, and AMRAAM’s Design Approach

Before 1991, the combat record of all air-air missiles was generally poor – and most of the kills scored in combat belonged to short-range heat-seeking missiles. The USA entered Vietnam expecting that 70% of AIM-7 Sparrow missile shots would result in a kill. The real-world total was 8%, even though the USA faced older MiG 17-21 aircraft, rather than the newest Russian fighters.

That trend began to shift somewhat in the 1980s. The Falklands War had no aircraft on either side that could use medium-range air-air missiles, but Israeli F-15s and F-16s used AWACS and poor Syrian tactics to produce an 88-0 kill ratio in 1982. The F-15s’ medium-range AIM-7F Sparrow missiles performed better in terms of fire:kill ratios than they had in past conflicts, but the vast majority of kills were still made with Sidewinder or Python short-range missiles. Further afield, the Iran-Iraq War saw Iran’s F-14 Tomcats demonstrate good performance with their long-range Phoenix missiles, against Iraqi aircraft that often lacked radar warning receivers, and never saw the missiles coming. A reprise of sorts took place in 1991, when exceptional situational awareness and poor Iraqi tactics allowed US aircraft to score around 80% of their Iraqi air-air kills in 1991 with modernized AIM-7 Sparrow medium-range missiles.

The lessons that had led to the AMRAAM program still applied, however, and the conflicts in Lebanon, Iran, and Iraq demonstrated the potential value of longer-range missiles and some of their enabling technologies. That helped AMRAAM retain its support, despite initial development glitches and rising costs. It still aimed to remove the shortcomings that made the AIM-7 a somewhat dangerous weapon for its own side. The key lay in its new approach to guidance.

AIM-120A cutaway
(click to view full)

In beyond-visual-range engagements, AMRAAM is guided initially by its inertial reference unit and microcomputer, which point it in the right direction based on instructions from the targeting aircraft or platform. A mid-course target location update can be transmitted directly from the launch radar system to correct that if necessary, an approach that may avoid triggering enemy radar warning receivers. In the final phase of tracking, however, the internal active radar seeker becomes completely independent and guides the missile through its own active lock-on. Most sources place its reported range at about 50 km/30 miles[1].

F/A-18C, loaded for bandits
(click to view full)

When coupled with modern radars, AMRAAM’s guidance approach allows a fighter to launch and control many missiles at once, avoiding a dangerous fixation on one target. Its autonomous guidance capability also provides a pilot with critical range-preserving launch and leave capability, improving survivability and helping to avoid “mutual kill” situations. Even more advanced technologies are emerging that go one step further, and allow secure “hand-off” of a fired AMRAAM to another friendly fighter.

All of these abilities, of course, assume an air environment in which it is possible to use IFF (Identification, Friend or Foe), AWACS (Airborne Warning & Control Systems) aircraft, Link 16/MIDS, etc. to safely distinguish enemy aircraft from friendlies. This has been a problem in past conflicts, resulting in rules of engagement that force the use of visual identification before firing. Obviously, that negates many of the tactical advantages of having beyond-visual-range (BVR) missiles.

Customers & Performance Launch from F-22
click to play video

AMRAAM is a joint U.S. Air Force and Navy program that achieved initial operational capability in 1991, and is still in brisk production over 20 years later. At least 28 other countries have also bought AMRAAM variants, which can be fitted to F-15s, F-16s, the F/A-18 family, F-22s, F-35s, EADS Eurofighters, and Saab’s JAS-39 Gripen. Germany’s aging F-4 Phantom IIs, the British/German/Italian Panavia consortium’s Tornado aircraft, and Britain’s Harriers can also carry them.

Dassault’s Mirage 2000v5 and later have been advertised at times as having this capability, but confirmation is weak, and no current Mirage 2000 customer flies with this option. The reports probably represented offers to add this capability. Dassault’s 4th generation Rafale aircraft is also listed in some venues as having AMRAAM capability, though Raytheon has never said so, and all Rafales currently operate with MBDA’s MICA missiles instead.

Even so, AMRAAM’s record of sales success has made it the global standard for medium-range AAMs, and the number of beyond visual range kills as a percentage of total air-to-air victories has risen sharply during the “AMRAAM era.”

What does this mean in practice for missile performance?

To date, RAND’s Project Air Force notes that AIM-120 missiles have demonstrated 10 kills in 17 firings, for a 59% kill rate. That’s a significant improvement over the AIM-7’s record, and AIM-120A and AIM-120C missiles split these kills equally. Victims have included an Iraqi MiG-25 and MiG-29, 6 Serbian MiG-29s, a Serbian J-21 Jastreb trainer/light attack jet, and the accidental downing of a US Army UH-60A helicopter. The last of these incidents occurred in 1999.

One caution regarding these figures is that both AMRRAM missiles, and electronics used for electronic countermeasures, have both advanced considerably in the dozen-plus since the missile’s last combat kill. A second set of cautions involves the circumstances of these victories. There are no reports of electronic countermeasures being used by any AMRAAM victim, none of these victims were equipped with beyond visual range weapons of their own, the Iraqi MiGs were fleeing and non-maneuvering, and the Serbian MiGs reportedly had inoperative radars.

These difficulties in assessing true BVRAAM (beyond visual range air-air missile) performance in the modern era are magnified by a corollary fact: None of AMRAAM’s competitors have been able to compile much of a performance record, either. With the end of recurring full-scale Arab wars against Israel, the globe’s top trial venue for full-scale warfare has evaporated, leaving few opportunities to put modern anti-aircraft systems to a real test.

AMRAAM: Upgrades & Derivatives AIM-120C

The Pentagon’s Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) approved AIM-120A AMRAAM Full Rate Production (Milestone III B) in April 1992. Subsequent modifications have produced improvements in a number of areas, but the AIM-120D is likely to be the first really large jump in AMRAAM capabilities from version to version. It should be noted, however, that incremental upgrades add up over time. An AIM-120C-6, for instance, is a generation beyond an AIM-120A in terms of its overall capabilities.

AIM-120B was first delivered in late 1994. It had a number of electronics upgrades, from the guidance section to hardware modules and processor. Its hardware was also reprogrammable, which is not possible with the AIM-120A.

AIM-120C missiles featured a change in shape, with smaller fins that would allow 3 missiles to be carried inside the F-22A Raptor‘s stealth-maximizing internal weapons bays. A number of incremental updates brought it to AIM-120-C6 status, including guidance section upgrades, smaller control electronics, a slightly larger rocket motor, an improved warhead, and a target detection upgrade.

At present, the AIM-120-C7 is the most advanced AMRAAM approved for export beyond the USA. The AIM-120-C7 is currently in production for almost all export customers, with an improved seeker head, greater jamming resistance, and slightly longer range. Additional work continues to improve the C7’s resistance to electronic countermeasures, and this 2-phase EPIP program is scheduled to continue into FY 2017.

US-only AIM-120D missiles will feature the C7 improvements, but the D version reportedly adds a very strong set of upgrades. Pentagon documents confirm the use of smaller system components; with an upgraded radar antenna, receiver & signal processor; GPS-aided mid-course navigation; an improved datalink; and new software algorithms. The new hardware and software is rumored to offer improved jamming resistance, better operation in conjunction with modern AESA radars, and an improved high-angle off-boresight “seeker cone,” in order to give the missile a larger no-escape zone. Less-publicized improvements reportedly include a dual-pulse rocket motor, for up to 50% more range and better near-target maneuvering.

AIM-120D fielding is scheduled for FY 2015 on the F/A-18C/D Hornet, F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, F-15C/D Eagle, F-15E Strike Eagle, and F-16 Falcon. The F-22A is expected to integrate the new missile in FY 2018. At present, the AIM-120D is not available for export, and that won’t necessarily change when integration is done.

Other AMRAAM-Related Systems

Other AMRAAM variants exist.

NCADE. The most interesting AMRAAM modification remains an R&D program designed to see if AMRAAMs modified with an AIM-9X Sidewinder’s infrared seeker and a 2nd stage rocket booster could be forward-deployed on fighters, and used to shoot down ballistic missiles during their lift-off phase.

With the coming addition of IRST systems to American fighters, NCADE would also offer an effective no-warning long-range weapon against aerial enemies, including stealth fighters. To date, however, the US military and Congress have failed to take an interest in NCADE beyond initial development work. Raytheon has also declined to pursue a self-funded approach.

CLAWS out
(click to view full)

SAM/GBAD. A parallel set of modifications and enhancements have seen AMRAAM missiles pressed into service in a surface-air missile role. Programs like Norway’s NASAMS, the USMC’s CLAWS (ended in 2006), etc. are often referred to by the umbrella term SL-AMRAAM, for Surface Launched AMRAAM. SL-AMRAAM contractors include Raytheon, as well as Kongsberg Defence and Aerospace of Norway, and Boeing.

Kongsberg has sold its related Norwegian Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System (NASAMS) system to Norway, Finland, The Netherlands, Oman, Spain, and the USA. There are rumors that a SLAMRAAM type system has been deployed in Egypt, and such systems have drawn official buying interest and rumored contracts from Chile, and the UAE. The key to effective deployment is integrating the system, and its accompanying IFCS control system and AN/MPQ-64F1 Improved Sentinel radars, with a country’s wider air defense command and control systems.

The US Marines killed their own CLAWS program in 2006, the same year the US Army’s SLAMRAAM passed its System Critical Design Review. The Army eventually canceled SLAMRAAM in FY 2012. Even so, the USA has a deployed system to protect the Washington DC area, and exports keep the surface-launched AMRAAM option alive and well if the USA changes its mind.

The 3 surface launchers for AMRAAM at present include the 8-missile “universal launcher” which can be mounted on medium trucks, the 5-missile CLAWS for smaller vehicles, and the 6-missile fixed NASAMS. All 3 launcher types provide 360 degree coverage, with a 70 degree off boresight capability – i.e. a 140 degree target acquisition cone. In June 2007, Raytheon announced more SLAMRAAM upgrades via options to add SL-AMRAAM-ER extended range variants (likely via a rocket booster on the missiles), and an AIM-120 variant with an AIM-9X infrared seeker. The latter would allow a mix-and-match combination of radar/infrared SAM sets, similar to the Spyder, VL-MICA, etc. being fielded by international rivals. On which topic…

AMRAAM’s International Competitors R-77/AA-12 on MiG-29
(click to view full)

The AMRAAM’s most prominent global competitors, in declining order of prominence, include:

Russia’s Vympel R-77, also known as the AA-12 Adder and colloquially called the ‘AMRAAMski’. It is a larger missile with a similar guidance approach, and reportedly offers a slightly longer range, varying from 60-90 km (36-54 miles) depending on assessments of its drag coefficient. It looks a bit like the French MICA missiles, but its “screen door” or “potato masher” tail fins are its most distinguishing characteristic. Comparisons of its maneuverability, electronics, and hence its fire:kill effectiveness ratio remain a matter of speculation in public-domain circles, and there are also reports that the R-77 can be launched and ‘handed off’ to another aircraft. This has tactical implications, as discussed by one DID source:

“The ‘cobra’ maneuver… where the Flanker pitchers [vertically] to over 100 degrees is not a stunt, it is a missile launch maneuver for a over-the-shoulder launch on a passing head-on target by an IMFIL missile, as briefed to me by the Director of TsAGI. German Zagainov.”

The R-77 can equip modern SU-30 fighters like the SU-30MK2, modernized SU-27s, and some of the most modern MiG-29/35 offerings as well. There are also reports that India has even fitted the missile to its upgraded MiG-21 ‘Bisons,’ leveraging their new Phazotron Kopyo radars and upgraded avionics.

There are reports that the coming RVV-MD upgrade may extend the missile’s range to 110 km. A R-77M ramjet version has reportedly been developed with 150+ km range, but confirmation of the ramjet program’s success and status remain sketchy. Firmer reports[2] now exist re: Russia’s ongoing development of the Novator K-100-1, which is based on the KS-172 missile instead; it will have a reputed range of 200-400 km.

Meteor BVRAAM

MBDA’s Meteor, which also includes Saab in the development group and adds Boeing as its American partner. The Meteor stems from Europe’s different fighter design philosophy and acquisition timing. Their 4th generation fighters were introduced in the 1990s, and feature less stealth than the F-22A or F-35. The Eurofighter, Gripen, and Rafale can be fitted with existing missiles like AMRAAM or MICA, but ultimately the Euro vision was that air supremacy against threats like the SU-30/R-77 combination required a long range (100 km/ 60 miles or more) missile – one with extreme maneuverability and ramjet propulsion that gives it Mach 4 powered flight to the very end of its range, rather than the “burn and coast” approach of most missiles. The Meteor is that missile, and it is currently undergoing testing and evaluation; it’s expected to begin service on JAS-39 Gripen fighters by the end of 2014.

Initial platforms for the Meteor BVRAAMs will include Saab’s JAS-39 Gripen (2014), EADS/BAE Eurofighter (2017), and Dassault’s Rafale (2019). MBDA has announced that it will be modified in future to fit the F-35’s stealth-enhancing weapon bays; given its characteristics, it also seems like a natural future upgrade for older planes like Tornados and F/A-18s. Forecast International sees MBDA as Raytheon’s biggest overall air-air missile competitor in the coming years.

Rafale w. MICA-RF & IR
(click to view full)

MBDA’s MICA family. MBDA inherited MICA from the French firm Matra. It uses a guidance philosophy similar to AMRAAM’s, and has very good maneuverability. MBDA posts its range as 60 km. What’s different is that it comes in 2 versions, and is designed for use at all engagement distances. The MICA IR version uses infrared homing, like many short-range AAMs. This allows it to be used at close range, or used to conduct no-warning attacks at longer ranges, using advanced IRST (InfraRed Search and Track) type optronics that have become common on 4+ generation fighters. The MICA RF uses active radar guidance like AMRAAM, and is in service aboard upgraded Mirage F1s, Mirage 2000-5+, and Rafale fighters.

MBDA’s truck-mounted or ship-mounted air defense versions are imaginatively named Vertical Launch MICA. The system’s ability to carry IR-guided MICA missiles allows effective operation in environments where turning on one’s radar will attract enemy strikes.

RAFAEL Derby
(click to view full)

RAFAEL’s Derby. Derby 4 looks a lot like AMRAAM, but it’s actually based on Israel’s own well-developed missile technology. It lists a 50 km effective range like AMRAAM, but this is questionable given its size and commonalities with the shorter-range Python 4; some observers place its range closer to 30 km. Derby 4 has been updated with a new seeker, has lock-on after launch capability for snap employment in short-range aerial engagements, and features its own programmable ECCM (Electronic Counter-Countermeasures) technologies. Apparently, it still lacks an in-flight datalink, and must rely on last-reported position before switching to active mode. Derby has been exported to a few Latin American countries.

RAFAEL’s truck-mounted SPYDER combines Derby and short-range 5th generation IR/imaging-guided Python 5 missiles, to create a versatile system adapted for use against a wider range of threats. A new Spyder 6×6 truck version (SPYDER-MR) was unveiled at Eurosatory 2006 that doubled mixed missile capacity to 8, and put boosters on all missiles to improve their range and performance. SPYDER customers include India’s order for 18 SPYDER systems of 5 vehicles each, Peru’s buy of 6 systems, and an order from Singapore.

AMRAAM: Program

AMRAAM continues to be funded in the USA as a joint USAF/ Navy effort, based on proportional contributions, and AIM-120C/D missiles are in active production for the US military and allied countries. The USA alone was expected to account for nearly 18,000 AMRAAMs bought, but as of the FY 2014 budget submission, expected orders would be 16,153: 11,792 for the USAF, and 4,461 for the US Navy.

The AMRAAM family of missiles has also chalked up significant export success from foreign air forces and armies. Those sales aren’t part of American budgets, but their boost to sales and production volumes does lower costs for the missile’s American customers. Obviously, export orders vary widely by country and year, and it can be many years between repeat AMRAAM buys from foreign air forces. In aggregate, however, foreign orders represent a very significant source of demand, which keeps production lines active, improves volume, and helps lower costs for the Pentagon. Indeed, the Pentagon’s cost per missile estimates in its budgets are dependent on at least 200 missile orders per year from foreign sources.

AMRAAM prices vary depending on the year, and their production quantity. The current average cost for AIM-120Ds seems to be somewhere around $1.5 million per missile. Which isn’t cheap, but if it blows up even a bargain-basement $25 million fighter, it’s a very good exchange ratio.

AMRAAM Program: Technical Challenges “Heave!”
(click to view full)

DMSMS. During the May 2010 AMRAAM International Users’ Conference, the USAF’s 649th Armament Systems Squadron raised the issue of “Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS).” In English, it means that companies who manufacture some parts are either going out of business, or ceasing production. The 649th ARSS said component shortages would begin as soon as 2012, unless AMRAAM customers built up spare stocks, or paid for missile redesign and retrofit work that would solve the problem. Time will tell.

Delivery Halt. Consistent problems with cold-temperature testing of AMRAAM rocket motors halted all AMRAAM deliveries to all customers from 2010 – 2012, and created almost a 2-year inventory backlog. Raytheon and ATK were puzzled, because the rocket motor’s design was the same, but subtle reformulations in the rocket motor’s fuel were to blame. Norway’s NAMMO stepped into the breach as the new primary rocket motor supplier, and Raytheon is gradually catching up AMRAAM deliveries to the USA, Chile, Finland, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates. April 2014 reports indicate that ATK has qualified its own new motor, and will become a supplier again in FY 2015.

AIM-120D. The AIM-120D is still in developmental testing by both the US Air Force and US Navy at Eglin AFB, FL, and China Lake Naval Weapons Station, CA. Funding was issued to prepare the manufacturing line for full production, and production orders are well over 350 missiles. The first production set of AIM-120D missiles was scheduled to be delivered from December 2007 – January 2009, but “continuing delays in resolving developmental hardware issues and less-than-expected effectiveness in flight test execution” have stymied the program.

The AIM-120D will finish about 6 years behind its 2008 target date for operational testing, due to technical failures that include missile lockup and aircraft integration problems. Some of those issues seem to be resolved now, but the missile won’t be fielded on any fighters until FY 2015, and a System Improvement Program will be needed afterward.

AMRAAM: Contracts & Key Events CATM training
(click to view full)

Unless otherwise specified, The Headquarters Medium Range Missile System Group at Eglin Air Force Base, FL issued the contract, and Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, AZ was the contract recipient.

Some definitions of terms are useful. AMRAAM All-Up Rounds (AURs) include the missile and its storage container. Air Vehicles Instrumented (AAVIs) are fully functional missiles with telemetry electronics instead of a warhead, and are used to support free flight testing. If the order says “Telemetry missiles” or “Warhead Compatible Telemetry Instrumented System (WCTIS)” configured AAVIs, on the other hand, the missile is meant to support live fire warhead testing. Captive Air Training Missiles (CATM) have seeker heads but no rocket motor or warhead; they are used in testing, training – and in combat exercises, where they can help keep score without any risk of real casualties.

FY 2015

June 11/15: Raytheon has completed lab testing of the Advanced, Medium Range Air to Air Missile – Extended Range (AMRAAM-ER), a ground-based air defense missile based on the AIM-120D and designed to be integrated with the Kongsberg NASAMS launcher. These latest tests validate that the missile can be integrated with the launcher, which will team with the AN/MPQ-64F1 Improved Sentinel radar to provide a highly capable air defense system. Raytheon is also taking the motor from its Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile and integrating it into the AMRAAM-ER to improve the missile’s range and engagement ceiling.

May 10/15: The US has reportedly deployed the AIM-120D AMRAAM missile to the Pacific, with recent photographs appearing to show the Raytheon-manufactured missile equipping a F/A-18E Super Hornet. Previous statements indicated that the missile wouldn’t be deployed until later this year, with the missile achieving Initial Operating Capability only last month.

March 25/15: Raytheon received a contract modification today totalling $528.8 million for the production of AMRAAM air-to-air missiles, a portion of which are earmarked for Foreign Military Sales. The company recently announced that it has begun development of an extended-range variant of the missile, with tests scheduled for later this year.

Feb 23/15: New -ER variant. Raytheon announced its newest AMRAAM-ER air-to-air missile will have extended range and more maneuverability. It plans tests before the year is out.

Dec 12/14: Japan. The US DSCA officially announces Japan’s export request for 17 AIM-120C-7 AMRAAM missiles, 2 Captive Air Training Missiles (CATMs), containers, missile support and test equipment, support equipment, spare and repair parts, publications and technical documentation, U.S. Government and contractor logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated cost is $33 million. Japan already has older AIM-120C5s in its inventory. The small size of this request matches Japan’s order for its first F-35s.

FY 2014

F-35 test

Aug 12/14: Turkey. The US DSCA officially announces Turkey’s export request for 145 AIM-120C-7 AMRAAM missiles, 10 extra missile guidance sections, 40 LAU-129 launchers, plus containers, support equipment, spare and repair parts, integration activities, publications and technical documentation, test equipment, personnel training and training equipment, and other US Government and contractor support. The estimated cost is up to $320 million.

This follows a $157 million request for 107 AIM-120C-7s (q.v. Sept 26/08). The DSCA says that these missiles will be used on the TuAF’s F-16 aircraft, and eventually their F-35As.

The principal contractor will be Raytheon in Tucson, AZ, and if a contract is signed, multiple trips to Turkey involving U.S. Government and contractors will be needed for technical reviews/support, program management, integration, testing, and training. The exact numbers and duration are unknown, and will be determined during contract negotiations. Sources: DSCA #13-50, “Turkey – AIM-120C-7 AMRAAM Missiles”

DSCA request: Turkey (145)

July 18/14: Lot 27. An $8.5 million a firm-fixed-price contract modification is an order from Australia, as part of Production Lot 27 (FY 2013, q.v. June 14/13). The money adds integration and testing for AMRAAM contract line item numbers 0008, 0009, and 0010, and brings the total cumulative face value of the multinational contract to $564.8 million. All funds are committed immediately.

Work will be performed at Tucson, AZ and is expected to be complete by June 30/16. USAF Life Cycle Management Center/EBAK at Eglin AFB, FL manages the contract (FA8675-13-C-0003, PO 0026).

June 30/14: Support. Raytheon in Tucson, AZ receives a sole-source $163.2 million fixed-price/ fixed-price-incentive/ cost-plus-incentive contract for AMRAAM Program Support and Sustainment (PSAS). PSAS provides sustaining engineering, program management, contractor logistics support. It will also address the diminishing manufacturing sources and material shortage tasks involving the AMRAAM CPU chip, improving the AMRAAM guidance section within the current performance envelope, and developing applicable test equipment.

$88.6 million is committed immediately, using a combination of USAF and US Navy missile/weapon budgets, and some O&M budgets. This contract has unclassified 45.7% foreign military sales service/repair requirements for Saudi Arabia, Korea, Israel, Singapore and United Arab Emirates.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ and is expected to be complete by Jan 31/17. The USAF Life Cycle Management Center/EBAK at Eglin AFB, FL manages the contract (FA8675-14-C-0026).

June 27/14: DC NASAMS. Raytheon IDS in Tewksbury, MA receives an $8.3 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to sustain the USA’s NASAMS (Norwegian Advanced Surface to Air Missile Systems) “interim air defense capability deployed in the Homeland Defense Area 1″ (i.e. in Washington, DC). This is a new follow-on service contract for the missile system, with 1 base year bought and options for up to 4 more years.

All funds are committed immediately, using US Army FY 2014 O&M funds. Work will be performed at Redstone Arsenal, AL, with an estimated completion date of June 27/14. Bids were solicited via the Internet, with 1 received by US Army Contracting Command Redstone Arsenal Missile at Redstone Arsenal, AL (W31P4Q-14-C-0114).

April 23/14: Industrial. Raytheon is making progress on its AMRAAM backlog, now that Nammo is supplying rocket motors that fully meet specifications. As of March 5/14, the firm has reportedly recovered $179 million (28.8%) of the $621 million withheld by the U.S. Air Force since 2012.

Bloomberg News cites USAF spokesman Ed Gulick as the source. The firm has reportedly told the USAF that it expects to be fully back on schedule by July 2014, and the corresponding funds are being released under a revised delivery schedule agreed on in December 2012.

Gulick adds that ATK has qualified a new motor, and is expected to resume deliveries to Raytheon in May 2015. Sources: Bloomberg, “Raytheon Recovering From Missile Delivery Delays, Air Force Says”.

Jan 28/14: DOT&E Testing Report. The Pentagon releases the FY 2013 Annual Report from its Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E). They cover the AIM-120 rocket motor problem, the AIM-120C3-C7 Electronic Protection Improvement Program (EPIP) software upgrade, and the AIM-120D.

As of October 2013, Nammo had manufactured 1,000 motors in their role as the sole source provider for new production motors.

The EPIP is in integrated testing under a plan that DOT&E approved in April 2012, though the ongoing lack of a budget from the US Senate has delayed the program.

The AIM-120D’s problems since December 2011 are better known, though most details are classified. IOT&E testing resumed in May 2013, but the program continues to experience delays. Follow-on Operational Test and Evaluation (FOT&E) is progressing, and is scheduled to end in FY 2014. On the good news front, captive-carry performance has exceeded the interim Mean Time Between Failure requirement, and is approaching the mature requirement of 450 hours.

March 4-11/14: FY15 Budget. The USAF and USN unveil their preliminary budget request briefings. They aren’t precise, but they do offer planned purchase numbers for key programs between FY 2014 – 2019. The detailed documents are released over the course of the next week, and those figures have been added to the charts and background above.

The AIM-120D has been delayed for a couple of years by testing issues, preventing the US military from benefiting from its extended range, improved seeker, etc. The Navy says that “AMRAAM procurements have been deferred in FY15 to ensure adequate time to correct testing and production delays,” which fits with planned Initial Operational Capability in FY 2015 for the Navy’s Hornets and Super Hornets. Meanwhile, they’re dropping purchases from just 44 in FY14 (-10 from request) to 0 in 2015 (-83 from FY14 plan). In contrast, the USAF is moving ahead with AIM-120D buys, buying 183 missiles (-16 from request) in FY14 and requesting 200 (-15 from plan) in FY15.

The Navy says that they’ll eventually catch up with its buys, which are slated to accelerate beyond its earlier plans. They plan to purchase 138 AIM-120Ds in FY 2016 (+30), 154 in FY 2017 (+26), 233 in FY 2018 (+63), and 274 missiles in FY 2019. The USAF is saying similar things, with a planned spike in FY 2017 (+30) and 2018 (+86), and continued high production in 2019. In reality, however, promises of “more later” very rarely come true. At about $1.5 million per missile, the required increases aren’t ruinous, but if finding the funding was easy, they wouldn’t be making reductions now. Source: USN, PB15 Press Briefing [PDF] | USAF, Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Overview.

Feb 25/14: Testing. Raytheon in Tucson AZ receives a sole-source $20 million indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract for work associated with AMRAAM Aircraft Integration, operational testing, and flight test support. The primary objective of this effort is to provide the necessary aircraft lab, flight test, flight clearance, simulation support, and repairs/maintenance during all aircraft integration efforts. If there are failures, troubleshooting, failure analysis etc. will be added as well.

$3 million in FY 2013 and 2014 RDT&E funds are committed immediately to 5 task orders (TO 0001 Simulation Support, TO 0002 Integration Support, TO 0003 Flight Clearances, TO 0004 Tech Support and TO 0005 Management/Financial Support).

Work will be performed at Fort Worth, TX; Eglin Air Force Base, FL; Hill AFB, UT; Edwards AFB, CA; Nellis AFB, NV; White Sands Missile Range, NM: China Lake/Point Mugu, CA; St. Louis, MO; Seattle, WA: Baltimore, MD, and Tucson, AZ, and is expected to be complete by September 2019. The USAF Life Cycle Management Center/EBA at Eglin AFB, FL manages the contract (FA8675-14-D-0009).

Dec 19/13: AIM-120D. Raytheon Missiles Systems, Tucson AZ, has been awarded a sole-source $40 million indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract for system improvements to include design, development, and test of the AIM-120D missile. Still working on that…

$4 million is committed immediately from FY 2013 – 2014 RDT&E budgets. Work will be performed at Tucson, AZ, and is expected to be complete by March 31/15. The USAF Life Cycle Management Center/EBA at Eglin AFB, FL manages the contract (FA8675-14-D-0082).

FY 2013

Orders: USA, Oman, Saudi Arabia; 1st launch for F-35; Operational mobile SAM introduced; Deliveries & payment resume with new rocket motor supplier. AMRAAM delivery
(click to view full)

July 19/13: ROK.The US DSCA announces [PDF] the Republic of Korea’s official request for 260 AIM-120C-7 AMRAAM missiles, creating a contingency stock for use with its KF-16 and F-15K fighters. The order will also include missile support and test equipment, spare and repair parts, support equipment, personnel training and training equipment, and other forms of US Government and contractor support. The estimated cost is up to $452 million, but that will depend on a negotiated contract.

The principal contractor will be Raytheon Missile Systems Company in Tucson, AZ, and if a contract is negotiated, it will require multiple government and contractor trips to South Korea over an 8-year period for technical reviews/support, program management, and training. Raytheon representatives will also be needed in South Korea to conduct modification kit installation, testing, and training.

DSCA ROK: 452

July 18/13: AIM-9X Block 3. Flight Global reports that US NAVAIR is pushing for an AIM-9X Sidewinder Block III, and hopes to give the short-range missiles a 60% range boost. That range would start to push the AIM-9X into comparable territory to France’s MICA.

US NAVAIR intends to launch the Block III’s EMD development phase in 2016, developmental testing in 2018, and operational tests in 2020, followed by Initial Operational Capability in 2022.

Part of the reported rationale involves the proliferation of digital radar jammers on enemy fighters, which lowers AMRAAM’s odds of a successful radar lock. NAVAIR doesn’t say it, but the F-35’s provision for just 2 internal air-to-air missiles forces all weapon options to be more versatile – which sometimes means more expensive. Unfortunately, programs like the “Triple Target Terminator” were seen as too expensive. Raytheon’s AMRAAM-derived NCADE was another alternative, but the US military hasn’t pursued it.

June 25/13: SL-AMRAAM. Raytheon delivers the first NASAMS High Mobility Launcher. Norway is the customer, and the electronics improvements on HML will also be retrofitted on their fixed NASAMS systems. These improvements include modern upgrades like GPS and north-finding instrumentation. Raytheon.

June 14/13: FY 2013. A $534.8 million firm-fixed-price contract for AMRAAM Production Lot 27. The FY 2013 totals are supposed to be up to $332.3 million to buy 180 AIM-120D missiles for the USAF (113) and Navy (67), and the other 51% of this order is AIM-120C-7s for Oman (F-16C/Ds) and Saudi Arabia (F-15C/D/S/SA). The cost ratios make it very likely that there are more than 180 missiles headed abroad, and their combined recent DSCA requests involve 27 for Oman and 500 for Saudi Arabia.

Given a standard 2-year delivery lag for orders, it’s likely that we’re looking at all of Oman’s request, and part of Saudi Arabia’s. The USA depends on a minimum of 200 AIM-120C orders to keep per-missile prices at their estimates, and this set should cover that. Raytheon is touting their recent ability to deliver faster than specified, which should help ease concerns about the backlog that developed from their 2010-2012 delivery stoppage.

Work will be performed at Tucson, AZ, and is expected to be complete by Jan 31/16. USAF Life Cycle Management Center/EBA at Eglin AFB, FL manages the contract (FA8675-13-C-0003).

FY 2013

June 6/13: F-35. First full launch of an AMRAAM from the new F-35 fighter. In this case, it was an AIM-120-C5 AAVI from an F-35A, #AF-01. It isn’t a targeted launch yet, which depends on the Block 2B software. They just want to be sure that it can be launched from the internal bay without blowing up the plane. USAF | LMCO F-35 site | AFA Air Force Magazine.

April 4/13: AMRAAM + F-15SGs. The US DSCA announces [PDF] Singapore’s request to buy 100 AIM-120C7 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM) – but it’s the context for this $210 million export request that makes it important. Sure, Singapore also wants 10 AMRAAM Spare Guidance Sections and an AMRAAM Programmable Advanced System Interface Simulator (PASIS). They also want 18 AN/AVS-9(V) Night Vision Goggles, the H-764G GPS with GEM-V Selective Availability Anti-Spoofing Module (SAASM), and Common Munitions Built-in-Test Reprogramming Equipment (CMBRE-Plus) “in support of a Direct Commercial Sale of new F-15SG aircraft.”

In other words, they’re about to buy another 12 F-15SGs as F-5 replacements and grow their fleet to 36, instead of buying 12 F-35Bs that won’t be useful until 2018 or later.

Because the fighters are a DCS sale, Singapore will manage it themselves, and figures aren’t disclosed. They’ve done this for all of their F-15SG buys, and past estimates for their 12-plane buys have been around $1.5 billion ($125 million per aircraft + support etc.). Their support and training infrastructure is already in place, so the total may be lower this time.

The $210 million FMS request will cover additional containers, spare and repair parts, support equipment, tools and test equipment, training equipment, and US government and contractor support – though Singapore won’t need any more on-site representatives. The prime contractors will be Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, AZ (AMRAAM); Honeywell Aerospace in Phoenix, AZ; ITT Night Vision in Roanoke, VA (NVGs); and ATK Defense Electronic Systems in Clearwater, FL.

DSCA Singapore: 100 – and more F-15SGs coming

Jan 10/13: Fixed. The USAF resumes AMRAAM payments to Raytheon, freeing up $104 million in immediate funds. Deliveries from now on will be based on ready missiles, rather than using a number of milestones from progressive funding.

Norway’s NAMMO AS is Raytheon’s new rocket motor supplier, and deliveries of missiles with new NAMMO motors are beginning this month. About 125 motors have been delivered so far, with production set to reach 100 per month very soon.

ATK needs to reformulate their fuel and re-certify it, which isn’t likely to take less than 18 months. They’re out for now, but the experience has reminded the USAF and Raytheon that multiple supplier arrangements have value. Enough value to justify more money in a tight budget environment? We’ll see.

The late deliveries create penalties for Raytheon worth about $27 – $33 million, which includes things like no-cost labor to install software upgrades, warranty coverage and free repairs. The USAF gets warranty coverage for 325 AIM-120D missiles, and 40 no-cost repairs. Reuters.

Motor switch, payments & deliveries resumed

Dec 12/12: Weapons. The US DSCA announces [PDF] Oman’s request for weapons to equip its existing and ordered F-16s. Implementation of this proposed sale will require multiple trips to Oman involving “many” U.S. Government or contractor representatives over a period of up to or over 15 years for program and technical support and training. The request includes 27 AIM-120-C7 AMRAAMs, among many other weapons. The estimated cost is up to $117 million for all, but exact costs will be determined by any negotiated contracts.

DSCA Oman: 27

Nov 19/12: Support. Raytheon in Tucson, AZ is being awarded a $6.4 million cost-plus fixed-fee contract to provide AMRAAM flight support.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ, and will run to the end of the fiscal year on Sept 30/13. The AFLCMC/EBAD at Eglin AFB, FL manages the contract (FA8675-13-C-0052).

FY 2012

Stopped deliveries. Poland. NASAMS launch
(click to view full)

Sept 6/12: NASAMS USA. Raytheon IDS in Tewksbury, MA receives a $9.65 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for maintenance and sustainment services in support of the Norwegian Advanced Surface to Air Missile System. There is a NASAMS system guarding the USA’s National Capital region.

Work will be performed in Redstone Arsenal, AL, with an estimated completion date of Aug 30/13. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received by US Army Contracting Command in Redstone Arsenal, AL (W31P4Q-12-C-0276).

July 23/12: Stopped deliveries. IHS Jane’s reports that Raytheon has been unable to deliver any AIM-120 missiles for almost 2 years, because they keep failing cold firing tests designed to mimic temperatures at high altitudes. Raytheon and motor manufacturer ATK say that the materials and formulation haven’t changed in more than 30 years, but consistent test failures began in late 2009, and Raytheon reportedly has a stock of 800 undeliverable missiles.

Something, somewhere has changed, but what? Raytheon and ATK are highly motivated, as payments have been suspended until the problem is fixed. As of this date, they’re still looking for that fix. Raytheon’s official statement as of September 2012 is:

“Restoring AMRAAM to full production is a top priority for Raytheon, and has the full involvement of company leadership and our rocket motor suppliers. Raytheon has continued to produce AMRAAM guidance and control sections on schedule, while we wait for our primary supplier to deliver compliant rocket motors. All resources of Raytheon and our supplier, as well as government and other experts have been engaged to resolve the rocket motor manufacturing issues. We have developed a second rocket motor supplier that has begun to deliver. Raytheon recently delivered 132 AMRAAM all-up rounds to the U.S. Air Force. We continue to work closely with our rocket motor suppliers and our customer; we expect to be on track making additional significant missile deliveries to our customers before the end of the year.”

Deliveries Frozen

May 10/12: An $11.4 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for “central processing unit, circuit card assembly spike extension” in Production Lot 24 (FY 2010) AMRAAMs. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ, and will run until July 31/13 (FA8675-10-C-0014, PO 0021).

March 23/12: AIM-120D. Bloomberg reports that the USAF is now withholding a total of $621 million in payments to Raytheon for the AIM-120D: $419 million in FY 2010 payments, and $202 million from FY 2007-2009.

Since January 2011, Raytheon has met or exceeded planned monthly delivery goals just 3 out of 14 times, and the AIM-120D production line is 193 missiles behind schedule as of Feb 29/12, according to Air Force data. Part of the problem is that ATK “has had difficulty for the past year consistently producing rocket motors to specification”. ATK says they’ve committed their top talent to the issue, and look forward to resuming deliveries to Raytheon “in the near future.” Raytheon would hope so, since the accumulating delays already cost them about $180 million in FY 2012 budget cuts, and could cost them again in FY 2013.

March 20/12: Cracked Up. The Taipei Times reports that the ROCAF currently has 120 AIM-120-C5s and 218 AIM-120-C7s in inventory, thanks to deliveries that began in 2004. Unfortunately, some of them were experiencing cracking in their pyroceramic radome nose cones. American investigators concluded that Taiwan’s high humidity, plus the pressure created by supersonic flight, were the problem. The ROCAF will respond by improving storage and rotation cycles.

The Taipei Times does note that Taiwan’s radar-guided MBDA MICA and locally-built Tien Chien II missiles aren’t having this problem, despite being exposed to the same conditions.

Nose job

Feb 3/12: Polish request. The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency announces [PDF] Poland’s official request to buy F-16 weapons, as well as a 5 year fleet support contract that includes associated equipment, parts, and training. The entire contract set could be worth up to $447 million, and includes up to 65 AIM-120-C7s. See “2012-02: Poland Requests F-16 Weapons, Support” for full coverage.

DSCA Poland: 65

Jan 26/12: The Pentagon offers releases concerning its 2013 budget, including some news about program cuts, but the Comptroller doesn’t have the full budget documents up yet.

One encouraging piece of news for Raytheon is that one of the areas designated for protection or budget increases involves “Improved air­ to air missiles.” Despite its problems, the AIM-120D may be safe, for now. Pentagon release | “Defense Budget Priorities and Choices” [PDF]

Jan 26/12: A $17.4 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to provide test integration of software that’s intended to update and improve the US-only AIM-120D missile. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ, and is expected to be complete by Dec 31/13 (FA8675-09-C-0201, PO 0013).

Jan 17/12: DOT&E. The Pentagon releases the FY2011 Annual Report from its Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E). The AMRAAM is included, specifically the ongoing problems with the AIM-120D. The report says that there is still no date set for its operational testing readiness review, which was supposed to happen in 2008. Why not?:

“The four key deficiencies include missile lockup, built-in test (BIT) failures, aircraft integration problems, and poor GPS satellite acquisition… Raytheon has solved the BIT fail problem and has developed a pending solution to the GPS failure problem… The Air Force accomplished the final DT/OT(developmental testing/ operational testing) shot successfully in August 2011, but Raytheon has not yet resolved missile lockup or aircraft integration problems.”

FY 2011

Lot 25. Exports. SLAMRAAM ended. SLAMRAAM from FMTV
(click to view full)

Aug 31/11: FY 2011 order. A $569 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for the FY 2011/ Lot 25 AMRAAM order, divided 77%/ 23% between US government sales and Foreign Military Sales.

USA & General: 234 AIM-120D All-Up-Round (AUR) missiles; 101 AIM-120D CATMs; 4 AIM-120D AAVIs; 8 integrated test vehicles; Air Force AIM 120D guidance section; 103 non-developmental item-airborne instrumentation units; test equipment; Personnel Reliability Program Phase IV.

Exports: 203 AIM-120C7 Foreign Military Sales AURs; warranty for 100 CATMs; warranty for 25 AIM-120C7 AURs (Bahrain); and Foreign Military Sale software and contractor logistics support (FA8675-11-C-0030).

FY 2011

June 29/11: Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, AZ receives a $10.5 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract modification for the “Processor Replacement Program Foreign Military Sales software extension probability of weapon effectiveness.” The AAC/EBAC at Eglin Air Force Base, FL manages the contract (FA8675-09-C-0052, PO 0032).

June 16/11: FY12 zero-out? Flight International reports that the USA may cut Lot 26 AIM-120D production from the FY 2012 budget:

“Raytheon’s production line for the [AIM-120D] is more than 100 weapons behind schedule and operational testing has yet to begin…[so] the House appropriations committee’s defence panel wants to eliminate funding [for all 379 missiles] in the AIM-120D production account… in the fiscal year 2012 defence budget. Such a move, if approved by the Senate, would gut Raytheon’s production line for one year. Since its AIM-120D and export AIM-120C7 missiles are produced on the same line, the price of the latter could rise as order quantities are reduced. That could leave foreign buyers with a larger bill or fewer missiles next year.”

Asked about this, the USAF told DID that the AIM-120D is almost finished combined developmental and operational test phase. The next significant program milestone is the Operational Test Readiness Review (OTRR) in August 2011, to determine if the program is ready for dedicated operational testing.

As of the end of May 2011, the US military has taken delivery of 225 AIM-120Ds, vs. a contract delivery requirement of 361. That’s a backlog of 136 missiles, which are only paid for after they are delivered and signed for via DD250 documentation.

June 2/11: Australia request. The US DSCA announces [PDF] Australia’s formal request to buy up to 110 AIM-120C-7 AMRAAMs, 10 AIM-120C-7 AAVIs, 16 AIM-120C-7 CATMs, plus containers, weapon system support equipment, support and test equipment, site survey, transportation, repair and return, warranties, spare and repair parts, publications and technical data, maintenance, personnel training and training equipment, and other forms of support. The DSCA specifically notes that:

“The proposed sale will allow the Australian Defense Force to complete Australia’s F/A-18 program under their Project AIR 5349. Phase I allowed acquisition of F/A-18[F Super Hornet] Block II aircraft and Phase II is for the acquisition of weapons.”

The estimated cost is $202 million, with Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, AZ as the contractor. Actual costs will, of course, depend on the terms of any eventual contract. Australia already uses AMRAAMs on its older F/A-18A/B Hornets, but its F-111s did not. A larger AMRAAM-capable fleet means a need for a few more missiles. This proposed sale wouldn’t require any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives in Australia.

DSCA Australia: 110

Feb 17/11: AMRAAM component shortage? Focus Taiwan covers a ROCAF report on the May 2010 AMRAAM International Users’ Conference, in which the USAF’s 649th Armament Systems Squadron raised the issue of “Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS).” In English, that means people who manufacture some parts of the missile are either going out of business or ceasing production. The 649th ARSS said component shortages could begin as soon as 2012, and recommends that countries revise their AMRAAM support contracts to include maintenance and warranty clauses.

The longer term hope is to issue contracts for Raytheon to develop replacement components, as part of a joint logistics support plan extending to around 2030. Taiwan will join some other AMRAAM users in raising the issue of humidity, which makes it harder to store and maintain the missiles, and could accelerate their spares problem.

Component problems

Feb 16/11: Swiss budget. Switzerland approves its 2011 armament program. Biggest expense in the $450 million total? CHF 180 million ($192.8 million) to upgrade its stocks with new AIM-120-C7 AMRAAM medium range air-air missiles, alongside the old AIM-120Bs which were bought in 1992 with the air force’s 26 F/A-18C/D Hornet fighters.

The Defence Ministry no longer considers the AIM-120Bs to be up to date from an operational point of view, and is buying what it terms a “minimum number of guided missiles” to address that situation. The new AIM-120-C7s will be available alongside the older AIM-120Bs, though the latter are likely to be used more often in reserve and training roles. Swiss VBS | defpro. See also the Dec 21/10 entry, for the associated DSCA request.

Switzerland

Feb 14/11: FY 2012 budget. The Pentagon releases its FY 2012 budget request, even as it waits for the new 112th Congress to pass the FY 2011 budget that its predecessors failed to enact. The $579.5 million request would buy 379 missiles (218 USAF, 161 Navy), and provide $80.7 million in R&D for “product improvements such as fuzing, guidance, and kinematics.”

Jan 31/11: Support. A $15 million contract for AMRAAM technical support: systems engineering, small software enhancements, test support, maintenance and modification of special test assets, support to the Navy hardware in the loop simulation, aircraft integration, and other technical engineering requirements. At this time, no money has been committed – task orders will be issued if needed (FA8675-11-D-0050).

Jan 6/11: SL-AMRAAM. The Pentagon announces a number of changes, instead to take $150 billion from administration and weapons programs, and shift them into higher priority weapon programs. One of the proposed cancellations is the Army’s SLAMRAAM program which, like all of these proposed cuts, must be agreed and legislated by the US Congress before it comes into effect.

On the one hand, given the ongoing decline of American tactical airpower, canceling SLAMRAAM in favor of keeping older, short-range Stinger and Avenger air defense missile systems is a definite risk. On the other hand, AMRAAM ground-based air defense systems are selling around the world in Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, et. al., and will remain available as a mature system that can be implemented quickly if the need is recognized. Pentagon release re: overall plan | Full Gates speech and Gates/Mullen Q&A transcript || Atlanta Journal Constitution | The Atlantic | the libertarian Cato Institute | The Hill | NY Times | Politico | Stars and Stripes || Agence France Presse | BBC | Reuters | UK’s Telegraph | China’s Xinhua.

SLAMRAAM ended

Dec 21/10: Swiss request. The US DSCA announces [PDF] Switzerland’s official request to buy 150 AIM-120-C7 missiles, 6 AIM-120-C7 Telemetry Missiles, 24 AIM-120-C7 Captive Air Training Missiles, and 1 spare Missile Guidance Section, plus missile containers, weapon system support equipment, spare and repair parts, publications and technical documents, repair and return, depot maintenance, training and training equipment, and other forms of U.S. Government and contractor support. The estimated cost is $358 million.

Switzerland would use the missiles on its existing fleet of F/A-18C/D Hornet aircraft, which already carry earlier-model AIM-120B AMRAAMs. The prime contractor will, of course, be Raytheon Missile Systems Corporation in Tucson, AZ.

DSCA Switzerland: 150

Dec 13/10: SLAMRAAM. Raytheon announces the 2nd test firing of an unguided SLAMRAAM from its new carrier platform, an FMTV truck. Details and purpose are the same as the 1st firing, discussed in the Sept 9/10 entry.

Oct 20/10: Saudi Arabia. As part of a nearly $30 billion weapons export request that involves upgrading their entire F-15S fleet, and buying 84 new F-15SA Strike Eagles, Saudi Arabia also seeks export permission for up to 500 AIM-120-C7 AMRAAMs as one of the weapons in their request. US DSCA [PDF] | DID’s “The Saudis’ American Shopping Spree: F-15s, Helicopters & More”

DSCA Saudi: 500

FY 2010

SAR. Radomes. Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Chile. AIM-120D into F-22A
(click to view full)

Sept 28/10: Support. A $10.2 million contract modification which will extend the period of performance of the AMRAAM aircraft integration support effort contract through Sept 30/13. $1,815,268 has been committed (FA8675-08-C-0050; PO0016).

Sept 10/10: More radomes, please! A $25.8 million contract modification to restart the AMRAAM Radome “Phase II Pyroceram” project. At this time, the entire amount has been committed (FA3002-09-C-0003; AO0017).

A USAF representative explained that Raytheon had produced a large number of missile radomes before the line shut down, and it was thought that they would cover all future requirements. Since then, AMRAAM orders have surged ahead of those estimates, and stocks of radomes have been drawn very low. Production has to begin again, and this contract modification asks Raytheon to qualify the factory to build the same design radome as before. Production of new radomes will occur under the AMRAAM production contract, awarded separately, beginning in 2012.

Sept 9/10: SLAMRAAM. Raytheon announces that an unguided version of its ground-launched SLAMRAAM had a successful test firing from an FMTV truck at Eglin Air Force Base, FL. SLAMRAAM was initially mounted on Humvees, but it has become clear that those weren’t tough enough, so the Army will be using FMTV medium trucks instead. An FMTV derivative called the Caiman is even up-armored with a V-hull to survive mine blasts.

Missiles won’t launch exactly the same way from a different vehicle, however, because the launching itself creates different turbulence effects. That can have effects on nearby soldiers, and even on subsequent missiles if they’re ripple-fired. Understanding these “dynamic launch effects” was the goal of this test, and Raytheon adds that it will “reduce risk on future potential FMTV missile integration efforts, such as the AIM-9X.” Many other ground-launched air-to-air missile conversions use a dual setup of infrared and radar guided missiles, from Israel’s Spyder to France’s VL-MICA; adding AIM-9X to SLAMRAAM would give it the same versatility.

Aug 6/10: FY 2010 order. A $492.4 million contract which will provide AMRAAM missiles to American and international customers, and appears to be the FY 2010 buy. Note that AIM-120Ds and their accompanying training and test missiles are only sold to the US military. The order includes:

• 132 AIM-120D AURs;
  
• 12 AIM-120D Air Vehicles Instrumented (AAVI)
  
• 87 AIM-120D Captive Air Training Missiles (CATM)
  
• Warranty for 85 AIM-120D AURs for the USAF
  
• Warranty for 10 AAVIs for the USAF
  
• Warranty for 87 CATMs for the US Air Force and Navy
  
• AIM 120D guidance section and rear data link for the USAF
  
• 273 AIM-120C7 AURs for all Foreign Military Sales customers
  
• Warranty for 58 AIM-120C7 AURs for Foreign Military Sales customers Chile (13) and Jordan (45)
  
• 192 non-developmental item-airborne instrumentation units
  
• Test equipment; HIF/Spike life time buy; and contractor logistics support. This includes

Foreign Military Sales class customers within this order total 44% of its value, and include Morocco, Jordan, and Kuwait (q.v. Nov 15/10 entry); plus Canada, Chile, Finland, Singapore, South Korea, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. At this time, the entire amount has been committed (FA8675-10-C-0014).

FY 2010

April 28/10: Alternate rocket motor. Raytheon announces that it’s working with Norway’s NAMMO to begun qualifying an alternative rocket motor for the AIM-120 AMRAAM that would be interchangeable with current motors, and maintain the same performance as the current rocket engine. ATK is currently the primary rocket motor provider. Raytheon Missile Systems Air Warfare Systems VP Harry Schulte says that this is simple prudence for a key product, which has been bought by 36 countries, with more than 1.8 million captive-carry hours and more than 2,900 live firings:

“A second source of rocket motors ensures Raytheon will meet its commitment to the U.S. and international warfighter by providing a continual supply of AMRAAMs.”

NAMMO has a long-standing relationship of its own with Raytheon, and has delivered more than 40,000 rocket motors for the AIM-9 Sidewinder short range air-air missile program. It also seems like an good move if rocket motors are creating a problem for AMRAAM, which turns out to be the case. NAMMO ends up as the new supplier before all is said and done, with ATK free to pursue supplier certification without affecting deliveries. Raytheon release.

April 2/10: Support. A $13.5 million contract which provides support for 4 months of AMRAAM system engineering and program management, due to delay of Lot 24 (FY 2010 production), which would otherwise have covered those funds. At this time the entire amount has been obligated by the 695ARSS/PK at Eglin Air Force Base, FL (FA8675-09-C-0052). When asked about the delay, the team at Eglin AFB has this to say:

“The Air Force has changed contracting policy, departing from the more streamlined, “review-discuss-concur” (sometimes known as “alpha contracting”) approach of recent years, in favor of a traditional contracting approach that requires considerably more cost information and independent auditing by the Defense Contract Audit Agency.

This policy change has extended the schedule for negotiating and awarding our contracts. The Lot 24 contract, planned to be awarded in March/April originally, is now forecast for a June/July award. The four-month “bridge” contract was awarded to protect the program’s critical engineering and management workforce… [but] does not increase the ultimate cost of the Lot 24 contract.”

April 1/10: SAR. The Pentagon releases its April 2010 Selected Acquisitions Report, covering major program changes up to December 2009. AMRAAM makes the list, for both good and bad reasons:

“Program costs increased $6,402.7 million (+43.0%) from $14,880.6 million to $21,283.3 million, due primarily to a quantity increase of 3,887 missiles from 13,953 to 17,840 missiles (+$3,775.7 million) and associated schedule, engineering, and estimating allocations

• (+$457.7 million). Costs also increased due to software integration efforts (+504.4 million), the realignment of Navy and Air Force missile procurement during fiscal 2008 through fiscal 2024 (+$918.6 million), an increase in telemetry equipment to support training (+$422.9 million), and increases in tooling and test equipment, diminishing manufacturing sources requirements, and production/test support resulting from the extension of the production program from fiscal 2013 to fiscal 2024 (+$280.4 million).”

SAR

March 16/10: R&D. A $19.5 million contract to continue funding the AMRAAM system improvement program. At this time, the $2.8 million has been committed by the 696th ARSS at Eglin Air Force Base, FL (FA8675-10-C-0105).

March 9-11/10: AIM-120D. The new AIM-120D AMRAAM takes the first 2 Developmental Test/ Operational Test (DT/OT) live shots, at Eglin AFB, FL. Eglin officials tell DID that “Performance appeared to have been as predicted, but the [full] test data is still under review. The March 9 shot from a Navy F/A-18E Super Hornet resulted in a “lethal intercept” of the target, presumably due to proximity detonation. The March 11th shot from a USAF F-15C resulted in a direct hit.

The AIM-120D Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase is complete [and] fielding will follow the completion of an extensive operational testing effort that is currently underway. The 3rd and final DT/OT shot is planned for early-May 2010, and all missiles for the testing programs have been delivered.

March 2/10: SLAMRAAM. Raytheon announces that the USA’s Surface Launched Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (SLAMRAAM) program has received approval from the U.S. Army for long-lead purchases, not to exceed $18 million, leading to low rate initial production. The step toward LRIP status is an important milestone for that program.

Nov 15/09: Kuwait, Morocco & Jordan order. The US government executed separate letters of offer and acceptance with Kuwait, Morocco and Jordan enabling those US Middle East allies to purchase AIM-120C-7 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAMs).

In earlier requests to the US Congress, Kuwait had asked to buy 120 AIM-120-C7 AMRAAMs (see Sept 9/08 entry); Morocco had asked to buy 30 AIM-120-C5 AMRAAMs (C5 is the production version before the C7 – see July 9/08 entry); and Jordan had asked to buy 85 AIM-120-C7 AMRAAMs (see Aug 3/09 entry). The 3 countries will use the AMRAAMs in both air-to-air and air defense missions.

Jordan, Kuwait & Morocco

Nov 10/09: Chile request. The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) notified Congress of a request by Chile to buy 100 AIM-120C-7 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM) and associated parts, equipment and logistical support for approximately $145 million. DSCA requests are not contracts. If Congress does not block the request within 30 days, negotiations can begin for related contracts.

Chile intends to use these missiles to improve its capability to meet current and future threats of enemy air-to-air weapons. Chile is updating its military’s capability while increasing interoperability of weapon systems between itself, the US, and other allies.

DSCA Chile: 100

Oct 29/09: Rocket boost? Alliant Techsystems (ATK) announces a nearly $10 million contract to improve rocket motor technologies for the Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM), and well as future air-to-air missile systems. The scope of the work being performed under the Counter Air/ Future Naval Capabilities program is to develop technologies that will extend missile range, decrease time-to-target, improve end-game maneuverability, and improve the rocket motor’s response to insensitive munitions stimuli.

There are 4 main areas that ATK will concentrate on: high burn rate propellants for improved kinematics; improving case stiffness for reduced weight and agility; low erosion nozzles for improved performance; and multi-pulse propulsion for better end-game maneuverability. The Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division at China Lake, CA manages the contract. ATK expects to complete the work by June 2013.

FY 2009

FMS, Jordan, Bahrain. F-18F launch
(click to view larger)

Sept 16/09: Testing. Raytheon Co. in Tucson, AZ received a $22.2 million modification, which changes a previously awarded unfinalized contract (N68936-09-C-0097) to a cost-plus fixed-fee contract. Raytheon will design, build, and integrate an all-inclusive AMRAAM hardware-in-the-loop simulation system for military construction project P710, at the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division in China Lake, CA. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ (75%) and China Lake, CA (25%), and is expected to be complete in September 2011. The Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division in China Lake, CA will manage this contract.

The hardware-in-the-loop simulation facility includes hardware mounts, a flight table that can mount the core seeker assembly etc., and an anechoic chamber, in order to create simulated missile firings. It can test the missile’s radar seeker and ECCM (electronic counter-counter-measures) against simulated targets and threats, from a variety of imagined speeds and angles, and produce Monte Carlo simulations that explore hundreds of “firings” and create statistically useful results, without using up hundreds of missiles and expensive airframe time. It can also test the signals being sent to the rest of the missile, and make sure the software and mechanics are doing what they’re supposed to do.

The move from Point Mugu was prompted by changes mandated in the USA’s 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Act, and the new facility is expected to begin operations in September 2011 with AIM-120C7 capability. By September 2012, the facility is expected to be fully operational, with the ability to handle AIM-120C3-C7 models. See also NAVAIR release | Thanks to NAWCWD China Lake for clarification.

Aug 18/09: R&D. A $20.1 million cost-plus fixed-fee contract for the AMRAAM system improvement program. At this time $2.5 million has been committed. The 696th ARSS at Eglin Air Force Base, FL manages the contract (FA8675-09-C-0201).

Aug 3/09: Jordanian request. The DSCA announces [PDF] Jordan’s official request to buy 85 AIM-120C-7 missiles, 6 AIM-120C Captive Air Training Missiles, missile containers, spare and repair parts, support and test equipment, personnel training and training equipment, and support. The estimated cost is $131 million.

Implementation of this proposed sale will require bi-annual trips to Jordan involving 6 U.S. Government and 4 contractor representatives for program management reviews over a period of up to 5 years.

DSCA Jordan: 85

July 28/09: Bahrain request. The DSCA announces [PDF] Bahrain’s official request to buy 25 AIM-120C-7 AMRAAMs, missile containers, spare and repair parts, support and test equipment, personnel training and training equipment, and support. The estimated cost is $74 million.

Implementation of this proposed sale will require bi-annual trips to Bahrain involving 6 U.S. Government and 4 contractor representatives for program management reviews over a period of up to 5 years.

DSCA Bahrain: 25

May 11/09: FY 2009 order. A $521.3 million firm-fixed-price contract to Raytheon Co. of Tucson, AZ for AMRAAM production (FA8675-09-C-0052). This appears to be the Lot 23 contract. At this time, the entire amount has been committed. The order includes:

• 105 containerized AIM-120D AMRAAM All-Up-Rounds;
  
• 72 AIM-120D captive air training missiles, and warranties;
  
• 11 instrumented AIM-120D “air vehicles,” for missile flight tests;
  
• 2 AIM-120D integrated test vehicles, which include guidance systems etc.;
  
• 106 “non-developmental items,” including airborne instrumentation units, test equipment, Phase 1A activities related to AMRAAM radomes, quad target detection device parts replacement work to address obsolescence, US Navy AIM 120D guidance section and development infrastructure support equipment, and upgrades; and
  
• 495 AIM-120C7s for Foreign Military Sales outside the USA.

FY 2009

Feb 22/09: UAE order. A Raytheon official confirms that the United Arab Emirates and the U.S. government have executed a letter of offer and acceptance for 224 AIM-120C7 missiles, to equip the UAE’s F-16E/F Block 60 fighter fleet.

Terms are not disclosed, but the number matches the DSCA sale request on Jan 3/08. That request involved a larger package that also included JDAM smart bombs and other weapons; it was worth up to $326 million. Reuters.

UAE

Feb 13/09: Newer chips. The USAF issued a $21.7 million modification to a cost plus fixed fee contract with performance incentives. Raytheon of Tucson, AZ will conduct the AMRAAM Processor Replacement Program, Phase II. At this time, the entire amount has been committed (FA8675-07-C-0055, P00022).

Some sources cite 30 MHz as the original speed for AMRAAM’s processor, in a world where computer chips that were cutting edge midway through the AMRAAM program’s lifespan are now museum pieces. Newer chips definitely offer the potential for performance improvements, but the most important benefit in this case may be the newer chips’ continued availability from manufacturers.

Jan 12/09: A $6.7 million modification to the AMRAAM Lot 22 Production contract (see May 28/08 entry). At this time, the entire amount has been committed (FA8675-08-C-0049, P00008).

Dec 10/08: Greece. Raytheon in Tucson, AZ receives a $7.9 million contract modification to administer AMRAAM-related industrial offset programs in Greece, as a modification to the Production Lot 21 contract. See also the July 1/08 entry, covering the addition of 130 AIM-120C7s to Greece as part of the Lot 21 production run.

At this time the entire amount has been obligated. 695 ARSS at Eglin Air Force Base, FL manages this contract (FA8675-07-C-0055, modification P00020).

Nov 25/08: AIM-120D. The Air Force is paying $6 million to modify a firm fixed price contract with Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, AZ. This contract will upgrade 2 guided weapons test sets to AIM-120D Capability, including spares, and additional GPS. At this time, all the money has been committed (FA8675-07-C-0055, Modification P00019).

Oct 20/08: Turkey, Denmark & Finland. Rocket motors have shelf lives, too. The USAF issues a contract modification for $12.9 million. In exchange, Raytheon will supply 436 propulsion sections (baseline rocket motors) that will be installed in AIM-120B missiles. This effort supports foreign military sales to Turkey, Denmark, and Finland, and all funds have been committed (FA8675-08-C-0049, P00005).

Oct 15/08: Testing. The AIM-120C7 AMRAAM enters the U.S. Navy’s Weapon System User Program (WSUP) evaluations, fired from Super Hornets of the U.S. Navy’s VFA-143 squadron against a BQM-167A target drone. The Navy fighters also fired one of the new short-range AIM-9X Sidewinder missiles during the joint mission, which included USAF F-15Cs from Eglin Air Force Base’s 60th Fighter Squadron.

Raytheon’s release adds that “All missiles guided within lethal range of the target and were assessed as 100 percent successful.”

FY 2008

South Korea, Singapore, Finland, Greece, Morocco, Kuwait, UAE, Turkey. F-15C fires AMRAAM
(click to view full)

Sept 26/08: Turkish request. The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency announces [PDF] Turkey’s official request to buy 107 AIM-120C7 AMRAAM missiles, 2 missile guidance sections, missile containers, spare and repair parts, support and test equipment, and various support services. The estimated cost is $157 million.

Raytheon Electronic and Missile Systems of Tucson, AZ is the prime contractor. The Turkish Air Force uses AMRAAMs, and will have no difficulty absorbing these missiles into its armed forces. Implementation of this sale will not require the assignment of any additional U. S. Government or contractor personnel in country.

DSCA Turkey: 107

Sept 10/08: R&D. A cost plus fixed fee contract for $7.4 million, in return for work on AIM-120C3 through AIM-120C7 Counter Advanced Electronic Attack (EA) Risk Reduction and Concept Refinement (RR/CR). In English, this work will make it harder to jam most of the AMRAAM missiles in current service. At this time all funds have been committed by the 328th Armament Systems Group at Eglin AFB, FL (FA8675-08-C-0247).

Sept 9/08: UAE request. The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) announces [PDF] the United Arab Emirates’ official request to buy 288 AIM-120C7 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM) missiles, 2 Air Vehicle-Instrumented (AAVI) missiles, 144 LAU-128 Launchers, Surface Launched Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (SL-AMRAAM) software, missile warranty, KGV-68B COMSEC chips, training missiles, containers, support and test equipment, missiles components, spare/repair parts, publications, documentation, personnel training, training equipment, contractor technical and logistics personnel services, and other related support elements. The estimated cost is $445 million.

The principal contractor will be Raytheon Corporation in Waltham, MA. The purchaser intends to request industrial offsets, but specifics will be defined in negotiations between the UAE and Raytheon. Implementation of this proposed sale will require the assignment of 10 U.S. Government personnel and 15 Contractor representatives to the United Arab Emirates for a period of 3 months. Also, various personnel will be required to travel to the United Arab Emirates in one-week intervals, for surveys and other program requirements.

DSCA UAE: 288

Sept 9/08: Kuwait request. The US DSCA announces [PDF] Kuwait’s official request to buy 120 AIM-120C7 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM), 78 LAU-127-B/A launchers that fit on its fighter aircraft, 78 LAU-127-C/A Launchers, Captive Air Training Missiles, missile containers, spare and repair parts, support and test equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government (USG) and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistical and program support. The estimated cost is $178 million.

The prime contractor will be Raytheon Missile Systems Corporation in Tucson, AZ. Implementation of this proposed sale will require the assignment of up to 10 U.S. Government and contractor representatives for one-week intervals twice annually, to participate in training, and technical review.

DSCA Kuwait: 120

July 11/08: Finland request. Finland requests 300 AIM-120C7 AMRAAM missiles, plus missile containers, spare and repair parts, support and test equipment, and other related support. The order could be worth up to $435 million. Finland already uses AMRAAM missiles on its F/A-18C/D Hornet fighters. DSCA announcement [PDF].

DSCA Finland: 300

July 11/08: Singapore request. Singapore requests 128 AIM-120C7, 72 AIM-120C5, and 6 CATM missiles as part of a larger package worth up to $962 million.

DSCA Singapore: 200

July 9/08: Morocco request. Morocco requests 30 AIM-120C5 missiles as part of a larger package for its forthcoming F-16 C/Ds worth up to $155 million.

DSCA Morocco: 30

July 1/08: Greek order. An $87.6 million contract modification will provide 130 AIM-120C7s to Greece, and 6 Non-Developmental Item Airborne Instrumentation Units (NDI-AIUs) to Germany, as a modification to the AMRAAM Production Lot 21 contract. At this time all funds have been committed (FA8675-07-C-0055, P00011).

Greece

July 1/08: Processor replacement. A $13.2 million modification to a cost plus fixed fee contract for the Processor Replacement Program, Phase I. This project will replace the data processor module that’s common to both AMRAAM and the new Standard Missile 6 (SM-6) naval ship defense missile. The problem is that the AMRAAM Data Processor (ADP) and the Input-Output application specific integrated circuits (I/O ASIC) in the guidance section electronics aren’t manufactured any more. The electronics industry has much shorter life cycles than the military does, so the USAF is looking to replace these obsolete parts and do any redesign required.

This effort supports the US military and foreign military sales to Greece and Taiwan. All funds have already been committed (FA8675-07-C-0055, P00012).

June 20/08: South Korea request. South Korea is requesting $200 million worth of additional air-air missiles and precision attack weapons for its F-15Ks: 125 AIM-120C7 AMRAAMs, 14 CATMs, and 2 dummy rounds; plus AGM-54G Mavericks, JDAMs, Paveway II/IIIs, and chaff. Read “South Korea Buying Weapons for its new F-15Ks.”

DSCA ROK: 125

June 6/08: The USAF is modifying the firm-fixed-price Lot 21 production contract with Raytheon Missile Systems of Tucson, AZ by $44.8 million, in order to provide AIM-120C-7 Software Tapes 18A/20 to Greece and Taiwan. At this time, $17.4 million has been obligated (FA8675-07-C-0055, P00010).

May 28/08: FY 2008 order. A $412.2 million firm-fixed-price contract for Lot 22 AMRAAM production: 98 AIM-120D All-Up-Round Missiles, 11 AIM-120D Air Vehicles Instrumented (AAVIs), 8 AIM-120D Integrated Test Vehicles (ITVs), 78 AIM-120D Captive Air Training Missiles, a warranty for 68 AIM-120D AURs (USAF), a warranty for 11 AAVIs USAF, and a warranty for 78 CATMs (USAF/USN).

This order also includes 213 AIM-120C-7 foreign military sales AURs, 5 AIM-120C foreign military sales AAVIs, 269 Non-Developmental Item-Airborne Instrumentation Units, Spares (US/FMS), Test Equipment, Obsolescence to include Radome source replacement, Quad Target Detection Device parts replacements, and second source funding for the Common Air Launched Navigation System. At this time, all funds have been committed (FA8675-08-C-0049).

Deliveries are scheduled to begin in 2010 and continue through 2011. See also Raytheon release.

FY 2008

May 21/08: AIM-120D. A modified cost plus contract for $9.8 million, required because the Phase IV AMRAAM SDD program to develop the AIM-120D is experiencing turbulence. “Continuing delays in resolving developmental hardware issues and less-than-expected effectiveness in flight test execution are the primary reasons for the SDD program being behind schedule.” DID asked for clarification, and the program office explained:

“The AMRAAM Phase IV SDD program has experienced unexpected delays during the transition from POD (proof of design) to POM (proof of manufacture) hardware design and integration for a variety of reasons. The hardware delays varied from late deliveries from subcontractors to minor redesigns of CCAs culminating in delayed production of POM units and a corresponding schedule slip. The program has also experienced less-than-expected effectiveness over the past year in flight test execution due to weather, aircraft and target maintenance delays(such as the recent extended F-15 Fleet grounding), and POM missile hardware availability for flight test. The POM hardware issues have been resolved and Raytheon Missile Systems is now successfully producing POM missiles for aircraft integration and test efforts.”

The current forecast date for the functional configuration audit has slipped about 10 months, from June 30/08 to April 30/09. That schedule extension increases the contract’s cost by about 10%, which is available with the existing program budget. Technical requirements have not changed, and at this time $6.8 million has been obligated (FA8675-04-C-0001, P00047).

Feb 12/08: SLAMRAAM. The Project on Government Oversight watchdog group issues a December 2007 report from the US DoD’s Office of the Inspector General, which was obtained via the Freedom of Information Act. It discusses, and faults, the US Army and Defense Contracting Management Agency’s handling of the $623 million SLAMRAAM ground-launched anti-aircraft missile program. DID includes more complete excerpts and summaries from the report, including program manager and DCMA responses, and adds more details regarding the SLAMRAAM system.

Jan 3/08: UAE request. The UAE requests 224 AIM-120C7 AMRAAMs, as part of a larger weapons purchase request to buy its F-16 E/F Block 60 Desert Falcon fighters that could be worth up to $326 million.

DSCA UAE: 224

FY 2007

SAR. Netherlands, Pakistan, Israel. AIM-120A launch
(click to view full)

Sept 26/07: Sub-contractors. A contract modification for $7.8 million, which buys 309 replacement baseline rocket motors to be installed into AIM-120A, AIM-120B, and AIM-120C Air Vehicles. Raytheon actually buys these from ATK. At this time all funds have been obligated. The 695th ARSS at Eglin Air Force Base, FL issued the contract (FA8675-07-C-0055, P0004).

Sept 25/07: Sub-contractors. Harris Corp. Government Communications Systems Division of Melbourne, Fla. received a modification to a firm fixed price contract for $9.3 million. This action provides 86 sets of Warhead Replacement Tactical Telemetry (WRTTM) applicable to AIM-120 AMRAAMs. Also, line items are included for Data, Interim Contractor Support (ICS) required to maintain and repair the WRTTM, ICS required to maintain and repair the WRTTM Test Sets and Support Equipment, ICS required to perform services in support of approved Engineering Change Proposals, ICS services and materials required for Program Management, ICS Services and Materials required to provide Quarterly, 5 days on-the-job training sessions for Tyndall AFB, FL, personnel for the operation and maintenance of the WRTTM Test Set and Support Equipment.

At this time all funds have been obligated. The 542nd Combat Sustainment Wing at Robins Air Force Base Ga. issued the contract (F09603-03-C-0006-P00018).

Aug 24/07: Israel request. The US DSCA announces [PDF format] Israel’s request to buy 200 AIM-120C-7 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air (AMRAAM) missiles, containers, components, spare/repair parts, publications, documentation, personnel training, training equipment, and other related support elements. The estimated cost is $171 million, and the principal contractor will be Raytheon Missile Systems Corporation, Tucson, AZ.

As noted above, AMRAAM competes to some extent with RAFAEL’s shorter-range Derby 4 missile. To date, however, Israel’s Cheyl Ha’avir has elected to purchase AMRAAMs instead for its fighters. See “Israel Requests $642M in Missiles, Fuel” for complete coverage.

DSCA Israel: 200

June 19/07: SLAMRAAM Plus? Raytheon announces SLAMRAAM upgrades via options to add SL-AMRAAM-ER extended range variants (likely via a rocket booster), and a variant with AIM-9X infrared seekers to match the combination radar/infrared surface-to-air sets like Spyder, VL-MICA, et. al. being fielded by international rivals.

April 16/07: FY 2007 order. A $180.3 million firm fixed price contract for 96 AIM-120D AMRAAM Air Vehicles, 5 AIM-120D AMRAAM Air Vehicles Instrumented, 105 Airborne Instrumentation Units, and warranty for 25 USAF Captive Air Training Missiles. This action also funds the Manufacturing Excellence Model Initiative, Test Equipment, and 2 priced options. At this time, $175.6 million have been obligated. This work will be complete January 2010 (FA8675-07-C-0055).

FY 2007

April 9/07: SAR. The Pentagon releases its April 2007 Selected Acquisition Report, and AMRAAM is one of the systems covered. Overall program costs increased $1.6 billion (+12.2%) from $13.2 billion to $14.8 billion:

“…due primarily to lower-than-expected Foreign Military Sales (FMS) projections (+$557.9 million) and an acquisition strategy pricing change (+$859.2 million). There were also increases related to a stretchout of the annual procurement buy profile (+$93.7 million), additional special tooling and test equipment (+$54.8 million), and an overrun in the AIM-120D (Phase 4) system development and demonstration contract (+$32.7 million).”

SAR

AIM-120A: preparing for a swap

Jan 29/07: Rocket switch. U.S. Air Forces in Europe (USAFE) officials and 435th Munitions Squadron airmen recently moved to shift serviceable rocket motors from older AIM-120A AMRAAMs and put them in unserviceable AIM-120B and C models, creating viable AIM-120 B/C missiles. The systems involved are part of USAFE’s war reserve assets, but also serve as a forward-positioned stockpile for the U.S. Central Command and elsewhere. The in-house weapon overhaul of 63 missiles saved the Air Force more than $31 million and approximately 3 years of time, and was the largest field retrofit in the AMRAAM’s history.

Dec 6/06: SLAMRAAM. Kongsberg announces a contract valued at NOK 345 million (about $60 million) with the Netherlands for NASMS system deliveries to the Dutch Army under the Future Ground Based Air Defence (FGBAD NL) program. The program combines systems from EADS with the SLAMRAAM-based NASAMS surface-to-air system developed by Kongsberg.

Dutch SAMs

Nov 17/06: Pakistan. A $269.6 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, exercising an option to purchase 500 AIM-120C5 AMRAAM missiles and rehost on behalf of Pakistan (100%). Work will be complete April 2011 (FA8675-05-C-0070/P00028). This order is part of Pakistan’s $5.1 billion program to buy new F-16s and upgrade its existing fleet, and is the biggest AMRAAM export order to date. See also Raytheon’s January 15, 2007 release.

Pakistan

Nov 8/06: AIM-120D & AFSO-21. A USAF article discusses how the AIM-120D Production Program Manager was a bit skeptical when he was asked to be team leader on an Air Force Smart Operations for the 21st century rapid improvement event. By the time they were done, however, they had cut the acquisition-delivery time down from 11 months (48 weeks) to 4.5 months (20 weeks) using AFSO process improvement tools. Maj. Charles Seidel was impressed – and so were other weapons programs. Here’s what they did.

Nov 2/06: A $5.7 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for AIM-120D production transition, with all funds already obligated. This work will be complete March 2007 (FA8675-06-C-0003/P00005).

Oct 31/06: SLAMRAAM. Raytheon announces that its AMRAAM-based Complementary Low Altitude Weapons System (CLAWS) air defense system finished 14 month Limited Technical Inspection in just 12 months and exceeded performance expectations, clearing the way for Marine Corps acceptance of the final 2 fire units. The tests took place at Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems’ Integrated Air Defense Center in Andover, MA.

CLAWS is a SLAMRAAM/HUMRAAM variant, and despite test success, the USMC decided that US air superiority made it an acceptable cancellation. Time will tell if that is wise.

Oct 17/06: SLAMRAAM. Raytheon Fires Surface-Launched AMRAAM to Test New Command Destruct/Self Destruct Capability. The successful tests took place in Sweden, following successful SLAMRAAM tests in Norway.

FY 2006

NCADE. Pakistan, Singapore, Saudi Arabia. F-16 launches AIM-120
(click to view full)

Sept 29/06: Singapore & Saudi order. A $65.8 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, exercising an option to purchase 123 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAMM) Air Vehicles (AAVs) Air Intercept Missile (AIM)-120C-5 missiles: 9 are for the USAF and 114 are foreign military sales to Singapore and Saudi Arabia (DefenseLINK did not break that out by country). The contract also includes 51 warranties and foreign military service software configuration management. Work will be complete November 2008 (FA8675-05-C-0070, PO 0026).

Singapore & Saudi

Sept 15/06: FY 2006 supplement. A $112.9 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to provide for 104 AIM-120C7 AMRAAM Air Vehicles, 112 Non-Developmental Item, Airborne Instrumentation Units (NDI-AIUs), proposal preparation, L3 Communications Pulse Code Modulation, Encoder Qualification Non-Recurring Expense, NDI-AIU Test Equipment Upgrade as well as 12 AIM-120D AMRAAM Air Vehicles Instrumented (AAVIs), 50 AIM-120D Captive Air Training Missiles (they have the seeker but no rocket motor), and an option for AIM-120D production transition.

The AIM-120C7 is the most current AMRAAM missile, but the other elements of the contract certainly indicate that the transition to the AIM-120D is getting closer (FA8675-06-C-0003, PO 0003). An October 6, 2006 Raytheon release notes that this contract supplements the Lot 20A effort awarded in February 2006; the two Lot 20 contracts combined total $168 million. The first production set of AIM-120D missiles will be delivered from December 2007 through January 2009.

FY 2006 SUP

July 26/06: AIM-120D. A $25.4 million cost-plus contract modification. This action provides for AMRAAM AIM-120D system demonstration development contract re-baseline. At this time, $7.4 million has been committed. Solicitations began April 2006, negotiations were complete July 2006, and work will be complete in June 2008. The Headquarters 328th Armament Systems Group, Eglin Air Force Base, FL issued the contract (FA8675-04-C-0001/P00028).

June 28/06: Pakistan request. The US DSCA announces Pakistan’s request for 500 AMRAAMs and 12 training missiles, as part of a $650 million weapons request within a $5.1 billion program to expand and refurbish its F-16 fleet.

DSCA Pakistan: 500

May 9/06: Contract. a $21.8 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for advanced medium range air-to-air missile (AMRAAM) lead time away material, and systems engineering performance responsibility (SEPR). The lead time material will cover 12 operational test missiles (AIM-120D) and 40 initial operational capability missiles (AIM-120D and AIM-120C7). Work will be complete in October 2007 (FA8675-06-C-0003/P0002).

April 28/06: NCADE. Raytheon Company announces a $7 million contract from the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) for a risk reduction demonstration associated with the evolving Network Centric Airborne Defense Element (NCADE) program. NCADE is testing the idea that a modified AMRAAM might be able to shoot down ballistic missiles just after launch, if a fighter can get close to the launch area.

The 12-month Raytheon effort will focus on propulsion systems and seeker enhancements as part of the overall NCADE system capability. Work on this contract will be performed at Raytheon’s Missile Systems business in Tucson, Ariz. Aerojet will perform propulsion work at its Redmond, WA location.

NCADE

April 21/06: Testing. Most people don’t think about the effect that all those nifty aircraft maneuvers have on the weapons it’s carrying – but weapons developers have to, and so does the USAF. This article describes April 2006 tests of the AIM-120D missile in an F-22A Raptor weapons bay, in order to check the effect of noise and vibration on the missile. Previous tests with the AIM-120-C7 had determined that vibration levels in certain frequencies were harmful to the missile’s electronics, and the AIM-120D has a different navigation system as well as a different arrangement of electronics cards. The test was used to validate Raytheon’s modeling and assumptions, and the results are fed back into ongoing development.

March 13/06: Support. A $5.5 million firm fixed price contract option, exercised as a separate contract for a 11 month repair capability and a 11 month Service Life Prediction Program for non-warranted Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) Air Intercept Missile-120 components consisting of the AMRAAM Air Vehicle missiles, airborne instrumentation units, common field level memory reprogramming equipment, missile built-in test sets, containers, Navy captive air training missile, foreign military sales AMRAAM air vehicle instrumented missiles and repairable components of these items for the Air Force, Navy and 26 foreign military sales countries. This work will be complete in January 2007 (FA8675-06-C-0073).

Feb 17/06: Industrial. A $35.4 million firm fixed price contract for production transition (1 Lot), test equipment/tooling (1 Lot), unique identification, non-recurring expense (1 Lot), and software trouble reports (USN) (1 Lot). Solicitations were complete in April 2005, negotiations were complete in February 2006, and work will be complete by March 2007 (FA8675-06-C-0003).

FY 2005 and Earlier (Partial) AMRAAM on LAU-129 rail
(click to view full)

August 23/05: Singapore request. The US DSCA announces Singapore’s request to buy 200 AIM-120C Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM) and 6 CATM-120C AMRAAM Captive Air Training (CAT) Missiles, as part of a “provisional” $741 million weapons order.

Singapore soon makes its accompanying choice official: the F-15SG Strike Eagle is its next-generation attack aircraft.

DSCA Singapore: 200

April 4/05: FY 2005 order. Raytheon Company announces a $200 million contract from the USAF for continued production of 434 more AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air missiles (AMRAAM).

FY 2005

Footnotes

fn1. It’s worth noting that “missile range” is an extremely variable number – obviously, a missile’s effective range for 2 aircraft closing head on is much greater than a situation where one aircraft is fleeing and the missile must catch up. Most missile ranges are posted for head-head engagements. See the “Air-Air Missile Non-Comparison Table” for a fuller explanation, with diagrams, and key figures for most international missiles.

fn2. Jane’s Defence Weekly, July 11/07.

Additional Readings & Sources: Current Missiles

• RAND Pacific View 2008 briefing – Full document. Includes significant coverage of AMRAAM’s history of combat performance, and the missile/countermeasures race.

• The Boresight – The Future of Air Combat? Includes an account of AIM-7 Sparrow armed USAF F-15s facing off against Iraqi MiG-23 and MiG-25 aircraft during Operation Desert Storm in 1991.

• US Air Force Factsheets – AIM-120 AMRAAM

• Designation Systems – Raytheon (Hughes) AIM-120 AMRAAM

• Raytheon – National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System. NASAMS. Has also been tested with shirt-range AIM-9X and IRIS-T missiles, and the longer-range RIM-162 ESSM as launched weapons.

• Kongsberg Defense – NASAMS – Surface Launched AMRAAM.

• Army Technology – Surface-Launched AMRAAM (SLAMRAAM / CLAWS) Medium-Range Air Defence System, USA. Also includes Norway’s NASAMS, which is AMRAAM-based.

• MBDA – Meteor Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air Missile (BVRAAM)

• Flight International (Dec 6/11) – IN FOCUS: MBDA close to completing Meteor development work

• DID (May 27/05) – Meteor Missile Will Make Changes to Accommodate F-35. Describes the different fighter design philosophies that led to the longer-range Meteor project for European fighters, and the gradual convergence of missile compatibility and capabilities happening across the Atlantic.

• Wikipedia – Vympel R-77. also known as the AA-12 Adder by NATO, and colloquially referred to as the “AMRAAMski”. Ramjet versions are reportedly under development, which would give the missile longer range and fully powered maneuvering to the very edge of its range. When coupled with aircraft like the widely-exported SU-30s and their powerful radars, the R-77 is seen as a significant potential threat to western air dominance.

• MBDA – MICA Multi-mission Air-to-Air missile system.

• Army Technology – Mica Vertical Launch Short-Range Air-Defence System, France. VL MICA-M can also be housed in shipborne SYLVER vertical launch systems, and has received naval orders.

• RAFAEL – DERBY Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air Missile.

• RAFAEL – SPYDER-SR ADS. Adding missile boosters, and using a different truck and launch system, creates the SPYDER-MR.

• Army Technology – SPYDER Surface-to-Air Launcher for PYthon 5 and DERby Missiles, Israel.

• ACIG (Jan 9/03) – Kfir C.10, By Iain Norman. This in-depth analysis spends a fair bit of time on the Derby missile. Summary? Derby is not a true MRAAM, but it is a useful and capable option for many air forces, with coverage out to the ranges at which most air combats have actually taken place.

Additional Readings & Sources

• DID – T3: DARPA Looks for a Triple Target Terminator. That effort, and the USAF’s similar next-generation Dual-Role Air Dominance Missile (DRADM) with MRAAM and anti-radar capabilities, were canceled. AMRAAM remains.

• DID (June 14/06) – $13.8M for AMRAAM & Sidewinder Launcher Components (updated). Explains the role of the LAU-127/128/129 launchers.

• DID (Feb 7/06) – EDO’s AVEL Missile Ejection System: Extending the Raptor’s Claws. Covers the F-22’s specially-designed AMRAAM launchers for its internal weapons bays, designed to operate at supersonic speeds.

• Forecast International (Jan 30/06) – MBDA and Raytheon Battle for Air-to-Air Missile Market Dominance. This recent analysis by Forecast International estimates that the market for air-to-air missiles will be worth $15.4 billion over the next 10 years, with Raytheon and MBDA sharing the lead.

• Raytheon (April 4/05) – Raytheon Awarded $200 Million Contract for Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles.

• Forecast International (Jan 30/04) – Air-to-Air Missile Market to Generate $12 Billion in Sales Through 2013. Key ‘graf? “There is a direct relationship between fighter aircraft sales and those of air-to-air missiles. If Europe cannot offer its missiles on American fighters, it could relegate its AAM companies to second place in this market for the next 10 years or more.”

• Aerospace Power Journal (Winter 1989) – The BEKAA Valley Air Battle, June 1982: Lessons Mislearned?

• Australian Aviation (September 1986) – Quo Vadis – AMRAAM? “Conceived as the ultimate standoff air to air missile the sophisticated and deadly Amraam has the distinction of being the subject of political bickering unseen since the sixties’ F-111 programme…”

Lebanese armed forces

The Lebanese Army’s own web site is blunt: “The assistance received from Syria, the USA, and other friendly countries has played a basic role in bridging the gap between needs and available means.”

A number of countries are stepping up to fill those gaps, left in a military ravaged by foreign occupation, a long and losing civil war, and the presence of Hizb’Allah – a foreign-backed private army in Lebanon, with superior firepower. The battle for influence in that country is multi-polar, with countries including the USA, France, and Saudi Arabia moving to counter Syria and Iran’s proxies, and countries like Russia working with independent agendas. The USA has been supplying a wide range of equipment from ammunition to armored vehicles, and is adding tanks, mini-UAVs, and even patrol boats to that list. Belgium has worked to sell some of its own tanks and APCs, France has offered help with Lebanon’s existing French equipment; and in April 2009, Russia went so far as to offer MiG-29 fighters, for free, from its own stocks.

What capabilities would these systems bring? How are those sales going? And how is Lebanon itself changing, in the wake of both Hezbollah’s takeover and Syria’s civil war?

UAVS, Tanks, and Planes RQ-11 assembly
(click to view full)

The main internal threat is Hezbollah, who is currently part of a 2009 unity government that is within the orbit of Syria’s Bashar Assad, and of Iran via its Hezbollah foreign legion. Pentration of the army and its institutions is accordingly extensive, which creates hard questions about the aid’s appropriateness, and security risks surrounding systems that are turned over.

Aerovironment’s RQ-11 Raven has become extremely popular in Afghanistan, and seen extensive use in Iraq. While the hand-launched UAV is far too small to carry anything beyond cameras, and is limited to low-flying missions out to about 1-15 miles, its virtues as a readily-used, squad-portable reconnaissance system that lets troops see over the next hill, or into the next block, are well and widely appreciated.

The M60 tank is a development of the M48 Patton, and was the M1 Abrams’ predecessor in the US Army and Marines. While the M1 was developed in response to the threat of the Soviet T-72, it turned out that the M60 was the T-72’s real peer competitor, whereas the M1 proved to be a massive overmatch. Something the M1 crews appreciated during combat in Operation Desert Storm. The M60A3 was the last serving model, sporting electronic upgrades while retaining the rounded turret and 105mm gun. It still serves with a number of militaries around the world. Egypt has the largest regional M60 fleet, followed by Turkey’s “M60 Sabras” that sport significant Israeli improvements to their sighting systems and electronics, as well as a full array of explosive reactive armor.

Recent combat experience teaches that even in urban situations, when tanks enter the fray, fights usually end quickly. Tanks of the M60’s vintage, however, lack the advanced armor protection and shaped designs required to withstand hits from popular threats like RPGs and anti-tank missiles. This can be remedied to some extent by adding explosive reactive armor and other ancillary systems. In their absence, however, M60s could not be expected to last very long against even private armies like Hezbollah, which makes extensive use of anti-tank missiles. The M60A3s, and similar vintage Leopard 1A5s from Belgium, would nonetheless offer an improvement over Lebanon’s existing T-54/55 and M48A5 tanks.

Russian MiG-29
(click to view full)

Lebanon’s fixed-wing fighter/attack force currently consists of about 4 Hawker Hunter jets, a 1950s era subsonic design that remains an aviation classic, and an OV-10 Bronco turboprop observation and light attack plane. In contrast, the used MiG-29s offered for free by Russia are late 1980s high-performance fighters, intended as a competitor to the F-16. Early versions are mainly air interceptor aircraft, though some Soviet MiG-29As were also given nuclear strike roles. Subsequent MiG-29Cs were confined to Soviet forces, incorporating radar improvements and an enlarged spine with extra fuel and an active electronic jammer system. Neither variant is suitable for delivering precision ground attack ordnance, a capability restricted to subsequent MiG-29S upgrades and modifications.

An interesting but very logical shift occurred in early 2010, when Russia and Lebanon agreed to substitute Mi-24 “Hind” helicopter gunships for the MiG-29s. The Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s saw some air-air engagements involving Iraqi Mi-24s and Iranian AH-1J SeaCobra helicopters, but the Hind’s main use is as a ground attack platform. It fits Lebanon’s military requirements and base infrastructure far better than the MiG-29s would have, but it also introduces an interesting new capability into Lebanon’s correlation of forces.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah’s participation in Lebanon’s government is a triple-edged sword for the Lebanese military.

On the one hand, it makes hostilities with Lebanon’s army unlikely so long as the accord lasts. The other 2 edges, however, are sharp. One is that it gave Hezbollah free rein to re-arm and organize. Hezbollah’s agenda is set in Iran and not in Lebanon, which has set the stage for future conflicts within and beyond Lebanon. For instance, Hezbollah is currently functioning as Iran’s Condor Legion equivalent in Syria’s civil war.

The other edge is that Israeli officials have said that since Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government, acts carried out by Hezbollah would be considered to be coming from Lebanon’s government – i.e. acts of war rather than terrorism. The strong implication is that any Israeli response would encompass all of Lebanon, not just Hezbollah. So far, that has largely kept a lid on things.

Contracts and Key Events 2015

June 11/15: Lebanon is buying six Super Tucano ground attack aircraft from the US through a Foreign Military Sale thought to be worth approximately $462 million, including spares, support services and auxiliary equipment. The US and Lebanese governments discussed the potential sale of Super Tucanos in 2010, with the DSCA announcement on Tuesday confirming reports from March which set a deadline of 2018 for delivery of the six aircraft. The Embraer-manufactured turboprop aircraft is particularly useful in counterinsurgency operations, as well as being more very affordable. For these reasons the Super Tucano has seen export success to several African states and numerous other nations worldwide.

Feb 26/15: April set as French arms delivery commencement. France is reportedly to start shipping its planned sale of $3 billion worth of Saudi-purchased arms to Lebanon in April. The announcement appears to have taken many media organs by surprise, given the already volatile military situation in the country. Different reports ascribe various Saudi motives for the pressing of the weapons into Lebanese Army hands, ranging from expressing pique at the U.S. (UPI) – whose arms were not purchased – to a direct effort to fund a force to take on Hezbollah (MintPress). It took the French two years to get to this point of readiness. Had the Saudis sought U.S. arms, the approvals would certainly have been much longer in coming, if they ever came. That the Lebanese Army would take on Hezbollah remains unlikely, as precedent shows a long inability to deny Hezbollah anything in Lebanon the group wishes to take.

2014

Aircraft requests as ISIS threat creeps in. IqAF Hueys

Oct 24/14: UK. After a meeting between UK Chief of the Defense Staff General Sir Nicholas Houghton and Lebanese Army Commander General Jean Kahwaji. the UK sends Lebanon a $16 million donation. It includes 164 Land Rovers, 1,500 sets of body armor, a secure radio communication network, border watchtowers, and HESCO bastions that can be filled with earth to create bulletproof walls in Army positions along the frontier. Meanwhile, Lebanon’s Daily Star says:

“As for the earlier $3 billion aid announced by Saudi King Abdullah Bin Abdel-Aziz, it will come in the form of weapons, equipment and training to be provided by France…. [but] has not yet gone into effect with reports saying that the Kingdom first wants to receive assurances that the weapons will not benefit Hezbollah.”

That sounds like a pretty tall order, given the realities of Lebanon. Sources: Al Defaiya, “UK Delivers Military Equipment to Lebanese Army”.

Oct 8/14: France. The French defense minister says that the 3-way deal with Saudi Arabia (q.v. Dec 30/13) may finally be ready to finance over EUR 2 billion in purchases of French weapons:

“Ce projet a ete valide par la France et ce projet est valide avec les forces armees libanaises”, a-t-il declare mercredi 8 octobre, lors de la seance des questions au gouvernement. Et d’ajouter : “Tous les travaux sont termines et le president de la Republique a indique hier à Monsieur [Saad] Hariri [ancien Premier ministre et leader politique de la communaute sunnite libanaise, NDLR] que les conditions etaient desormais remplies.”

That could end up being a very substantial infusion. The question is what the government will spend it on. And who will end up controlling what they buy. Sources: France24, “Liban : conditions réunies pour livrer des armes françaises, selon Le Drian”.

Sept 17/14: Helicopter request. A little more than 2 years after asking for 6 Huey IIs (q.v. July 25/12), Lebanon requests another 18 Huey II helicopters, as well as associated spares and services, for an estimated cost of $180 million.

That’s about the same unit cost as the previous request, and comparable to a request submitted but then canceled by Iraq in 2007. Huey IIs are refurbished and upgraded UH-1Hs sold “as good as new” by Bell. The bulk of Lebanon’s current but old helicopter fleet is comprised of 23 Hueys which were used to drop bombs – a rather unusual task for rotary aircraft – on Fatah al-Islam in 2007. Source: DSCA 14-20.

DSCA request (18 Huey IIs)

AC-208B firing
(click to view full)

Sept 12/14: AC-208Bs. US ambassador David Hale says the USA will send “an armed Cessna” , and also arm a Cessna it had previously provided to the Lebanese Army. they’re referring to the AC-208B conversion, which allows the Caravan to independently carry, target, and fire 2 AGM-114 Hellfire laser-guided missiles. It’s hardly a regional power projection tool, but it’s a fine platform for surveillance and strikes on isolated guerrilla groups.

“The Lebanese government and army have requested additional aircraft from the United States: an armed Cessna and other light air support aircraft… It is our intention to support those requests for additional aircraft, using funds generously made available to Lebanon by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia…” [q.v. Dec 30/13]

That won’t use much of their $3 billion offer, and it’s a good investment for all concerned. Beyond the usual hijinks in Lebanon, the Sunni ISIS group has reached beyond Syria and Iraq into Lebanon, taking a number of Lebanese soldiers captive and beheading them. Iraq is already using AC-208Bs successfully against ISIS, and the USA is stepping up efforts to contain the group via 3rd parties since it has abandoned its own combat presence in Iraq. The Saudis also see ISIS as a threat, one that’s approaching the level offered by Iran and its legions. Sources: Lebanon Daily Star, “US arming Lebanon military to combat ISIS: Hale” | Kuwait News Agency, “US to deliver armed light Cessna aircraft to Lebanon to combat ISIL” | Middle East Monitor, “US to deliver armed aircraft to Lebanon”.

2012 – 2013

8 Huey IIs; Man-portable radios

Dec 30/13: Saudi Arabia. Lebanon couldn’t help but be drawn into the Sunni-Shia proxy wars that are engulfing the Arab world. Saudi Arabia pledges $3 billion in military aid to Lebanon’s government, in a move that’s clearly designed to strengthen that government at the expense of Iran’s Hezbollah. Specific equipment isn’t specified, so we’ll see how all of this works itself out.

Here’s the Saudi dilemma, in a nutshell: what to provide? If the money is used to provide small arms, anti-tank missiles, and good training, it would probably make the biggest difference on the ground. The bad news? These items are small and portable. Hezbollah’s infiltration of the armed forces and power within the government means that many of the items in question won’t stay in government hands. On the other hand, if Saudi aid is used to provide higher-end items like armed helicopters, armored vehicles, etc., then the bad news is that $3 billion doesn’t actually deliver as much as one imagines. Especially in a military whose support systems and infrastructure are questionable. That high-end approach is also vulnerable to counter-strokes: all Hezbollah would need to do, in order to incapacitate new fleets, would be to threaten the maintenance workers in order to ensure that they do a poor job. Sources: CS Monitor, “Saudi Arabia promises record $3 billion in military aid to Lebanon”.

July 31/13: Radios. Advanced Technology Systems Co. in McLean, VA receives a $26.7 million multi-year, firm-fixed-price, foreign military sales from Lebanon for TETRA trunked radio communication systems. TETRA is an abbreviation of TErrestrial Trunked RAdio. It has been defined and approved by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), and is a standard for radio communication in the same way that GSM is a mobile telephony standard. It’s often used to create networks for first responders and internal security forces, but a number of militaries around the world also use them.

Work will be performed in Lebanon. One bid was solicited, with one bid received by US Army Contracting Command in Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD (W15P7T-13-C-D082).

May 26/13: Syria/Lebanon War. In the New Yorker, war correspondent Dexter Filkins reports:

“It’s official: the war in Syria has spread to Lebanon. In an extraordinary speech Saturday, Hassan Nasrallah, the bearded and bespectacled leader of the Lebanese militant group, Hezbollah, promised an all-out effort to keep the murderous regime of Bashar al-Assad in power in Syria. “It’s our battle, and we are up to it,” Nasrallah said in a televised address. The war, he said, had entered “a completely new phase.”

This is a terrifying development; the beginning of a regional war. Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed armed group, has been fighting inside Syria for months, something I detailed in an article on the group in February. But Hezbollah was intervening in Syria covertly…. As more and more Hezbollah fighters died inside Syria, that lie could no longer be sustained. The truth is out.

On Saturday, by declaring his undying loyalty to the Assad regime, Nasrallah has signalled an escalation in Hezbollah’s involvement…”

Nov 1/12: Hueys. Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. in Hurst, TX receives a $33.4 million firm-fixed-price contract for single-engine UH-1H+ Huey II helicopters and related support services. Work will be performed in Hurst, TX with an estimated completion date of Dec 31/13. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received by U.S. Army Contracting Command at Redstone Arsenal, AL (W58RGZ-11-G-0011).

U.S. Army Security Assistance Command has confirmed to us that this order will be transferred to the “government” of Lebanon. The July 25/12 DSCA request was for 6, and this appears to cover that number.

July 25/12: Helicopter request. The US DSCA announces [PDF] a potential sale to Lebanon of 6 Huey II helicopters and associated equipment, parts, training, and logistical support, at an estimated cost of $63 million. Hezbollah is still in charge, albeit somewhat weakened by the civil war in Syria, which interferes with supply lines to their masters in Iran. The US DSCA claims that:

“This proposed sale serves U.S. national, economic, and security interests by providing Lebanon with necessary mobility capabilities to maintain internal security, enforce United Nation’s Security Council Resolutions 1559 and 1701, and counter terrorist threats… The Huey II will augment Lebanon’s aging fleet of UH-1H aircraft.”

If Congress agrees enough to avoid overtly blocking the sale within 30 days, Lebanon can begin negotiations with Bell Helicopter in Fort Worth, TX. Fortunately for Bell, “Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Lebanon.”

Jan 12/12: AC-208Bs. Alliant Techsystems, Inc. in Fort Worth, TX receives a $16.1 million firm-fixed-price contract for one used Caravan Cessna 208B aircraft, continued contractor logistics support, and spares with associated repair and return effort. This supports a Foreign Military Sales Program and the Lebanon Air Force Caravan Program.

The C-208B is a single-propeller plane that’s often used for flight training and light cargo duties. The Iraqi Air Force have turned them into low-cost AC-208B “Combat Caravan” surveillance and close support planes by adding a surveillance/targeting turret, accompanying internal displays, and M299 racks for Hellfire missiles on the wings. official reports indicate that the planes headed to Lebanon are Combat Caravans.

Work will be performed in El Segundo, CA, and is expected to be complete by Nov 16/16. The ASC/WINK/FMS at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH acts as Lebanon’s agent in this matter (FA8620-12-C-4005). See also Flight International.

2011

AMP-145 CPB concept
(click to view larger)

June 13/11: Takeover. The new Lebanese government names its cabinet, which Hezbollah and its supporters dominate. BBC.

Jan 19/11: Takeover. Hezbollah ousts Prime Minister Hariri and engineers a de facto coup in Lebanon. Lebanon Daily Star | Now Lebanon | Reuters | Ya Libnan.

Jan 14/11: Patrol Boats. Maritime Security Strategies, LLC in Tampa, FL received a $29 million firm-fixed price contract to construct a 42-meter coastal security craft and provide associated equipment, material, training and technical services to the Government of Lebanon. This will be the first sale of the firm’s AMP-145 multi-mission platform design, though their regional orders also include 2 60-meter Offshore Supply/Command Vessels under construction for the Iraqi Navy.

MSS’ managing partner, USN Rear Admiral (ret.) Robert Cox touts “new designs and features that deliver significant cost and performance improvements over the current industry offerings,” including fast reconfiguration. The hulls are an epoxy-resin composite, with an aluminum deck and superstructure. American shipbuilders have had mixed results with composite hulls, but they are coming into wider international use due to their weight advantages, which translates directly into greater speed, increased maneuverability and lower fuel consumption.

The Lebanese Navy’s AMP-145 incorporates ITAR compliant controls and automation, including embedded sensors in key components, and a non-militarized, passive Integrated Bridge System (IBS) from Raytheon Anschutz GmbH that manages the ship’s automation system, as well as feeds from CCTV and a FLIR thermal imaging cameras. Surface search X and S-band ARPA radars, a full package of navigation sensors, data management software, GMDSS A3, and all other electronics and safety equipment completes the IBS and Command and Surveillance package. The C2/Operations Center is fitted with a customized Situational Awareness Display which shares all charts, targets and craft movements with the Integrated Bridge System. Depictions of the craft show a 30mm cannon and mounts for 7.62mm – 12.7mm machine guns, but armament details were not provided.

Work will be performed in Tampa, FL, and is expected to be complete by January 2012, though the company has set a delivery date of end 2011. MSS will work with its primary design agent and shipbuilding partner, RiverHawk Fast Sea Frames, LLC, of Tampa, FL to design, produce and outfit the ship. The MSS/RiverHawk team is currently completing epoxy-resin composite hull construction and rigging in of the major engineering systems at VectorWorks Marine facilities in Titusville, FL. The aluminum decks and superstructure are nearing completion in RiverHawk’s Tampa yard, where they will be mated to the hull, and several South Florida sub-contractors will also play significant roles. The contract was not competitively procured by US Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC, who manages the contract on behalf of its Foreign Military Sale client (N00024-11-C-2241).

• Length: 43.5 meters
  
• Breadth overall: 8.5 meters
  
• Draft: ~ 2 meters
  
• Displacement: ~ 265 metric tons
  
• Crew Complement: 6 – 22
  
• Speed: > 25 knots
  
• Range @ 11 Knots: > 2600 nm
  
• Effective Limits @ 12 Knots: Sea State 4
  
• Survivability: Sea State 5
  
• Endurance: 5-7 days

Meanwhile, Hezbollah has taken its marching orders and withdrawn from the government in Lebanon, setting up a minor political crisis as the country waits for a UN report that’s likely to indict Hezbollah members, as well as its foreign backers in Syria and beyond, for the Hariri assassination. See also: Maritime Security Strategies | Al-Defaiya | Al-Jazeera | Reuters | Voice of America | Israel’s Ynet News.

2010

French SA342
(click to view full)

Dec 17/10: HOT missiles. Agence France Presse reports that France will give Lebanon 100 MBDA HOT anti-tank missiles to equip Lebanon’s SA342M Gazelle helicopters. A Lebanese official told AFP that: “The missiles will be delivered before the end of February and are being given with no conditions attached.”

The move has sparked concern among some American political figures. Lebanese received 12 Gazelle helicopters in mid-2007, and in January 2010, it signed an agreement to refurbish them (vid. Jan 22/10 entry).

Nov 13/10: Unblocked. The congressional hold on $100 million in military aid to Lebanon clears, as Rep. Howard Berman [D-CA] and Nita Lowey [D-NY] drop their opposition after a classified briefing and presenting results of a “thorough inter-agency review” by the Obama administration. Berman: “As a result, I am convinced that implementation of the spending plan will now have greater focus, and I am reassured as to the nature and purposes of the proposed package.” Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) Resident Scholar Aram Nerguizian, whose report on U.S. military aid to Lebanon is coming out later in November 2010, has said that American aid can help the armed forces keep a lid on Lebanon, and “keeps Lebanon from escalating beyond the range of the real.” Israel, on the other hand, seemed less reassured:

“Iran’s domination of Lebanon through its proxy Hezbollah has destroyed any chance for peace, has turned Lebanon into an Iranian satellite and made Lebanon a hub for regional terror and instability”

Lifting the hold Congressional may release funds while the present “lame duck” session is still alive, until and unless future action affirmatively blocks it. Berman chairs the House Foreign Affairs committee, and Lowey heads the House Appropriations committee’s foreign operations subcommittee. They will be reduced to ranking minority members in the new Congress, however, and Berman’s likely successor, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen [R-FL], opposes further aid to Lebanon as well as to the Palestinian Authority. Lebanese Daily Star | Agence France Presse | Israel’s Arutz Sheva | Bloomberg | Foreign Policy Magazine | Jerusalem Post | Fox News | UAE’s The National | Reuters | Voice of America.

Aug 8/10: Blocked. The US Congress is blocking $100 million in aid to the Lebanese military, amidst concerns it is cooperating with Hezbollah. The Congressional holds come in the wake of an Aug 3 shooting of 2 Israeli officers while brush was being cleared along the northern border. One Israeli officer was killed and another seriously wounded in the firefight, which also killed at least 2 Lebanese soldiers and a journalist. There are reports that the Lebanese troops in question were using American-supplied weapons. Associated Press | Jerusalem Post | al-Manar TV (Hezbollah affiliate) | Lebanon Daily Star | Australia’s The Age/ Reuters re: clash.

June 3/10: The USA delivers $427,000 worth of weapons, body armor and bomb investigation equipment to Lebanese security officials, via a $1 million anti-terrorism assistance program for Lebanon from the U.S. State Department. UPI.

May 24/10: Rising US concern. Foreign Policy magazine’s blog The Cable documents rising concern within the Pentagon and Congress over continued military aid to Lebanon, in the wake of what they see as a blurring of the lines between the government and Hezbollah.

MI-24 Hind
(click to view full)

Feb 26/10: Make Hinds, not Fulcrums. NaharNet reports that Lebanese President Michel Suleiman has returned from a visit to Russia, and…

“Russian authorities agreed to substitute the 10 MiG-29 fighter jets previously mulled military aid with Mi-24 advanced military helicopters “based on the request of the Lebanese side that conducted technical and functional studies on the Russian fund for the Lebanese Air Force.”

The Mi-24 “Hind” helicopter gunship became famous during Russia’s war in Afghanistan, and it remains popular with militaries around the world. The most modern version is the Mi-35. Unlike most attack helicopters, it has secondary troop transport capabilities.

Jan 22/10: Lebanon has reportedly signed an agreement with the French company Euro Tech to revamp 13 Gazelle helicopters transferred in 2007, equipping the 10 Puma helicopters granted by the UAE, and training Lebanese helicopter pilots.

The Puma helicopters are expected to start arriving within the first half of 2010 in 2 batches of 4 and then 6 machines. Reports suggest, however, that France is hesitant to supply Lebanon with missiles for the Gazelle helicopters, for fear they would end up in Hezbollah’s hands. The Lebanese Air Force reportedly used up all of its missiles in the 2007 Nahr el-Bared battle against Fatah al-Islam terrorists. Nahar Net.

2009

Nov 16/09: Media report that Russian military experts will be visiting Lebanon in the next few days and staying until Nov 26/09. They will be assessing the conditions at Lebanese airports and bases, assessing their ability to support MiG-29s and other equipment. A formal contract for the 10 MiG-29s is expected very shortly after their report. China’s Xinhua reports that the MiG deal is causing some trepidation in certain parts of Lebanon:

“Since then, the deal has sparked an internal debate about the necessity of obtaining these aircraft in a small country like Lebanon, which has a national army and an armed militia Hezbollah, which owns thousands of short and mid-range rockets.”

See also: Lebanese Daily Star | Naharnet Newsdesk | Il-Oubnan | China’s Xinhua.

April 9/09: Naharnet Newsdesk reports confirmation of American arms shipments to Lebanon by US State Department officials David Hale and Colin Kahl:

“Hale said the shipment includes 41 Howitzer artillery and 12 Zodiac boats. He said the Lebanese military will also be receiving in May 12 pilotless Raven aircrafts that would help the army monitor any attempt to fire rockets from southern Lebanon into northern Israel. Hale said the delivery also includes one Cessna Caravan aircraft, which is expected to arrive end of April to provide air support for ground forces. A set of 20 Hellfire air-to-ground missiles and the first batch of 10 M-60 tanks will also be arriving in May, according to Hale.”

April 8/09: The Pentagon’s AFPS reports on progress:

“Toward helping it fulfill that role, the United States has provided more than $410 million in military assistance to Lebanon since 2006. That support has included Humvees, trucks, M-198 howitzer artillery pieces, M-4 and M-16 rifles, body armor vests, MK-19 grenade launchers, shoulder-fired rockets, spare helicopter parts and millions of ammunition rounds.

More recently, the Defense Department has been working with the Lebanese government to expedite delivery of Cessna close-air-support aircraft with precision Hellfire missiles and [RQ-11] Raven unmanned aerial vehicle systems. The United States is also working to transfer M60 Abrams tanks to the Lebanese military from other countries in the region, Kahl said. These systems, expected to be delivered by June…”

2008

M60A3
(click to view full)

Dec 19/08: Defense News quotes “a senior U.S. state department official… in Beirut” saying that he U.S. plans to deliver M-60 tanks to Lebanon in spring 2009. the official stresses that the US does not see any competition with Russia or other countries, as all assistance to help the Lebanese government is welcome.

Dec 1/08: The Pentagon’s AFPS publishes “U.S. Forces Help Lebanese Military Assert Control“, which discusses American efforts to re-equip Lebanon’s army:

“The United States and Lebanon signed a military cooperation agreement in October [2008], establishing the U.S.-Lebanese Joint Military Commission to provide an official framework for the bilateral U.S.-Lebanese military relationship… “The most important [recommendation] was that the Lebanese military needed a lot of help in the military basics… They needed trucks, Humvees, parts and ammunition more than they needed high-end, expensive weaponry.” They also need training… In 2006, the United States renewed its security relationship with Lebanon, and since then has funneled more than $400 million in foreign military sales money… “Our part of that is to help build up the Lebanese armed forces so the Lebanese government can be sovereign in all its territory.”

…The United States has sent 285 Humvees to Lebanon, and another 312 will arrive by March. The United States has sent 200 trucks to the Lebanese and 41 M-198 155 mm artillery pieces. The Lebanese army also will get night-vision equipment and some tactical unmanned aerial vehicles. “Behind it is all basics – 12 million rounds of ammo, spare helicopter parts, shoulder-fired rockets,” Straub said. “We want them to play their role in controlling Lebanese territory. We also want them to deter the terrorist threat.” The United States is committed to getting Lebanon more modern tanks, and the U.S. military is working on delivering M-60A3 tanks.”

Dec 18/08: The UK’s Times reports that Russia will provide Lebanon with 10 MiG-29 fighter jets, for free, under an agreement on military-technical assistance. Rosoboronexport’s Mikhail Dmitryev said that the jets would come from Russia’s existing stock, and added that Moscow was also in talks to supply Lebanon with heavy armor. The country currently operates very old T-54/55 Russian tanks.

Aug 27/08: Belgian defense minister Pierre Crem visits Lebanon to finalize an agreement to sell 43 Leopard 1A5 tanks, and 28 M113 derivative armored personnel carriers (16 AIFVs and 12 conventional), to Lebanon. RTL Info via MplL.

M113s form the backbone of Lebanese mechanized forces, thanks to significant donations from American stocks. The AIFV model adds a 25mm gun. The Leopard 1A5 is a modernized Leopard tank, roughly on par with or slightly better than the American M60A3.

Additional Readings

• Lebanese Army – Equipment

• Wikipedia – Lebanese Ground Forces Equipment

• Commentary Magazine (April 14/09) – The UN’s Disintegration in Lebanon Michael Totten has spent time living in Lebanon over the past few years, and often reports on that country for various publications.

Americas

• Raytheon has completed lab testing of the Advanced, Medium Range Air to Air Missile – Extended Range (AMRAAM-ER), a ground-based air defense missile based on the AIM-120D and designed to be integrated with the Kongsberg NASAMS launcher. These latest tests validate that the missile can be integrated with the launcher, which will team with the AN/MPQ-64F1 Improved Sentinel radar to provide a highly capable air defense system. Raytheon is also taking the motor from its Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile and integrating it into the AMRAAM-ER to improve the missile’s range and engagement ceiling.

• The Air Force awarded an approximately $1.5 billion, eight-year contract for the sustainment and test operation of Arnold Engineering Development Complex, with $2 million of this awarded on Wednesday. The AEDC is the world’s largest and most sophisticated flight simulation test facility, with fourteen unique test units worldwide.

• DynCorp was handed an $18.3 million support service contract modification in support of Joint Special Operation Task Force – Philippines, bringing the total value of the contract to $154 million. The US officially ended the JSOTF in the Philippines in February, with some advisors remaining after thirteen years of operation in the country. This force reduction was intended to conclude by the beginning of May, with this latest contract scheduled to run to June next year.

• The Center for a New American Security (CNAS) think tank has released a report detailing the potential danger of proliferating small UAVs becoming aerial IEDs, including being used as ‘swarms’ capable of causing significant destruction with a low price tag. China has been developing cheap UAVs, with the readily-available cheap civilian market already significantly growing throughout the world.

Europe

• Russia’s Aerospace Defense Forces have test-fired a short-range anti-missile system in Kazakhstan, with this test coming as the country’s Defense Ministry announced that it intends to triple the number of air defense missiles in 2015 compared with 2014.

• Russia’s new main battle tanks are not quite as modern as the Russian media makes them out to be. The Russian Defense Ministry has marketed the T-14 Armata tank as a cutting-edge machine designed to surpass rival NATO designs. The T-14 is less heavily armored and armed than the Abrams, Challenger II and Leopard II, each of which have been around for several years.

Middle East

• Lebanon is buying six Super Tucano ground attack aircraft from the US through a Foreign Military Sale thought to be worth approximately $462 million, including spares, support services and auxiliary equipment. The US and Lebanese governments discussed the potential sale of Super Tucanos in 2010, with the DSCA announcement on Tuesday confirming reports from March which set a deadline of 2018 for delivery of the six aircraft. The Embraer-manufactured turboprop aircraft is particularly useful in counterinsurgency operations, as well as being more very affordable. For these reasons the Super Tucano has seen export success to several African states and numerous other nations worldwide.

• In addition to the Super Tucano order, the Lebanese government is also set to receive BAE Systems’ Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System to equip the Super Tucano light attack aircraft. The system modifies 70mm rocket rounds to use semi-laser guidance, increasing the precision of the otherwise unguided round.

• Along with the recently announced potential purchase of Eurofighters and Super Hornets, Kuwait is looking to acquire twenty-four H225M/EC725 Caracal helicopters, manufactured by Airbus. Poland recently ordered the Caracal, with these undergoing testing with the Polish Army last month.

Asia

• South Korea has requested the sale of the Aegis Combat System through a Foreign Military Sale. The potential sale of three of the systems, as well as auxiliary equipment, could be worth $1.9 billion and comes weeks after the North tested a “submarine-launched” missile. The ACS comprises the SPY-1 radar, Display System and Underwater Countermeasure System, with the Aegis system also capable of operating in a Ballistic Missile Defense capacity.

• Vietnam has upgraded its air defense systems, test-firing three Russian-manufactured S-125-2TM (NATO designation SA-3) Surface to Air Missiles. The improved system is now reportedly capable of targeting advanced low-flying aircraft and cruise missiles in an extreme jamming environment. The SA-3 is the SAM which downed a F-117 Nighthawk in 1999, with this driving the US to develop the AGM-88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM), designed to target and destroy enemy radar stations used to guide SAMs.

• The PLA used a high-speed railway to ferry troops in a recent mobility exercise. The Lanzhou-Xinjiang high-speed railway has 16,000km of track and can reach speeds of 350kph to the “>western Xinjiang region.

Today’s Video

• The Super Tucano in action…

Americas

• NAVAIR has been slamming missiles into the side of its KC-46 tankers as part of Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division survivability testing at the Weapons Survivability Laboratory. The tests used – among other sensors – ten high-speed cameras to capture the impact of the test missiles, themselves specifically designed to inflict maximum possible damage to the aircraft. The Air Force intends to buy 179 of the tankers to replace approximately a third of the current tanker fleet, which consists principally of KC-135 Stratotankers.

• The Navy has begun “deadload-testing” the EMALS system aboard the Pre-Commissioning Unit Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78). The electrically-power catapult system was successfully no-load tested in May, with Navy personnel also now qualified to operate the system, following certification earlier this month.

• The go-ahead has been given to General Dynamics for full rate production of the Warfighter Information Network – Tactical (WIN-T) Increment II, following Defense Acquisition Board approval to the Army in May. This means that the system – which is designed to act as a mobile command post, providing mobile command, control and communications – may be bought for remaining units due to receive the WIN-T system up to 2028. This increment also begins embedding WIN-T communications gear in select vehicles, such as MRAPs, bringing them Secure Internet Protocol Router (SIPR) connectivity as well as SATCOM capability.

• Microsoft was handed a $9 million Navy contract on Tuesday, for software support services and fixes. The contract also includes options totalling $30.8 million if all exercised up to 2017, with the base contract scheduled to finish in July next year. Microsoft began a major push into DoD contracting in 2005.

Europe

• Seemingly a confirmation of previous reports, Germany has reportedly selected the US-European MEADS system for its air defense requirement, beating out a rival offer for upgraded Raytheon Patriots. Reports from May in the German press cited undisclosed sources indicating that the Defense Ministry had selected MEADS, with these latest reports stemming from comments made by Sen. Charles Schumer, who appears to have acquired the information from the German Embassy in Washington.

• In what will come as a relief to European NATO states enduring repeated scrambling of interceptor aircraft over recently months, the Russian Air Force has grounded its fleet of sixty-three Tu-95 long-range bombers, following an engine fire leading to a runway overrun on Monday.

Middle East

• Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) Ltd has conducted a set of test flights of the company’s Harop loitering munition for an unspecified customer. The UAV is designed to stay on target for several hours before utilizing a 15kg warhead as it conducts a ‘kamikaze’ attack on its target. The Indian Air Force is an international customer for the system, having bought 10 Harpy systems in 2009, with Turkey also having purchased the system in 2005. Germany successfully tested teaming of the Harpy with Rheinmetall’s KZO UAV in 2011, with the country’s Defense Ministry procuring the Harpy for a demonstration phase of its WABEP (Weapon system for Stand-off Engagement of Individual and Point Targets) requirement in 2009.

• IAI subdiary ELTA has also unveiled a new Ultra High Frequency Active Electronically Scanned Array radar system, reportedly capable of detecting targets with very low Radar Cross Sections (RCS), as well as being capable of operating as part of a Ballistic Missile Defense system. The system is modular, capable of seeing multiple units bolted together to transition the system from a mobile system with a 500km range to up to 22 units providing a strategic BMD and space-object tracking capability.

• The Israeli and US Air Forces signed a Strategic Accord on Tuesday, with twelve joint teams being stood-up to tackle common issues, including one tasked with integrating Israel’s future F-35s into its Air Force.

Asia

• India appears to have deployed carrier-capable MIG-29K fighters to the Eastern base of Vizag, likely a prelude to the standing-up of the next squadron of the Russian-manufactured aircraft for the Western side of the country. India will order up to 45 of the aircraft, with the Russian manufacturer expected to deliver 6 by the end of 2015, with another 6 in 2016. However, the most significant issue facing the future deployment of the MIGs is not the aircraft themselves but rather the lack of new carrier to launch them from, particularly given thelatest slippage in the domestically-manufactured INS Vikrant’s schedule.

• Australia has established an expert panel to review the country’s future submarine evaluation process. With France, Germany and Japan all potential partners in the $50 billion program, the panel will try to maintain good procedural practise throughout the Australian government’s Future Submarine Strategy.

Today’s Video

• An Indian Navy MIG-29K taking off from the INS Vikramaditya…

WIN-T concept
(click to view larger)

As the Army’s tactical portion of the USA’s Global Information Grid (GIG) network, Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T) is designed to help deployed forces tap into that global network and its databases, collectors, and connections to national agencies. At present, this requires multiple private networks, or outright forward deployment of representatives from the agencies in question. If it can be done at all.

WIN-T has absorbed the program formerly known as the Joint Network Node, and another 3 fielding increments will gradually add key capabilities to the system. Increment 1/ JNN is widely fielded, Increment 2 is being fielded, and R&D contracts are beginning fleshing out Increment 3.

The WIN-T Program

WIN-T has changed a lot since it began in 2002. The timeline below captures key shifts and events, as well as future plans:

The biggest program change involved its split into different increments. So, what’s involved?

The New Structure: Incremental Change (click to view larger)

WIN-T Increment 1 provides soldiers access to the GIG while stationary, and used to be known as the Joint Node Network. It lets small platoons on the ground communicate with the rest of the world, something they couldn’t do in the past.

The JNN-N node was originally intended as an interim bridge before WIN-T arrived. It consists of vehicles and shipping containers (the Joint Network Node, the Battalion Command Post Node, the Ku SATCOM trailer and the Hub Node) equipped with systems that provide voice over IP, dynamic IP, videoconferencing and access to the military’s classified and unclassified networks. The US Army likes the idea of using commercially available Ku-band satellites via an integrated suite of state-of-the-art baseband, switching and termination equipment. Commercial Ku-band SATCOM offers performance and availability advantages that include higher throughput rates, as well as the ability to upgrade many of the fielded Ku-band terminals to Ka-band used by the military’s own Wideband Global SATCOM (WGS).

JNN was so successful that it became WIN-T Increment 1 in 2004. By 2006, the Army had fielded JNN to every infantry battalion operating in Iraq, and was started to push the gear down to the company level. The June 2007 WIN-T program restructuring added WGS broadband military Ka-band satellite connectivity as Increment 1a, to lower bandwidth costs and offer more networking options. WIN-T Increment 1b added Net-Centric Waveform software to optimize bandwidth, and a “colorless” core security architecture.

General Dynamics is developing Increment 2 and Increment 3 under a 2007 contract. General Dynamics C4 Systems leads a WIN-T team that includes Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems, Harris Corporation, L-3 communications, and networking rivals Juniper Networks and Cisco Systems.

WIN-T Increment 2 is designed to provide connectivity on the move. Integrating SATCOM, line-of-sight and terrestrial signal types, the “self healing” WIN-T increment 2 is designed to provide high-bandwidth connectivity that can automatically switch as between ground-based and satellite connections. For example, if a commander is moving into a city, which begins blocking line-of-sight signals, the system automatically connects to SATCOM.

This increment begins embedding WIN-T communications gear in select vehicles, bringing them Secure Internet Protocol Router (SIPR) connectivity. It also has to be backward-compatible with WIN-T Increment 1/1a/1b, because the reality of purchases and rollouts mean that different Army units will be equipped with different WIN-T Increments at any given time.

WIN-T Increment 3 will introduce an airborne network node to act as a relay, creating a 3-tier failover of land line-of-sight, then airborne relays, and then satellite as a last resort. The intended result is fully mobile networking, with better reliability and capacity. Inc 3 also aims to field smaller, more tightly integrated communications and networking gear.

Increment 3 was supposed to be part of the Army’s Future Combat Systems vehicles, but they were canceled in June 2009.

WIN-T Increment 4, the last of the WIN-T developmental program elements, is pending definition and contract award. It’s still supposed to cover on-the-move protected satellite communications, though that’s going to mean using the AEHF constellation rather than the envisioned T-SAT program.

WIN-T: Program Dashboards Contracts and Key Events FY 2014 – 2015

(click to view larger)

June 10/15: The go-ahead has been given to General Dynamics for full rate production of the Warfighter Information Network – Tactical (WIN-T) Increment II, following Defense Acquisition Board approval to the Army in May. This means that the system – which is designed to act as a mobile command post, providing mobile command, control and communications – may be bought for remaining units due to receive the WIN-T system up to 2028. This increment also begins embedding WIN-T communications gear in select vehicles, such as MRAPs, bringing them Secure Internet Protocol Router (SIPR) connectivity as well as SATCOM capability.

April 21/15: General Dynamics was awarded a $36.4 million contract to produce and repair components for the WIN-T, with the firm beating two other bids to take the contract.

Oct 31/13: WIN-T-3. General Dynamics C4 Systems Inc. in Taunton, MA receives another $475 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract to complete WIN-T Increment 3’s research and development. Work location and funding will be determined by each order.

These funds are on top of the $921 million R&D contract to develop both Increment 2 & Increment 3 (q.v. Sept 18/07), and see also the May 23/13 SAR report for cost escalation background. GDC4S was already responsible for Increment 3, and just 1 offer was solicited and 1 bid received by US Army Contracting Command at Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD (W15P7T-14-D-0002).

WIN-T-3 development add-on

Oct 3/13: WIN-T-2. The US Army announces that they’ve been approved to proceed with a $111 million WIN-T Increment 2 delivery order, as part of continued but contingent limited production. GDC4S will produce the next lot of WIN-T Inc 2 network nodes for additional brigade combat teams and division headquarters units.

WIN-T Inc 2 will be extended within 10th Mountain Division as part of wider CS 13 communications deployments, adding their 3rd Brigade Combat Team alongside 4 BCT. In addition, 2 more 101st Airborne Division BCTs will be conducting fielding and training with CS 13 and WIN-T Inc 2. The Army adds an important caveat when they note that:

“At the same time that it fields [WIN-T Inc 2] to CS 14 units, the Army will continue to coordinate with the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the test community to address remaining issues and simplify the system.”

See our March 28/13 and Jan 17/13 entries for more on that subject. Sources: US Army | GD, Oct 3/13 release.

FY 2012 – 2013

WIN-T-2 on M-ATV
(click to view larger)

June 27/13: Testing. DefenseTech quotes Army officials who explain how new equipment, including WIN-T, are driving tactics in exercises – and how the results change equipment design in return. With respect to WIN-T:

“There is a lot of complexity and challenge to mission command on the move,” he said. “A commander’s got a lot going on. He’s got to know where his elements are and at the same time know what the enemy is doing. You have to manage the data elements in real time. One solution was to have another soldier take on the monitoring of the data and manage the data so that the commander is not stuck to the screen.”

After installing the second version of the system on wheeled vehicles, the Army plans to configure numerous tracked vehicles with the technology, Smith said.”

June 8/13: WIN-T. General Dynamics touts the Army National Guard’s use of WIN-T Increment 1 after Hurricane Sandy hit New Jersey in October 2012. The system reportedly became a hub for law enforcement, other first responders, and the military after power was lost and cellular and mobile communications were down. Sources: GDC4S, June 18/13 release.

May 23/13: SAR. The Pentagon’s Selected Acquisitions Report ending Dec 31/12 includes shifts in WIN-T: 690 nodes subtracted from Increment 2, and 429 added to Increment 3. The result is a net subtraction of 261 nodes, coupled with a $2.1 billion overall cost increase…

WIN-T Increment 2 – Program costs decreased $1,323.9 million (-20.5%) from $6,461.3 million to $5,137.4 million, due primarily to a quantity decrease of 690 nodes from 2,790 to 2,100 nodes to align with the capability sets (-$1,115.8 million) and associated schedule and estimating allocations (+$38.8 million). Other decreases were due to the removal of the Armored Brigade Combat Team recurring A-Kit costs (-$150.8 million), a decrease in initial spares resulting from the decrease of 690 nodes (-$107.6 million), and decreases in fielding, new equipment training, and software maintenance resulting from 690 fewer nodes (-$83.5 million). These decreases were partially offset by an increase due to revised escalation indices (+$82.7 million) and increases resulting from additional costs for follow-on operational test and evaluation; platform certification testing; initial operational testing; and joint command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance radio production qualification testing (+$70.4 million).

WIN-T Increment 3 – Program costs increased $3,434.6 million (+23.8%) from $14,455.5 million to $17,890.1 million, due primarily to a procurement quantity increase of 404 nodes from 3,045 to 3,449 nodes (+$1,232.4 million) and associated schedule, engineering, and estimating allocations (-$497.7 million), and a development quantity increase of 25 nodes from 39 to 64 nodes (+$158.2 million) for limited user testing. Additional increases related to the increase of 404 procurement nodes include: fielding, new equipment training and hardware end of life (technology refresh) (+$1,556.1 million), software licenses (+$230.9 million), initial spares requirements (+$99.5 million), and engineering change orders for hardware procurement (+$79.1 million). There were other increases attributable to updates to the systems engineering and program management cost estimate (+$322.7 million) and the application of revised escalation indices (+$302.4 million). These increases were partially offset by decreases resulting from descoping of the Point of Presence-Command and Modular Communication Node-Global Information Grid Interface (-$42.8 million) and a reduction in development engineering due to leveraging of the WIN-T Increment 2 design (-$42.5 million).

SAR – WIN-T-2 shrinks, WIN-T-3 grows

May 6-23/13: Testing. WIN-T Increment 2 completes a Follow-on Operational Test and Evaluation (FOT&E) during the US Army’s Network Integration Exercise (NIE) 13.2, using the JTRS-compliant AN/PRC-154 Rifleman and AN/PRC-155 2-channel Manpack networking radios as key interfaces.

During the evaluation, more than 3,800 soldiers from the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division conducted a wide range of on-the-move military and peacekeeping operations, both day and night, at White Sands Missile Range, NM. Sources: GDC4S, June 19/13 release.

April 18/13: Training. General Dynamics announces that WIN-T Increment 2 is now in the hands of the U.S. Army’s 10th Mountain Division, whose 4 BCT is training for their upcoming deployment to Afghanistan with the system. Their point of interface is their JTRS-compatible Thales AN/PRC-154 radios.

Late last year, GD says that the Army ordered 136 additional WIN-T Increment 2 network nodes, bringing total orders to 532 and extending its reach to the company level. Sources: GDC4S, April 18/13 release.

March 28/13: GAO Report. The US GAO tables its “Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs“. Which is actually a review for 2012, plus time to compile and publish. With respect to WIN-T-2, the technologies and manufacturing are deemed to be mature, but:

“Based on the results of the May 2012 operational test, the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, concluded that only some of the program’s configuration items and technologies were operationally effective and that the program is not operationally suitable as six of the eight configuration items did not meet their reliability targets. The Director recommended that the Army dedicate resources to fix the program’s reliability and ability to support a 72-hour mission, and demonstrate improvements through a future operational test event. The Director also recommended that the Army consider appointing an independent review panel to determine if the program is capable of meeting its original reliability targets or recommend redesign changes. The Army is to perform a life-cycle cost analysis to determine the additional costs for maintenance support due to the program’s inability to meet its original reliability targets.”

With respect to WIN-T-3:

“WIN-T Increment 3 will not demonstrate the maturity of all 18 of its critical technologies in a realistic environment until its planned April 2015 production decision…. The program office stated that it has dropped two critical technologies from the original set of 20; the Joint Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Transmission Management Subsystem, and the Distributed Network Agent were removed due to their similarities with several of the program’s other critical technologies…. The program plans to begin employing alternative methods to assess design stability once it has completed its design review, now scheduled for June 2013, and has a stable baseline design, but has not made any final decisions about those methods. The program intends to conduct system-level developmental testing on a fully configured, production representative prototype in July 2014.”

Jan 17/13: DOT&E Testing Report. The Pentagon releases the FY 2012 Annual Report from its Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E). WIN-T is included:

“WIN-T Increment 2 is not suitable due to poor reliability and maintainability and not survivable due to deficiencies noted in the classified annex to the DOT&E BLRIP report…. In February 2012, the Army approved a revised requirement that lowered WIN-T Increment 2’s reliability requirement by 30 – 60 percent based upon an updated operational mission summary/mission profile…. As a result of IOT&E, DOT&E assessed WIN-T Increment 2 as not survivable due to significant Information Assurance vulnerabilities that would degrade a unit’s ability to succeed in combat. These vulnerabilities are discussed in a classified annex to the DOT&E BLRIP report.

On September 26, 2012, the DAE signed an ADM… Authorized the Army to procure an additional 538 WIN-T Increment 2 communication nodes as a second Low-Rate Initial Production [while requiring further testing and corrective plans].”

Oct 4/12: WIN-T-2. The U.S. Department of Defense has authorized the Army to continue WIN-T Increment 2 as part of the Army’s Capability Set 13 deployment, after its Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) was deemed to be successful during the Army’s Network Integration Evaluation 12.2 exercise.

Accordingly, General Dynamics C4 Systems receives a $346 million delivery order to buy more sets for Brigade Combat Teams and Division Headquarters units. Most production for the WIN-T Increment 2 system takes place at General Dynamics C4 Systems’ facility in Taunton, MA, with components from a variety of suppliers that include veteran-owned and small businesses in 28 states. GDC4S.

Oct 1/12: WIN-T-2. Initial fielding of the WIN-T Increment 2 network as a key component of Capability Set 13 begins at Ft. Drum, NY, and Ft. Polk, LA. Two brigades of the 10th Mountain Division begin their training using previously procured equipment. Source.

March 30/12: SAR The Pentagon’s Selected Acquisitions Report ending Dec 31/11 includes…

“WIN-T Increment 3 – Program costs decreased $1,600.4 million (-10.0%) from $16,055.9 million to $14,455.5 million, due primarily to a decrease in hardware costs reflecting fewer quantities of high cost Configuration Items being procured and a change in the mix of Configuration Items being procured (-$1,809.1 million) and a decrease of 123 nodes from 3,168 to 3,045 due to the removal of the requirement to replace Increment 2 hardware with Increment 3 hardware (-$291.4 million). There were additional decreases resulting from the descoping of the 4-channel Joint Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (JC4ISR) radio and antenna (-$287.2 million) and a decrease in systems engineering, program management, and spares costs due to compression of the procurement schedule by two years from FY 2026 to FY 2024 (-$262.4 million). These decreases were partially offset by a net increase in other support costs due to increased annual software license costs and the retrofit of the JC4ISR radios and antennas (+$383.8 million), an increase in hardware estimates for the Satellite Tactical Terminal-High Powered and Highband Radio Frequency Unit-Multiband Terrestrial antenna (+$352.6 million), and the application of revised escalation indices (+$325.6 million).”

SAR – WIN-T-3 reductions

Jan 17/12: DOT&E testing. The Pentagon releases the FY 2011 Annual Report from its Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E). WIN-T is included, but only tangentially:

“The Army conducted a combined WIN-T Increment 2 and Increment 1b Limited User Test at Fort Stewart, Georgia; Fort Lewis, Washington; and Fort Gordon, Georgia, in March 2009. DOT&E assessed the WIN-T Increment 2 as supportive of voice, video, and data communications. However, the network needs improvement in the following areas:

• Reliability
  
• Ability to support on the move communications
  
• Training provided to Soldiers due to complexity of the system
  
• Speed of communication due to network routing
  
• Network Operations Management
  
• Information Assurance

Nov 18/11: The US Army is evaluating its latest build of field networking equipment, after the 3-week NIE 12.1 event. The spring 2012 event will test NIE 13, which will include the new WIN-T Increment 2 gear.

FY 2010 – 2011

Datapath equipment
(click to view full)

May 10/11: WIN-T-2. Lockheed Martin announces a $105 million contract from General Dynamics C4 Systems, for more WIN-T Increment 2 components. Lockheed Martin will deliver transmission subsystem radios, modems, antennas, and mast systems, which will be integrated into a variety of combat vehicle platforms.

Integrating SATCOM, line-of-sight and terrestrial signal types, the “self healing” WIN-T increment 2 is designed to provide high-bandwidth, on-the-move connectivity which can dynamically switch between terrestrial and satellite sources, depending on the terrain.

April 15/11: SAR. The Pentagon’s Selected Acquisitions Report ending Dec 30/10 includes “significant” program cost change for WIN-T Increments 1 & 2:

“WIN-T Increment 1 – Program costs increased $468.1 million (+12.2%) from $3,835.0 million to $4,303.1 million, due primarily to a quantity increase of 83 communications nodes from 1,777 to 1,860 communications nodes (+$119.5 million) and an increase in other support costs for modification work (+$477.4 million), partially offset by a decrease in the estimating costs for a volume discount due to the quantity increase (-$129.8 million).

WIN-T Increment 2 – Program costs increased $1,354.8 million (+27.1%) from $4,997.8 million to $6,352.6 million, due primarily to a quantity increase of 630 communications nodes from 2,216 to 2,846 communications nodes (+$983.4 million) and a resulting increase in other support costs due to an additional year of procurement and the refinement of the fielding schedule (+$476.6 million). There are additional increases in the cost of government furnished software due to the transfer in procurement responsibility from the contractor to the government (+$89.5 million) and in non-recurring production costs due to additional platforms requiring integration (e.g., the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle) (+$62.3 million). These increases are partially offset by reductions in contract costs due to definitized prices, quantity lot discounts, and a decrease in actual contract hardware costs (-$272.8 million).”

SAR – WIN-T-2 grows

March 16/11: WIN-T-2 General Dynamics C4 systems announces $295.8 million in WIN-T Increment 2 delivery orders, to equip 5 additional brigade combat teams (BCTs).

The US Army has now ordered Increment 2 systems for a total of 8 BCTs under a 3-year contract that was awarded in March 2010 (vid. April 5/10 entry).

Aug 2/10: Sub-contractors. General Dynamics awards Lockheed Martin a contract worth up to $400 million to provide communications hardware and equipment for the WIN-T Increment 2 transmission subsystem, which will enable the network to transfer data over dispersed areas. Equipment produced will include transmission subsystem radios, modems, antennas and mast systems. The initial award is valued at $71 million.

July 21/10: Testing. General Dynamics C4 Systems touts a recent 4-day U.S. Army Brigade Combat Team Integration exercise at White Sands Missile Range, NM. Its 7 realistic mission scenarios included WIN-T and JTRS radio systems, allowing widely dispersed Army units to exchange command-and-control messages, location information, voice, electronic chat and imagery while on the move.

May 13/10: WIN-T-3. General Dynamics C4 Systems announces a $12.4 million contract modification to develop a line-of-sight communications payload for the MQ-1C Extended Range/Multi-purpose (ER/MP) UAV to serve as a communication relay on the WIN-T Increment 3 network.

The payload will use the Highband Networking Waveform (HNW) to serve as a line-of-sight radio repeater while the UAS is in flight, which is especially useful to troops in urban environments, or other rugged terrain that block level line of sight.

April 5/10: General Dynamics C4 Systems in Taunton, MA receives a $164 million firm-fixed-price contract for WIN-T Increment 2 low-rate production, urgent 1st order, for the procurement of equipment for 3 brigade combat teams, 1 division headquarters, 4 regional hub nodes, and one base equipment complement to support the initial operational test and evaluation for WIN-T Increment 2.

Work is to be performed in Taunton, MA with an estimated completion date of June 30/10. The equipment then will undergo formal testing during 2011, culminating in an Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) in November 2011. One sole-source bid was solicited by the CECOM Acquisition Center in Fort Monmouth, NJ (W15PT-10-D-C007).

This 3-year contract has a total potential value of $2.8 billion, if all options are exercised. See also GDC4S release.

Increment 2 begins

FY 2002 – 2009

JNN-N

June 5/09: WIN-T. General Dynamics SATCOM Technologies receives a $119 million modification to an existing delivery order (W15P7T-06-D-L219) to provide satellite communications earth terminals and support services for Increment One of the US Army’s WIN-T program.

Under the contract, General Dynamics SATCOM Technologies will provide 293 satellite transportable terminals (STT), 6 unit hub SATCOM trucks (UHST) and 534 Ka-band upgrade kits and spares.

General Dynamics SATCOM Technologies’ work is being performed under an existing World Wide Satellite Systems delivery order, managed by the WIN-T program manager’s Commercial Satellite Terminal Program in Ft. Monmouth, NJ. This modification to the existing delivery order brings the contract’s total value to $378 million for 956 STTs and 17 UHSTs, which represent approximately half of the hardware quantities available on the 4-year program.

May 1/09: Boeing in Saint Louis, MO receives a $10 million cost-plus fixed-fee contract for WIN-T Point of Presence and the FCS Integrated Computer System (FCS ICS). They’re the Future Combat Systems lead integrator, and their task will be to integrate WIN-T functions (HAIPE & RFNM) and the Network Management System (NMS) with the FCS ICS on the program’s vehicles etc.

Work is to be performed in Bloomington, MN (93.02%), and St. Louis, MO (06.98%) with an estimated completion date of Dec 31/14. One bid was solicited with one bid received by TACOM Warren’s AMSXCC-TAC-AB in Warren, MI (W56HZV-05-C-0724).

April 6/09: WIN-T-2. General Dynamics announces that the US Army’s 4th Brigade – 2nd Infantry Division in Fort Lewis, WA, and 3rd Infantry Division in Fort Stewart, GA completed a limited user test of WIN-T Increment 2. A General Dynamics-led team supported the testing, during which soldiers from the 2 units planned and executed multiple missions, sharing command and control information from the command post down to the company level using WIN-T.

March 4/09: WIN-T-2. A General Dynamics-led team completes a developmental testing of the WIN-T Increment 2 on-the-move broadband networking capability. The test included building and operating a network comprising more than 35 network nodes. In a tactical environment, a network this size would support an Army division and associated brigade, battalion and company elements.

Feb 2/09: WIN-T. General Dynamics C4 Systems Inc. in Taunton, MA receives a $9 million cost-plus-award-fee contract, as part of WIN-T System Development & Demonstration. They’ll define, model, simulate, and demonstrate WIN-T System’s architecture in a field environment.

Work is being performed at Taunton, MA, and Gaithersburg, MD, with an estimated completion date of Sept 30/10. One bid was solicited by sole source and 1 bid received by the CECOM Acquisition Center in Fort Monmouth, NJ (DAAB07-02-C-F404).

Nov 3/08: General Dynamics C4 Systems announces delivery of the first WIN-T Increment 1 equipment to the US Army. Increment 1 builds on the former Joint Network Node-Network (JNN) and provides soldiers with a high-capacity communications network when they are stopped.

On schedule deliveries of WIN-T Increment 1 to the 5th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) at Ft. Lewis, WA, includes networking hubs, network management suites and network nodes. The equipment serves battalion, brigade and division/corps command posts and Expeditionary Signal Battalions.

1st WIN-T delivery

Sept 24/07: WIN-T. General Dynamics announces a $24 million contract from the U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command in Fort Monmouth, NJ, to provide specialized JNN-N/ WIN-T Inc 1 satellite communications earth terminals and support services. Sources: GDC4S release.

Sept 18/07: WIN-T 2/3 development. A $921 million contract to the General Dynamics-Lockheed Martin WIN-T will develop WIN-T Increments 2 & 3. Sources: GD C4 Systems, Sept 27/07 release.

Win-T Increment 2 & 3 development

Aug 22/07: General Dynamics, Taunton, MA receives an $8.2 million increment as part of a $1,179,461,286 cost-plus-award-fee contract for the development of WIN-T.

Work will be performed in Taunton, MA (77%), and Gaithersburg, MD (23%), and is expected to be completed by June 30/10. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This was a sole source contract initiated on July 12, 2007. The U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command, Fort Monmouth, NJ, is the contracting activity (DAAB07-02-C-F404).

July 10/07: General Dynamics, Taunton, MA receives a $22.5 million increment as part of a $1,069,909,287 cost-plus-award-fee contract for system development and demonstration for the architecture of the WIN-T system.

Work will be performed in Taunton, MA (40%), and Gaithersburg, MD (60%), and is expected to be completed by Sept. 30, 2011. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This was a sole source contract initiated on March 19, 2007. The U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command, Fort Monmouth, NJ, is the contracting activity (DAAB07-02-C-F404).

June 2007: Restructured. The US Army restructures the WIN-T program into 4 major increments, after a formal cost breach under the terms of the USA’s Nunn-McCurdy legislation.

The former Joint Network Node (JNN) remains WIN-T Increment 1 from 2004, but it will add WGS satellite compatibility (1a) and some bandwidth management and security improvements (1b).

WIN-T Increment 2 development is valued at $126 million, to deliver initial on-the-move broadband networking using radio links that fail-over to SATCOM. Fielding is scheduled to begin in 2009.

WIN-T Increment 3 development is valued at $795 million. It will complete Increment 2’s goals and add better network capacity management, security and full on-the-move capabilities. Limited user testing is scheduled to begin in 2011. Increment Three also addresses the size, weight, power and cooling requirements for systems to be hosted in Future Combat Systems vehicles.

WIN-T Increment 4 is envisioned as an upgrades stage, based on new technology that includes enhanced satellite communications protection and compatibility with the ultra high-bandwidth T-SAT network. Sources: GD C4 Systems, Sept 27/07 release.

WIN-T Restructured

Feb 13/07: General Dynamics C4 Systems, Taunton, MA, was awarded on Feb. 8, 2007, a $44,102,000 increment as part of a $269,143,489 cost-plus-award-fee contract for a within scope change to the Warfighter Information Network – Tactical System Development and Demonstration.

Work will be performed in Taunton, MA (50%), and Gaithersburg, MD (50%), and is expected to be completed by June 30, 2007. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This was a sole source contract initiated on Jan. 5, 2007. The U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command, Fort Monmouth, NJ, is the contracting activity (DAAB07-02-C-F404).

Sept 1/06: General Dynamics C4 Systems, Taunton, MA, was awarded on Aug. 28, 2006, a $7,259,000 increment as part of a $202,503,038 cost-plus-award-fee contract for an engineering change to the Warfighter Information Network – Tactical System Development and Demonstration.

Work will be performed in Taunton, MA (50%), and Gaithersburg, MD (50%), and is expected to be completed by Jan. 31, 2007. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This was a sole source contract initiated on Aug. 1, 2006. The U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command, Fort Monmouth, NJ, is the contracting activity (DAAB07-02-C-F404).

June 3/05: General Dynamics C4 Systems, Taunton, MA, was awarded on June 2, 2005, a $7,632,000 increment as part of a $126,672,195 cost-plus-fixed-fee, cost-plus-award-fee, and time and materials contract for a further development of an initial architecture for the Warfighter Information Network Tactical Communication System.

Work will be performed in Taunton, MA (75%) and Gaithersburg, MD (25%), and is expected to be completed by Jan. 9, 2006. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. There were an unknown number of bids solicited via the World Wide Web on April 8, 2002, and three bids were received. The U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command, Fort Monmouth, NJ, is the contracting activity (DAAB07-02-C-F404).

Nov 12/04: General Dynamics C4 Systems, Taunton, MA, was awarded on Nov. 10, 2004, a $14,987,144 increment as part of a $112,579,352 cost plus fixed fee, cost plus award fee, and time and materials contract for development of an initial architecture for the Warfighter Information Network Tactical Communication System.

Work will be performed in Taunton, MA (75%) and Gaithersburg, MD (25%), and is expected to be completed by Jan. 9, 2006. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. There were an unknown number of bids solicited via the World Wide Web on April 8, 2002, and three bids were received. The U.S. Army Communication-Electronics Command, Fort Monmouth, NJ, is the contracting activity (DAAB07-02-C-F404).

Aug 9/02: General Dynamics Government Systems Corp., Taunton, MA, is being awarded a $3,000,000 increment as part of a $72,294,296 cost-plus-fixed-fee and time and materials contract for development of an initial architecture for the Warfighter Information Network – Tactical communication system.

Work will be performed in Taunton and is to be completed by Jan. 9, 2006. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. There were an unknown number of bids solicited via the World Wide Web on April 8, 2002, and three bids were received. The U. S. Army Communications-Electronics Command, Fort Monmouth, NJ, is the contracting activity (DAAB07-02-C-F404).

Additional Readings

• US Army PEO C3T – Project Manager WIN-T

• General Dynamics – WIN-T mini-site.

• US Army STAND TO! via WayBack – Capability Set 13 Fielding. 1st set with WIN-T Increment 2.

• Lockheed Martin – Warfighter Information Network – Tactical (WIN-T)

• Harris – Warfighter Information Network—Tactical (WIN-T)

• Global Security – Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T)

News & Views

• DID – Taming the UAV Data Explosion

• Taunton Daily Gazette (Aug 30/13) – Guest Opinion: General Dynamic’s WIN-T program a good example of a good investment. By Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA]. Given that it’s centered in her state, she’s hardly going to rubbish it…

• AFCEA’s SIGNAL Magazine (July 2012) – WIN-T Marches Forward. Very good overview.

• General Dynamics, via WayBack (June 5/09) – General Dynamics to Boost Military Satellite Communications Capacity with $119 Million Army WIN-T Satellite Terminal Award

• US Army 2008 Posture Statement Information Papers, via WayBack – Warfighter Information Network-Tactical

• C4ISR Journal (Sept 1/08) – Incremental improvement: Keeping tabs on U.S. Army’s reborn tactical network

• DID (May 23/06) – Platoon-Level IP: $73M to Datapath for Joint Network Node Support. Describes the JNN, which became WIN-T Increment 1.

• Federal Computer Weekly, via WayBack (April 2/07) – WIN-T to LOST-T? Compares and contrasts WIN-T with the success of JNN (which became WIN-T Inc 1). “WIN-T is intended to provide tactical units on the battlefield with broadband, IP-based voice, video and data communications, a job performed quite well during the past few years by the Joint Network Node at about a tenth of the cost of using commercial gear, including satellite terminals from DataPath and routers and voice-over-IP systems from Cisco.”

• Fort Monmouth Team C4ISR Knowledge Center, via WayBack (March 17/06) – Communications system developed here named winner

• Army Communicator, via Highbeam (Winter 2005) – Providing the bridge to the future network with commercial wideband SATCOM

• C4ISR Journal, via WayBack (Oct 29/04) – Joint Network Node Gives Soldiers More Mobile Communications, Increased Bandwidth

• Federal Computer Weekly, via WayBack (Nov 22/04) – Iraq-bound 3rd Infantry ready to share

• Military Information Technology, via WayBack (Oct 19/04) – Interim Mobile Communications System Readied for Iraq

KC-135: Old as the hills…
(click to view full)

DID’s FOCUS articles cover major weapons acquisition programs – and no program is more important to the USAF than its aerial tanker fleet renewal. In January 2007, the big question was whether there would be a competition for the USA’s KC-X proposal, covering 175 production aircraft and 4 test platforms. The total cost is now estimated at $52 billion, but America’s aerial tanker fleet demands new planes to replace its KC-135s, whose most recent new delivery was in 1965. Otherwise, unpredictable age or fatigue issues, like the ones that grounded its F-15A-D fighters in 2008, could ground its aerial tankers – and with them, a substantial slice of the USA’s total airpower.

KC-Y and KC-Z buys are supposed to follow in subsequent decades, in order to replace 530 (195 active; ANG 251; Reserve 84) active tankers, as well as the USAF’s 59 heavy KC-10 tankers that were delivered from 1979-1987. Then again, fiscal and demographic realities may mean that the 179 plane KC-X buy is “it” for the USAF. Either way, the KC-X stakes were huge for all concerned.

In the end, it was Team Boeing’s KC-767 NexGen/ KC-46A (767 derivative) vs. EADS North America’s KC-45A (Airbus KC-30/A330-200 derivative), both within the Pentagon and in the halls of Congress. The financial and employment stakes guaranteed a huge political fight no matter which side won. After Airbus won in 2008, that fight ended up sinking and restarting the entire program. Three years later, Boeing won the recompete. Now, they have to deliver their KC-46A.

Boeing’s KC-46A, and Its Team KC-46A concept
(click to view full)

KC-46A Pegasus production takes place in 2 phases: the 767-2C, and then the militarized KC-46A modifications.

There are still a number of things we don’t know, though more details have emerged since Boeing won the competition. The first step is to build a 767 on the commercial production line with a cargo door and freighter floor, an advanced flight deck display borrowed from its new 787, body tanks, and provisions for aerial tanker systems. Initial Boeing graphics featuring upturned winglets on the wingtips are no longer part of the design, but Pratt & Whitney’s 62,000 pound thrust PW4062s remain their engine choice. This is the 767-2C, and it receives an FAA 767 amended Type Certificate.

The 767-2C is militarized in a separate finishing center by adding aerial refueling equipment, an air refueling operator’s station that includes panoramic 3-dimensional displays, and threat detection/ countermeasures systems. The resulting KC-46A receives an FAA 767 Supplemental Type Certificate given to substantially different variants, and must also receive USAF certification that clears the way for full acceptance.

Boeing’s refueling boom is derived from the KC-10’s AARB, but adds 3-D viewing and a slightly higher fuel offload rate of 1,200 gallons/min. The centerline and wing-mounted refueling pods will now come from Cobham plc’s Sargent Fletcher, who was also partnered with Airbus for this feature. Unlike the A330 MRTT’s systems, however, the KC-46A’s wing refueling pods still need to finish testing on the 776-2C. The USAF will buy 46 wing sets for its fleet, which will allow multi-aircraft (multipoint) aerial refueling when installed.

KC-46A cargo capacity lists as 65,000 pounds, in a mix of up to 18 cargo pallets, 114 passengers, and/or 58 medical stretcher slots.

Fielding a tanker built after the 1960s allows the USAF to include a number of new systems, which would be too costly to retrofit into the existing KC-135 fleet. The net effect is to make its KC-46As front-line refuelers. The cockpit and exterior lighting are night-vision compatible for covert rendezvous. Advanced communications and secure datalinks are big steps forward for the fleet, and their classified feeds will be used by specialized ESTAR and TCS systems designed to route the tanker away from threats. NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical) protection will allow the planes to operate in contaminated environments, while EMP hardening reduces the effects of high-frequency radiation bursts on all those new solid-state electronics. On a more prosaic level, radar warning systems, infrared defensive systems, cockpit armor, and fuel tank ballistic protection will all be welcome.

KC-46A Industrial Team Boeing’s KC-X 1.0 Team

Boeing’s industrial team has slowly announced itself over many months since the award. American KC-46A content has been touted as high as 85%, with British firms picking up much of the balance. Boeing reportedly looked hard for supply chain savings in Round 2, though, in order to lose less money with its under-cost bidding strategy.

That KC-46A design is a big change from KC-X round 1, whose KC-767 Advanced used a 767-200ER fuselage; a 767-300F freighter wing, landing gear, cargo door and floor; and a 767-400ER’s flaps and flight deck (derived in turn from the 777). A new design fly-by-wire boom with remote viewing would expand the tanker’s effective refueling airspace, and offload more fuel. Engines would be 2 Pratt & Whitney PW4062s, with 62,000 pounds of thrust each, instead of the KC-767A/J’s 60,200 pound CF6-80C2s.

Some of the suppliers also changed, as Boeing progressed from the canceled KC-767 lease deal, to KC-X, to its final design in Round 2:

Boeing’s production line had also progressed. Near the end of the KC-X bidding, Boeing added civilian 767 orders to keep its production line going. That was enough to create a cushion if KC-X faced further challenges and issues, but the reality is that civilian 767 production looks set to end soon. The US military will soon become the 767 production line’s sole support.

KC-X: The Program

A March 2012 GAO report summed up the risk driving the KC-46A program, and the current state of the USAF’s tanker fleets:

“According to the Air Force, the national security strategy cannot be executed without aerial refueling… the KC-135 Stratotanker, is over 50 years old on average and costing increasingly more to maintain and support. With… more than 16,000 flight hours on each aircraft, the KC-135s will approach over 80 years of age when the fleet is retired as projected in the 2040 time frame. In 1981, the Air Force began supplementing its fleet of KC-135s with [59] KC-10s… that transport air cargo and provide refueling. Much larger than the KC-135, the KC-10 provides both boom and hose and drogue refueling capabilities[Footnote 4] on the same flight and can conduct transoceanic missions. The KC-10s now average about 27 years of age with more than 26,000 flight hours on each, and their service life is expected to end around 2045.”

The $7.2 billion October 2012 development cost estimate includes $4.9 billion for the aircraft development contract and 4 test aircraft, $0.3 billion for the aircrew and maintenance training systems, and $2 billion for other government costs and some risk funds. The total procurement cost estimate of $40.46 billion in base-year dollars buys 175 production aircraft, initial spares, and other support items as priced in contract options.

Cost estimates as of April 2014 are stable, with an estimated $1.6 billion to cover other government costs like program office support, test and evaluation support, contract performance risk, and other development risks. That includes the cost of test flights, which will sometimes feature operational military aircraft of various kinds to act as receivers.

An accompanying military construction estimate of $4.2 billion includes the projected costs to build aircraft hangars, maintenance and supply shops, and other facilities to house and support the full 175-plane KC-46 fleet at up to 10 main operating bases (McConnell AFB, KS is MOB1), 1 training base at Altus AFB, OK; and the Oklahoma City Air Logistics Complex depot.

The KC-46A Development Phase: Budgets, Splits, & Dates KC-46 development

The Pentagon’s latest Selected Acquisition Report estimates a total KC-46A development cost of $5.615 billion, which would actually be $1.221 billion over the KC-X EMD phase’s original Target Cost of $4.394 billion. Fortunately for the USAF, they structured the contract so they can’t pay more than $4.7 billion, and the overall bid cost to the US government for development plus production remains below Airbus’ bid.

Here’s how it works:

• Up to the $4.898 billion ceiling, the contract split for amounts over the $4.394 billion base price is 60/40. The difference is $504 million, so the government would pay $302.4 million ($4.696 billion total), and Boeing would pay about $201.6 million.

• Costs above the $4.898 billion ceiling are all Boeing’s responsibility.

Current estimates show that there’s almost no chance of coming in under the ceiling. Boeing’s current cost estimate is $5.164 billion, which would raise its private liability for the cost increases to $467.5 million (201.6 + all 265.9 over the ceiling). If the government program manager is right, Boeing’s liability rises to $918.6 million (201.6 + all 717.0 over). The difference matters to Boeing, but the Pentagon doesn’t have to care which EMD Phase figure is correct, or how much higher EMD costs go. Their costs are set, at $4.7 billion, though actual dollars will be a bit higher due to inflation etc.

That’s if, and only if, the USAF doesn’t start asking for design changes. If they do, that would trigger a cycle of charges over and above the agreed contract.

As of December 2012, schedule planning looked like this:

Concurrence concerns

The USAF has maintained its Q4 FY 2015 (summer 2015) goal for a successful Operational Assessment and Milestone C decision, and this remains the official target. Success which would clear the way for 2 firm-fixed-price Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) lots to deliver the initial 19 aircraft. Full-Rate Production options would follow beginning in FY 2017 as a firm-fixed-price contract with some adjustments for outside circumstances, and a not-to-exceed cap. The USAF will be assessing the possibility of breaking out the engines as a separate government procurement in FRP, instead of having Boeing provide them.

As Airbus predicted when the contract was awarded, however, Boeing has admitted to trouble meeting these development milestones. The schedule will need to be changed, but there’s no official replacement schedule yet.

The schedule may need to incorporate other changes as well. The Pentagon’s own DOT&E testers have doubted proclaimed Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) dates (Q3 FY 2016 – Q1 2017) for some time. Beyond technical issues that have slowed the new design, testing must avoid revealing significant problems.
Initial Operational Capability (IOC) was pegged for August 2017, with Full Operational Capability (FOC) expected by August 2019, but USAF Air Mobility Command is no longer giving official target dates.

The program as a whole is expected to end by 2028.

The KC-46A Production Phase: Risks & Numbers KC-10 & F/A-18C

The current program calls for Boeing to begin delivering KC-46As to the USAF by 2015. Unfortunately, the KC-46A is too different from previous KC-767A models sold to Japan and Italy, so it will need its own development, testing, and certification time. That’s why Airbus and program skeptics have always doubted that Boeing could deliver 18 certified, fully developed and tested planes by 2017. Boeing disputes this, but the Pentagon’s own DOT&E office added weight to those concerns in its 2011 reports, which declared the KC-46A’s test program “not executable.” That continues to be a concern.

Beyond basic integration and certification considerations, a March 2012 GAO report cites 6 key technical risks to the program:

1. Weight limits. The KC-46A is close to its limit, and any more growth will start to take away fuel capacity, while increasing fuel burn rate. As of December 2013, Boeing remains confident that they will remain under the maximum take-off weight of 204,000 pounds.

2. New wing refueling pods. The KC-46’s pods will be redesigned to reduce buffeting of the aircraft’s wing, and change the way the refueling hose exits the pod. Still a technical risk as of December 2013.

3. 3-D display for the boom operator.

4. Threat Correlation Software. Used to help plot safe routes, along with the…

5. ESTAR software.

6. ALR-69 Radar Warning Receiver integration. Issues like figuring out precise placement, and antenna design, make fitting a large aircraft more challenging than many people expect.

Problems with these or other systems could delay the program further, and some of these issues could also make certification harder or longer. Even so, the actual risk that set the development program back wasn’t any of these. It was the need to redesign certain wiring sections for military-grade shielding requirements and mandatory separation distances.

Meanwhile, the USAF plans to respond to continued budget cuts by removing their existing KC-10 heavy refuelers entirely, adding tremendous risk by removing their inherent boom/hose versatility, and leaving no tanker alternative if the KC-135s develop a serious problem.

Fleet Risks

Over the longer term, plotting even a 3-year production delay against planned deliveries and KC-135 retirements never drops the medium tanker fleet much below present levels. The initial drop is slight, and the same final figure is reached in 2030 instead of 2027. On the other hand, RAND’s 2006 Analysis of Alternatives for KC-X highlighted a very different risk, which needs to be understood:

“The current (December 2005) assessment of the flight-hour life of the KC-135 fleet and the expected future flying-hour programs together imply that these aircraft can operate into the 2040s. It cannot be said with high confidence that this is not the case, although there are risks associated with a fleet whose age is in the 80- to 90-year range. It can also not be said with high confidence that the current fleet can indeed operate into the 2040s without major cost increases or operational shortfalls, up to and including grounding of large parts of the fleet for substantial lengths of time, due to currently unknown technical problems that may arise. The nation does not currently have sufficient knowledge about the state of the KC-135 fleet to project its technical condition over the next several decades with high confidence.”

In English, nobody knows if an airplane fleet that’s already 50 years old will remain safe, or avoid unforeseen mechanical or structural problems, because there’s no previous example of what they’re trying to do. Those kinds of sudden “age-out” problems recently grounded the USAF’s F-15A-D fleet for several months, and led to the unexpected retirement of almost 1/4 of the fleet. If anything similar happens to the KC-135, the USAF’s planned number of aerial tankers may not resemble its actual future fleet.

This risk, and the potential absence of the KC-10, is exactly why the KC-X program has been the USAF’s #1 priority. On the other hand, it’s an equally good reason not to trust the USAF’s own rosy projections for its future fleet size. The graph below shows how this kind of scenario could play out. In DID’s hypothetical example, we used actual data to the present day, plus all planned reductions in the USAF’s 2011 plan. Fleet problems lead to the forced retirement of 1/3 of the remaining fleet in 2021 over safety and cost-to-fix issues, followed by a second mechanical issue or budget crisis that grounds another 55 planes in 2029. The KC-10 fleet is not part of this calculus at all.

The USA’s looming fiscal entitlements crisis will begin to bite in earnest post-2020, and the pattern of cuts in the USA and in other countries shows a marked tendency to simply retire platforms with significant maintenance costs. KC-135 per-hour flight costs are already increasing, and a fleet that also needed expensive refits or fixes would be a prime target for future cuts. Here’s what this scenario looks like:

Finally, DID believes that there will be no KC-Y or KC-Z, so the timing of KC-135 problems and retirements isn’t critical. Any serious problems in the KC-135 fleet could create a similar end-point, even if the drops happened after 2030.

KC-46A Export Prospects IAI’s KC-767 MMTT

Once the KC-46As do enter service, they will join Italy’s KC-767A (4) and Japan’s KC-767J (4) small KC-767 fleets. Both customers have experienced long delivery delays while Boeing has worked to iron out technical problems, and their KC-767s will have a number of key differences from the KC-46A. Japan’s boom-equipped KC-767s were delivered form 2008-2010, but Italy’s aircraft with hose-and-drogue systems were only accepted in February 2011.

That’s one option, if Boeing will produce the planes.

The KC-46A’s schedule and dwindling civil 767 production are problematic for export orders, because the USAF will be Boeing’s sole focus until the EMD Phase is done in 2017 – or later. Countries that need aerial tankers before 2019-2020 will need to look elsewhere. Boeing declined to bid on India’s aerial tanker RFP, for instance. There’s also a customer commitment issue. Should customers accept the KC-767A, which is certified and in service, or wait for the KC-46A, and hope it’s on time?

Airbus sees this lock-up as an opportunity to add to its A330 MRTT customer list, of course, signing customers like India, Qatar, and Singapore. Ironically, the other big beneficiary may by Israel’s IAI Bedek, whose inexpensive KC-767 MMTT conversion of used Boeing freighters already has customers in Colombia and Brazil.

As of June 2013, Boeing was reportedly pursuing prospects for up to 20 aerial tanker exports. If so, they have been quiet pursuits. The next big opportunity will be in South Korea.

KC-X: Contracts & Key Developments FY 2015

Boom assembly

June 10/15: NAVAIR has been slamming missiles into the side of its KC-46 tankers as part of Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division survivability testing at the Weapons Survivability Laboratory. The tests used – among other sensors – ten high-speed cameras to capture the impact of the test missiles, themselves specifically designed to inflict maximum possible damage to the aircraft. The Air Force intends to buy 179 of the tankers to replace approximately a third of the current tanker fleet, which consists principally of KC-135 Stratotankers.

April 24/15: Tinker Air Force Base (Oklahoma) has been named as one of four potential locations to base the Air Force’s fleet of new KC-46A refueling tankers, alongside Seymour-Johnson Air Force Base (North Carolina), Westover Air Reserve Base (Massachusetts) and Grissom Air Reserve Base (Indiana).

Jan 26/15: Flight test. Boeing conducted a flight test from Payne Field in Everett, Washington. The four-hour flight was uneventful, but well-documented.

Dec 10/14: spares. Boeing is awarded a not to exceed $84.5M undefinitized contract action modification (P00054) to previously awarded contract FA8625-11-C-6600 for 4,880 production support equipment items and 6 production spare parts. Work will be performed at Seattle, WA, and is expected to be completed by June 30, 2016. $9.5M in FY14 aircraft procurement funds and $32.2M in FY15 aircraft procurement funds are being obligated at the time of award.

Dec 03/14: wiring. Boeing Dennis Muilenburg told investors during a conference organized by Credit Suisse that wiring problems that had led to delays and charges (q.v. Sept 17/14) were now “resolved and closed out.”

Dec 01/14: Training. The USAF intends to finalize its Maintenance Training System (MTS) RFP in January 2015. The draft, released back in September, is found under solicitation IDN-KC-46-MTS.

Nov 24/14: Personnel. The Air Force Personnel center announces that the aircrew of 41 officers and enlisted members from the active force, Reserve and National Guard have been selected to staff initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E).

Nov 19/14: Schedule. The USAF publicly admits what KC-46A program watchers already know: Boeing is essentially out of schedule margin to deliver the 767-based KC-46As on time by 2017. The USAF is still describing the contract as “achievable,” but so many things have to go right that this isn’t a smart bet for outside observers. The USAF won’t really say anything else until disaster is certain, though, because the admission will make the service look bad (q.v. March 4/11). Sources: Reuters, “US Air Force sees challenges on Boeing KC-46 tanker program”.

Oct 16/14: Delays. Boeing finally admits that the KC-46A’s program schedule will have to be changed. They don’t know how many milestones will need adjustment, but they’re still holding to the idea that they’ll have 18 KC-46As delivered by August 2017.

Can they avoid proving Airbus’ March 4/11 prediction that Boeing would deliver late? It’s hard to see how Boeing’s on-time promise adds up now, given significant GAO and DOT&E concerns that the testing program as proposed is too compressed and can’t be executed (q.v. April 11/14, Sept 17/13). Boeing gets to try convincing Pentagon acquisition officials with an official submission early in 2015, and the USAF will then conduct its own “schedule risk assessment” to examine Boeing’s assumptions.

Most ways of speeding up programs involve spending more money, though that tends to have diminishing returns past a certain point. The program’s official cash reserve is expected to run dry in March 2015, but the USAF’s costs are capped, so it’s likely that Boeing will wind up spending more private funds on KC-46A development. Sources: Bloomberg, “Boeing Seeks Revised Schedule for U.S. Aerial Tanker”.

FY 2014

Competition in South Korea? Initial basing decisions; Boeing takes extra costs charge, announces delays. Workers saluted

Sept 17/14: Flight delay. First flight for the KC-46A is in question due to the same wiring bundle technical issues that forced Boeing to take an additional $272 million Q2/14 charge on the program (q.v. July 23/14). USAF spokesman Ed Gulick:

“We are disappointed with Boeing’s current KC-46 production challenges and their inability to meet internal production milestones, but we do not see anything of great concern and are confident they will overcome the issues,” said Gulick in a statement to Puget Sound Business Journal. “The KC-46 program’s technical and cost performance are on-track; Boeing has met every contractual requirement to date.”

The baseline 767 has about 70 miles of wiring in the design, and the need for redundancy in certain systems pushes the 767-2C to 120 miles, including shielding requirements and mandatory separation distances for safety reasons. The redesign will address these issues, but it sideswipes plans for concurrent installation in the 4 test aircraft currently under construction. Given the program’s known issue with compressed test schedules (q.v. April 11/14), they had better be ready by April 2015. Sources: Aviation Week, “First Flight for KC-46 Tanker Platform Slips Further” | Puget Sound Business Journal, “Air Force ‘disappointed’ in Boeing tanker delays; issues cost Boeing millions”.

Sept 15/14: Training. The USAF issues a Draft Request for Proposal (DRFP) for the KC-46 Maintenance Training System (MTS) Program. It consists of various specific component trainers, e-learning materials, and Training System Support Center build-outs. Sources: FBO.gov, “KC-46 Maintenance Training System, Solicitation Number: IDN-KC-46-MTS”.

Aug 5/14: Basing. The USAF announces that the KC-46A’s MOB2 Air National Guard base will be Pease ANGB, NH, which beat Forbes AGS, KS; Joint-Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, NJ; Pittsburgh International Airport AGS, PA; and Rickenbacker AGS, OH.

Pease has apparently been the preferred alternative since May 2013, owing to its location in a region of high air refueling receiver demand and successful ANG-USAF partnership. This announcement follows the required environmental reviews. Sources: Pentagon NR-409-14, “Pease Air National Guard Base selected to receive KC-46A Pegasus aircraft”.

Basing: MOB2 ANG picked

July 23/14: Cost. During a Q2 analyst conference call, Boeing CEO Jim McNerney says that they’re absorbing a $272 million unexpected charge related to problems with KC-767 wiring harnesses:

“We bid the EMD (engineering manufacturing and development) contract for the tanker aggressively, with zero margin, with planned profitability in the production phase. Despite our disappointment in encountering these challenges, the issues are well understood, and no new technology is needed to solve them…. We have a wet fuel lab, a lighting lab, those have all been put in place to de-risk the program. We have a wet lab where we are running fuel through pumps and valves to validate that on the ground.”

Sources: Boeing, “Boeing Reports Second-Quarter Results and Raises 2014 EPS Guidance” | Puget Sound Business Journal, “Boeing: We can fix Air Force tanker problems without new technology”.

July 14/14: Cost. The KC-46A development phase could end up costing Boeing more than expected. That may concern Boeing executives, but the USAF won’t pay any more and doesn’t care:

“Defense Undersecretary Frank Kendall told reporters late on Sunday that Boeing was performing “satisfactorily” on the KC-46 tanker program, but several events – including water damage caused by a sprinkler malfunction at the company’s Everett, Washington plant – meant costs were higher than expected.”

Boeing says that they’ll be able to cut costs with their testing approach. We’ll see. Sources: Reuters, “AIRSHOW-Boeing may face higher than expected costs on KC-46 tanker”.

June 30/14: South Korea. Boeing confirms that they’ve formally offered South Korea the KC-46A tanker being developed for the USAF, rather than the KC-767 model that’s already in service with Japan and Italy. They tout the KC-46A’s quick-conversion main deck cargo floor, but in the face of North Korea’s WMD arsenal, and ability to target ROKAF bases with missiles, they make a point of mentioning that:

“Unique among tankers, the KC-46 can operate in chemical, biological and nuclear conditions, features cockpit armor for protection from small arms fire, and can also operate from a large variety of smaller airfields and forward-deployed austere bases.”

Sources: Boeing, “Boeing Offers Next-Generation KC-46 Tanker in Republic of Korea Competition”.

June 4/14: Infrastructure. The Ross Group Construction Corp. in Tulsa, OK wins a $17.5 million firm-fixed-price contract with options, to built the KC-46A Fuselage Trainer Flight Training Center and the Fuselage Trainer at Altus AF, OK. Option 4 for sidewalks and landscaping, and Option 5 for additional concrete parking stalls, are exercised at time of contract award. Altus AFB was recently chosen as the KC-46A’s main training base (q.v. April 23/14), and already operates in that capacity for the KC-135 fleet.

The estimated completion date is Oct 5/15. Bids were solicited via the Internet, with 7 received by the US Army Corps of Engineers in Tulsa, OK (W912BV-14-C-0015).

May 29/14: Infrastructure. MEB General Contractors in Chesapeake, VA wins an $8.4 million firm-fixed-price contract for construction services to alter the KC-46A apron fuels distribution system and supporting facilities at McConnell AFB, KC, and to relocate fuel vents/valves at the 3-bay hangar and 2-bay hangars.

All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2014 military construction budgets. Work will take place at McConnell AFB (KC-46A MOB1), with an estimated completion date of Dec 3/15. Bids were solicited via the Internet, with 2 received. The US Army Corps of Engineers in Kansas City, MO manages the contract (W912DQ-14-C-4010).

Flight Simulator

April 23/14: Basing. The Pentagon announces that McConnell AFB, KS will be is the KC-46A’s active duty-led MOB1 Pegasus main operating base. McConnell won because swapping in 36 KC-46As for 44 KC-135s involved the lowest military construction costs, and the base is located in a high-demand area. McConnell was also seen as “an ideal central location for the new KC-46A Regional Maintenance Training Center.” It beat Fairchild AFB, WA (2 KC-135 Sqns), Grand Forks AFB, ND (1 KC-135 Sqn), and Altus AFB, OK, all of whom will continue to operate KC-135s.

By default, Altus AFB, OK will continue in its FTU tanker training role, which it already performs for the KC-135. Advantages to keeping it in a training role include co-location with both tanker and heavy receiver aircraft for training purposes, and “considerably fewer” new construction requirements vs. McConnell. Altus will begin receiving KC-46A planes in 2016.

The Air National Guard MOB2 base (q.v. Jan 9/13) remains undecided, and will be picked in summer 2014. It will be 1 of Forbes Air Guard Station, KS (whose chances have probably dropped); Joint-Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, NJ; Pease Air Guard Station, NH; Pittsburgh International Airport Air Guard Station, PA; and Rickenbacker Air Guard Station, OH. The winner will begin receiving planes in 2018. Sources: Pentagon, “Air Force Announces Bases to House New Tanker Refueling Aircraft”.

Basing: MOB1 & FTU picked

April 17/14: SAR. The Pentagon finally releases its Dec 31/13 Selected Acquisitions Report [PDF]. The KC-46A has seen the Pentagon’s program costs go down:

“Program costs decreased $2,181.5 million (-4.2%) from $51,642.1 million to $49,460.6 million, due primarily to lower construction estimates based on site surveys of initial bases (-$715.4 million), funding reductions in FY 2015-2018 given stable program execution and no engineering change proposals to date (-$655.6 million), and the removal of construction planning and design funding from FY 2014-2024 budgeted elsewhere (-$268.8 million). Additional program cost decreases included the application of revised escalation indices (-$222.7 million), accelerating the procurement buy profile (-$157.7 million), and sequestration reductions (-$142.9 million).”

Cost decrease

April 11/14: GAO Report. The US GAO tables “KC-46 Tanker Aircraft: Program Generally on Track, but Upcoming Schedule Remains Challenging“. Flight testing is scheduled to begin in June 2014 for the 767-2C, and in January 2015 for the KC-46, but it will be a bit of a squeeze making that:

“The KC-46 program has made good progress to date—acquisition costs have remained relatively stable, high-level schedule and performance goals have been met, the critical design review was successfully completed, and the contractor is building development aircraft. The next 12 months will be challenging as the program must accomplish a significant amount of work and the margin for error is small. For example, the program is scheduled to complete software integration and the first test flights of the 767-2C and KC-46. The remaining software development and integration work is mostly focused on military software and systems and is expected to be more difficult relative to the prior work completed [which is generally on schedule]. The program’s test activities continue to be a concern due to its aggressive test schedule. Detailed test plans must be completed and the program must maintain an unusually high test pace to meet this schedule. Perhaps more importantly, agencies will have to coordinate to concurrently complete multiple air worthiness certifications. While efficient, this approach presents significant risk to the program. The program office must also finalize agreements now in progress to ensure that receiver aircraft are available when and where they are needed to support flight tests.”

The GAO and the Pentagon’s DOT&E group continue to believe that Initial Operation Test & Evaluation should be pushed back 6-12 months, in order to train aircrew and maintenance personnel and verify maintenance procedures. The USAF isn’t convinced yet, and knows that this move would delay the entire project for a similar period. Furthermore, the testing schedule itself is so concurrent that any problems found during test are almost certain to create delays to the program as a whole. One technical area that could still bite them involves “lingering instability in…. the centerline drogue system and wing aerial refueling pod,” but Boeing hopes to fix that before flight testing begins.

Finally, as of December 2013, the original $354 million program reserve budget has just $75 million (21.1%) left, leaving the program at risk of running out before testing begins. As long as the USAF doesn’t change the design, however, that’s Boeing’s problem.

March 31/14: GAO Report. The US GAO tables its “Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs“. Which is actually a review for 2013, plus time to compile and publish.

The KC-46 Tanker program comes in for praise in a couple of areas. One has to do with the “should-cost” method for the final product, which will reportedly save $6.8 billion over the total program, with $6.4 billion listed as already realized. The other area that drew praise was the program’s use of all 4 best practices for development programs: (1) identifying key product characteristics; (2) identifying critical manufacturing processes; (3) conducting producibility assessments to identify manufacturing risks; and (4) completing failure modes and effects analysis to identify potential failures and early design fixes. Boeing should be motivated to do all that, because their contract makes them fully responsible for any fixes required in early production aircraft.

Costs remain almost identical to initial estimates, so far. The bad news is that test boom production has been delayed by almost a year due to design changes and late parts, but Boeing hopes to have it ready in time for initial KC-46A flight testing in January 2015.

March 4-11/14: FY15 Budget. The US military slowly files its budget documents, detailing planned spending from FY 2014 – 2019. The KC-46A program’s revised totals are reflected in the article’s charts, and the USAF has worked hard to protect the program. What’s interesting is the program’s schedule. It hasn’t been changed officially, but Air Mobility Command isn’t giving an official Initial Operational Capability date.

Previous years had listed budgets for spares, but those have effectively been revised. A contractor service agreement for the initial planes will see also spares bought as part of the procurement budgets, until the USAF takes over all maintenance itself.

Feb 20/14: KC-46 Pegasus. USAF Gen. Mark Welsh announces that the KC-46A will be the “Pegasus”. Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James had approved the recommendation from Air Mobility Command boss Gen. Paul Selva earlier in the week. Sources: AFA Air Force Mag, “Introducing the KC-46A Pegasus” | Everett Herald, “Air Force dubs KC-46A tanker ‘Pegasus'”.

KC-46 Pegasus

Jan 16/14: Industrial. Boeing has begun assembling the 4th and final KC-46A test aircraft, and says that the program remains on track to deliver the initial 18 tankers to the Air Force by 2017. According to the current schedule, the 1st flight of a KC-46 test aircraft will take place at mid-2014 without its aerial refueling systems, followed by the first flight of a full KC-46A tanker in early 2015.

The first delivery of a production aircraft to the Air Force is planned for early 2016, but of course that depends on things going well during testing. Official reports to date have been skeptical, so no matter how things turn out, someone is about to be proved wrong. Sources: Boeing, “Boeing Starts Assembly of Final KC-46A Test Aircraft”.

Nov 5/13: Infrastructure. URS Group Inc. in Mobile, AL receives a $13 million firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery contract for architect-engineering services to support USAF KC-46 beddown in the continental United States. The 767 is closer in size to the KC-135, which means that it needs fewer infrastructure changes than the A330/ KC-45.

There will still be facilities and features to build (q.v. FBO.gov, Oct 2/13). Estimated completion date is Nov 14/18, with work location and funding determined with each order. Bids were solicited via the internet, with 57 received by the Army Corps of Engineers in Mobile, AL (W91278-14-D-003).

Oct 22/13: Industrial. Boeing announces that assembly of the 3rd aircraft and 2nd boom are underway. They sound confident that manufacturing of the initial batch of 4 aircraft remains on track to be completed by Q3 2014.

This would be good news for their USAF client, and would also help the company make its case in South Korea (q.v. Aug 7/13), where parliament is about to review whether to proceed with a competition for 4 tankers to be delivered in 2017-19. Sources: Boeing, Oct 22/13 release.

Oct 2013: Basing. Public hearings scheduled at the end of the month in Kansas and Oklahoma are postponed on October 11 because of furloughs at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) during the government shutdown. As of Oct 23, a new date for the hearings had not yet been released. Meanwhile the Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC) and the US Army Corps of Engineers are preparing infrastructure work: AFCEC | Industry Day | Sources Sought.

FY 2013

Design finalized after CDR; State of the program reports; Sequester threat; Basing competition; Training aids picked. KC-46A and B-2
(click to view full)

Sept 17/13: Testing. KC-46A program executive Gen. John Thompson offers a bit of clarity regarding testing plans. The first 4 planes will be split between the commercial 767-2C baseline, which is set to fly in January 2014, and 2 fully converted KC-46A tankers, which won’t fly until June 2015. Civil certification is an important precursor to the military supplemental certification (q.v. May 31/13), and the 767-2Cs will eventually become KC-46As to support initial operational test and evaluation.

Thompson sounds very confident about the intensive testing schedule, but then, he needs to. Past GAO and DOT&E reports have flagged it as a program risk (q.v. Jan 17/13, Feb 27/13), and have even called the test plan “not executable” (Jan 17/12). Sources: NDIA Magazine, “Newly Designed KC-46 Aerial Refueling Tanker to Undergo Strenuous Testing”.

Sept 4/13: Boeing announces that the USAF has validated the final design elements of the KC-46A, concluded that it meets requirements, and frozen the plane’s configuration. That clears the way for production and testing.

Design is set.

Aug 7/13: South Korea. Yonhap reports that South Korea may acquire 4 aerial refueling tankers by 2019. It seems to be at the discussion level rather than a firm decision. If it proceeds, Boeing’s KC-46A and Airbus Military’s A330 MRTT are seen as the logical contenders, and the 2019 date makes the KC-767 a viable possibility.

The A330’s challenge is that, unlike Australia, South Korea’s zone of action doesn’t really need the A330’s range and size. That will make the extra expense problematic. It’s also worth noting that South Korea already has significant defense relationships with Israel’s IAI. That could create an opening for IAI’s much cheaper K-767 MMTT option, which is also on offer to Singapore. Sources: Yonhap News, “Air Force to acquire 4 aerial refueling tankers by 2019″.

July 10/13: CDR. KC-46A Weapon System Critical Design Review takes place, and is successful. Source: Boeing, Sept 4/13 release.

CDR

July 3/13: Sub-contractors. Fleet Canada Inc. in Fort Erie, ON receives its 1st order from Boeing, for sub-assemblies of the KC-46A Camera and Boom Fairings. The contract is issued as part of Boeing’s industrial offset requirements for various Canadian defense buys, including the C-17A airlifter and CH-47F Chinook helicopter. Fleet Canada.

June 26/13: production. Boeing announces that production of the first aircraft has begun. The USAF’s Critical Design Review (CDR) will start in July 2013, as announced last year. Beyond that, the company is forecasting the following milestones:

• First aircraft assembly: Nov. 2013-January 2014
  
• First flight: 2015
  
• First delivery: 2016
  
• Delivery of the first 18 aircraft by August 2017

June 16/13: Exports. Boeing told reporters that Boeing is engaged in talks with several export prospects in Asia and the Middle East, for a total of 20 potential units. The company’s defense and civilian arms are working together to be able to make the aircraft available for sales abroad by 2017. Bloomberg | DoD Buzz.

May 31/13: Certification process. Boeing will seek FAA certification in 2 phases: first there is one for the commercial 767-2C aircraft, then a supplemental one for the military modifications to the commercial aircraft.

In March 2012, the GAOlisted the fact that Boeing planned to pursue some parts of these 2 certifications in parallel as a risk factor. John Howitt, the program deputy manager, told AIN that this is addressed with joint technical planning and work, even though the 2 certifications are separate from an administrative perspective. Sources: AIN.

May 1/13: Training. Berkshire Hathaway company FlightSafety Services Corp. in Centennial, CO wins a $78.4 million fixed-price-incentive-firm and firm-fixed-price contract to design, develop, and build the KC-46 aircrew training system, including delivery of courseware and simulator-based training systems. FlightSafety will design and manufacture the KC-46, Boom Operator, and Part Task Trainers at its 375,000 square foot simulation facility in Oklahoma; the first device is scheduled for delivery in February 2016.

FlightSafety is no newcomer to this role, with operations at 15 U.S. Military bases that include Flight School XXI; Training systems for the KC-10 Extender, C-5 Galaxy, C-17 Globemaster, AFSOC’s HC-130P Combat King, and the V-22 Osprey tiltrotors; and Contractor Logistics Support for the T-6 JPATS and T- 37/38 trainers. The KC-46A contract pays $1 million initially, with the rest to be paid over time, including additional production and operations options that could raise its value beyond $78.4 million. Warren Buffett will be glad to hear that.

Work will be performed at Broken Arrow, OK and St. Louis, MO and is expected to be complete by 2026 if all options are exercised. This award is the result of a competitive acquisition, with 5 offers received by USAF Life Cycle Management Center/WNSK’s Simulators Division (FA8621-13-C-6247). See also USAF | FlightSafety International.

April 17/13: Sub-contractors. ITT Exelis announces a contract from Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN) to supply its anti-jam N79 CRPA (Controlled Reception Pattern Antenna) GPS antennas, for use with Raytheon Navshield and Advanced Digital Antenna Production equipment on the KC-46A. Work will be performed in Bohemia, NY.

April 13/13: Restructure at peril. USAF AMC commander Gen. Paul J. Selva reiterates the KC-46A’s #1 priority status for the Air Force, and warns about the effects of restructuring this contract:

“…because we have a firm fixed-price contract for the development of that airplane, if we allow ourselves to get into the position where we don’t have the funds to pay for the initial development of the airplane, that contract gets reopened…. We’ll pay more…”

Probably. Boeing bid hundreds of millions of dollars below development cost to win KC-X, but 2 years into the contract, the US military’s ability to switch to Airbus is more limited. They’d have to delay their #1 priority program, while creating a lot of opposition in Congress. There are creative ways to charge more in total, and Boeing would be well placed to negotiate a few in any restructuring.

April 10/13: FY 2014 Budget. The President releases a proposed budget at last, the latest in modern memory. The Senate and House were already working on budgets in his absence, but the Pentagon’s submission is actually important to proceedings going forward. See ongoing DID coverage. For KC-X, it’s pretty much steady as she goes, hewing more or less to previous plans.

Total reductions from FY 2014-2017 are around $182 million compared to FY 2013 plans, but a fixed-price contract is going to have to reach the agreed total regardless. Current budgets show just $3.173 billion allocated for RDT&E from FY 2011 – 2018, but the USAF is near-certain to owe $4.7 billion for the EMD phase.

April 7-10/13: Basing. As the USAF prepares to make decisions about where to base its KC-46s, communities are competing. The catch is that there are really 2 initial competitions, and they’re mutually exclusive (q.v. Jan 9/13 entry). Grand Forks Herald | Lawton Constitution | Wichita Eagle.

Feb 27/13: GAO Report. The GAO’s annual in-depth look at the KC-46 program is out. The good news is that after 28% ($1.4 billion) in development work, the program costs and schedule haven’t changed much. The CDR is still scheduled for July 2013, albeit with some risks. The USAF and Boeing are evaluated as managing the project well, and have added the ability to track progress toward key aircraft performance goals.

Concerns fall into 3 areas: financial reserves, weight, and software. The GAO is one of several agencies that think flight testing and certification will need to take about 6 months longer, and the boom refueling system is changing a bit, but those are secondary risks right now.

The development contract set aside about 7% ($354 million) in reserves, and 2 years into a 7-year development program, 79.6% of those reserves have been spent, leaving less than $72 million to cover an expected $3.5 billion in work. Some of the issues driving this spending aren’t resolved yet. As we explained above, the government’s costs won’t change if this problem isn’t solved, but GAO is worried about technical problems growing and creating schedule issues.

Projected weight is now expected to exceed the KC-46’s target weight, and each pound above target reduces fuel payload by 1 pound. Extra weight could also affect operating requirements for takeoff, mission radius, and landing. The program has a mitigation strategy in place, and further weight reduction initiatives can create tradeoffs in areas like durability and cost.

Software is a good news/bad news story. They’ve cut total software development by 40%, but code reuse will be less than planned (52% vs. 76%), which means new and modified software has doubled to 48% from 24%. That means more work overall and more testing, though program officials are claiming that schedules won’t be affected.

Feb 22/13: KC-135Rs retiring. After more than 50 years of service and 22,500 flying hours, the 1st operational re-engined KC-135R Stratotanker retires from service, and heads to AMARG’s “boneyard” at Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ. KC-135R #61-0312 first flew as a KC-135A on Aug 14/62, and was re-engined into a KC-135R on June 27/85.

This plane’s retirement is budget-driven, as 1 of the 16 scheduled KC-135 retirements in FY 2013. On the other hand, the KC-135 Program Office at Tinker AFB, OK used the Fleet Health Analysis Tool to pick the aircraft. Joey Dauzat, 97th Maintenance Directorate KC-135R sortie generation flight chief, discussed KC-135 usage patterns, which will become much more relevant if something happens to the KC-X program:

“[KC-135Rs] assigned to Altus Air Force Base fly approximately 1,820 sorties per fiscal year, which averages out to 91 sorties per aircraft…. Flight hours are approximately 7,030 hours per fiscal year, which averages out to 351 flight hours per aircraft. All sorties are required to have [refueling booms] on them, so every sortie flown is a boomer training sortie.”

Feb 2/13: A USAF presentation to Congress says that if sequestration takes effect, the KC-46A program may need to be restructured, along with the F-35 fighter and MQ-9 Reaper Block 5. Flight International.

Feb 2/13: High Usage. The USAF is planning to use KC-46As more intensively than their KC-135 counterparts. That makes sense on several levels: (1) As a way to save money by flying the more expensive-to-operate KC-135s less; (2) As a way to build in surge capability for the KC-46As if the KC-135 fleet has a problem; and (3) As a pre-conscious recognition that KC-X is probably the USAF’s entire future aerial tanker fleet.

The KC-135’s average of 2.5 aircrews per plane will rise to 3.5 aircrews for the KC-46A, adding about 60 full aircrews to the force, and costing about 11.2% more for KC-46A lifetime operations and maintenance because they will be flying more often. Total operations and support costs are now predicted to be approximately $103 billion, but the $10 billion or so rise would be offset by any savings from fewer flights of the more expensive KC-135Rs. USAF.

Higher usage planned

Jan 17/13: DOT&E testing. The Pentagon releases the FY 2012 Annual Report from its Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E). The USAF has bought 2 767-200s for live fire testing, and is planning the survivability assessment, including LAIRCM tests. They do have one major concern:

“The ALR-69A RWR [radar warning receiver] was selected as Contractor Furnished Equipment by Boeing; however, integration and performance on the KC-46A are high risk. DOT&E recently completed an assessment of the ALR-69A RWR on the C-130H1 and assessed it as not effective, but suitable, in a separate classified report dated October 22, 2012. Not only do these effectiveness problems require correction, but the system is required to improve its geo-location capabilities as compared to the demonstrated C-130J capability.”

DOT&E also has some technical issues with the overall testing plan. The 750 hours of operational testing over 5.5 months can establish effectiveness, but getting 76% confidence of suitability (maintainability) would need 1,250 hours. This was also pointed out in last year’s report, and it will need to be worked out one way or another.

Jan 9/13: Basing. The USAF announces KC-46A initial basing candidates, while stressing that losing bases will continue to operate KC-135s. The USAF doesn’t mention this, but the FTU training and MOB1 operating base awards are mutually exclusive: you can win one, but not both. There’s no overlap at all with the ANG’s MOB2 locations, so those have to be separate. Candidates include:

Formal Training Unit: Altus AFB, OK vs. McConnell AFB, KS. Altus already performs the FTU role for the KC-135. Winner begins receiving planes in 2016.

Active Duty Main Operating Base (MOB 1): One of Altus AFB, OK (KC-135 FTU); Fairchild AFB, WA (2 KC-135 squadrons resident); Grand Forks AFB, ND (1 KC-135 squadron resident), and McConnell AFB, KS (4 KC-135 squadrons resident). Winner begins receiving planes in 2016.

Air National Guard MOB 2: One of Forbes Air Guard Station, KS; Joint-Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, NJ, Pease Air Guard Station, NH; Pittsburgh International Airport Air Guard Station, PA; and Rickenbacker Air Guard Station, OH. Winner begins receiving planes in 2018.

Oct 16/12: Industrial. Boeing opens the KC-46 Boom Assembly Center on schedule at Boeing Field in Seattle, WA. Boom assembly marks the program’s shift to production from design activities, and the 1st fly-by-wire boom is scheduled to enter testing during Q3 2013 at Boeing Field’s System Integration Labs. Boeing.

FY 2012

Basing plans; Preliminary Design Review; Industrial decisions. ‘Paper airplane’ risks?
(click to view full)

Sept 12/12: Industrial. Boeing opens System Integration Lab 0 at Boeing Field, 3 weeks ahead of schedule. SIL 0 will be used to test commercial avionics and software for integration into the KC-46A Tanker. Another 3 SILs will open at Boeing Field and a 5th will open in Everett, WA by the end of 2013.

Boeing Field is also slated to house the program’s Boom Assembly Center, and the Finishing Center. The Finishing Center is scheduled to open in late 2013, and will be used to install military hardware and software onto the commercial 767-2C airframe. Boeing.

July 27/12: Sub-contractors. Eaton Corp. announces a supplementary contract from Boeing, which adds the aerial refueling pump system, the aerial refueling boom nozzle, and various airframe and aerial refueling system valves and fuel/ actuation components. See also June 18/11 entry.

June 13/12: Industrial. Boeing VP and KC-46 program manager Maureen Dougherty talks about moves Boeing is making since the announcement that it was closing the Wichita, KS facility. That closure creates added risk, but Boeing is sticking to its estimates and trying to offset it.

Three systems integration laboratories (SILs) will be located at Boeing Field in the southern part of Seattle, WA, but they won’t be operational until fall 2012. Flight testing, a full lab replica of the entire KC-46 fuel architecture, and the finishing center’s 2 workstations will also be there. They’ve also begun wind tunnel testing with Cobham regarding the shape of the plane’s refueling pods, a move that underlines the developmental nature of key items. Aviation Week.

May 14/12: Initial bases. The USAF decides that the KC-46A’s formal training unit (FTU) and first main operating base (MOB 1) will be led by active duty units, while MOB 2 will be led by an Air National Guard (ANG) unit. That may be one way to ease the transition. Many ANG pilots fly for commercial carriers, and many of those carriers already operate 767s.

Exact basing decisions will be based on location, capacity, environmental issues, and cost. The USAF plans to table a preferred base and shortlist for the active-duty FTU and MOB 1 in December 2012, so the environmental impact grind can begin and the base can begin receiving aircraft in FY 2016. The ANG-led MOB 2 is expected to get its preferred base and shortlist in spring 2013, and receive aircraft in FY 2018. USAF.

May 8/12: Sub-contractors. BAE Systems announces a contract from Boeing to develop and build the KC-46A’s Actuator Control Unit (ACU), which processes commands to control the aerial refueling boom.

Engineering and development work on the program will be conducted in Endicott, NY with manufacturing at the BAE Systems facility in Ft. Wayne, IN.

March 21 – April 27/12: PDR. Boeing’s KC-46 Tanker completes its Preliminary Design Review (PDR), confirming that it seems to meet system requirements and is ready to proceed with detailed design. In addition to the successful PDR, the Boeing KC-46 team has completed a System Requirements Review, Integrated Baseline Review, a PDR for the base 767-2C freighter, and Firm Configuration Reviews for the 767-2C and the KC-46A Tanker.

The program’s next major milestone is a Critical Design Review that will take place in the summer of 2013, and demonstrate that the KC-46A is ready for manufacture. Boeing.

PDR

March 27/12: Engine contract. Boeing formally signs a contract with Pratt & Whitney’s Military Engines division for up to 368 PW4062 engines (179 planes + 10 spares). It’s a private sub-contract, however, and the parties won’t discuss its value. Suffice to say that the cost of modern jet engines makes this a 10-figure contract, once all engines are ordered.

The 62,000 pound thrust PW4062 is the highest thrust model in Pratt & Whitney’s PW4000-94″ commercial engine family, which powers MD-11, early-model 747, and 767 aircraft. It’s offered for commercial freighter and military tanker applications. Pratt & Whitney.

March 26/12: GAO Report. The US GAO audit office releases report #GAO-12-366, “KC-46 Tanker Aircraft: Acquisition Plans Have Good Features but Contain Schedule Risk.” It cites “broad agreement that KC-46 schedule risk is a concern,” and especially cites overlap among development and production work. The USAF disagrees, citing FAA certification for the First Flight of the baseline 767-2C in June 2014, and promising 60% of FAA certification and military developmental flight testing before Milestone C production approval in August 2015. On the other hand, the GAO has usually been right about these risks, and the USAF has been wrong – most recently in the F-35 program.

Key information has been fed into other parts of this article, but this excerpt deserves especial attention:

“According to program officials, a change in system requirements, although unlikely… could increase the Air Force’s exposure to additional costs… the biggest risk to the KC-46 program is the Department’s ability to minimize changes to the contract… DOD has demonstrated limited ability to maintain stable requirements and limit changes to program technical baselines on previous complex weapon system programs, and that minimizing such change is essential to the success of the KC-46… any engineering or contract changes affecting system requirements or having the potential to impact program cost, schedule, and performance baselines must be approved by the Air Force Service Acquisition Executive in consultation with the Secretary and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force… Program officials maintain that… pricing will likely stay intact as long as the contract is not opened to negotiate modifications. […]

Boeing has to correct any deficiencies in the KC-46 discovered during the development program… on the four development test aircraft and all production aircraft… at no additional cost to the government. In addition, there is a special contract provision that requires each aircraft to demonstrate a certain fuel usage rate before the government accepts the aircraft. If any aircraft burn fuel above this rate, Boeing is required to propose a corrective action at no cost… if Boeing cannot meet the required usage rates, there are contract provisions allowing for a decrease in the amount paid to Boeing.”

March 7/12: Air Mobility Command chief General Raymond Johns at a House Armed Services Committee hearing:

“We continue to execute the program to cost and schedule baselines we established, along with Boeing.”

A Preliminary Design Review is scheduled later this month. Bloomberg.

March 7/12: Basing plans. From the USAF’s FY 2013 Force Structure Changes [PDF]:

The Air Force is currently developing requirements for the first two KC-46 bases, and expects to approve basing criteria in Spring 2012, identify candidate installations in Summer 2012, select preferred and reasonable alternatives by the end of calendar year 2012, and make final decisions in 2013.”

The Air Force expects aircraft deliveries to these first 2 bases in FY16. The next round of basing decisions is planned for FY14 at the earliest.

Feb 13/12: RDT&E budget. The Air Force asks for $1.8 billion in RTDE funds for fiscal year 2013 as part of the President Budget. This would be the peak of planned research and development spending on the program over 2011-2017, at 27% of the total. Air Force budget justification [large PDF].

Air Mobility Command (AMC/CC) has not yet determined an Initial Operational Capability (IOC) date, while Full Operational Capability (FOC) is expected approximately 24 months after IOC. The Air Force schedule as of December 2011 plans to reach Milestone C in Q4 FY15. These plans have been incorporated into the program briefing, above. See next entry below on the various risk assessments made about that schedule.

Jan 17/12: DOT&E doubters. When Airbus lost the contract, they placed 2 markers. One was that Boeing couldn’t deliver to their claimed price, and that has proven true (vid. Nov 27/11 entry), though their bid remains lower than Airbus. The other was that Boeing wouldn’t be able to make the delivery schedule, and the US Defense Department’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation’s FY 2011 Report adds weight to that belief. The report backs their position up with hard numbers, and bluntly concludes that “the KC-46 test program is not executable.”

To support that claim, DOT&E notes that military testing with past large aircraft averages under 30 flight hours per plane, per month. The Boeing/USAF TEMP schedule plans 42 FHPM, for flights that are “more specialized, higher risk, and more resource-intensive than FAA certification.” Worse, their planned 15% re-fly rate for military test items is even farther off; the 737-derivative P-8A, which is considered to be a successful program, has a current re-fly rate of 45%. Correcting to past averages adds 4 months to the 17-month testing schedule. DOT&E believes that even then, the 750 operational flight test hours aren’t enough, and 1,250 would be more realistic. That takes the testing schedule from 21 to 25 months.

Other serious omissions cited include no time for correction of discrepancies and/or deficiencies discovered during developmental testing, and no provision for the refueling boom control algorithm changes and/or procedural modifications that have been required for other new aerial refuelers. The report doesn’t say so, but the net takeaway is that Boeing is very likely to be late with its promised 2017 delivery. The USAF responded to Gannett’s Air Force Times with partial disagreement:

“The Air Force respects the opinions of the Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation, but does not agree with its assessment that the KC-46 test program is ‘not executable’… The Air Force does acknowledge that Boeing’s overall KC-46 program schedule is considered medium risk, in part due to its aggressive flight-test schedule.”

Jan 4/12: Wichita lineman, farewell. Boeing confirmed it’s going to close its Wichita, KS plant by the end of 2013. Wichita is currently the base for the company’s Global Transport & Executive Systems business, and its B-52 and 767 International Tanker programs. The facility also provides support for flight mission planning and integrated logistics.

Some of the 2,160+ Wichita jobs will be moved; others will be cut, beginning in Q3 2012. The move rankles hard in Kansas, as Boeing touted the jobs and state economic benefits if they won the tanker contract, and secured hard lobbying from state and federal representatives. Who now feel somewhat betrayed. The company counters that it isn’t entirely betraying those promises, as it spent more than $3.2 billion with approximately 475 Kansas suppliers in 2011, making it the 4th largest state in Boeing’s supplier network. That prominence is not expected to change, and the 24 Kansas KC-46A suppliers will still be providing elements of the aircraft as originally planned.

Once the Wichita plant closes, engineering work on the KC-46A will be placed at the Boeing facility in Oklahoma City, OK, instead. Work to convert 767s to KC-46 tankers will now be performed right on the 767 production line in Puget Sound, WA, copying a model first used with the 737-derived P-8A Poseidon sea control aircraft. Future aircraft maintenance, modification and support work will be placed at the Boeing facility in San Antonio, TX, which currently handles KC-135 and KC-10 maintenance and upgrade work. Boeing | NY Times | Congressman Mike Pompeo [R-KS-4, not happy].

Boeing closing its Wichita plant

Nov 27/11: EMD Overage rises again? Maybe. Media reports tout a figure of $500 million over maximum cost, but a breakdown says otherwise. The Pentagon’s latest Selected Acquisition Report reportedly gives a program manager’s estimate of $5.3 billion, which would actually be $1.2 billion over the KC-X EMD phase’s original target cost. Up to $4.9 billion, however, the government pays $600 million more, and Boeing pays $400 million. Costs above that are all Boeing’s responsibility. Boeing’s current estimate is $5.1 billion, which would raise its liability to $600 million (400 + all 200 overage). If the government program manager is right, Boeing’s liability rises to $800 million (400 + all 400 overage), while its overall bid cost to the US government for development plus production remains below Airbus’.

The SAR report in question appears to be an advance copy, as there has been no public release yet. It allegedly says that KC-46A engineering, manufacturing and development are “progressing well with no significant technical issues.” Given the figures above, that must be a relief to Boeing’s management. As for the Pentagon, it doesn’t have to care which EMD Phase figure is correct, since their costs are now known: $4.5 billion ($3.9 billion + $600 million). Above $4.9 billion total split costs, they aren’t paying for anything, and the estimate spread shows that there’s almost no chance of coming in under $4.9 billion. Bloomberg News.

FY 2011

Boeing wins round 2. Interim baseline review. Suppliers and components. KC-X options
(click to view full)

Sept 13/11: Sub-contractors. AmSafe Industries, Inc. announces that it will supply 9g-rated barrier nets, and stationary and movable smoke barriers, specifically designed for the USA’s new KC-46A 767 aerial tankers. AmSafe is a global leader in this sort of technology; they’re also known as the makers of Tarian cloth armor that can stop enemy rockets.

Deliveries of the KC-46A internal barrier systems are expected to begin in 2015, and could be worth more than $45 million for all 179 planned aircraft.

Sept 13/11: Sub-contractors. BAE Systems’ Attendant Control Panel (ACP) for Boeing’s new civilian 737 interior will be migrating to the KC-46A. The touch-screen, networkable panel is designed to control a variety of interior functions such as lighting, drinking water, and waste tanks. Prices were not revealed. Work on the KC-46A tanker touch-screen cabin control systems will be conducted in Johnson City, NY, and Fort Wayne, IN. BAE Systems.

September 2011: Sub-contractors. Vol. 16, #4 [PDF] of Rockwell Collins’ internal Horizons magazine, whose “Refueling Innovation” article discusses their development of the KC-46A’s flight controls and refueling systems.

The stereoscopic Remote Vision System, which will display the refueling operation on both standard and 3-D screens, apparently drew on internal experience that included the Mars Rover, UAVs, and a remotely-operated bomb-disposal robot. Overall, the article cites ruggedization of components, and information fusion from the wide array of sensors and datalinks, as the 2 key engineering challenges. TSAS, which emerged from the latter challenge, is even being tested on Android OS smartphones and tablet computers.

Aug 24/11: IBR. The U.S. Air Force completes an interim baseline review (IBR) for the KC-46A.

IBRs provide mutual understanding of risks inherent in contractors’ performance plans and management systems, and outline what resources are needed to achieve program goals. This IBR had to be complete within 7 months of contract award, which would be Sept 24/11. The next major milestone is the Critical Design Review, which is scheduled to happen by September 2013. Aviation Week.

July 14/11: Politics. Sen. John McCain [R-AZ], the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, sends a letter to the Pentagon that calls Boeing’s KC-X EMD bid “completely unacceptable”. His issue is that any increases between KC-X’s EMD target cost (revealed as $3.9 billion), and the $4.9 billion ceiling cost are split between Boeing (40%) and the USAF (60%). The net result is that Boeing’s lowball bid costs taxpayers an extra $600 million beyond their bid, and Boeing itself $700 million. Even that reported bid price still leaves Boeing lower than Airbus’ overall price, however, which was $2 billion higher for the combined EMD phase and subsequent production of 13 initial jets.

On the other hand, the practice of lowballing bids in order to secure contracts, then raising the real costs afterward, is correctly seen as toxic. The result is grave difficulty in budget planning, as other programs are sacrificed or compromised in order to pay for widespread overcharges.

In fairness to Boeing, it’s worth going back to the original contract bids. Reports right after the February 2011 award had EADS Airbus bidding $3.5 billion for the EMD phase, while Boeing had bid $4.4 billion for the EMD phase alone. That means the USAF knew of about $500 million beyond its target costs from the outset, for an aircraft that had not been fielded or tested yet, and involved more development work than EADS’ offering. That means added risk of future increases, but the swiftness of these cost revisions strongly suggests that they were known beforehand. Actual costs for Boeing’s EMD phase are currently $5.2 billion, and the amount of the cost breach tends to lower confidence in Boeing’s ability to meet the contract schedule, a point that was also raised by Airbus after the award.

The question is whether Sen. McCain’s opposition will have any effect at this point in time. That may seem unlikely, but then, it also seemed unlikely when he opposed the original KC-767 lease deal post-9/11. McCain release | Bloomberg.

June 24/11: Costs. Bloomberg reports that Boeing’s KC-X bid is going to be $300 million over the KC-X cost ceiling, which it reveals as $4.9 billion. Because it’s a fixed-price contract, Boeing is solely responsible for those extra costs.

According to Bloomberg, a USAF statement from Lt. Col. Jack Miller said that the USAF was told after the contract award that: “it proposed a ceiling price that is less than its actual projected cost to execute the contract… There is no legal barrier that prohibits pursuing a below-cost proposal strategy and Boeing’s met all rules.”

Recall that the Feb 24/11 contract award said only that Boeing’s Engineering & Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase contract was “over $3.5 billion.” Subsequent reports had Boeing’s EMD phase bid at $4.4 billion, vs. EADS Airbus’ $3.5 billion. On the other hand, the total bids for EMD + 4 planes, and another 14 planes of initial production, was reportedly $20.6 billion for Boeing, vs. $22.6 billion for Airbus – who called Boeing’s bid an “extreme lowball.” If Bloomberg’s report is true, we now have an idea what Boeing was willing to pay, in order to prevent Airbus from setting up a production line in America, and to keep the 767 alive as a military export and commercial option.

June 22/11: After months of refusing to divulge details, Boeing announces major suppliers for its KC-46A team, and confirms the tanker’s fuel capacity at 212,000 pounds, with an offload rate of 1,200 gallons per minute. The KC-46 Tanker team will include more than 800 suppliers in more than 40 states and support approximately 50,000 total U.S. jobs. Major suppliers have been added to the article’s industrial teams section.

June 19/11: Sub-contractors. Raytheon announces orders from Boeing supply digital radar warning receivers, and digital anti-jam GPS receivers, for the KC-46 tanker. Its AN/ALR-69A is an all-digital radar warning receiver designed to work with both fighters and large aircraft, and its technical architecture will speed up signal identification amidst cluttered environments.

The digital anti-jam GPS receiver, with its multielement controlled reception pattern antenna, integrates both reception and high performance digital anti-jam capabilities into a single product.

June 18/11: Sub-contractors. Eaton Corp. announces a Memorandum of Agreement with Boeing to supply hydraulic and fuel distribution subcomponents, cargo door electro-mechanical actuation systems, hydraulic system components, electrical sensing and control devices, and cockpit controls over the life of the KC-46A program.

June 7/11: KC-46A details emerge. Flight International reveals more about the KC-46A, while outlining what we still don’t know, 3 months after one of the largest contracts in USAF history.

For starters, it’s based on a cargo variant. At over 188,000 kg/ 414,470 pounds, the 767-2C’s maximum takeoff weight is about 20,000 pounds heavier than the 767-200ER, making it even heavier than the stretched 767-300ER that Boeing rejected for Round 1. The 2C is slightly stretched itself, at 6.5 feet longer than the 200ER, with a cargo floor and door. Beyond this, the winglets, 787-based cockpit large display system, auxiliary fuel tanks and provisions for tanker systems, and more powerful Pratt & Whitney 4062 turbofans are all known changes from the 200ER.

To find out if Boeing has made any other changes from the basic 767-200ER, outsiders will reportedly have to wait until Boeing completes a USAF system requirements review, and an integrated baseline review.

May 6/11: Sub-contractors. Marshall Aerospace announces that they had been picked in 2010 to supply the KC-46A’s integrated Body Fuel Tanks, and that Boeing’s win has resulted in an initial contract for the design, certification and manufacture of an initial batch of development tanks. They expect production orders for “more than 650″ tanks to follow over a 15 year period, in order to equip the KC-X program’s 179 aircraft, with a total value exceeding GBP 100 million.

Marshall Aerospace has previous experience producing integrated Body Fuel Tanks for Boeing, including the 747, 777, and the 737-derivative P-8A Poseidon programs. Boeing has refused to discuss its Round 2 partners, but Marshall appears to have elbowed Round 1 partner Sargent Fletcher aside for this role.

March 11/11: Aviation Week outlines what we still don’t know about the KC-46A. We still don’t know the actual development phase price. We still don’t know the plane’s configuration, either, which makes it impossible to evaluate the likelihood that Boeing can deliver on time. Excerpts:

“Neither the U.S. Air Force nor Boeing have stated what exactly “over $3.5 billion” means for the KC-46A development contract… [Boeing tanker VP Jean] Chamberlain acknowledged on the company’s Feb. 24 telecon post-win that this is “concurrent development” meaning flight test and developmental activities are taking place as the first aircraft are being built…Thanks to the three-time restructured F-35 development program, the term “concurrent development” has become a bit of a dirty word among some in Pentagon circles… There are a few things we do know: Somehow Boeing is putting a digital 787 cockpit into an analog 767 aircraft and there is a modified KC-10 boom to meet the gallon-per-minute offload requirement. But, we don’t know what the design entails in terms of risk reduction on the platform or on the mission systems. Finally, we don’t even know officially that work has begun on this contract. Neither USAF nor Boeing will confirm.”

March 4/11: No protest. EADS North America chairman Ralph Crosby expresses disappointment at the press conference, but says that EADS could not have undercut that “extremely lowball bid,” submitted to keep Airbus from securing a US production site. The company “will not take any action that could further delay the already overdue replacement of the Air Force’s aging tanker fleet… Much is promised by our competitor, whom we congratulate. However, should they fail to deliver, we stand ready to step in with a proven and operating tanker.”

More precise figures come from the US AFA’s report of the conference:

“…Crosby revealed – based on an hour-long debrief from the Air Force last week – that the price difference between the companies’ bids was 10 percent. Boeing bid $20.6 billion and EADS $22.6 billion on initial development and initial production of their respective KC-46A and KC-45 tankers… He expressed doubt that Boeing will be able to deliver all 18 aircraft by 2017 as called for… because Boeing will not have its first flight-test-worthy KC-46A ready until 2015. [Crosby] also revealed that EADS’ estimated cost for engineering and manufacturing development on the KC-45 – which the company would have modestly revised from the existing design – was $3.5 billion, while Boeing bid $4.4 billion for EMD on its design, which has not flown.”

The fixed price contract means that if Boeing fails to deliver, most of the financial risk is theirs. That leaves the USAF with the operational risk, if they can’t hold Boeing to its performance commitments. Read: EADS North America | Reuters | US Air Force Association | Warner Robins Patriot.

March 3/11: Flight International:

“Newspaper Les Echos published a small article four days after the contract award noting that the USAF’s decision on tankers will make it “very difficult” for Paris to purchase the General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper unmanned air vehicle, which is competing against the EADS Talarion and a Dassault/Thales/Indra consortium offering the Israel Aerospace Industries Heron TP.”

The French do make another choice, at first, but costs and delivery times eventually do force them back to the MQ-9. See “Apres Harfang: France’s Next High-End UAV” for full coverage.

Feb 28/11 – March 1/11: Debriefing session with EADS North America. Meanwhile, the government and Northrop Grumman/EADS still have not reached a legal agreement on the canceled KC-45 contract. Aviation Week.

KC-46A concept
(click to view full)

Feb 24/11: Boeing wins Round 2. The “KC-46A” win surprises many aerospace analysts, who expected an EADS win based on leaks that EADS had scored better in the USAF’s models, and expectations they could price their planes lower. The Pentagons says that both candidate aircraft met all required criteria, but Boeing’s adjusted price was over 1% less than Airbus’. That meant the USAF did not consider various “non-mandatory” bonus criteria, which could only have made a difference of up to 1%.

Note that these are adjusted prices. Rep. Norm Dicks [D-WA], for example, claims credit for successful pressure to change the USAF’s costing model from 25 years of expected fuel costs to 40 years, which he boasts cost Airbus “billions of dollars” in the respective calculations.

As a result, Boeing in Seattle, WA receives a fixed price incentive firm contract valued at “over $3.5 billion” for the KC-X Engineering and Manufacturing Development phase, which will deliver 18 of their KC-46A aircraft by 2017. The ASC/WKK at Wright Patterson AFB, OH, will manage this contract (FA8625-11-C600). A newly opened assembly line in Everett, WA will build the tankers, including all the military modifications to the airframe, right alongside commercial 767 airliners, rather than shipping 767s elsewhere for military modifications. This approach was pioneered by the 737-based P-8A Poseidon sea control aircraft program, and will now be extended to the KC-46A.

By comparison, the Feb 29/08 award to EADS & Northrop Grumman (FA8625-08-C-6451) would have involved 4 test KC-45 aircraft for $1.5 billion, plus 5 production options for up to 64 aircraft at up to $10.6 billion. Over 18 aircraft, that leads to a “base plus averaged” total of $3.819 billion. US DoD | Boeing release | Boeing feature w. video | EADS North America || Agence France Presse | Bloomberg | Chicago Mag | CNBC | DoD Buzz | Defense News | Flight International | Seattle Post Intelligencer.

Boeing wins KC-X EMD with 767-based KC-46A

Feb 14/11: The Pentagon releases its FY 2012 budget request, which includes $877.1 million in development funding for the KC-X program. The FY 2011 request for $863.9 million is still in play as well, however, thanks to the 111th Congress’ failure to pass a FY 2011 budget.

The 112th session of Congress is dealing with the FY 2011 budget as H.R. 1, and could explicitly delete KC-X funding if its disagreements with the USAF run deep enough. The other option would be more passive, and involves continuing all FY 2011 spending at FY 2010 levels. A “2010 Redux” option would be a problem for KC-X, because that would give the program just $14.9 million to work with. On the other hand, a passive approach by Congress would allow to USAF to “reprogram” some funds from elsewhere into KC-X, whereas an explicit rejection would not.

Feb 10/11: Final Bids. Boeing and Airbus delivery their final KC-X bids. Airbus | Boeing | Flight International.

Final bids

Feb 8/11: Turbulence ahead for EADS. The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reports that Daimler plans to sell its stake in EADS when a consortium agreement expires in June 2012, in order to focus on its car manufacturing business. If they do, the move will have large ripple effects, which is why the news has provoked meetings at the highest levels of Germany’s government.

Daimler already dropped its stake in EADS from 22.5% to 15%, in a 2007 deal brokered by the government with a German bank consortium. Germany has since tried but failed to find a long-term German investor to take over the banks’ 7.5% stake, in order to keep the long term German-French shareholder balance at 22.5% each. The banks agreed to extend the current arrangement to 2013, and France’s Lagardere media group is looking to sell its own 7.5% stake at some point after 2012, but Daimler’s planned departure revives that issue of shareholder balance as a near-crisis. A German replacement firm with deep enough pockets, technical expertise, and enough of an interest in aerospace may not exist. Deutsche Welle.

Jan 31/11: WTO on Boeing. The World Trade Organization releases preliminary information its decision re: Boeing subsidies (DS 353), the other end of the trade dispute that has already seen a ruling concerning Airbus. The release took place to the 2 companies. A full public report will not be available for a couple of weeks – which matters, because accounts differ.

Boeing implies that the WTO rejected most claims, leaving only $2.6 billion in subsidies. They contrast this with the June 2010 decision that found $20.4 million in illegal Airbus subsidies: $15 billion in launch aid, $2.2 billion in equity infusions, $1.7 billion in infrastructure, and roughly $1.5 billion in R&D support, with $4 billion in illegal launch subsidies that must be restructured.

Airbus, in contrast, points to $5 billion of illegal subsidies to Boeing in this decision, with additional figures to be determined in later stages of this dispute, plus over $2 billion in illegal state and local subsidies that Boeing will receive in the future, and an expected WTO ruling that Washington State and the City of Everett must stop subsidizing Boeing. Airbus adds that they believe the WTO will find that Boeing subsidies were more distorting than Airbus’ loans, and float a $45 billion damages figure. Time will tell, but this sentence in Airbus’ statement is certainly clear:

“Taking the cases together, the WTO will be seen to now have specifically green-lighted the continued use of loans in Europe and commanded Boeing to end its illegal R&D cash support from NASA, DoD and the US taxpayers.”

Look for this case to continue, though the emergence of competitors in Russia and China could lead to negotiations, in hopes of setting global standards around subsidies. WTO DS 353 | Airbus | Boeing | Boeing WTO mini-site | Flight International | NY Times | Seattle Post-Intelligencer. See also Sept 15/10 entry.

WTO ruling on Boeing unfair subsidies

Jan 27/11: Italy. The Italian Air Force’s accepts the 1st of 4 delayed Boeing KC-767A tankers at Pratica di Mare AB near Rome. This KC-767 is registered as MM 62229, and will now enter a series of evaluations and other activities before being placed into operational use. There have been a number of issues with Italy’s tankers, so their acceptance is important to Boeing. Flight International.

Jan 19/11: During in-flight testing between an EADS MRTT tanker plane destined for Australia’s RAAF, and a Portuguese air force F-16 fighter, the refueling boom loses 1 of its 2 stabilising fins, making the device uncontrollable. The incident resulted in the detachment and partial loss of the refuelling boom from the MRTT, and the pieces fell into the sea. Fortunately, the plane itself made it back in one piece.

Airbus is investigating the mishap, and at least they have a flying platform to test, but the timing could hardly be worse. Australian DoD | Flight International | Reuters.

A330 refueling accident

KC-30 & F-16s
(click to view full)

Dec 13/10: Team EADS. Britain’s 1st A330 MRTT performs the type’s 1st fuselage-mounted hose-and-drogue aerial refueling dry contacts, using an F/A-18 Hornet fighter. Airbus Military. The 1st wet refueling took place on Jan 21/11, transferring over 6 tonnes of fuel at an altitude of around 15,000 feet, and at speeds from 250 – 325kt. AirTanker.

Cobham’s belly-mounted 805E FRU (Fuselage Refueling Unit) is part of the proposed USAF KC-45’s 4-point refueling system, which shares the 2 removable digital underwing hose-and-drogue refueling pods with FSTA aircraft, but also adds a fly-by-wire ARBS boom for UARRSI dorsal receptacles. Both the belly-mounted FRU and underwing hose-and-drogue refueling pods share the same modular architecture, and all 4 systems are controlled from the Remote Aerial Refueling Operator (RARO) console in the cockpit.

Dec 1/10: Delay. USAF Lt. Gen. Mark Shackelford, the military deputy from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition says that the final KC-X award will take until 2011, instead of being announced in November 2010. The USAF release adds:

“Air Force officials have said the KC-X source selection process will continue despite a mistake in November, where a limited amount of identical source selection information was provided to both KC-X offerors concerning their competitor’s offering… The information concerned was limited to a single page of non-proprietary data on a CD that did not include any offeror-proposed prices… Air Force officials have analyzed the information that was actually accessed by one of the offerors and have taken steps to ensure that both competitors have equal access to this information.”

Nov 21/10: Breach. A USAF error sends the wrong documents back to EADS and Boeing, giving them material from the other firm’s bid, The data sent by computer disk reportedly included pricing information, and both sides did the right thing and contacted the USAF immediately. Defense News | The Telegraph.

Protoccol breach

Oct 19/10: Tanker analysis. Iris Independent Research releases their KC-X competition white paper, “9 Secrets of the Tanker War.” One entirely unsurprising conclusion: KC-X’s 179 planes are it, and there will be no similar-sized KC-Y or KC-Z buys for at least 2 decades, if ever.

Given demographic and fiscal realities in the USA, that strikes us as a very safe prediction. Iris release | Full paper [PDF] | DoD Buzz.

Oct 6/10: No Antonov. The US GAO dismisses US Aerospace’s KC-X protest, leaving just Boeing and EADS. The core of the decision revolves around whether the bid was late, hence ineligible. The ruling that it was late offers an effective primer on bid delivery planning:

“In partially dismissing USAI’s protest, we concluded that, while many of USAI’s complaints were potentially relevant to the protester’s proposition that its messenger was understandably confused as to the location for submitting USAI’s proposal, such complaints did not support USAI’s allegations of intentional agency misconduct… it was USAI’s decision – not that of the Air Force – to have its messenger arrive at Wright-Patterson AFB entry gate 19B with less than an hour remaining before proposals were due; it was USAI’s decision not to seek advance agency approval for its messenger to be admitted to the AFB; and it was USAI’s decision not to confirm in advance the precise location of, and directions to, the building at which proposals were to be received. Based on our review of the protest allegations and the record submitted, we concluded that USAI’s allegations of intentional agency misconduct were insufficient to warrant further consideration…”

See: GAO statement | GAO B-403464 decision | Washington Post.

Oct 6/10: Team EADS. Airbus Military obtains A330 MRTT military certification from Spain’s Instituto Nacional de Tecnologia Aerospacial (INTA), which follows the European Aviation Safety Agency’s (EASA) civil Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) awarded earlier in 2010. The first 2 A330 MRTTs conducted more than 280 flights as part of the certification process, in addition to another 170 by A310 demonstrator aircraft.

As one can see by the number of flights involved, certification is an under-appreciated roadblock in the military delivery process. Fortunately certification in one jurisdiction makes subsequent certifications either much easier or unnecessary, depending on a jurisdiction’s standards and decisions. The INTA certification clears the way for Airbus Military to deliver Australia’s KC-30As, later in 2010, but the USAF would insist on its own certification process. Airbus Military | Agence France Presse | Australian Aviation | The Australian | Le Figaro [in French] | Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

FY 2010

Round 2 RFP and bids. WTO dispute. AN-70
(click to view full)

Sept 15/10: Early reports leak out that the WTO is about to find that Boeing’s aircraft have also been the recipients of illegal subsidies. Since Boeing had been pushing the subsidy point hard in Congressional debates, a finding of that sort would be significant. It will certainly make for a more difficult argument on Boeing’s part, both because the political argument becomes less clear, and because the USAF’s decision to exclude WTO issues from the competition becomes more defensible. Boeing remains on the offensive, arguing that:

“If today’s reports are accurate that some $3 billion of the EU’s claims were upheld by the WTO… the ruling… confirms that European launch aid to Airbus stands as the single largest and most flagrant illegal subsidy in the aerospace industry. Nothing in today’s public reports on the European case against the U.S. even begins to compare to the $20 billion in illegal subsidies that the WTO found last June that Airbus/EADS has received (comprised of $15 billion in launch aid, $2.2 billion in equity infusions, $1.7 billion in infrastructure, and roughly $1.5 billion in targeted research support). Nor are there seemingly any violations requiring remedy approaching the scale of remedy required of Airbus/EADS… Neither do the public reports suggest that Boeing’s traditional market based approach to financing new aircraft development will need to change; a distinct contrast…”

WTO cases DS 353 (vs. Boeing) and DS 316 (vs. Airbus) | Boeing | EADS North America | European Union | Agence France Presse | The Australian | Bloomberg | India’s Economic Times | Reuters | London Telegraph | UPI.

Sept 14/10: Team EADS. A pair of Australian KC-30A tankers hook up and transfer fuel at 1,200 gallons per minute through the A330’s boom. That figure meets the USAF’s maximum requirement, something Boeing has yet to do in the air. EADS North America Chairman Ralph D. Crosby, Jr. also went on the offensive with regard to fuel economy:

“In any likely Air Force operational scenario, Boeing’s concept tanker will cost 15% to 44% more, measured on the basis of fuel burned per gallon of fuel delivered.”

See: EADS KC-45 Now | Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

Aug 4/10: No Antonov. US Aerospace/ Antonov is disqualified for late submission. Aviation Week quotes Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell:

“The proposal was late and by law we are not allowed to consider it. We are considering two proposals and U.S. Aerospace is not one of those being considered.”

The magazine adds that:

“According to an industry executive, the company’s messenger arrived at the Wright-Patterson AFB gate at 1:30 p.m. July 9 (30 minutes before the deadline) and was denied entry, given bad directions and told to wait by Air Force personnel. As a result, the Air Force stamped the proposal received at 2:05 p.m.”

On Aug 2/10, U.S. Aerospace filed a bid protest with the Congressional Government Accountability Office, citing “unreasonable” conduct by the USAF. The firm’s bid had reportedly revolved around an “AN-112″ based on the 4-engine AN-70 turboprop transport.

July 13/10: Team EADS. The Hill reports that the KC-X bid cost EADS North America $75,000 in final printing costs alone.

July 9/10: Team Boeing. Boeing delivers its KC-X v2.0 bid. Its release mentions that its design will contain cockpit displays from the 787 Dreamliner, which may not be a change from the first round.

July 9/10: Antonov?!? US Aerospace announces that it has submitted a joint KC-X bid with Antonov at $150 million per plane, following SEC notification of an agreement with Antonov and intent to bid on July 1/10. That agreement would give US Aerospace lead contractor status and final American assembly rights only under a KC-X contract, while Antonov would be the technical lead and manufacture components.

Unlike the March 19-22/10 UAC/ IL-96 hoax, this report has much more backing behind its assertion of a bid. The question is whether it makes any more sense, or would even qualify under Round 2’s mandatory criteria. Reports indicate a bid based on the modernized AN-124-100 “Ruslan” super-heavy transport, which would offer heavy airlift options that beat the C-17 hollow, but terrible operating efficiency as an aerial tanker. Reports of a custom designed “AN-112″ make even less sense, given the years-long development and certification timelines. Unlike Ilyushin, Antonov doesn’t even have a base civilian airframe in the right size category. Defense News may have the answer that explains the hype:

“…a May 24 SEC report filed by U.S. Aerospace signals it is in financial trouble. A number of factors “raise substantial doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern,” the firm told federal regulators.”

See: US Aerospace re: bid submission | US Aerospace re: agreement | Defense News | The DEW Line | UPI.

July 8/10: Team EADS. EADS North America delivers its KC-X v2.0 bid, one day before the extended deadline, and highlights key members of its Round 2 industrial team. EADS.

July 8/10: WTO. The World Trade Organization has put off a ruling on the EU’s subsidy complaint against Boeing (case DS 316) from July 16/10 until mid-September 2010. As the Wall Street Journal put it: “While the panel is likely to find that the U.S. has provided improper subsidies, it isn’t known if the WTO will be as severe on Boeing as it was on Airbus.” Meanwhile, the delay leave EADS very exposed in the political battles over the US KC-X contract. The EU is unhappy:

“The time lag between this case, and the United States’ case against support to Airbus (DS 316) has constantly increased over the six years this dispute has been running and the gap is now at nearly a year. It creates the wrong impression that Airbus has received some WTO incompatible support, whereas Boeing has not. Only when we have received both panel reports will both sides have a more complete picture of the dispute… We now expect the Panel to issue its interim report in DS 353 without any further delay.”

EADS Airbus’ CEO Tom Enders said he was “surprised and disappointed” by “the last minute announcement of yet another delay,” and appears to question the capability of the WTO to play a meaningful role in the global trade order:

“We have said time and again that the complexity, interconnectedness and industrial significance of the Boeing and Airbus cases would strain the capabilities of the WTO. Since these cases were filed, the world has changed. In aviation, the previous duopoly marketplace is increasingly being populated by government-sponsored players, leaving Boeing and Airbus as those that, by any objective measure, benefit least from government support. The ongoing struggle of the WTO to address the world as it was in 2004 (the date the cases were filed) raises the question whether it can succeed in its basic mission to create a climate for a negotiated settlement on the basis of fair market rules in the interest of both the industry and the employees on both sides of the Atlantic.”

See: WTO cases DS 316 and DS 353 | EU release | Airbus release | Agence France Presse | India’s Business Standard | Seattle Post-Intelligencer | UK’s Telegraph.

June 30/10: WTO. Boeing hails the public release of a World Trade Organization ruling on Airbus subsidies (case DS 317), which will be a lobbying point in the current KC-X competition. Airbus has its own take, of course, and the WTO also has a case involving Boeing – but it hasn’t ruled on that one yet. A columnist in Boeing’s hometown of Everett, Washington even thinks the ruling could ultimately help both Boeing and Airbus, which have seen state-owned competitors enter the marketplace in recent years. WTO | Boeing | Airbus | Everett Herald op-ed.

WTO ruling on Airbus unfair subsidies

June 7/10: WTO. Boeing teams with AgustaWestland in the US Presidential Helicopter competition. Finmeccanica’s subsidiary has produced several Boeing helicopters under license in England and Italy (WAH-64 Apache, CH-47 Chinooks), and now Boeing will return the compliment with the AW101. The license will give Boeing full intellectual property, data and production rights, making its version of a Presidential AW101 bid a Boeing aircraft, built by Boeing personnel, at one of its U.S. facilities. This decision is likely to create several ripples. Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute points out that:

“Boeing’s bid could create some embarrassing moments for both itself and Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin spent years arguing that the AgustaWestland airframe was superior… By the same token, Boeing is engaged in a bitter dispute with Airbus concerning European aircraft subsidies, and [the AW101 has received them]…”

See: Boeing | Finmeccanica [PDF] | AgustaWestland | DoD Buzz | Lexington Institute.

June 7/10: Team Boeing. Finmeccanica subsidiary DRS announces a teaming agreement with Boeing for work on its KC-X “NewGen Tanker” offering. DRS will collaborate with Boeing on the console design and then manufacture the Aerial Refueling Operator Station (AROS), and will also provide the interconnect design and associated cable sets to integrate AROS into the Tanker. All this is contingent on a contract win, of course.

June 3/10: Team EADS. EADS says it has American partners for its KC-X bid, but won’t name them “because we don’t want to put them under pressure.” Defense News.

May 19/10: The House Armed Services Committee takes the first step toward introducing WTO subsidy rulings to the competition, as part of its recommended FY 11 defense budget (H.R.5136). The modified bill reportedly requires the Pentagon to submit an interim report, discussing the impact of government subsidies on the KC-X competition, at the instigation of Rep. Adam Smith [D-WA]. The implicit message in that name is lost on nobody. See: Congressional Quarterly | The Hill | Politico | bNet op-ed.

May 13/10: U.S. Senator Sam Brownback [R-KS] and Congressman Todd Tiahrt [R-KS] hold a bi-partisan press conference announcing the introduction of the bi-cameral Fair Defense Competition Act (H.R.5298 and S.3361). The bill attracts 39 co-sponsors in the House, and its Senate counterpart attracts 3.

These bills would require the Department of Defense to consider World Trade Organization (WTO) decisions for military acquisitions. Specifically, they would require the Pentagon to add the cost of illegal subsidies onto the price of a competitor’s bid proposal, following a ruling by the WTO. The WTO has already ruled that Airbus’ aircraft were built using illegal subsidies. A ruling on Airbus’ complaint concerning Boeing is pending, but would not come in time to affect the KC-X competition.

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer says that Boeing lobbyists have been lining up legislators for these measures, and Boeing itself is making rather unlikely noises about not bidding over subsidy-related issues. See also: Defense News | ABC affiliate KAKE-10 | US NPR | Reuters | Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

May 12/10: Team Boeing. Rockwell Collins announces that it is part of Boeing’s Round 2 aerial tanker team, with negotiated terms to deliver the same flight deck technology it supplies for the 787 Dreamliner, along with the KC-767’s Communication, Navigation, Surveillance/Air Traffic Management (CNS/ATM) systems, aircraft networks, and other electronics.

May 8/10: A Minneapolis Star Tribune article provides a glimpse into Boeing’s PR offensive on the ground. Part of it involves a trailer with simulators for the KC-767’s new boom, and associated fighters, for some members of the public.

Ralph Crosby, EADS NA
click to play video

April 20/10: EADS back in. EADS North America announces that it intends to submit a proposal for the KC-X aerial tanker RFP based on the KC-45 tanker, a version of the A330 MRTT/ KC-30B design that won the original contract. The US unit of the European aerospace giant plans to submit the proposal on July 9/10, the last day of the Pentagon’s extended deadline.

The company said it is continuing discussions with potential US partners, but apparently the European defense firm is willing to go it alone, if need be. The company reiterated its earlier promise to build a Mobile, AL manufacturing line for global A330F sales, and KC-X finishing work, if it gets the contract.

April 1/10: Boeing issues statement critical of Pentagon’s decision to extend the RFP deadline if EADS agrees to bid:

“We are deeply disappointed with EADS-Airbus efforts to further delay this vital warfighting program and tilt the U.S. procurement process in its favor. EADS-Airbus has been fully engaged in the competition for four years and was always expected to provide the vast majority of its team’s work content…We do not see a legitimate reason for EADS’s bid deadline extension request, and we believe an extension that favors any individual competitor does not further the goal of ensuring fair competition.”

March 31/10: A group of US senators sends a letter to President Obama criticizing EADS Airbus division for receiving “billions of dollars in illegal subsidies.” The senators urge the president not to extend the KC-X RFP deadline:

“Finally, having relied on illegal subsidies to buy market share in the commercial aerospace market, Airbus now seems intent on further using subsidized aircraft to significantly increase its present in the U.S. defense market. This is unacceptable. We urge you to move forward on the Air Force tanker competition without delay.”

The letter was signed by US Sens. Patty Murray (D-WA), Sam Brownback (R-KS), Chris Dodd (D-CT), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), and Michael Bennet (D-CO).

March 31/10: Bid extension. The Pentagon announces that if EADS wishes to bid, they will grant a 60-day extension instead of the 90 days requested. This would move the deadline from May 10/10 to July 9/10. Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell also said that:

“Given that this plane is long overdue, and we do not want its delivery date to slip later than it already has, we are prepared to compress our bid evaluation period to stay as close to the original award schedule as possible so as to still award the contract early this fall… [but we have no] willingness to change any of the plane’s military requirements or the way bids will be evaluated.”

Boeing and some of its supporters in Congress group of US senators criticized the decision. Boeing statement | US Senators’ letter to President Obama (Seattle PI blog) | DoD statement | Reuters

March 22/10: Russians. A Reuters report suggests that John Kirkland, the Los Angeles-based attorney who told various news media that UAC would announce a joint venture and enter the bidding for KC-X, may have been the victim of a scam.

Kirkland sent Reuters copies of letters on what appeared to be letters on “OOO UAC” letterhead, saying that high-level Russian approval of a bid was imminent, but subsequent examination showed contained several grammatical mistakes in Russian. UAC vice-president Alexander Tulyakov drove the final stake in when he told Reuters that:

“John Kirkland is not a UAC representative and we have had no communications with him… We have had no discussions whatsoever with any party about the possibility of producing air tankers for the U.S. air force.”

March 19/10: EADS in, Russians in?!? EADS requests a 3-month extension of the May 10/10 bidding deadline, because it is re-considering a bid submission without Northrop Grumman. The firm’s main foothold in the American market is its successful UH-72A LUH helicopter program, but without an established A330F production line, EADS had previously considered its American base too shallow to handle a contract this big. The Pentagon is reportedly receptive to a bid extension, citing previous examples like BAMS UAV, VH-71 helicopter, Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) II, and LOGCAP IV, among others.

The same day, Russia’s state-owned United Aircraft Corp. reportedly drops a double-surprise. The first surprise is that the firm is supposedly set to sign a joint venture with a small American aerospace firm to market Russian-designed aircraft, including promises that the JV will be announced on March 22/10.

The second surprise is that the firm reportedly intends to bid a tanker version of its IL-96 4-engined, wide body jetliner for the KC-X competition. The IL-96 is civil certified, and can be fitted with Pratt & Whitney engines, but it faces significant disadvantages, despite a price tag that could be as low as half that of a base 767 or A330 airframe. The most prominent obstacle is that the key partner is a state-owned Russian firm. While relations are better than they were in Cold War days, the USA is a long way from trusting Russia as any sort of reliable ally – and the reverse is also true. Congressional opposition to any win would be measured on the Richter scale. Other issues include expected higher operating costs from a 4-engine jet, the low esteem in which Russian airliners are held, and the fact that under 50 IL-96s have been built so far.

Given the expected $100 million cost of a bid, the effort would appear to be quixotic at best, unless the USAF changes it mind and decides to reimburse bid costs. Aviation Week | Bloomberg | Chicago Tribune | CNN | Deutsche Welle | The Hill | McClatchy Newspapers | Politico | Pravda | Reuters | Seattle Times | Wall St. Journal | Washington Post.

March 11/10: As one might expect, political rumbles continue across the Atlantic, with veiled and not-so-veiled threats of a trade war, or retaliation in the defense field. EU release | Aviation Week Ares roundup | Defense News.

March 11/10: EADS out. Aviation Week reports that EADS did not feel confident enough yet in its American footprint, to bid for the KC-X project. Its main beachhead in the USA at the moment is the $3.5 billion UH-72A Lakota Light Utility Helicopter program, which is going well but is an order of magnitude smaller than KC-X.

March 11/10: Team Boeing. Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. announces that they’ve come to terms as part of Boeing Round 2 KC-767 NewGen Tanker Supplier Team. Upon a contract award from the United States government to Boeing, Spirit will build the Boeing tanker’s forward fuselage section in Wichita, KS.

March 8/10: NGC out. Northrop Grumman has apparently bowed out of the KC-X v2.0 RFP, leaving Boeing as the only bidder. The move is not unexpected, given the requirements and the estimated $100 million cost to bid, but it will create longer-term political issues for the program. The European Union is already issuing rumbles about protectionism, and an early blast from Sen. Sessions [R-AL] may be indicative on the domestic front:

“The unjustifiable overhaul of the Request for Proposals – which went far beyond the narrow problems raised by the GAO – completely abandoned the idea of a game-changing tanker in favor of a smaller, less capable plane. Of the 14 major changes to the solicitation, 12 favored Boeing’s smaller, older aircraft. In the end, the process was skewed, and no one can fault a private company for declining to participate in a government competition engineered to guarantee its failure… American taxpayers… could now be on the hook for the most expensive sole-source contract in history.”

Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn said the Pentagon was disappointed, but does not intend to change course. Boeing’s ardent backer Rep. Norm Dicks [D-WA], soon to be head of the House Appropriations’ defense sub-committee, advocates scrapping the bidding process now and negotiating a contract directly, while suggesting an increase in production from the program’s 15 KC-767s per year to 20-25 tankers per year. Northrop Grumman statement | EADS statement | Aviation Week | DoD Buzz | Miami Herald | Politico | Seattle Times | Washington Post early report | Agence France Presse early report | UK’s Daily Telegraph | Sydney Morning Herald | Seattle Post-Intelligencer reactions roundup.

March 5/10: Team Boeing. Boeing announces its RFP v2.0 offering. The new 767 “NextGen” aircraft add a modified version of the new 787 Dreamliner’s flight deck, with its larger displays and other design improvements. Engines will still be Pratt & Whitney’s PW4062s, but the fly-by-wire refueling boom looks different, and so do the wings. Aviation Week attempted to clear up Boeing’s exact offering, but:

“Boeing officials declined to comment on whether the wings, the doors and floors and flaps were being pulled from other commercial models [DID: as in the previous KC-X entry]. They declined interview requests as well…”

The 3rd thing Boeing’s official release emphasized was a pointed reference to the flight control computers that may have been a major cause of Air France Flight 447’s A330 crash over the Atlantic in 2009, with all hands lost:

“The Boeing NewGen Tanker will be controlled by the aircrew, which has unrestricted access to the full flight envelope for threat avoidance at any time, rather than allowing computer software to limit combat maneuverability.”

See also: Boeing | Pratt & Whitney | Aviation Week | DoD Buzz.

Feb 24/10: Final KC-X v2.0 RFP is out. Most of the changes made were narrow and technical, and do not change the structure of the competition. The need for a microwave landing system was scrapped, and Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures missile defense systems will now be provided by the government as a separate item, certain items had specifications defined more tightly, etc. Proposals will be due within 75 days of the request, and there will be another 120 days after that for government evaluation.

Price remains the key factor, based on the draft proposal’s weighting system. The development contract is a fixed price incentive deal, with the contractor responsible for 40% of any overruns up to 125% of the contract value, and all overruns beyond that. Production lots 1-2 are fixed price. Lots 3-5 will see a new price negotiated, with the contractor responsible for only the first 2.5% of price inflation. Re-negotiation would happen again for Lots 6-13, but this time the contractor would only be responsible for the first 1% of price inflation.

While these provisions protect manufacturers from spiraling commodity costs, they also allow the USAF to make changes later, so long as they’re willing to pay for them. RFP solicitation on FedBizOpps | US DoD press release | DoD presentation [PDF] | Boeing statement | Northrop-Grumman statement | Seattle Post-Intelligencer rounds up politician reactions in USA | AvWeek reports that NGC is “96-98% unlikely” to bid | Aviation Week article collection | Gannett’s Air Force Times | Government Executive magazine | Miami Herald | Washington Post | Reuters: tanker chronology.

Final KC-X v2.0 RFP

Feb 22/10: Dual buy? Flight International’s Stephen Trimble looks for clues to the funding behind a new lobby group called “Build Them Both.” As one might guess, the group favors a dual-source, accelerated buy contract for the KC-X competition, with both firms receiving contracts but annual orders being determined by production readiness, pricing, and the needs of specific theaters. This was the essence of the late Rep. John Murtha’s position.

Feb 8/10: Dual buy? House Appropriations Defense subcommittee chair John Murtha [D-PA], Capitol Hill’s #1 proponent of a KC-X split buy, dies of complications associated with intestinal surgery. A Washington Post blog reports that Rep. Norm Dicks [D-WA], one of EADS Airbus’ most avid foes on Capitol Hill, is likely to succeed Murtha as chair of the subcommittee, and North West Cable News asks the obvious question.

Jan 6/10: At a Pentagon press conference, Press Secretary Geoff Morrell discusses the KC-X v2.0 RFP, among other matters:

“…we are shooting to have the RFP out hopefully by the end of the month, if not early next month. We’re in the process right now of reviewing the comments that were provided… I think we’re still on schedule to get this out in the next few weeks. …no final decisions have been made yet about the RFP, but I think it is safe to say at this point that there will be changes to the draft… We’ve gotten feedback, some of it quite helpful. Some of – some of this we just have realized ourselves. And so I think the team is in the process of correcting mistakes and altering the acquisition strategy a bit, and that will be reflected in the final request for proposal which will likely go out in the – in the next couple or few weeks.

I would add one thing, and that is that whatever changes are being made should not be construed as any attempt to favor anybody. It is — what is being done is we are trying to make the RFP as fair and as transparent as possible, while at the same time providing the taxpayers with the best value for their money and the warfighters the best — the best plane to support their operations… we hope that when this happens that we will have a full and hardy and thorough competition between multiple bidders.”

Jan 4/10: Leeham News offer their 2010 Outlook for Boeing and Airbus, which includes discussion of the KC-X competition:

“We also believe there is a strategic argument, as well as a political one, that supports buying both airplanes because there are simply different mission requirements. But the Pentagon is adamant that it will not split the order… Winning the contract is also critical to the Airbus strategy of establishing a commercial A330-200 production base in the US… Airbus pledged to build the A330-200F [in Mobile, AL] and expectations are that the A330P will follow. But no tanker contract, no US plant. And this is why we believe Boeing and its supporters are fighting so hard to block a tanker award to Northrop. This, we believe, is more important to Boeing than winning the tanker contract, though we also acknowledge Boeing wants the contract on its own merits.

“…The [A330] MRTT is running about 18 months behind schedule for delivery to launch customer Australia. About six months was due to customer change orders, according to the RAAF and EADS. The balance rests with developmental issues.

“…Because of the need for a 787 production Surge Line (see 787 discussion below), the current 767 line will be relocated to the aft part of the bay it now occupies. A Lean production line will be implemented, reducing unit costs by about 20%. Relocation begins this year and will be completed next year… If Northrop stays in, we still think Boeing will submit only a KC-767 proposal… We remain concerned that Boeing has yet to deliver the KC-767 to Italy, now some four years late. We are told problems remain with the centerline hose-and-drogue system… [and] that issues remain with the wing-mounted refueling pods, though Boeing says these have been fixed. Although Boeing intended to deliver the first of four tankers to Italy last year… that this still has not happened indicates all is not well. Since the US tanker is similar to the Italian tanker, we remain skeptical about the program… Boeing is still not forecasting any dates concerning these remaining milestones [for Italy].”

Dec 1/09: Northrop Grumman’s President and Chief Operating Officer Wes Bush sends a letter to Department of Defense undersecretary for acquisition, technology and logistics Ashton Carter. As written, it says, the terms of the KC-X RFP imposed a structure that, in Northrop Grumman’s opinion, favors smaller planes like Boeing’s, and:

“…places contractual and financial burdens on the company that we simply cannot accept… As a result, I must regrettably inform you that, absent a responsive set of changes in the final RFP, Northrop Grumman has determined that it cannot submit a bid to the department for the KC-X program.”

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman replied that both manufacturers wanted changes that would favor them, and contends that:

“The Department has played this right down the middle… [we] cannot and will not change the warfighting requirements for the tanker to give advantage to either competitor… The department wants competition but cannot compel the two airplane makers to compete.”

Alabama’s Republican governor Bill Riley has a different take:

“The Obama administration has corrupted the tanker selection process with a blatantly unfair competition… The question is why is this RFP so radically different than the one Northrop Grumman won last year?”

A final RFP is expected in January 2010, but each program has hundreds of suppliers across the USA. Refusal to submit would trigger a very large political battle in Congress, one focused on the acquisition process itself. It remains to be seen whether it is possible for a single-winner tanker process to successfully obtain American Congressional approval and funding for its choice, in the face of a transatlantic competitor whose American partners saw billions of dollars in concrete business snatched away, and a domestic heavyweight with its own deep supplier and congressional networks. Northrop Grumman’s Letter [PDF] | Agence France Presse | Bloomberg | NY Times | Politico | Reuters | Wall Street Journal | Aviation Week | Defense News.

Nov 25/09: Flight International reports that one of Australia’s KC-30Bs refueled a pair of Spanish EF-18A Hornet fighters at the same time, using its hose-and-drogue refueling system.

Nov 10/09: Aviation Week headline: “Boeing, Northrop Sour On KC-X Draft RFP.”

Nov 10/09: One of Australia’s KC-30B/ A330 MRTTs performs the 1st fuel transfers with its all-digital 905E hose and drogue system, using its left and right under-wing pods to transfer more than 9,200 lbs of fuel to a “NATO” (likely Spanish) F/A-18 fighter. The first of Australia’s 5 KC-30Bs will be delivered to Australia in mid-2010. EADS release.

Nov 2/09: The Lexington Institute’s Loren Thompson writes that the EADS/Northrop Grumman bid has become a question, rather than a certainty:

“Last week, one of the two teams competing to provide the Air Force’s future aerial-refueling tanker launched an unusual campaign to overturn the service’s strategy for buying the plane. Northrop Grumman and its European partner Airbus signaled that they don’t believe they have a plausible chance of winning under the proposed terms, and began building the foundation for a formal protest. What’s unusual about the move is that competitor Boeing hasn’t been all that happy with the revised tanker solicitation either, but Northrop has elected to pursue an aggressive strategy that is sure to anger its Air Force customer. Here’s why Northrop is willing to take that risk…”

Oct 29/09: Sen. John McCain [R-AZ] sends a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Pentagon acquisition czar Ashton Carter, and USAF Secretary Michael Donley, asking questions about the KC-X v2.0 source selection process. He asks about the use of fuel usage rates and construction needs, but not full probable lifecycle cost, in the cost calculations, asks if any of the requirements considered mandatory in Round 1 were discarded RFP v2.0, wonders if the pricing requirements in the draft RFP would “…not favor mostly smaller airframes, and asks how the proposed pass/fail rating can “provide for an assessment of relative developmental and integration risk among the offerings.”

The final v2.0 RFP was supposed to be released around the end of November 2009, but delays out to January 2010 are reportedly a possibility. Aviation Week.

Oct 21/09: Team EADS. An A330 MRTT equipped with the ARBS in-flight refueling boom passes fuel to an in-flight aircraft for the first time. A Royal Australian Air Force KC-30B flew a 4:30 test flight, with more than 3,300 pounds of fuel transferred to 2 Portuguese Air Force F-16s during 13 contacts. Other systems tested included the boom’s fly-by-wire stability and 3-D vision system. EADS | Australian Defence Magazine.

Oct 2/09: Sen. Jeff Sessions [R-AL] says he will introduce an amendment to the FY 2010 Senate defense spending bill (amendment 2610 to S. 1390, currently before the Senate Armed Services Committee). When introduced, it would block the use of funds for the U.S. Air Force’s KC-X competition, unless the service agrees to disclose pricing data about Boeing’s proposal in 2008 to rival Northrop Grumman, just as Northrop Grumman’s data was disclosed to Boeing after Boeing’ asked for an explanation of its loss. Sen. Sessions release | Aviation Week | See also Sept 29/09 entry.

Oct 1/09: KC-10. In a stunning upset, Northrop Grumman beats Boeing for a 10-year, $3.8 billion contract to service the global KC-10/KDC-10 tanker fleet. Boeing subsidiary McDonnell Douglas built the planes, modified them, and had serviced them since their induction in the 1980s. By all accounts and metrics, service quality was high – which is why some analysts see the loss as symptomatic of deeper problems in Boeing’s relationship with the USAF.

FY 2009

Draft RFP 2.0. KC-46A & B-1B
(click to view full)

Sept 29/09: Major procurement error. As legislators connected with Boeing push the USAF regarding the recent WTO ruling, Northrop Grumman puts out a statement of its own, citing issues with the process:

“Northrop Grumman continues to be greatly concerned that its pricing information from the previous tanker competition was provided by the Government to its competitor, Boeing. Access to comparable pricing information from Boeing has thus far been denied by the Pentagon. With predominant emphasis placed on price in this tanker re-competition and Northrop Grumman again proposing its KC-45 refueling tanker, such competitive pricing information takes on even greater importance. It is fundamentally unfair, and distorts any new competition, to provide such critical information to only one of the bidders. The company will continue to work with its customer to fully resolve this issue.”

The USAF had provided this data to Boeing after Boeing had lost, as part of the USAF’s requested debriefing. The Pentagon has dismissed Northrop Grumman’s claim on the basis that the disclosure to Boeing was in accordance with regulations, and that “the data in question are inaccurate, outdated and not germane” to the new bid, which is a different competition. Clearly, Northrop Grumman continues to disagree; if the impasse continues, the question may become whether the GAO disagrees during a future appeal. Northrop Grumman | Aviation Week | recent Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

Protoccol breach

Sept 29/09: Alabama’s Press-Register puts out an editorial supporting a split-buy and speeded-up production, which legislators like House Appropriations Committee Chair John Murtha [D-PA] continue to support:

“With a defense contract potentially worth $40 billion at stake, expect both sides to fight over every clause and nuance they think might favor their opponent. Right now, Boeing and Northrop have 60 days to comment on the draft guidelines; this is only the first stage of the contest… By the time the lawyering and politicking are over, at least a few years will have elapsed. So here’s one more plea for a split contract.”

Sept 25/09: The USAF releases the KC-X v2.0 draft RFP, re-starting the competition. The KC-X Round 2 RFP remains structured as a “winner take all” competition, and retains its target number of 179 aircraft, will full-rate production of 15 per year beginning by the 3rd year (Lot 3 of up to 13). Each contender will provide a fixed-price proposal to develop and deliver 4 Engineering & Manufacturing Development (EMD) planes, followed by the first 64 aircraft and necessary spares. It will also submit an upper limit on the price of the remaining 111 tankers, and 5 years of initial support.

Assuming that legal and political delays don’t get in the way, first production delivery is now planned for 2015, with Initial Operational Capability in 2017. More information on the RFP’s evaluation structure can be found in the section “KC-X RFP v2.0: The New Structure.”

Next comes the 60-day comment period, after which the formal RFP can be expected. The bidders will then have 60 days after that final RFP release to submit their bids, and the government will have 120 days to evaluate them. A decision is currently expected in mid-2010. FedBizOpps RFP #FA8625-10-R-6600 | USAF RFP release presentation | DoD briefing re: competition, incl. Slides [PDF] and Q&A session | USAF | Boeing statement | Northrop Grumman statement | Agence France Presse | Aviation Week and AVWeek Ares re: selection process | Aviation Week re: people involved | Business Week | CBS WKRG in Pensacola, FL | Government Executive | The Hill | Leeham News & Comment aviation analysts | Military.com | Nextgov | Seattle Post-Intelligencer analysis | WSJ: Boeing brings flight simulator to Capitol Hill.

Draft RFP to restart KC-X

Sept 25/09: The USAF’s last serving KC-135E aerial tanker touches down at Davis-Monthan AFB near tucson, AZ, after its final flight. All remaining KC-135s are now KC-135Rs. USAF release.

KC-135E retires

Sept 16/09: US Secretary of Defense Gates says that he is giving the new leaders he’d installed at the Air Force the final say in the $40 billion tanker deal. This is a reversal from the Round 1 arrangements after the GAO ruled that the USAF had not followed its own criteria, and the US Department of Defense took over direct management of the program. On the other hand, it does put the USAF on the firing line instead of the DoD, in order to absorb any initial hits in what’s sure to be an intense political fight.

Other reports add that the revised KC-X proposal is due “in a few weeks.” USAF | Boeing statement | Defense News | Government Executive magazine | Inside Defense | Agence France Presse | Business Week | NY Times | Reuters | Seattle P.I. offers analyst’s view.

Sept 15/09: Aviation Week reports that keeping the existing KC-135 fleet in the air will become increasingly expensive:

“…at AMC, planners are wrangling with how to keep the KC-135s flying until as late as 2043… outgoing AMC chief [Arthur] Lichte points out that maintenance crews sometimes work 7 hr. for every hour of KC-135 flight. “Every year we don’t get tankers, it is costing us $55 million right off the top,” Lichte says. “When you get out to about 2018 and 2020, what started out as about $2 billion a year to maintain the KC-135 fleet goes all the way up to $6 billion… we continue to do everything we can to make sure don’t have an Aloha Airlines where the skin peels back or a TWA 800 [type incident] where frayed wires cause an explosion in the fuel tank… In total, aging-related costs are expected to add at least $17.8 billion to the price of maintaining the KC-135 for 40 years.”

The increase in projected maintenance costs is attributable mostly to fuselage skin and wiring checks, and corrosion issues which are already a significant contributor (30%-50%, by some reports) to depot maintenance costs. Meanwhile, access to KC-10 replacement parts is a worry, and the KC-10 boom control unit is becoming unreliable and should be replaced.

KC-135 costs rising

Sept 15/09: Flight International reports that KC-X Round 2 may see a supplier shakeup on the Boeing side:

“Boeing officials are determined to set “aggressive price targets” for selecting suppliers and even manufacturing locations… Boeing’s quest for cost-savings has also reopened the 777’s engine supplier to competition… all three certified engines – the GE90, Pratt & Whitney PW4000 and Rolls-Royce Trent 800 – will be considered if Boeing decides to offer the KC-777. However, engines that have not been certified on the 777, such as the GEnx family, have been ruled out. “We don’t think there’s enough time for a certification programme,” Lemaster says… If Boeing decides to propose the KC-767 in the next round, the structures and control systems will come from the same aircraft type, Lemaster says.”

Sept 14/09: US Ar Force Secretary Michael Donley says the WTO’s ruling will have no effect on the USAF’s process, as Airbus’ counterclaim is still pending, and so is the EU’s expected appeal.

A day later, 47 American politicians send a letter to President Obama that says: “Buying Airbus tankers would reward European governments with Department of Defense dollars at the same time that the U.S. Trade Representative is trying to punish European governments for flouting international laws.” Mobile Press-Register | Seattle Post-Intelligencer | Reuters via Forbes | Business Week | Seattle P.I. re: letter | Seattle P.I. offers contrasting views re: finer points of WTO trade dispute.

KC-X past & candidates:
Boeing Slide
(click to view full)

Sept 14/09: In a briefing at the Air Force Association’s 2009 Air & Space Conference and Technology Exposition, Boeing officially acknowledges that the Boeing 767 and 777 are both potential KC-X candidates. They also launch their own web site, UnitedStatesTanker.com, to promote their “KC-7A7″ tanker bid. Boeing release | Boeing briefing [PDF]

Sept 8/09: EADS chief executive Louis Gallois tells the French newspaper La Tribune that: “Our objective is to be in the [KC-X] competition. We are totally determined to be in the running, unless it appears that the request for proposal is biased.” Source.

Sept 4/09: The World Trade Organization issues an interim ruling that the $4 billion in aid Airbus received from European governments to develop the A380 super-jumbo passenger jet constituted illegal subsidies.

Technically, the WTO ruling could empower the U.S. to levy tariffs either against Airbus or other European imports, equal to the amount of the improper subsidies. Legally, the EU is expected to appeal the ruling, Airbus has complaints of its own on tap, and any firm action remains years away. Business Week | bnet.

July 9/09: Stephen Trimble of Flight International highlights a recent podcast interview with Boeing tanker spokesman Bill Barksdale, which seems to show a lot of enthusiasm and prep work at Boeing around the KC-777. Excerpt:

“BARKSDALE: The 777 as a tanker is just so much more capable than anything it’s got as a peer. And I know that sounds like a bit of bravado, but… I’ll give you a couple of examples. If you compare them, the 777 would provide – deliver – however you want to say it – 23% more fuel than the KC-30. It could carry 44% more payload – more cargo – in the back. And it also would carry about 42% more passengers in the back as well. So those are very generic, very general kinds of numbers… If the air force really wants to go in that direction, the Boeing company has spent a lot of time in the last year preparing for that, knowing that we have a real, true, large tanker that, like I said, is comparable in size to the KC-30. And, yet, you get so much more for your money.”

June 16/09: Northrop Grumman CEO Ronald D. Sugar, and EADS CEO Louis Gallois, issue a joint statement re-affirming their joint commitment to the KC-45 Tanker team.

June 15/09: Bloomberg reports that Boeing is preparing to submit a KC-777 for KC-X v2.0, but a DoD Buzz story clarifies. It turns out that Boeing is preparing to offer a KC-777 option if the revised requirements put a premium on cargo capability or fuel offload amounts, but the firm hasn’t made a decision and won’t until the RFP comes out. The firm had considered a KC-777 before the initial KC-X RFP as well, but the RFP’s lack of extra points for exceeding USAF specifications led Boeing to go with its smaller, cheaper, and more fully developed KC-767 instead. DoD Buzz adds:

“Still, a Boeing 777 bid raises all sorts of questions. Given the problems Boeing has had reducing the vibrations afflicting its refueling pods on the 767, and the enormous technical and engineering challenges of refitting the 777, can the company get a plane in shape in time to fill the Air Force’s first tranche of 179 planes?… But it may be that Boeing is largely conceding the first tranche of planes to Northrop and aiming for the larger follow-on buy.”

The DoD Buzz report adds rumors that Northrop Grumman may walk if the revised RFP is seen as weighted in Boeing’s favor – again, a parallel with the firm’s rumblings before the initial KC-X RFP was issued:

“…there are rumors that Northrop is weighing its commitment to the tanker program, which has cost the company financially and politically. Two sources have told me that Ron Sugar, the company’s CEO, will walk away from the competition should the new RFP appear weighted too heavily in Boeing’s favor. This could, of course, be part of the company’s gaming efforts to ensure that the Air Force does include analysis such as best value as it makes its choice. Meyers made clear, as does his colleague Janis Pamiljans in the video below, that the Air Force must include “best value” as a key component of the service’s tanker analysis.”

June 9/09: The USAF’s role in KC-X v2.0 is still up for debate. Military.com’s DoD Buzz reports that Defense Secretary Robert Gates is still deciding whether the Air Force would lead the renewed competition, or whether it would remain with the Office of Secretary of Defense. Either way, however, Gates said that former Raytheon lobbyist and current Deputy Defense Secretary Bill Lynn would take a “very close interest” in the program.

May 27/09: The Project on Government Oversight NGO explains some of the hidden variables behind decisions about who should run the program:

“…this isn’t only a debate over who will be ultimately responsible for the program, but that it will also determine how much this program will be impacted by the new Weapons Acquisition Reform Act of 2009. One of the major revisions to the Senate’s initial version of the bill in the Senate Armed Service committee’s mark-up was changing language that would require the newly established Director of Independent Cost Assessment to conduct independent cost assessments for all major defense acquisition programs (MDAPs) to only those programs where the Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (AT &L) is the Milestone Decision Authority (MDA)… But as a result of this change in mark up, if DoD chooses to give the Air Force management of the tanker program, there will be no mandatory role for the new Director of Independent Cost Assessment to provide oversight and implement policies and procedures to make sure that the cost estimation process is reliable and objective. One can’t help but wonder how much DoD had the tanker program in mind when requesting this change to the legislation.”

April 6/09: US Defense Secretary Gates announces his FY 2010 budget recommendations, which will include a KC-X RFP in summer 2009.

April 6/09: The Lexington Institute raises warning flags about the new acquisition process:

“Despite Obama Administration rhetoric about openness in federal contracting, the new and improved tanker selection process has all the transparency of the FBI’s witness protection program. The performance requirements for the future tankers were blessed by the Pentagon’s Joint Requirements Oversight Council with almost no input from industry, and now the acquisition strategy is being crafted in much the same way. If you were planning to spend $100 billion over the next 30 years on a new aircraft fleet, wouldn’t you want to check with the only two qualified suppliers to determine whether your terms and specifications were reasonable? We have been here before… Many of those problems could have been avoided if the industry teams had been kept informed on how the selection process was unfolding… The current buildup to a re-competition is being carried out with even greater secrecy.”

At this point, with Northrop Grumman and its suppliers believing that a huge contract was taken away from them, and Boeing treating the lobbying as a life-or-death issue, the impact may be tangential. The political reality is that lack of transparency can make the process worse, but even perfect transparency won’t remove the fundamental political bottleneck.

March 17/09: NGC endorses split-buy. A Northrop Grumman release offers figures from a KC-135 Economic Service Life Study, and claims that for each KC-45 that enters service, USAF operating costs would drop by $7 million per year, assuming replacement of 2 KC-135s with each A330 MRTT inducted. It adds:

“Congressmen John Murtha (D-PA) and Neil Abercrombie (D-HI) commented recently the only way to get badly needed tankers to our warfighters quickly is through a dual procurement acquisition process… According to Northrop Grumman analysis, a dual procurement scenario could replace the capability of the entire Air Force KC-135 fleet by the year 2022 – seven years sooner than best case single procurement strategy. Dual procurement eliminates the need to re-skin the KC-135 aircraft.

By procuring 24 aircraft per year from two contractors rather than 15 per year from a single source, as is the current Air Force budget plan, the service could save $7.2 billion in tanker Operating and Support (O&S) costs between 2012 and 2022 compared to the O&S costs associated with a single procurement strategy. Through dual procurement, the Air Force saves $10.2 billion in tanker O&S between 2012 and 2029, compared to the O&S costs associated with a single procurement strategy. [Our product is better, but]… if Congressmen Murtha and Abercrombie are correct the only way to get tankers to the warfighter quickly is through a dual procurement strategy, Northrop Grumman will support the effort.”

The crunch, of course, is that 9 more aircraft per year, at about $200 million each, adds $1.8 billion per year to actual spending. That’s another $19.8 billion from 2012-2022, or $30.6 billion from 2012-2029. The difference between those figures, and projected savings over the same time period, must come from somewhere. That means either expansion of the overall military budget, or dollars taken from other military programs. Both options are unlikely, and difficult.

March 13/09: An Inside the Air Force article entitled “Report: KC-135 Maintenance Could Reach $3 Billion Per Year by 2040″ says that KC-135 maintenance costs will escalate by almost 50% over the next 30 years, and cost twice as much as new tankers. The KC-135 Economic Service Life Study claims that it will end up costing the Air Force more than FY2000$ 103 billion to operate and maintain the KC-135s between 2001-2040. Source.

March 11/09: Reports surface that the Obama administration will propose a 5-year delay to the USAF’s aerial tanker program, as US OMB recommendations leak to the general press. The Pentagon is not bound by those recommendations, and US Secretary of Defense Gates is quoted as saying that:

“In the days to come, any information you may receive about budget or program decisions will undoubtedly be wrong because I intend to wait until the end of our review process before making any decisions.”

Assuming that the documents really do propose a 5-year delay to the KC-X program, it is not clear whether this is a classic “Washington Monument” move, proposing a cut that the weight of Congress interests are almost certain to reverse, or a genuine decision within a zero-sum set of budget decisions. In Washington, of course, it could even be both. Washington Post | Seattle Post-Intelligencer | Seattle Times | Grand Forks Herald | Bloomberg News | MSNBC | Agence France Presse.

March 11/09: Democratic Party congressmen John Murtha [D-PA] and Neil Abercrombie [D-HI] begin publicly proposing the split-buy idea that has been floated quietly in the background for several months now. Reuters | Reuters Update.

Feb 26/09: Military.com’s DoD Buzz reports that a Pentagon Joint Requirement Oversight Council met today to consider the new KC-X requirements:

“From what little I have heard about the requirements, it seems pretty clear that the Air Force has compressed and simplified the requirements to avoid the likelihood of another award protest but has not changed its mind about what capabilities are needed… But Rep. Jack Murtha’s plan to split the buy – and avoid what would seem to be an otherwise unavoidable second protest – would seem to allow both companies some breathing room… the Air Force’s opposition may be at an end – at least for the initial purchase.”

Murtha [D-PA] has been at the center of ethical investigations over his career, but he remains a powerful member of the Democratic Party. He chairs the House Appropriations Committee’s Defense Subcommittee.

Feb 25/09: USAF Transportation Command leader Gen. Duncan McNabb testifies to a joint hearing of the House Armed Services Committee’s Seapower and Air and land forces subcommittees. He reiterates KC-X as the USAF’s top priority, and says that further delays in replacing the KC-135 fleet would add significant risk to the U.S. military’s ability to quickly move troops and firepower rapidly to the globe’s combat zones. Reuters, via Forbes.

Jan 29/09: The US government’s Office of Management and Budget submits a list of potential defense program cuts in its guidance to the US Defense Department. One of the suggestions is reportedly a 5-year delay of the KC-X program. The Pentagon is not bound by these suggestions, but the recommendations will become news in March 2009, igniting controversy and lobbying. Source.

FY 2008

Boeing protest; cancellation.

Sept 22/08: Sen. Richard Shelby [R-AL] fires a broadside in a Washington Times op-ed:

“Two months from Election Day, politics seem to be everywhere we turn. However, one place we should not see politics is in our Department of Defense (DoD) acquisition process. The process to select the new Air Force tanker fleet has become so politicized that DoD allowed parochial and business interests to keep the Air Force’s top acquisition priority from the pilots who need it. The long fight over the tanker contract proves that the acquisition process is fundamentally and significantly flawed… Politics just cancelled a competitively awarded contract, solely because Boeing was not the winner. Defense acquisition policy has been stated: If it is not a Boeing plane, DoD is not going to buy it.”

Sept 18/08: A Washington Post story reports that:

“John Young, the undersecretary for acquisition, technology and logistics, said in an interview at the Pentagon yesterday that under the tanker proposal from Northrop Grumman and its partner European Aeronautic Defence & Space, developing the first 68 aircraft would have cost $12.5 billion, compared with $15.4 billion under Boeing’s plan.”

Sept 10/08: The Pentagon announces that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has canceled the competition for the $35 billion Air Force tanker contract:

“It has now become clear that the solicitation and award process cannot be accomplished by January. Thus, I believe that rather than hand the next administration an incomplete and possibly contested process, we should cleanly defer this procurement to the next team… It is my judgment that in the time remaining to us, we cannot complete a competition that will be viewed as fair and competitive in this highly-charged environment… I believe the resulting cooling-off period will allow the next administration to view objectively the military requirements and craft a new acquisition strategy for the KC-X as it sees fit.”

Cancellation

Sept 3/08: Gen. Lichte of USAF Air Mobility Command says that he expects a protest after the final round 2 RFP is released. He hopes it doesn’t happen. But:

“I mean this is a lot of money, I understand the business nature of this. But I don’t understand how at some point you stop and say, this company wins, and this company loses, or this company is successful and this company is not. I don’t know how we get through something like that. With the poisonous nature of all the comments that are out there right now, I don’t know how we make peace with everybody to say, okay let’s go forward.”

He also said that he does not want a split buy…

“However, if you were to tell me that was the only way to get out of [the current situation] then I’d take it… We need a new tanker now. I don’t care which one it is. And we need to get on with this quickly.”

Military.com | Agence France Presse | AP | CBS | Reuters.

Aug 14/08: Jerry Cox is a former procurement policy counsel in the U.S. Senate, and now holds the title of managing director of The Forerunner Foundation. At, least according to the article byline in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer for “Tanker choice in mathematical terms“. The core claim of the article is as follows:

“The Air Force knows a tanker accomplishes nothing by flying from Point A to Point B, so what really matters is the ratio of delivery. How many gallons will the plane deliver for every gallon it burns? That’s a tougher problem, but it’s hardly trigonometry. Northrop showed the Air Force it can deliver almost two pounds for every pound it burns, while Boeing delivers only 1.6 pounds. That’s a 22 percent edge for Northrop, and the numbers hold up, regardless of the trip length.”

What the newspaper did not mention is that Cox also heads up a lobbying firm called Potomac Strategy Associates. DID spoke to Jerry Cox, however, and he told us that his PSA has not been employed by any firm in conjunction with the aerial tanker competition.

Aug 11/08: Aviation week reports that Boeing is strongly considering a refusal to bid as its response to the revised KC-X RFP.

That response would leave the field open to EADS/Northrop Grumman in a formal sense, but the political weight of that kind of protest move would force the Pentagon to think long and hard before signing a contract under those circumstances. Until Boeing makes a firm decision, of course, its bid team must continue working full speed ahead.

Aug 6/08: New draft RFP. The USAF has issued a new draft of its RFP, and appears to be adopting an approach of minimum required compliance. On the surface, there are 2 major changes. Fuel costs over a plane’s 40-year lifetime will be considered, and full credit will now be given for exceeding the stated requirements in key areas like cargo capacity, fuel offload, et. al. Neither was true under the old RFP. The catch is that different levels of importance are being assigned to various types of costs, with development and production cost estimates weighted more heavily than long-term projections for maintenance and fuel costs. The second major change around exceeding performance limits simply makes the USAF’s original evaluation approach the competition’s officially announced approach, instead of a violation of the competition’s terms.

Under those terms, Boeing is likely to lose again – which may trigger a follow-on protest upon the release of the revised RFP. The planned time line for moving forward is as follows:

• Aug 6-13: DoD officials will take a week to discuss elements of the draft with Northrop-Grumman and Boeing. Expect a lot of back and forth over the terms of the RFP, including efforts by members of the (currently recessed) Congress.

• Mid-August: DoD plans to issue the final RFP amendment, with just 45 days for renewed submissions. Note that this time frame would make an airframe switch very difficult, due to the hundreds of pages of documentation, cost information, and design work required.

• Early October 2008: Renewed submissions due.

• October to late November: Discussions with the companies about their proposals.

• Early December: Final proposal revisions for “best, final” offer.

• Early January 2009: Decision made and announced. If Boeing wins, the existing contract is canceled and a new one is signed. If Airbus/NGC win again, the current stop-work order is lifted.

It’s important to note that the US DoD’s desired schedule, and what politics, appeals, et. al. actually end up dictating, may end up being 2 different things. On a political level, however, introducing the revised RFP when Congress is in recess, and not issuing a decision until after the elections, will help to lower elected representatives’ political leverage. What it will not do is provide full insulation, since the decision is certain to be an important election issue in some states. The first days in a new Congress’ term also tend to provide some political insulation for issues of this type, since members are busy with other things. Nevertheless, it can also be a double-edged sword. Exceptions do occur if the issue in question is a big enough priority for enough elected representatives. In that case, the first days of a term can also be the stage for dramatic political actions whose fallout would be considered much more carefully later in their term.

See also: KC-X RFP, revised draft | US Armed Forces Press Service |

blog*&par=RSS">Boeing statement et. al., via CNBC | NGC statement via MarketWatch | CQ Politics | Politico re: guerilla marketing | Leeham Companies LLC | Defense News | Aviation Week | Bloomberg | Business Week | Christian Science Monitor | Agence France Presse | Money Times of India | Seattle Post-Intelligencer | Seattle Times | Mobile Press Register | Birmingham News | Pensacola News Journal.

July 9/08: Let Round 2 begin. American Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announces that the KC-X competition will be re-opened, with at least one important difference: the Air Force won’t be running it. Meanwhile, Northrop-Grumman has been ordered to stop work on its contract.

Undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics John J. Young Jr. will be in charge of the acquisition, and will appoint an advisory committee to oversee the selection process. , and a modified request for proposal could be issued before the end of July 2008, with a decision expected by year’s end.

Boeing’s statement welcomes the news, and claims that life-cycle costs including fuel will now be considered in the competition:

“However, we remain concerned that a renewed Request for Proposals (RFP) may include changes that significantly alter the selection criteria as set forth in the original solicitation. As the Government Accountability Office reported in upholding our protest, we submitted the only proposal that fully met the mandatory criteria of the original RFP… we will also take time to understand the updated solicitation to determine the right path forward for the company. It’s encouraging that the Defense Department intends to take steps …that, among other things, fully accounts for life-cycle costs, such as fuel…”

The new competition will be challenging for all concerned, especially since it adds an element missing from the last round: European expectations, raised by the initial win, could create larger trade and defense industry ramifications if the new competition is perceived to be biased against Airbus’ offering. Meanwhile, political involvement and pressure within the USA is guaranteed to be intense, and every item from the selection criteria onward can expect contestation. US DoD | Boeing release | Northrop Grumman release | Alabama Press-Register | Montgomery Advertiser | Seattle Times | WIRED Danger Room | CNBC | Hartford Courant | AP | Aviation Week: Lawmakers Slam US Defense Acquisition | Politicker.com | Deutsche Welle | International Herald Tribune | Reuters | China’s Xinhua.

June 18-25/08: The Congressional Government Accountability Office sustains Boeing’s protest The ruling validates a number of Boeing’s complaints, and recommends:

“The GAO recommended that the Air Force reopen discussions with the offerors, obtain revised proposals, re-evaluate the revised proposals, and make a new source selection decision, consistent with the GAO’s decision. The agency also made a number of other recommendations including that, if the Air Force believed that the solicitation, as reasonably interpreted, does not adequately state its needs, the Air Force should amend the solicitation prior to conducting further discussions with the offerors; that if Boeing’s proposal is ultimately selected for award, the Air Force should terminate the contract awarded to Northrop Grumman; and that the Air Force reimburse Boeing the costs of filing and pursuing the protest, including reasonable attorneys’ fees.”

See full DID coverage of the decision, and the road ahead, updated to include the full text decision, released on June 25/08. There are reports that the USAF may attempt to bull this one through, and someone fully committed to that side might believe this to be a realistic possibility given the full text decision. DID is not optimistic about the realism of that approach, however, and explains why not with reference to the GAO rulings.

GAO sustains protest, program will be restructured and re-competed

June 25/08: Defense Tech reports that:

“John Young, the Pentagon’s acquisition czar, has reportedly drafted a letter for the four congressional committees that oversee defense spending and policy informing them of the Pentagon’s decision to go ahead and award the contract to Northrop Grumman… “Their finding is that the full document is quite different from the summary,” issued last Wednesday, said a source familiar with the issue. The source said Air Force leaders believe much of what was challenged is “procedural” and can be resolved without rebidding the deal.”

June 23/08: Aviation Week reports that outbound U.S. Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne says the service may have to “reshape and revise” the request for proposals (RFP) for a new refueling tanker competition. One new criterion under consideration may be a flyoff of the dueling designs.

June 12/08: Aviation Week reports that Rep. Norm Dicks [D-WA], whose constituency is closely tied to Boeing, says he is working with House defense appropriations chairman John Murtha [D-PA] to introduce an amendment to an appropriations bill preventing the KC-X award to Northrop Grumman and EADS Airbus.

He pledges to do “whatever it takes,” regardless of the outcome of the GAO’s ruling later this month. Any GAO ruling would be non-biding, which is why the outcome of the tanker contract (continuation, repeal, or forced split) will eventually be decided in Congress no matter what; the GAO report’s primary value will be as an influencer in that debate.

April 21/08: Reuters reports that the USAF met last week with Boeing and Northrop Grumman’s CEOs “to voice concern about the “vitriolic” tone of public statements over a $35 billion refueling aircraft program.” Particular concern was expressed regarding Boeing’s allegations of irregularities in the USAF’s process. Defense analyst Loren Thompson, of the Virginia-based Lexington Institute went so far as to say that: “The tone of the tanker debate has turned so negative that Air Force leaders are concerned that it could damage their long-term relationship with Boeing.”

Given trends in the industry and this protest’s intrinsic requirements, the question may not be whether relationship damage is acceptable. It may be how much damage is acceptable. See “USAF to Boeing, NGC: “Don’t Make Us Come Back There” for more.

April 11/08: Boeing claims that USAF evaluators found that the KC-767 tanker had almost 5 times as many survivability discriminators as the KC-30B, with 24 positive discriminators (11 major, 13 minor) while the KC-30 scored 5 minor discriminators.

Some of Boeing’s major discriminators reportedly included more robust surface-to-air missile defense systems; Cockpit displays that improve situational awareness; Better Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) hardening; Automatic route planning/ rerouting and steering cues to the flight crew to avoid threats once they are detected; Better armor-protection features for the crew and critical aircraft systems; and Better fuel-tank-explosion protection features. Boeing release.

April 10/08: Congressman Duncan Hunter [R-CA-52], ranking Republican member of the House Armed Services Committee, recommends a 3rd option:

“The most remarkable aspect of the recent competition for the next Air Force refueling tanker contract was the absence of the best aircraft: the Boeing KC-777. The CEO of FedEx, Fred Smith, had it right when he briefed Members of Congress… one of the most compelling factors is the fuel offload of the KC-777 ER (with additional under floor body tanks) at 2,000 nautical miles… nearly three times as much as the “winning” A330. …the KC-777-200 carries 30% more fuel and 62% more cargo than the A330. And when you compare payload, passenger and aero-medical evacuation capability, the KC-777 is the clear winner at 39% more payload, 94 more passengers and 30 more patients than the A330.

… at $40 billion plus, the dollars associated with the “tanker buy” are huge. And the profits reaped from the sale will be available for reinvestment by the winning competitor for new generations of aircraft… The tanker competition is subject to the authorization and appropriation of dollars. The taxpayers, should, through their elected representatives, make the KC-777 the next Air Force tanker.”

April 8/08: Dueling ads. Northrop Grumman begins to respond in detail to Boeing’s assertions re: the USAF evaluations in the “Why We Won” ongoing series:

Mission Capability | Versatility | Greater Range | Takeoff Performance (can take off with more fuel load from a 7,000 foot runway) | Fuel Offload | Air Refueling Efficiency | Past Performance | Cost and Price Comparison | Fleet Effectiveness | Development Cost | Survivability (“The Air Force had to balance survivability against other capabilities, criteria and cost…”) | Key Selection Criteria | Strengths and Weaknesses | Past Performance in Detail | Superior Air Refueling.

April 3/08: Northrop Grumman Corporation launches the website “America’s New Tanker” as a potential centerpiece of its lobbying efforts. The NGC release adds:

“Citizens across the nation have generated tens of thousands of letters to their respective congressman, senators and governors in support of the Air Force’s selection of Northrop Grumman to provide the KC-45 Tanker. The website also offers a capability that enables visitors to receive e-mail news updates about the program.”

As media efforts go, the site is currently a very bare bones affair, with a single page of content, a sign-up page for email updates, and a form letter generator to Congress. It is ahead of Being’s comparable efforts, however.

April 2/08: The USA’s Congressional Government Accountability Office denies denied requests from Northrop Grumman and the U.S. Air Force to throw out Boeing’s protest of the KC-X deal. By law, the GAO has 100 days from the day of complaint to determine if that complaint has merit.

While Northrop Grumman refers to streamlining of Boeing’s protest in its release, Boeing took a very different position. Tanker program spokesman Bill Barksdale said categorically that “We’re not reducing anything… We’re not eliminating anything.” Defense News | Northrop Grumman release.

March 27/08: Britain. FSTA signed in Britain. Britain signs a GBP 13 billion (currently about $26 billion), 27-year public-private partnership deal with the AirTanker consortium, who will deliver 14 A330-200 MRTT aerial tankers and operate them over the life of the contract. This is the largest-ever Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contract in the defense realm, anywhere in the world.

The A330 MRTT/ KC-30 had been Britain’s platform choice since 2006, when it beat a KC-767 offer from Boeing and Serco. The British planes will rely entirely on 3 hose-and-drogue systems, however; unlike the KC-45A, or other A330 MRTT wins, they will not carry a refueling boom for use with dorsal refueling inlets. Britain’s aircraft carry refueling probes for use with the hose-and-drogue method, and eliminating the boom simplifies civilian use of FSTA aircraft when the RAF doesn’t need them.

March 24/08: B311344 Protest of the Boeing Company: Second Supplemental Protest [PDF format, Public Redacted Version]

March 13/08: Boeing launches its Tanker Facts protest blog.

March 12/08: The Lexington Institute offers “Boeing Fights Back: How it Plans to Prevail,” explaining Boeing’s strategy as they see it.

March 10/08: Boeing announces that it will file a formal protest on March 11/08, asking the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review the KC-X decision. Boeing chairman & CEO Jim McNerney called it:

“…an extraordinary step rarely taken by our company, and one we take very seriously… we continue to believe we submitted the most capable, lowest risk, lowest Most Probable Life Cycle Cost airplane as measured against the Air Force’s Request for Proposal. We look forward to the GAO’s review of the decision.”

Interesting choice of claims. Boeing said it would provide additional details of its case in conjunction with the protest filing. Boeing release | DID’s “Boeing on KC-X: “Methinks We Doth Protest to You” has fuller details re: the protest grounds.

Boeing files a protest

March 7/08: The U.S. Air Force has completed its debrief for Boeing – amd Boeing appears to be getting ready for a formal protest/ challenge. Mark McGraw, Boeing vice president and program manager of the KC-767 tanker:

“We spent several hours with Air Force leaders, listening and probing, all in an effort to better understand the reasoning behind their decisions… While we are grateful for the timely debriefing, we left the room with significant concerns about the process in several areas, including program requirements related to capabilities, cost and risk; evaluation of the bids and the ultimate decision. What is clear now is that reports claiming that the Airbus offering won by a wide margin could not be more inaccurate… Our plan now is to work through the weekend to come to a decision on our course of action early next week,” said McGraw. “It will be a very rigorous and deliberative process to ensure we’re balancing the needs of the warfighter with our desire to be treated fairly. For decades Boeing has been recognized as a defense company that never takes lightly protests of our customers’ decisions.”

March 6/08: The Lexington Institute discusses the KC-X competition’s ratings, and claims that the evaluation wasn’t even close. DID explains why their claim might be believable when even Boeing hasn’t been debriefed yet, and goes on to summarize and annotate their comments while pointing back to the original source. Read: “KC-X: Rating the Contenders.”

March 6/08: The USAF originally said that Boeing wouldn’t be debriefed until around March 12th, but Boeing wasn’t happy with that. The briefing has now been moved up to an unspecified earlier date. Bloomberg news | Boeing release.

March 5/08: Northrop Grumman enters the lobbying fray to counter critics of the deal. The US industrial base, jobs, foreign content, and foreign supplier risk are all addressed. The points made echo Sen. Richard Shelby’s [R-AL] earlier points, though the firm changed the words “insource jobs” to “create jobs,” in order to avoid getting Airbus in trouble for the flip side of insourcing, which is outsourcing jobs from France. Readers should also note that the Joint Cargo Aircraft competition they refer to was a contest between 2 European aircraft: Alenia’s winning C-27J Spartan, and EADS-CASA’s C-295. NGC release | Sen. Richard Shelby statement.

March 4/08: EADS announces the first in-flight “wet contact” that transferred fuel via the EADS Air Refuelling Boom System (ARBS). The A310 test aircraft was partnered with Portuguese Air force F-16s at an altitude of 27,000 feet, locking down one of the last milestones in ARBS’ development.

The boom is 17 meters long at full extension and allows the transfer of 2270 litres/minute (1200 US gal/min). The fly-by-wire boom is controlled remotely from a console in the cockpit, where an operator uses an advanced technology 3 dimensional visual system to steer the boom, rather than using direct visual contact from the plane’s rear.

March 4/08: Taxpayers for Common Sense reports on the lobbying dollars spent to date on the KC-X RFP by both sides. DID looks at the totals, and wonders if that’s the most useful question. Perhaps a better question would be: how well was that money spent? Read “The KC-X Tanker Deal: Tracking the Lobbyists.”

March 3/08: A release from House Speaker Pelosi’s office [D-CA] says that the award to Airbus “raises serious questions that Congress must examine thoroughly… Given the ramifications of this decision for the United States, the Air Force must explain to Congress how it meets the long-term needs of our military and the American people.” The tone is not friendly, and answers to be sought during the battle on Capitol Hill include:

• “What are the national security implications of using an aircraft supplied by a foreign firm for this essential mission?”
  
• “Were the risks associated with choosing a conceptual design over a proven capability properly assessed?”
  
• “Was sufficient consideration given to the impact of the contract award on jobs in America and on our technological base?”

Both Sen. Hilary Clinton [D-NY] and Sen. Barack Obama [D-IL, where Boeing is a major presence] have expressed opposition to the award, though neither has committed to ending the deal as part of their Presidential campaigns. Republican Presidential Candidate Sen. John McCain [R-AZ] has reserved judgment, saying:

“Having investigated the [KC-767] tanker lease scandal a few years ago, I have always insisted that the Air Force buy major weapons through fair and open competition. I will be interested to learn how the Air Force came to its contract award decision here… I’ve never believed that defense programs, that the major reason for them should be to create jobs… I’ve always felt that the best thing to do is to create the best weapons system we can at minimum cost to taxpayers.”

Feb 29/08: Airbus wins. After all the studies, the lobbying, and the proposal refinements, the USAF picked a winner. The A330 MRTT/ KC-30B from Northrop Grumman and EADS Airbus will now become the USAF’s next aerial tanker – if the USAF can make its decision stick:

Northrop Grumman Corp. of Los Angeles, CA won a cost plus incentive/award fee, fixed-price incentive, firm-fixed-price contract for the newly-named KC-45. This contract is awarded after full and open bidding, and provides for the system design and development of 4 test aircraft for $1.5 billion. This contract also includes 5 production options targeted for 64 aircraft at $10.6 billion. At this time no funds have been obligated. The Aeronautical Systems Center at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH issued the contract (FA8625-08-C-6451).

Follow-on procurement of 110 production aircraft will be split into several production lots per usual procedure; the USAF has estimated their value at $35 billion over 25 years, plus additional costs for sustainment and support. The news even came as a bit of a shock to EADS’ CEO. The Financial Times of London reports that:

“As recently as Friday afternoon the EADS team had been convinced that Boeing would take the contract. Mr Gallois, about to leave Paris for a mountain holiday, said he had simply not believed his ears when informed at 10.25pm local time last night.”

Gallois is also quoted as saying “no, we didn’t smash the price,” in response to questions re: the common tactic by Airbus of slashing their margins to win sales. Aerospace analyst Steve East at Credit Suisse was less convinced, and recommended “sell into strength” on the grounds that the deal may not generate significant profits for EADS. Per this article’s Jan 14/08 entry about moving A300F production to the USA, Airbus CEO Tom Enders added that:

“All 4 System Design and Development aircraft are already in production. Preparatory work is now underway for our commitment to co-locate the final assembly of the tankers and A330 civilian freighter aircraft at Mobile, Alabama, creating the first new large commercial aircraft assembly facility in the U.S. in over 40 years.”

Gen. Arthur J. Lichte, commander of US Air Mobility Command, said that the Northrop/EADS KC-30 had been chosen because it offered “more cargo, more fuel offload, more passengers and more availability.” The USAF took pains to stress the degree of rigor in the selection process, and the importance of the contract, in hopes of forestalling a protest. Whether or not a protest is forthcoming from Boeing, however, there will almost certainly be a pitched battle on Capitol Hill. The USAF has worked to prepare for that likelihood with a $240 million Tanker Transfer Fund that could be spent during a protest.

A split-buy is the most likely proposal in the political arena, given both past tendencies in Congress and the political leanings of the states most affected, which tend to lean more toward the Democratic Party in Boeing’s case, and more toward the Republican Party in EADS/Northrop’s case. On the other hand, the USAF strenuously opposes a split buy, both for reasons of delay (estimated at 18-24 months) and of future operations and maintenance inefficiencies. As they say in the airlines: “We are expecting turbulence ahead. Please fasten your seatbelts.” USAF | EADS | Northrop Grumman | Cobham plc [PDF] | Boeing | Financial Times of London | Reuters | Infodefensa [Espanol] | Seattle Post-Intelligencer | Seattle Times | Times of Malta | Wichita Eagle (round-up of official statements, incl. politicians & unions) | Aviation Week (USAF’s fund) | AP, via Boston.com (Pratt & Whitney loses) | Seattle P-I (Gen. Mosely re: protest prospects) | Seattle P-I (inquiry possible) | USA Today (“How Boeing blew the deal…”, cites Northrop’s political lobbying) Wichita Business Journal (lawmakers will protest).

A330 / KC-45 wins

Japan’s KC-767s
(click to view full)

Feb 20/08: Boeing announces delivery of the first KC-767 tanker to its Japanese partner Itochu Corp., which landed at Gifu, Japan, near Nagoya following a final review by Japan Ministry of Defense (MoD) Air Staff. Itochu will deliver the KC-767 Tanker to the Japanese MoD in March 2008, following in-country acceptance processes.

Feb 13/08: Boeing announces that its KC-767J has received a Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) from the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The FAA previously certified the KC-767 for everything except passengers and main deck cargo, and this additional certification clears the way for Japan to receive its first 2 of 4 KC-767s as planned. It will also help Boeing obtain FAA certification for Italy’s KC-767s, and deliver their first 2 tankers later in 2008. George Hildebrand, Boeing KC-767 Japan program manager, said that:

“The Japan Air Self-Defense Force asked us to complete passenger and main deck cargo certifications beyond what is normally performed on military aircraft, and we have received our FAA STC for those capabilities.”

Feb 12/08: Let the political lobbying begin! Defense News reports that the Pentagon is delaying the KC-X’s Defense Acquisition Board review slated for Feb 13/08, owing to “inquiries from the Hill and elsewhere” about the program. No date has been set, but Lawmakers’ lingering questions about the service’s KC-X program prompted Pentagon acquisition officials to postpone a Defense Acquisition Board review slated for Feb. 13, said James Finley, deputy undersecretary of defense for acquisition and technology, still anticipates a KC-X award by the end of February 2008. Time will tell.

Feb 7/08: Aero News Network notes that “Boeing, EADS Employ ‘Guerilla’ Marketing For KC-X“:

“Tactics employed by both parties include “sending blast e-mails to reporters and trade journals widely read by Air Force officials and by advertising in specialty publications, on buses and subways and local radio stations,” reports The Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Special publications aimed at Congressional staff and leaders in Washington, such as “The Hill,” have been on the receiving end of full page ads from both parties (as have ANN inboxes — Ed.) Radio airwaves and Metro subway stops are also not immune to the fight for the estimated $40 billion contract.”

Jan 30/08: Defense Aerospace reports that the late March 2008 delivery of 2 KC-767s to Japan represents an additional 2-month slippage, as Boeing must still complete remaining Federal Aviation Administration certifications to allow the tanker to carry passengers and cargo before Japan will accept the planes. The March 2008 delivery is about 3 years later than initially planned.

Delivery of 2 similar aircraft to Italy will now take place in the Q2 2008, about 2 years later than planned. As annoying as these delays have been to its customers, the key question for Boeing now is whether these delays have sufficed to iron out the KC-767’s technical risks in advance of the much larger American KC-X competition.

Jan 29/08: Boeing announces a successful night-time refueling mission, using the main refueling boom on a KC-767 that will be delivered to Japan early in 2008. The aircrew connected the KC-767s’s fly-by-wire, remote vision refueling boom to an F-15E Strike Eagle 11 times during dusk and night conditions, and successfully offloaded fuel before returning safely. Airbus’ KC-30 competitor has yet to perform a ‘wet’ boom refueling, even during the day.

Right now, however, Boeing’s biggest technical risk factor is its hose-and-drogue system, not its boom. Boeing release.

Jan 28/08: EADS is also conducting testing, using A330/KC-30B MRTT aircraft destined for Australia, an F/A-18 fighter, and an A310 tanker equipped with EADS’ ARBS advanced refueling boom. During testing with the F/A-18 fighter, the KC-30 Tanker’s all-digital FRL 905E-series hose-and-drogue refueling pods deployed to lengths of 75, 82, and 90 feet during multiple deployments at altitudes from 10,000 – 35,000 feet, at airspeeds ranging from 180 – 300 knots, while in level flight and while banking. The Sargent Fletcher FRL 905E reportedly “exhibited total and complete stability, which is critical for successful refueling of probe-equipped receiver aircraft.” Nevertheless, EADS’ biggest technical risk factor is its advanced refueling boom, which is required by many USAF aircraft.

Testing also took place regarding EADS’ advanced ARBS refueling boom, which was extended to various points throughout the refueling envelope as the Australian A330 MRTT moved to within 6″ of the all-electric fly-by-wire boom to test its suitability for large aircraft. “In the next few days, the [KC-30/A330 MRTT’s] Civil Certification flight tests with the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) are scheduled to be performed.”

It should be noted that neither the hose-and-drogue test, nor the refueling boom test, involved actual contact, let alone a ‘wet contact’ refueling. Unlike its Boeing competitor, the ARBS refueling boom has yet to demonstrate contact with a large aircraft, or actually passed fuel to any aircraft. EADS release | EADS North America release.

Jan 16/08: The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAMAW) throws its support behind Boeing’s KC-X bid, citing the WTO case re: European government subsidies, 40%+ production in Europe, and recent scandals involving insider trading and foreign practices.

“The IAM fundamentally believes in fair competition in government contracting. But fair competition means that all vendors must play by the rules. Yet all available evidence – including a consistent bipartisan chorus from the Congress and our US Trade Representative – indicates that Northrop’s majority partner, EADS, continues to skirt the rules of fair play at the expense of US jobs.”

Whatever one may thing of the substantive merits of these objections, the IAMAW will be a factor re: support once the battle shifts to Congress. As it surely will. Aero News story.

Jan 15/08: The Lexington Institute think-tank looks at the KC-X competition once more, and explains why they believe the USAF already has a very good idea of who the winner is. They add:

“Beyond the operational merits of the two planes, a political minefield lies ahead for the Air Force and whichever contractor it selects. If the Northrop plane wins, buy-America sentiment will surge on Capitol Hill, potentially blocking a purchase. If the Boeing plane wins, legislators from the South whose region stood to benefit from tanker assembly will seek to split the buy between both teams. The Air Force will get its tanker in the end, but which contractor benefits may ultimately come down to a test of political skills, and there is no guarantee new tankers will reach the fleet before old ones begin failing.”

Jan 14/08: Readers may recall Airbus CEO Louis Gallois’ comments about setting up “in a dollar zone” (see Dec 3/07 entry). Now Airbus announces that it will establish an A330 Freighter aircraft final assembly line (FAL) in Mobile, AL if its KC-30 team wins. The A330F currently has an order book of over 66 aircraft, and production capacity would be increased to 4 aircraft per month in order to handle civilian construction as well. Aircraft sections would be delivered to Mobile from their respective Airbus production facilities elsewhere in the world, assembled into the final freighter aircraft, and delivered to customers from Mobile, AL. EADS CEO Thomas Enders was careful to make the offer conditional on a KC-X win, however, claiming that:

“The Dollar-Euro exchange rate makes it advantageous for us to expand our operations in the United States. While it would be difficult to overcome the cost of building a final assembly line in the U.S. strictly for commercial aircraft, it would make good economic sense to invest the incremental cost of expanding the facility that would already exist for assembling tanker aircraft.”

That rationale may or may not be exactly true, given that Airbus is said to lose $1 billion every time the USD-EUR exchange rate drops 10 cents, and its dollarized customer contracts must be met with Euro production costs. New commercial aircraft assembly facilities are not a common occurrence for the industry, however, and this would be the first Airbus manufacturing facility in the U.S. By proposing the A330F, Airbus takes advantage of the dollar, offers added civilian work that helps it close the American jobs gap with Boeing’s KC-767, and blunts “Buy American” moves. The A330F is a less popular model than the A330 passenger variants, however, and the move also hopes to provoke less reaction in Europe as a result. earlier version of the EADS release at Defence Aerospace.

Jan 14/08: Boeing takes the unusual step of releasing the Conklin & de Decker Aviation Information study that led to the cost savings claims in its Jan 3/08 release. Specifically, the study measures:

“…the additional fuel consumption and the resulting extra cost incurred by a fleet of 179 Airbus 330-200 when compared with the Boeing 767-200ER where both fly similar commercial mission profiles, both fly 750 hours per year over a 40 year service life and both are operated at or near their maximum take-off gross weight. Take off at or near the maximum take off gross weight reflects the fact that aircraft on a tanker mission tend to take off with as much fuel as possible to permit the greatest mission flexibility.”

Note, however, that operating cost per plane is very different from operating cost per mission; the latter must also factor in the number of planes and flights required to complete that mission (likely Airbus advantage), the flight routes and distances they must fly given basing options (likely Boeing advantage), et. al. Release | Full Report [PDF]

Jan 3/07: Boeing announces that it has submitted its final bid for the KC-X program. Its release is unusually direct and specific in its comparisons, something Boeing has shied away from in the past:

“Boeing’s tanker also will carry three times more cargo and passengers than the KC-135 without sacrificing the operational flexibility delivered by a medium-sized aircraft. In contrast, the competitor’s offering would be the second largest aircraft in the Air Force’s inventory and provide unnecessary capacity… Burning 24 percent less fuel than its competitor, the KC-767 will save the service and American taxpayer an estimated $14.6 billion. The KC-767 also will save approximately $4 billion if selected since it costs 22 percent less to maintain than its competitor.”

Jan 3/08: Northrop Grumman announces that it has submitted its final bid for the KC-X program, in partnership with EADS Airbus. In contrast to other releases, this one is understated in terms of comparisons with the KC-767.

ARBS connects
(click to view full)

Dec 18/07: Northrop Grumman announces an extension of USAF Air Mobility Command’s Consolidated Air Mobility Planning System (CAMPS) contract. This software is used to plan, manage, and track AMC’s aircraft, providing an overall view of where its transports and tankers are and where their missions plans are taking them. NGC has served as CAMPS’ primary contractor for 15 years, and they are partnered with Mosaic, Inc. of Oak Hill, VA.

Together, they will continue maintaining and upgrading CAMPS software, providing on-site customer support and training, and software and hardware fielding support. The team is also charged with implementing a service-oriented, scalable and expandable architecture; network-centric data solutions; develop software in accordance with Air Mobility Command enterprise requirements; and provide a scalable and expandable architecture, Web applications, and consistent access across the Defense Department.

Dec 5/07: The EADS Aerial Refueling Boom System (ARBS) performs its first in-flight contacts with an aircraft. The initial refueling contacts used the advanced ARBS installed on an A310 testbed aircraft, which conducted multiple boom hook-ups with an F-16 receiver aircraft flying at 27,000 feet. The ARBS’ 40 foot boom was deployed to its operational length and inserted into the F-16 receiver aircraft’s dorsal refueling receptacle. Note that this was a “dry contact” that did not transfer fuel in the air – as Boeing’s KC-767 did back in January 2007.

ARBS uses fly-by-wire technology and an automatic load alleviation system for enhanced controllability, and can offload up to 1,200 gallons of fuel per minute. Today’s flight test was the 60th for the boom, totaling more than 160 flight hours. ARBS will equip Australia’s 5 KC-30B MRTT tankers, the UAE’s 3 A330 MRTT aircraft, and the similar KC-30/ FSTA aircraft offered to the US and Britain. EADS release | NGC release.

Dec 3/07: EADS Airbus CEO Louis Gallois calls for increased American production of Airbus aircraft, in response to the business problem of build costs in Euros and buyer contracts in US dollars. Reportedly, every 10 cent drop in the US dollar costs EADS over $1 billion. His statements provoke a reaction in France. Can Airbus do it? And if they can, would the offered US content level in Airbus’ KC-X bid be the first place one might see those indications?

Read “Cost Pressures Force European Aerospace to Look Outside Europe.”

Nov 29/07: A Boeing release conveys the fact that its KC-767s still have some loose ends to tie up. While Boeing recently flight tested a newly designed pylon that attaches the Wing Air Refueling Pod (WARP) to each Italian KC-767 tanker wing, and completed Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) certification testing for the KC-767 mission control system, other tasks remain:

“In the months ahead, Boeing will transfer fuel to a receiver aircraft using the Italian KC-767 WARP and centerline Hose Drum Unit (HDU) refueling systems, accomplish night refueling on the Japan tanker using the fifth-generation boom with upgraded software and complete any remaining FAA certifications.”

As of Jan 3/08, when both competitors announced the submission of their final bids, Boeing had yet to pass fuel to a flying aircraft from its WARP pods, or accomplish night refueling with its advanced boom. Meanwhile, its KC-30 competitor has yet to pass fuel to a flying aircraft at all from its own EADS ARBS advanced refueling boom.

Nov 23/07: Gen. Arthur Lichte, the commander of USAF Air Mobility Command, places the stakes behind this contract in perspective, and discusses past aerial tanker program issues, as he addressed the Logistics Officer Association. He said that it currently costs $8.5 million per year to keep 85 unflyable KC-135s maintained per Congressional rules, and added that even if the first KC-X aircraft is delivered on time in 2011, and 15 a year are delivered after that, the last KC-135 will leave the fleet in 2048, at an age of about 87 years. However, if the program runs into any problems and slips by just 3 years, and Air Force officials are unable to procure 15 aircraft a year, the last KC-135 could retire in the year 2082, when it would be more than 120 years old.

“AMC Commander Discusses: KC-X, C-5 Programs” takes a critical look at the calculations involved, and notes the General’s other statements concerning failed KC-10 modernization programs and the C-5M refurbishment program.

Italian KC-767A
(click to view full)

Nov 23/07: A Defense News report points to the refueling booms as a potential risk issue for the KC-X program:

“The new refueling boom for the KC-30 has been installed on the Australian version of the plane but remains untested. And only after an expensive two years of re-engineering has Boeing solved aerodynamic problems with the underwing refueling pylons on tankers for the Italian air force, the same version of the plane being offered to the U.S. air service.”

Nov 20/07: The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports that the USAF has delayed its choice again, and now plans to award the contract in February 2008 at the earliest, instead of January. Sue Payton, the Air Force’s top acquisition official, said that final proposals aren’t expected until December 2007 or January 2008:

“We are giving [Boeing and NGC/Airbus] every opportunity to substantiate how they are going to improve their weaknesses and mitigate risk… We will not award the tanker until we are absolutely positive we have assessed all of their inputs and they have given us their best and final offer… I cannot say that we are going to get this done in January. I think we are looking more at the February time frame…”

Nov 19/07: If the Airbus KC-30 is selected, it will fly with upgraded GE engines. Recently, Finnair selected GE’s CF6-80E1 engines to power their A330-300s, incorporating the Tech CF6 program’s new high-pressure turbine upgrade. Since the KC-30 also plans to use this engine, and has a later delivery schedule, the USAF would also receive Tech CF6 engines.

GE launched the Tech CF6 program in 2006; its new technologies include high-pressure turbine airfoil cooling advancements that will enhance operational reliability, lower maintenance costs and improve fuel burn retention. Tech CF6 enhancements will be standard on CF6-80E1 production engines beginning in mid-2008. GE release.

Oct 11/07: Boeing announces a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with Cobham plc subsidiary Sargent Fletcher, Inc. of El Monte, CA, to provide the body fuel tank system for the KC-767 Advanced Tanker (AT). Mark McGraw, vice president, Boeing Tanker Programs said that: “With these body fuel tanks, the KC-767’s usable fuel capacity exceeds what the U.S. Air Force requires. Sargent Fletcher’s system extends the KC-767’s range and off-load capacity without sacrificing size.”

Boeing’s choice of Sargent Fletcher followed a best-value source selection process that focused on technical readiness, price and supportability. The MOA provides the terms under which Sargent Fletcher may be awarded subcontracts for the fuel tank system if the KC-767AT is selected in the U.S. Air Force’s KC-X tanker competition. Boeing release.

Oct 2/07: Northrop Grumman Corporation announces that it has selected Melbourne, FL-based BRPH Companies, Inc. to lead a multi-firm team to design the KC-30 Production Center in at Mobile’s Brookley Industrial complex, directly adjacent to EADS’ Final Assembly Line where the A330 airframe will be assembled and flight-tested.

BRPH is leading a team consisting of KBR’s Mobile, AL office and Thompson Engineering, which is headquartered in Mobile. The team will design the production facility, and will also provide ongoing technical support throughout construction if and when it goes ahead.

FY 2007

Bidding teams, submissions. X-48B BWB
(click to view full)

Sept 25/07: A BWB for KC-Y? Boeing may have a game-changer up its sleeve for stage 2. The US Air Force Association’s Air Force Magazine reports that:

“Boeing is hoping to have its Blended Wing Body X-48 demonstrator technology ready in time to compete for the Air Force’s second big buy of aerial refueling replacement aircraft, slated for about 2020 and dubbed KC-Y. (The service plans a three-phase replacement effort, starting with the current KC-X competition and followed by KC-Y and KC-Z.) A subscale BWB demonstrator with a 21-foot wingspan recently flew, and Boeing said full-size types could fill a wide variety of passenger, cargo, or tanker functions. It expects to be able to make a proposal on a full-size tanker by about 2015. Besides offering far more internal volume than today’s tube and wing configurations, a BWB tanker could also fly with two refueling booms, doubling the speed at which USAF aircraft could gas up. The program is teaching Boeing how to build rectangular pressure vessels versus the standard tubes and about the BWB flight control laws. However, the BWB would not be a candidate for a long-range strike aircraft. With three engines mounted on top of the rear of the aircraft, it wouldn’t be very stealthy. The placement of the engines does make it quieter than today’s airliners and cargo aircraft, says Boeing.”

Sept 25/07: A Flight International report says that Northrop Grumman will switch KC-X airframes from the Airbus A330-200 converted passenger model to the A330-200F freighter model. The current proposal adds a cargo door and localized strengthening to the upper floor of the A330-200, because the A330-200F had not received a launch customer, and would have increased the cost of the original bid. “I think [the switch to the freighter model] is inevitable, but right now it’s not in our proposal,” says Paul Meyer, Northrop’s vice-president and general manager for the KC-30 program.

GE, who had declined to offer an engine for the A330-200F, might be the biggest winner of any switch. Winning the KC-X contract would mean that the USAF would pay GE to certify their engine on the freighter, effectively re-introducing it as an option for civilian A330-200F models alongside P&W and Rolls Royce engines.

Sept 25/07: Advance production and the promise of early delivery worked very well for EADS Eurocopter’s EC145 in the US Army’s LUH competition. Along similar lines, Team KC-30 announces that the first KC-30 Tanker aircraft, successfully executed a nearly 4-hour flight after completing assembly in less than 75 days. “The aircraft will be ready for installation of refueling and military systems in November… and will be the first aircraft delivered to the U.S. Air Force if the Northrop Grumman team is awarded the KC-X contract.”

Aug 30/07: Boeing announces that the Japan Air Self-Defense Force’s (JASDF) first KC-767 Tanker has resumed flight testing following the completion of scheduled ground modification work. See release for details.

Aug 23/07: Northrop Grumman announces that EADS’ advanced Aerial Refueling Boom System (ARBS) has successfully completed ground-based electrostatic discharge tests, which ensure that the boom and its fly-by-wire control system will not malfunction if an electrostatic current is created during contact with a receiver aircraft. Electrostatic build-up can occur on any airplane because of in-flight atmospheric conditions.

The tests involved an instantaneous electrical charge of 200,000 volts on the boom’s nozzle, and were performed with a fully functional ARBS installed on an Airbus A310 demonstrator aircraft.

Aug 8/07: KC-Y and KC-Z. The US Air Force Association’s Air Force Magazine reports that:

“About 2023, the Air Force plans to contract for a second batch of tankers, dubbed KC-Y, and in 2033, it goes for the third or KC-Z batch, ultimately retiring all KC-135s along the way. At no time are tanker purchases expected to exceed $3 billion a year in current dollars; that’s all the Air Force expects to be able to spend… For that money, the service expects to be able to buy between 12 and 18 per year, replacing the entire tanker fleet over 40 years.”

Aug 6/07: USAF acquisition chief Sue Payton is quoted in the Financial Times of London as saying that splitting the deal for an initial 80 tankers would prove too costly:

“Because we are trying to do so much, we don’t have the money upfront that it would take to carry two or three [tankers] through development and then into procurement.”

Aug 3/07: Reuters reports that Jacques Gansler, a defense undersecretary for acquisitions during the Clinton administration who is now at the University of Maryland, has issued a study arguing that the USAF could save up to 30% on the KC-X program with a split buy. His point of comparison is the successful PW F100/ GE F110 dual fighter engine program for F-16s, and now F-15s as well. Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute notes that the study refers only to procurement costs, however, not development costs or maintenance & operations. Gansler described himself as an independent third party, but his study is partially funded by EADS, which views a split-buy as a certain smaller win vs. a larger potential win against much higher odds.

At the same time, USAF Lt. Gen. Donald Hoffman told the US House Armed Services’ air-land subcommittee that changing the winner-take-all strategy now would delay the contract by 12 to 18 months, and would double the cost of development to $4 billion.

June 12/07: The first militarized KC-30B MRTT is rolled out. The rollout clears the way for a series of flight validation tests, including refueling contacts with a variety of receiver aircraft, prior to the KC-30B’s delivery to the Royal Australian Air Force’s 33 Squadron.

May 7/07: USAF Link’s “Air Force officials evaluating KC-X proposals” describes the staffing, acquisition system, and some of the mechanisms that the USAF has set up to get through the KC-X acquisition process… and protect it from challenges later on.

April 12/07: Boeing successfully extends and retracts the left and right Wing Aerial Refueling Pod (WARP) hose-and-drogue refueling systems for the first time. The flight marks the beginning of a series of in-flight tests –at various speeds and altitudes –that will demonstrate the hose’s stability and result in using the WARP hoses to offload fuel to various aircraft. That last test hasn’t happened yet, however, and the competition’s KC-30s use more mature and tested technology.

KC-X tankers, and the Italian KC-767As will carry both a refueling boom that works with most USAF aircraft and fits into the aircraft’s back, and a hose-and-drogue system favored by the US Navy and a number of NATO countries. When using the WARPs, the tanker aircraft trails a hose from either wing with a drogue (basket) attached to the end. The receiver aircraft uses a probe to connect to the basket and take on valuable fuel. When fully functional, the KC-767’s WARPs can offload 400 gallons of fuel per minute each. Boeing release.

April 17/07: Boeing adds Delta TechOps, a division of Delta Air Lines, to their bid team as a provider of parts support and fleet management services for the KC-767 Advanced Tanker. As a result, Delta TechOps becomes eligible to supply interim contractor support for commercial aircraft parts if Boeing is awarded the U.S. Air Force KC-X Tanker contract.

April 11/07: Boeing announces their bid submission, and touts their key selling points. Note the length of the bid…

“The 7,000-page KC-X proposal describes a tanker uniquely designed for its primary air refueling mission, but also capable of moving cargo, passengers, patients and medical crewmembers…Right-sized to enable access to 1,000 more bases than the KC-135, this robust aircraft allows commanders to deploy more tankers, ensures more booms are in the sky, covers more refueling orbits and offloads more fuel.

The Boeing KC-767 Advanced Tanker will be designed, built and supported by 44,000 Americans and 300 U.S. suppliers and save taxpayers nearly $10 billion in fuel costs compared to the competitor. Boeing will produce the tanker at its facilities in Everett, Wash., on the existing commercial line where it has built more than 950 highly reliable and maintainable 767s. Installation of military refueling systems and flight test activities will take place at the company’s finishing center in Wichita, Kan.”

April 10/07: Northrop Grumman and EADS announce their bid submission, and tout their key selling points:

“The competition to build the KC-X is as much a competition of vision as it is of aircraft,” said Scott J. Seymour, corporate vice president and president of Northrop Grumman Integrated Systems sector. “The KC-30 Tanker will provide our Air Force leaders and combatant commanders everything they have asked for in air-to-air refueling and more. More refueling capacity, more versatility against an uncertain future; more capability and more value per aircraft… Northrop Grumman’s KC-30 Tanker carries 45,000 more pounds of fuel than a KC-135, providing a significant boost to the U.S. Air Force’s global reach. The KC-30 is also designed to refuel Navy and coalition aircraft, and to serve as a multi-role transport aircraft to move passengers, cargo and medical evacuation patients.”

KC-30 Concept
(click to view full)

March 28/07: Northrop Grumman announced its full KC-30 team.

March 15/07: Some of the relevant excerpts from “DoD News Briefing With Undersecretary Of Defense For Acquisition, Technology And Logistics Mr. Ken Krieg From the Pentagon“:

“But we’ve spent a lot of time talking about, you know, how we, first of all, get the right capability… we especially wanted to make sure that our — the request for a proposal we put out there was for a product that we wanted, not for a product that ensured a competition, but for a product we wanted. And we worked a lot at that over the period, thinking about it not only from an Air Force perspective, but from a joint perspective as well. And I mean, I feel pretty good about where it came out. It was that transparent of a development of an RFP as one could ever expect…

Look, I’d always like a competition, but having to have a competition for something I don’t want is not of interest. And you always — you know, when you’re down to handfuls of suppliers on — you’re always working that balance… more competition is better than less competition, but to have to go to a competition for something you don’t want then sends you off into an environment you don’t want to be in either…

When we did the Mobility Capability Study… one of the conclusions we came to as we looked at alternatives in that space was that as the nation looked at a follow-on tanker, that if the price was right for doors and floors, that the agility that that would create in terms of being able to have additional palette capability, additional personnel capability, you’ll pick up some additional medical capability… additional flexibility in lift, that, you know, we didn’t do a cost-benefit… But in any sustaining operation, the capability to do palettes and people through more and varied types of airplanes was worth a fair amount. It wasn’t worth building a tanker for, but if you could get it for a reasonable investment, it made a lot of sense to do it because — oh, by the way, right now we’re sending lots of palettes to places around the world, lots of palettes to the theater, in particular. We’re moving lots of people back and forth. Some of that’s on commercial carriers, some of that’s on C-17s, some of that’s hopping on C-130s.

…it was very clear not in the first seven days of the conflict or the first limited engagement because at that time tankers are doing their tanker mission — I mean, that’s — we’re principally buying tankers to be tankers — but in a sustaining operation over time, the agility that being able to make them a cargo carrier — as long as you are trying to optimize the airplane as a cargo carrier — that that agility made a lot of sense inherently and analytically… putting pallets on a C-17 is extremely inefficient, just — I mean, it’s built for large cargo, not for pallets.”

Consider in light of the Lexington Institute’s November 2006 brief “Fate of Huge Tanker Program Could Hinge on Cargo Role.” Note, however, that Krieg is still performing the balancing act here. Implementation of his description can mean more tankers in the air to cover a larger number of tasks, with less cargo space and better short field performance to land in more places for delivery (KC-767), or fewer aircraft available, but with more cargo and/or fuel capacity per plane (KC-30).

March 12/07: Boeing reaches agreement with United Technologies subsidiary Pratt & Whitney on the price and terms under which it will supply its PW4062 engines to their KC-767 program. While GE’s CF6-80C2 engines power the Italian and Japanese KC-767s and many commercial models, Boeing announced in 2004 that the PW4062 would be its future platform choice for the USAF KC-767.

The PW4062 engines have between 52,000-62,000 pounds certified thrust; they also power A310-300 and A300-600 aircraft, the Boeing 747-400, 767-200/300s, and MD-11 commercial jets.

March 9/07: USAF Chief of Staff General Michael Moseley offers a CSAF’s Scope message to the Air Force re: The New Tanker:

“The KC-X, our new tanker, is our number one procurement priority. The single point of failure for an air bridge, the single point of failure for global ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance & Reconnaissance) and the single point of failure for global strike is the tanker. And this is not just an Air Force issue – it is a joint and coalition force issue as well. Tankers are crucial to the deployment and employment of joint and coalition combat power and are central to rapid response for humanitarian relief operations. Our KC-135 inventory has an average age of over 45 years, and all were delivered to the Air Force between November 1957 and December 1964 — seven years before I came on active duty!

It isn’t just the age of the aircraft that concerns me. They also suffer from corrosion, structural fatigue, and deterioration in wiring, fuel systems components, and ducting — all while operating at high OPTEMPO (OPerational TEMPO) in a time of war. We recently released our KC-X Request for Proposals, which asks industry to submit proposals that meet our strict tanker requirements. Even though we have started the replacement process, the mother of the last KC-135 pilot has not yet been born. With the funding currently planned it will take over 30 years to replace the entire KC-135 inventory. We can’t buy and field the KC-X fast enough.”

KC-767 & B-52H
(click to view full)

March 5-6/07: Boeing announces that an Italian KC-767 Tanker transferred fuel in flight from its advanced refueling boom to a B-52H bomber (10,000 pounds, March 5), and an F-15E fighter (5,500 pounds, March 6), under a cooperative research and development agreement with the U.S. Air Force.

EADS’ ARBS boom for the KC-30 has yet to meet this milestone, but its hose-and-drogue refueling technology is more reliable at present.

Feb 12/07: Boeing announces that it will offer the KC-767 Advanced Tanker for the U.S. Air Force’s KC-X Tanker competition. No 777 aircraft – just the 777 commercial digital flight deck in the USAF’s 767-200s. Their Global Tanker Team for the KC-767 includes Smiths Aerospace, Rockwell Collins, Vought Aircraft Industries, Honeywell and the newest member – Spirit AeroSystems. They are the largest airframe supplier to Airbus, manufacture the 767’s leading edges, and have contributed advanced tooling and other work to Boeing’s 777, 787 Dreamliner, and 737 Next Generation programs.

Feb 8/07: Northrop Grumman and EADS announce that they’ll bid on the program.

Jan 30/07: Lt. Gen. Donald Hoffman, the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, announced today the posting of the KC-X Aerial Refueling Aircraft Request for Proposal to the Federal Business Opportunities website, signaling the official launch of the Air Force’s #1 acquisition priority program. The release notes that “The KC-X program is the first of three acquisition programs the Air Force will need to replace the entire fleet of aging KC-135 Stratotankers…” The RFP stipulates 9 primary key performance parameters:

# Air refueling capability
# Fuel offload and range at least as great as the KC-135
# Compliant Communication, Navigation, Surveillance/Air Traffic Management (CNS/ATM) equipment
# Airlift capability
# Ability to take on fuel while airborne
# Sufficient force protection measures
# Ability to network into the information available in the battle space
# Survivability measures (defensive systems, Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) hardening, chemical/biological protection, etc)
# Provisioning for a multi-point refueling system to support Navy and Allied aircraft

The USAF says that final RFP defines an integrated, capability-based, best-value approach, and includes specific factors for assessing the capability contribution of each offeror, along with cost and assessments of past performance and proposal risk. DID’s initial reading is that the RFP does support “objective requirements” above the minimum. Does it set them high enough and weight them strongly enough to interest Airbus? We shall see. USAF release.

Jan 24/07: Boeing announces that its KC-767 Tanker used the fifth generation, fly-by-wire refueling boom for the first time, to make a series of aerial “dry contacts” with a B-52 bomber assigned to the Air Force Flight Test Center at Edwards Air Force Base, CA.

Both Boeing and EADS are offering advanced refueling booms, design to improve refueling control and visibility. Boeing’s advanced boom can transfer 900 gallons/ 3,400 liters of fuel per minute, uses advanced cameras to give the boom operator a better view, and automatically corrects its position to reduce potential damage to the receiver aircraft. With 2,600 fewer parts than previous booms, it also is easier to maintain.

As a point of comparison, EADS’ ARBS advanced refueling boom claims a capacity of 1,200 gallons/minute, but is at a less advanced stage of development. It would not undertake a similar trial until December 2007, as had yet to pass fuel to an aircraft in flight as on the Jan 3/08 final bid submissions.

Appendix A: The KC-X Competitions

“US Debating Aerial Tanker Types, Mix” offers in-depth coverage of the lead-up to the KC-X RFP, explaining many of the military & policy issues in play as the USA contemplates its own choices. Then came the contractor decisions, and responses. What would Boeing propose? The KC-767, the KC-777, or both? Would Northrop and EADS elect to play, bringing their Airbus KC-30/A330 MRTT?

In the end, Round 1 was Team Boeing’s KC-767 Advanced (767-200 derivative) vs. Team Northrop Grumman’s victorious KC-30B (Airbus A330-200 derivative). Each aircraft system has its strengths, and each system also had risk factors as lobbying continued right down to the wire. Boeing claimed lower KC-767 operating costs and better infrastructure commonality, and received a union endorsement. EADS offered greater fuel and cargo capacity, and promised to open production of A330F civilian jets in the USA if it won.

The Airbus A330 MRTT was picked as the “KC-45A”, but an explosive GAO decision brought the competition to a halt.

USAF articles tried to sell the idea that: “…the department has gone through a rigorous review process for KC-X and has validated that the RFP accurately reflects the requirements as laid out by the warfighter… The RFP includes specific factors for assessing the capability contribution of each offeror” along a set of 9 weighted performance parameters.

That didn’t stop the contract protests, and subsequent revelations that the USAF hadn’t even followed its own guidelines destroyed the decision.

As the clock ran out on the Bush administration’s 2008 tenure, Secretary of Defense Gates decided to give his new employers in the Obama administration an opportunity to chart their own course on this issue. The KC-X v1.0 competition was canceled. A v2.0 RFP was released in February 2010, but the decision took until February 2011.

Boeing’s 767-based “KC-46A” won that v2.0 competition, and the way they did it was simple: they underbid several hundred million dollars below cost on a fixed-price contract. In exchange, they avoided a dent in their prestige, kept their 767 production line open, opened the door to more KC-767 exports, ensured a lucrative stream of future “KC-46A” maintenance revenue, and prevented Airbus from gaining a major industrial foothold in the USA.

KC-X RFP v2.0 – The New Structure KC-X Round 2:
Refueling bonus requirements
(click to view full)

In the wake of their initial win, Airbus and Northrop Grumman’s primary challenge was to ensure that their own potential industrial base was strongly mobilized, in order to raise the political costs of an all-Boeing reversion. Their secondary goal was to improve their position for KC-X v2.0, including blunting protectionist sentiment that opposes any purchase of Airbus planes. Declarations that they’d accept a “split buy” outcome, so long as they were left with production of 12 planes per year, were a step in that direction.

Boeing’s challenge was simpler, and more straightforward: get at least a majority share of the USAF’s KC-X tanker order.

The USAF stated its opposition to a split-buy proposal many times, and worked hard to avoid that outcome. They might have been convinced to pay that price, if they believe that the alternative would be a program that remains stalled for a long time. Events showed them moving toward that conclusion, albeit slowly and fitfully – but then the Round 2 RFP came out, with a clear “winner take all” approach.

The Round 2 RFP certainly clarifies the nature of the competition. Round 1 featured 37 mandatory requirements, and 771 optional requirements that could affect evaluations. Round 2 reverses that ratio, with 373 “go to war on Day 1″ requirements that must be met to qualify, and 93 “trade space” requirements that earn extra points.

The resulting RFP is best described as a cost-driven, best-value competition, using fixed-price bids. It’s worthy of note that the prices aren’t entirely fixed, for good reason. Imagine, for instance, that the US dollar devalued sharply over the contract’s life and imported materials became more expensive, or inflation skyrocketed and labor rates changed accordingly. Forcing the manufacturers to absorb those losses would be unfair, and could induce serious financial problems for the company. Provision 836 AESG/H025 provides a formula for adjusting prices if key inputs fluctuate, in order to create an adjusted payment price. With this safety valve acknowledged, the “fixed-price” bids as submitted will form the baseline.

Those bids are just the starting point. “Total Adjusted Price” (TAP) reflects bid price as adjusted through 3 main filters: the same IFARA model used in Round 1 to evaluate the contenders, fuel efficiency, and military construction.

The IFARA model will use updated scenarios to cover the expected range of contingencies, and there are several ways to have one’s costs adjusted. A larger plane that could cover a given scenario with fewer planes, for instance, might get its TAP lowered. A smaller competitor might gain under another scenario, where range, basing, and capacity suit it better. Those adjustments will be summed, and applied.

Fuel burn will use 489 average flight hours per year rather than 750 in Round 1, as 489 is the actual average flown by the KC-135 fleet to date. This may seem to disadvantage the KC-767 slightly, but there’s another key variable that makes the effect far less clear. Fuel burn will also use the mission profiles and mission percentages laid out in the IFARA model. Again, contenders will have their bid price adjusted accordingly, depending on their fleet’s estimated fuel burn costs over a 40-year cycle.

For military construction, the USAF picked 11 relevant KC-135 bases – which are not necessarily the tankers’ future homes, since that’s a separate decision. Aircraft that would require changes or improvements to ramps, taxiways runways, hangars, at those 11 air bases would have their bid price changed accordingly in their TAP. Actual aircraft of the submitted types will be used at these locations, in order to make the evaluations.

If there’s more than 1% difference in the TAPs, the government buys the ‘cheaper’ airplane, which is exactly what happened. If there had been 1% or less difference, the USAF would have been directed to look at the 93 optional “trade space” requirements and their accompanying points, adjusting the TAP accordingly, and then buy the ‘cheaper’ airplane. Each trade space item is worth a certain number of points, and is either met or not met. The one exception is fuel offload, which gives between 2-10 points as different levels of capability are reached (total extra weight is therefore 1/10%). There are 103.05 total trade space points, which includes 4 requirements worth 10 points each, 6 worth 4 points, 19 worth 1 point, 49 worth 0.333 points, and 15 worth 0.25 points. The result would be a new adjusted price, and, again, the ‘cheapest’ bid selected.

Because IFARA also ties into fuel burn, and additional range and fuel offload capacity do not factor in except through IFARA, the IFARA model looked set to be the hinge on which this competition will turn. In addition, all qualified bid teams will have access to the IFARA model. Which means one could expect arguments about some of the parameters, once the contending teams have crunched their performance through the models and gone over the criteria. Instead, Boeing decided to more or less nullify IFARA with a bid price that rendered it irrelevant.

On another likely lobbying front, the KC-X v2.0 RFP took no position with respect to the ongoing Boeing-Airbus trade subsidies dispute at the World Trade Organization. This refusal is explicitly stated, and was fiercely defended and maintain. The RFP does include the 836 AESG/H018 clause. It states that any financial or other penalties assessed by the WTO are entirely the manufacturers’ responsibility, and cannot be passed on to the USAF in any way.

Appendix B: The Contenders and The Cargo Factor – KC-30B, KC-767… KC-777? USAF KC-10
(click to view full)

During the now-canceled round 1 competition, Airbus’ A330 was matched against Boeing’s 767. In a new wrinkle, Air Mobility Command was brought into the RFP draft process, and the USAF said that:

“the Air Force also intends to take full advantage of the other capabilities inherent in the platform, and make it an integral part of the Defense Transportation System.”

Both contending aircraft offer substantial improvements over the KC-135’s extra capacity for cargo or people, in addition to their tanker roles.

The KC-135s can carry up to 6 standard 463L cargo pallets, 53 people, or about 18 medical litters. Just under 2% of American aerial tankers currently carry cargo loads, but that number is likely to increase. The existing aerial tanker fleet is being handled gently, given its age and the consequences of structural issues. Once those issues are removed, however, the frequency of current C-17 flights involving people and standard pallets rather than heavy cargo, will make more frequent tanker/cargo flights an attractive trade-off, despite the additional fuel costs.

Airbus’ A330/ KC-30/ KC-45 A330 MRTT concept,
hose-and-drogue
(click to view full)

According to the EADS/NGC KC-30 team’s official Round 1 brochure [PDF], the A330-200 derivative can carry up to 226 passengers, or 108 medical litters, or up to 32 standard 463L cargo pallets, or some combination of the above, in addition to its full fuel load. At over 250,000 pounds capacity, it also carries more fuel than the 767, which is a particular advantage in the Pacific sector with its wide over-water expanses. On the other hand, its advanced 1,200 gallon/minute ARBS refueling boom did not actually transfer fuel to another aircraft in the air until March 2008. Competition delays have allowed Airbus to improve this gap, and an A330 conducted boom refueling in 2009.

On the flip side, the KC-30 is a larger aircraft than the 767, which requires a slightly longer runway at full load, takes up more “footprint” on limited-space tarmacs, and costs more to operate on a per-plane basis. In response, Team KC-30 stresses costs and efficiency on a per-mission basis, such as deploying a full fighter squadron with personnel and equipment, or deploying an Army combat team using transport aircraft with tanker accompaniment. They argue that if larger tanker aircraft, with more fuel and cargo space, mean fewer sorties required, the cost figures may look more equal once the mission the tankers are supporting is complete. There had also been some speculation that Airbus might be prepared to offer a very heavily discounted price, in order to close the buying price gap between the cheaper 767 and the A330. Some post-competition reports even pegged the KC-30 offer as cheaper.

The RFPs included more exacting data as each team made its case to the USAF, as well as final pricing. For example, Fleet Effectiveness Value (FEV), one of the 5 key source-selection evaluation criteria, is designed to communicate aerial refueling performance. The current KC-135 fleet is the baseline, with an FEV of 1.0. Calculated over 5 mission scenarios specified by the USAF, and using prescribed airbases, ramp space and resources, Northrop’s air mobility sector vice-president Paul Meyer says the FEV submitted with its KC-30 Round 1 bid was 1.62.

There had been some talk at Northrop Grumman of using the A330-200F freighter version instead as the base KC-X aircraft, which would be a departure from KC-30s bought to date. A switch would add new timeline risk and certification issues, as well as fuel efficiency penalties, in exchange for much better cargo performance. A330-200F aircraft add 11,000 pounds of zero-fuel weight to the base A330-200 design, and cut fuel capacity by 12,000 US gallons, in exchange for boosting cargo weight capacity by 60,000 pounds to 141,000. The type first flew in late 2009, and began service with UAE Eithad Airways in September 2010. So far, the 200F has only been suggested as a potential improvement or variant option after the contract is won.

Boeing’s KC-767 Advanced/ KC-767 NewGen/ KC-46A KC-767 Round 1 features
(click to view full)

Team Boeing’s KC-767 Advanced in Round 1 used a 767-200ER fuselage; a 767-300F freighter wing, landing gear, cargo door and floor; and a 767-400ER’s flaps and flight deck (derived in turn from the 777). A new fly-by-wire boom with remote viewing would expand the tanker’s effective refueling airspace, and offload more fuel. Engines would be 2 Pratt & Whitney PW4062s, with 62,000 pounds of thrust each.

The KC-767’s advanced refueling boom had a 900 gallon/minute capacity, and had been tested successfully in live air-air refueling, including night operations. On the other hand, Boeing’s hose-and-drogue system was a technical risk factor that had undergone almost 2 years of redesign, and been a persistent problem for the Italian tanker order. That was a potential risk, and Round 1’s optimization had also penalized Boeing, due to the additional risk and certification work involved.

Their KC-767 “NewGen” (now the KC-46A) is a sharp contrast, as Boeing decided not to discuss their plane’s features – a stance it has maintained even after the award. This made assessments of Boeing’s Round 2 offering inexact and approximate. Earlier Round 2 comments from Boeing indicated a more standard 767, but pictures and videos appear to show lengthened wings and wingtip winglets, in order to deal with previous “flutter” issues and add cruise efficiency. What is known, is that Boeing is keeping the PW4062 engines. The firm still says it’s using a new fly-by-wire boom design, but the structure is now based on the larger KC-10 boom, in order to meet the fuel offload target of 1,200 gallons/minute. At the same time, GE’s refueling pods were replaced by the same Cobham products found on the A330 MRTT. The other clear change involved replacement of the 400ER’s 777-derived flight deck with one from the new 787 Dreamliner that includes 15.1″ LCD flight display screens.

As their relative capacities demonstrate, the KC-767 is a smaller aircraft than the KC-30. One positive consequence is that it can take off from slightly shorter runways. The USAF requires the ability to take off from an 8,000 foot runway, but would prefer 7,000 feet as this makes more runways available. The KC-767’s size can also mean the difference between, say, 5 or 7 aircraft that can fit on the tarmac at a forward base. Boeing touts the KC-767 as 22-24% cheaper to operate and maintain than the KC-30 on a per-plane basis, and its base aircraft is cheaper to buy on the civilian market.

767-200ER based planes can carry up to 190 passengers (-16% vs. KC-30), or 54 medical litters (-50%, NGC claim)/ 97 patients (-11.3%, Boeing claim), or up to 19 standard 463L cargo pallets (-41%), or some combination of the above, in addition to its full fuel load that is now confirmed at 212,000 pounds, slightly above the KC-135. The company claims that its strengthened floors allow the KC-767 to carry a similar weight of cargo to the A330, however; it would be interesting to see validated statistics compared to the A330F. Boeing could have submitted the 767-300 in Round 1, which is 19 feet longer, but their calculations determined that the extra capacity didn’t justify the extra procurement and operating expenses. That turned out to be a mistake, but they proceeded to win Round 2 with a 767-200 freighter derivative.

Northrop Grumman calculated a Round 1 Fleet Effectiveness Value score of 1.35 for the rival KC-767 in Round 1 (vs. 1.62 for Airbus), but Boeing did not release its number.

Boeing’s 777 Option KC-767 refuels KC-777
(click to view full)

For Round 2, Boeing was openly contemplating a KC-777 offering, depending on the RFP’s criteria weightings. A KC-777 would offer 22.5% – 30% more offloaded fuel than the A330/KC-30 at 1,000 nautical miles, with the ability to carry up to 320 passengers (+42.6% vs. KC-30), or 156 patients (+44.4% vs. KC-30), or up to 38 standard 463L cargo pallets (+18.75% vs. KC-30), or some combination of the above, in addition to its full fuel load.

These statistics are impressive, but Boeing would have faced 3 big hurdles if it wished to offer a KC-777.

One is the 777’s cost, given the way the v2.0 RFP is structured. Boeing has almost certainly run the IFARA model to make sure, but on the face of it, the renewed RFP made a KC-777 offering unlikely. The RFP’s focus on cost, and lower value placed on extra points for the 777’s additional cargo, transport, and fuel capabilities, made the KC-777 look like a losing game. The 2nd issue was timeliness. Unlike the KC-767 and A330 MRTT, any KC-777 would have to be designed, built, tested, and certified from scratch. To add to that timeliness risk, Boeing already has a backlog of commercial orders for the 777. That 3rd issue leaves Boeing with choices that include some combination of: adding time and risk by investing or partnering to expand their production rate, convincing commercial customers to accept delays, or facing constraints on their delivery rate to the KC-777 military conversion and fit-out line.

In the end, those hurdles convinced Boeing to offer the KC-767 once again, with modifications that made it different from the KC-767s flying for Japan and Italy.

Appendix C: Airbus KC-30/ KC-45A Team

(lost Round 2)

RAAF A330 rollout
(click to view full)

Before its KC-X win, the KC-30/A330 MRTT had been ordered by Australia, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, as well as Britain’s unusual FSTA public-private aerial tanker partnership. None of these aircraft have entered service yet, but the ARBS full refueling boom system finally completed its first live “wet transfer” from an A310 aircraft in March 2008. The first live “wet transfer” from an A330-MRTT boom finally took place in October 2009.

EADS’ goal was 60% American content, to which one must add American content for corollary sales of civilian A330F freighters as production moves to Alabama. Other national beneficiaries of a US A330 MRTT order, in declining order of impact, would have been Spain, Germany, the UK, and France.

There are differences between the consortium that bid on the KC-X v1.0 proposals, and the team that bid on the v2.0 RFP. The v2.0 team is quite extensive; main players include:

EADS North America – American lead and systems integrator. Replaced Northrop Grumman in this role for the v2.0 bid.

EADS – A330 aircraft, and Air Refueling Boom System (ARBS). Key American locations: Mobile, AL, Bridgeport, WVA (ARBS and SF hose-and-drogue), and Arlington, VA. Aircraft would be militarized and final assembly would take place in Mobile, AL, which would also become an assembly center for worldwide civilian A330-200F freighter sales.

EADS-CASA in Spain is responsible for the design, testing and production of the ARBS boom, and is also likely to see work at its facilities near Seville, Cadiz, and Madrid. Manufacture of the Airbus aircraft is conducted all over Europe, with integration at Toulouse, France and/or Bremen, Germany. If final integration of the A330-200F freighters switches to Mobile, AL as promised, and the KC-45 program ends up substituting the A330-200F for the A330-200 as the base airframe, the amount of American content would rise slightly.

ARBS at work
(click to view full)

GE Aviation – CF6-80E1 engines. The CF6-80E1 is rated at 67,500 pounds of thrust, and power a number of commercial A330-200/300s. Key locations: Evendale, OH. Estimated total value for GE units from the KC-45 program: $5 billion. Unchanged in Round 2.

GE subsidiary Smiths Aerospace – Flight Management System; indeed, they are the supplier of choice for common Flight Management Systems for the KC-X tanker, no matter who wins. Key locations: Grand Rapids, MI.

Cobham plc subsidiary Sargent Fletcher Inc. – Air refueling hose and drogue systems; their products are also used on the KC-135, KC-10, KC-130J, MC-130H and F/A-18 E/F. The pods carry their own power system, and their 90 foot long hoses can offload approximately 420 gallons of fuel per minute. Key locations: El Monte, CA; Bridgeport, WVA. Estimated total value of Cobham win: $1 billion. Unchanged in Round 2.

Eaton Corp. – Actuators, pumps, valves, nozzles and other aerial refueling equipment. Mentioned in Round 2 team.

Goodrich Corporation – “Various aircraft systems”. Mentioned in Round 2 team.

Honeywell – Radio Management System, Mission Avionics Suite, and Mechanical Systems. Key locations: Albuquerque, NM; Phoenix, AZ; Redmond, WA; and Torrance, CA. Unchanged in Round 2.

Moog, Inc. – Flight control systems. Mentioned in the Round 2 team.

Parker Aerospace – Air Refueling Receptacle, a.k.a. Universal Aerial Refueling Receptacle Slipway Installation (UARRSI). This allows the KC-30 itself to be refueled in the air. Similar Parker UARRSI systems are currently used on the U.S. Air Force’s B-1B bombers, C-130 & C-17 transports, and KC-10 tanker aircraft. Also providing hydraulic system equipment, fluid conveyance products and fuel components. Key locations: Irvine, CA.

Vought Aircraft subsidiary Triumph Aerostructures – Wing structures. Mentioned in the Round 2 team.

Additional Readings The USA’s Aerial Tanker Fleet

• USAF Fact sheets – KC-46A Pegasus.

• Boeing – KC-46A Tanker.

• Boeing – KC-767 Global Tanker. Sold to Italy and Japan, also available for export.

• USAF Fact Sheets – KC-10 Extender.

• USAF Fact Sheets – KC-135 Stratotanker.

Related Studies and Reports

• US GAO (April 10/14, #GAO-14-190) – Program Generally on Track, but Upcoming Schedule Remains Challenging.

• US GAO (Feb 27/13, #GAO-13-258) – KC-46 Tanker Aircraft: Program Generally Stable but Improvements in Managing Schedule Are Needed

• US GAO (March 26/12, #GAO-12-366) – KC-46 Tanker Aircraft: Acquisition Plans Have Good Features but Contain Schedule Risk.

• Iris Independent Research (Oct 19/10) – 9 Secrets of the Tanker War

• USAF Air & Space Power Journal (Fall 2009) – KC-X: The Game Changer for Mobility

• US Air Force Association Mitchell Institute for Airpower Studies (April 2009) – The Tanker Imperative [PDF].

• USAF Air Mobility Command (February 2007) – KC-X: The Next Mobility Platform: The Need for a Flexible Tanker [PDF]. White Paper.

• US GAO (March 6/07, #GAO-07-367R) – Air Force Decision to Include a Passenger and Cargo Capability in Its Replacement Refueling Aircraft Was Made without Required Analyses

• RAND (2006) – Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) for KC-135 Recapitalization

• RAND (2004) – Options for Replacing the Air Force’s KC-135 Tanker Aircraft and AWACS, JSTARS, and Rivet Joint ISR Aircraft

• US GAO (July 23/03, #GAO-03-1048T) – Considerations in Reviewing the Air Force Proposal to Lease Aerial Refueling Aircraft. Deal died when it was found that Darlene Druyun had improperly influenced decisions, before jumping to a job with Boeing.

• US GAO (Aug 8/96, NSIAD-96-160) – Aging Refueling Aircraft Are Costly to Maintain and Operate. “…the cost per KC-135 flying hour is projected to increase from $8,662 in 1996 to $10,761 in 2001.”

Ongoing News and Views

• Rockwell Collins’ Horizons magazine (Vol. 16, #4) – Refueling Innovation [PDF]. Discusses their development of the KC-46A’s flight controls and refueling systems.

• Forbes Business and the Beltway blog, via WayBack (Feb 28/11) – How Boeing Won The Tanker War. By the Lexington Institute’s Loren Thompson, who had been predicting a Boeing loss.

• Los Angeles Times, via WayBack (Feb 28/11) – How one lawmaker gave Boeing a boost in tanker contest. That would be Rep. Norm Dicks [D-WA].

• Teal Group – March 2010 Letter. RE: KC-X politics in America, and the European trade angle.

• Leeham News and Comment (Jan 4/10) – Outlook for Airbus, Boeing in 2010. Aerospace analysts at Leeham look at a number of programs, including KC-X, and set them in context with respect to the firms’ overall transport/passenger aircraft portfolios. They believe that Boeing is trying to keep Airbus from establishing a dollar zone production foothold, as much as it’s trying to win the military contract.

• Lexington Institute (Nov 2/09) – Tanker Wars: Why Northrop Grumman Thinks It Can’t Win

• Aviation Week (Sept 21/09) – New Players Poised for Next KC-X Duel [dead link]. Looks at the people involved in the USAF, Boeing, and NGC.

• Aviation Week (Sept 15/09) – USAF Worries About Refueler Repair Costs “…maintenance crews sometimes work 7 hr. for every hour of KC-135 flight… When you get out to about 2018 and 2020, what started out as about $2 billion a year to maintain the KC-135 fleet goes all the way up to $6 billion… In total, aging-related costs are expected to add at least $17.8 billion to the price of maintaining the KC-135 for 40 years.”

• NDIA National Defense magazine, via WayBack (June 2009) – Defense Department Can Split Tanker Buy, And Still Save Money

• Col. Ken Allard (June 16/08) – Air Force Tanker Contract Will Test Alabama Legal Infrastructure. An under-appreciated element. “If Boeing Co. had won the tanker contract, most of the manufacturing work would have been done in the Seattle area. EADS proposes building the aircraft at a new plant in Mobile, Ala. But are the supporting legal infrastructures in Seattle and Mobile roughly equal? Such concerns are vital, given the usual propensities for fraud and malfeasance in any $50 billion contract…”

• Lexington Institute (March 12/08) – Boeing Fights Back: How it Plans to Prevail

• Flight International (Jan 21/08) – Size matters in US Air Force KC-X contest. As DID noted earlier: “Is bigger always better? This is at the heart of the battle between Boeing and Northrop Grumman…” A Northrop Grumman release later elaborates on the model used by the KC-30 consortium to derive relative performance figures.

• Flight International (Jan 16/08) – Airbus sees strong rise in widebody sales but Boeing remains stronger. Gives exact breakdowns for Boeing and Airbus’ sales across all passenger aircraft they produce. Airbus’ complete redesign of the A350 is the big reason for their rise – the original A350’s features, and the uncertainty created by the move, had slashed their 2006 widebody sales.

• The Woracle (Jan 14-16/08) – Flight International editor Graham Warwick attends briefings from Boeing and from Northrop Grumman/Airbus, then offers a synopsis of the points being made by each side.

• Flight International (Nov 26/07) – Boom or bust time for US tankers. Interesting comments re: political/geographic bases of support for each team.

• AFA’s US Air Force Magazine, via WayBack (Feb 13/07) – Why the 767? As opposed to the KC-777, or even the KC-767-300. Boeing explains its choice.

• USAF, via The Free Library (March 10/07) – Logistics officials discuss Stratotanker sustainment. Apparently, the aircraft need more spares than the USAF had planned. Real fatigue problem, or just encouraged to report, as an advert by the USAF for the KC-X’s necessity?

• Flight International (Feb 13/07) – Crucial contests: US tankers and transport aircraft

• Lexington Institute (Nov 28/06) – Fate of Huge Tanker Program Could Hinge on Cargo Role. “The wild card is cargo-carrying capacity, because if the request for proposals sets a modest goal, that will tend to favor the 767, and if it sets an ambitious goal that will tend to favor the A330. With cargo thresholds potentially driving the competitive outcome, Congress will be watching closely for any sign of bias. If it doesn’t like what is sees, tanker modernization could be delayed yet again.”

• Special Operations Technology, via WayBack (Nov 19/06) – KC-X. Very good summary of all of the tankers’ envisaged roles and key capabilities, then adds: “Equally important as the strategic KC-X program, if not more so, is an ever-growing urgency to bring relief to the AFSOC tanker aircraft. The KC-Xs will keep the MC- and HC-130s topped off, but they too need attention.

• Seattle Post-Intelligencer, via WayBack (June 1-2/06) – Landing the Tanker article series.

KC-X: The Competition

• Airbus Military – A330 MRTT

• EADS Airbus – A330-200F Specifications

• Ilyushin Aviation Complex – IL-96-300

• Airliners.net – The Ilyushin Il-96M & Il-96T

• Breitbart’s Big Peace (July 21/10) – KC-X Tanker War: The Antonov Alternative. A critical look at the US Aerospace bid.

• US Air Force (Jan 30/07) – Air Force Posts KC-X Request for Proposals.

• US Air Force (Jan 30/07) – Tanker recapitalization proposal released.

KC-X: The Protest Wars

• DID (June 25/08) – KC-X: GAO Sustains Boeing Protest. Includes analysis of the likely path forward, reiterating predictions of a split-buy made in March 2008. That prediction does not come true.

• GAO (June 18/08) – Boeing Bid Protest Press Release [PDF]

• Boeing, via WayBack (March 24/08) – B311344 Protest of the Boeing Company: Second Supplemental Protest [PDF format, Public Redacted Version]

KC-X: The Lobbying War

All sites presented in archived form via the WayBack Machine.

• Build Them Both, via WayBack. A lobbying group that favored a dual-buy program, with accelerated deliveries.

• Boeing – Global Tanker: KC-X Competition. It evolved over time. In 2007, it listed both a 767 and 777 option. This article offers a good KC-767 vs. KC-777 comparison. By 2009, it has evolved to focus on the “KC-767AT,” and included bid protest documents.

• Boeing – Tanker Facts. Protest blog, launched after the loss, and discontinued mid-2009. See also UnitedStatesTanker.com, launched as a lobbying platform in advance of Round 2. It terminatedaround the end of 2011, after Boeing had secured their win.

• US Tanker 2011, a Boeing-allied lobbying effort. Web site still up in 2013.

• KC-45 Now. EADS North America’s lobbying site for the KC-X competition. See also the allied “Keep Our Tanker” site, and EADS’ Tanker Activity Update dedicated to news developments re: its various Airbus aerial tanker offerings. All of these sites were defunct by mid-2011.

• Northrop Grumman & EADS – KC-30 official site. The planes would be assembled in Mobile, AL, and the Northrop Grumman – EADS consortium promised that “More than 50 percent of the aircraft’s content – from engines to avionics and systems – will come from American companies.”

• Northrop Grumman – America’s New Tanker. Launched after the win, includes features designed to help people take political action. Effectively ended in 2008.

Americas

• The cost of the F-35A engine fire last June has been calculated as $50 million by the investigation board responsible for looking into the failure of the third-stage rotor of the engine fan module, with the fire resulting in significant damage to the aircraft. The fire temporarily grounded the F-35 fleet worldwide and led to red faces when the Marine Corps were prevented from demonstrating their F-35B at Farnborough. Prime contractor Lockheed Martin was awarded a $920.4 million advanced acquisition contract last week, while F-35As were scheduled to take part in upcoming USMC exercises for the first time last week.

• The US and Japanese governments have successfully conducted a test firing of the Standard Missile 3 Block IIA at the Point Mugu Sea Range in California. The SM-3 is scheduled to enter service by 2018, with both nations having invested $1 billion each into the program.

• Raytheon has been awarded a $10.6 million contract to provide testing equipment for assessing the Small Diameter Bomb II on the FA-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft, including jettison test vehicles and instrumented measurement vehicles, with these presumably to assess the future viability of using the SDBII with Super Hornets. The SDBII recently passed Milestone C, facilitating its progression to low rate initial production by manufacturer Raytheon.

Europe

• As the British Army’s Thales WK450 Watchkeeper UAV heads toward Full Operating Capability, the responsibility for personnel training on the system is being transitioned from contractor services to the Army’s own program. The first course run by British Army personnel will take place in October, with the Watchkeeper deployed to Afghanistan last year, equipped with new synthetic aperture radar and ground moving target indication capabilities.

• Airbus is reportedly planning to resume test flights of its A400M transport aircraft, following the crash of one aircraft during a test flight on 9th May. The aircraft saw three engines freeze as a result of a software problem, with the resulting crash killing four crew members.

• As part of the British government’s push for privatization in the nation’s defense apparatus, the UK’s Ministry of Defence has invited bids from industry as it seeks to privatize the British Armed Forces’ fire and rescue services. The Defence Fire Risk Management Organisation is the organization in question, with industry teams competing against an internal MoD bid. The publicly-owned Defence Support Group was sold to Babcock International in December last year, whilst the Government Pipeline and Storage System was sold to a Spanish company earlier this year.The government is also mulling the sale of some of its Defence Equipment & Support (DE&S) arm, the multi-billion dollar procurement agency which it attempted to partially privatize in a 2013. That effort failed and has subsequently been heavily criticized.

• Work has begun on the second of three Royal Navy Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPVs), with BAE Systems cutting steel at the firm’s Glasgow shipyard. The first OPV has been under construction since October, with the River-Class Batch II vessels an important bridge-buy prior to the introduction of the Royal Navy’s future Type 26 Frigates, with the $560 million construction contract sustaining industry capability in the interim.

Middle East

• Kuwait is talking to the Italians regarding a sale of Eurofighters, in a potential $4.5 billion deal comprising between 24 and 28 of the jets. The Kuwaitis are looking to replace their F/A-18 Hornet fleet, with a separate $3 billion deal slated for Super Hornets thought to be in the works alongside the Eurofighter negotiations.

• Iraq has reportedly received a third of the Mi-28NE helicopters it ordered alongside Mi-35M helicopters. The first batch of these two helicopter models were delivered in July last year, with the first Mi-28 flights taking place in September The country is thought to have ordered fifteen Mi-28s and twenty-five Mi-35s, but precise numbers have not been officially disclosed. Russia is also looking to improve its Mi-28 fleet.

Asia

• Pakistan is reportedly preparing to assemble a Chinese Type 039A Yuan-class submarine at the country’s Karachi Shipyard & Engineering Works. This follows an order for eight boats early last month.

Today’s Video

• Iraq’s first batch of Mi-28NEs…

Breakthrough…
(click to view full)

The US Navy flies the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet fighters, and has begun operating the EA-18G Growler electronic warfare & strike aircraft. Many of these buys have been managed out of common multi-year procurement (MYP) contracts, which aim to reduce overall costs by offering longer-term production commitments, so contractors can negotiate better deals with their suppliers.

The MYP-II contract ran from 2005-2009, and was not renewed because the Pentagon intended to focus on the F-35 fighter program. When it became clear that the F-35 program was going to be late, and had serious program and budgetary issues, pressure built to abandon year-by-year contracting, and negotiate another multi-year deal for the current Super Hornet family. That deal is now final. This entry covers the program as a whole, with a focus on 2010-2015 Super Hornet family purchases. It has been updated to include all announced contracts and events connected with MYP-III, including engines and other separate “government-furnished equipment” that figures prominently in the final price.

Hornet MYP: Aircraft Types Hornet vs. Super Hornet
(click to view full)

Super Hornets are flown by the US Navy, replacing the service’s retired F-14 Tomcat fighters, and by Australia’s RAAF. The US Marines fly smaller, earlier-generation F/A-18 C/D Hornets that are no longer in production, and will replace them with F-35B STOVL (Short Take-Off, Vertical Landing) Lightning IIs when the time comes. While both F/A-18A-D and F/A-18E/F fighters are referred to as Hornet family planes, the Super Hornets have less than 40% commonality with previous F/A-18A-D versions. The F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets have been enlarged in all dimensions and fitted with 2 extra weapons pylons. The new design created pylon vibration problems early on, which explains the new “dogtooth” design on the wings’ leading edge. Super Hornets also have more powerful GE F414 engines, instead of the F404s that equipped the Hornets. The air intakes have been modified to accommodate the new engine’s demands and lower the plane’s radar signature, and other “signature shaping” measures have been employed around the plane.

The F/A-18E is a single-seat Super Hornet. The 2-seat F/A-18F sacrifices some range, carrying only 13,350 pounds of fuel – 900 fewer pounds than the F/A-18E. In exchange for this reduced range, it adds a 2nd crewman with an advanced attack station cockpit to assist in strike roles.

In addition to its strike role, both versions of the Super Hornet are also taking over the tactical refueling role from the retired S-3 Viking sea control aircraft. Any F/A-18E/F can do this, as long as they have the specially-equipped drop tanks that can extend refueling hoses. This isn’t an operationally efficient option, compared to the retired S-3s or A-6s, as the Super Hornet’s capacity is very limited. Nevertheless, there are situations where it is helpful and effective.

Super Hornet Block II F/A-18E & F-14:
passing gas
(click to view full)

Beginning with Lot 26 (FY 2003), Boeing began building Block II Super Hornets, with a re-designed forward fuselage and a number of electronic enhancements. The most important upgrade involves the AN/APG-79 AESA radar which can perform simultaneous air and surface scans, and is likely to offer advanced improved reconnaissance, jamming, and even communications capabilities. Plus other capabilities the government may wish to add. Electronic Countermeasures are upgraded by replacing the AM/ALQ-165 with the AN/ALQ-214 IDECM jammer, which can work with ALE-50 or ALE-55 towed decoys.

Block II also includes the Advanced Crew Station (ACS), complete with Advanced Mission Computers and Displays (AMC&D) that offer more screen area (8″x10″ Display), and upgrade the mission computers from an assembly language to an open architecture higher order language (Lot 25+). A Fiber Channel Network Switch and Digital Video Map Computer round out the ACS improvements.

The EA-18G: Electronic Attacker EA-18G: key systems
(click to view full)

The EA-18G Growler is based on the F/A-18F. It removes the 20mm cannon in the nose, adds new electronics, and mounts special electronic warfare pods on the aircraft’s underwing (AN/ALQ-99) and wingtip (AN/ALQ-218) pylons. Typically, the EA-18G retains 2 fuselage slots and 2 underwing slots for weapons carriage, though the wing pylons can also be used to hold extra fuel. Typical weapon loads will include anti-radar missiles like the AGM-88 HARM/AARGM family on the 2 free underwing pylons, plus 2 AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles on the fuselage slots for aerial self-defense.

The EA-18G Growler will replace the old EA-6B Prowler aircraft, whose airframes date from the Vietnam era. With the retirement of the USAF’s EF-111 Ravens, the Prowlers are now the only dedicated jamming aircraft in America’s inventory that can accompany tactical strike missions. They are also called upon for a wide variety of other missions, including missions over Iraq to cover convoys and jam remotely-triggered IED land-mines. See “EA-18G Program: The USA’s Electronic Growler” for full in-depth coverage.

Can the Super Hornet Keep Up? Chinese J-20
(click to view full)

At present, Super Hornets are multi-role fighters that can compete against contemporary designs, albeit with some drawbacks. The key question for the US Navy, which intends to keep them in service to 2030 and beyond, is how long they can remain competitive.

Despite a switch to higher-thrust F414-GE-400 engines, the Super Hornet family’s added size and weight gives it poorer acceleration than the older F/A-18 C/D Hornet, which was already middle of the pack in that category. One compensation is that Hornet family designs have traditionally excelled in “low and slow” dogfights, but that edge is being eroded or reversed by external competition from 4+ generation opponents like the thrust-vectoring Russian SU-30MKI/A/M, SU-35, and MiG-35; from agile European opponents like the Eurofighter Typhoon, France’s Rafale, and Sweden’s JAS-39 Gripen; and from the next generation of full-stealth planes like the super-maneuverable Russian PAK-FA/ “SU-50? and China’s J-20.

For now, the Super Hornets can rely on next-generation AESA radars, JHMCS helmet-mounted displays (HMDs), and pilot-friendly controls and software, in order to maintain their status as air superiority fighters. Issues with APG-79 AESA radar reliability, and lack of testing for multi-shot engagements using medium-range missiles, thin their margin of error. Even if those issues are fixed someday, the Super Hornet’s overall electronic advantages are beginning to erode as rivals field AESA radars, HMDs, and other advanced electronics of their own. Expected and fielded upgrades to existing rivals, and new designs like the Russian-Indian PAK-FA/ “SU-50?, and China’s J-20, will reach electronic parity well within the Super Hornet’s operational lifetime.

Malaysian SU-30MKM
(click to view larger)

Most rivals were also were designed with IRST (InfraRed Search and Tracking) to allow no-warning passive targeting, an area where the Super Hornet is just starting to catch up. As aerodynamically better fighters gain similar electronic suites, and exports make those fighters more common, it’s logical to be concerned that the Super Hornet will be pushed away from air superiority roles against advanced opponents.

If so, the Super Hornet would be forced into a more limited strike fighter role, only to be challenged by very dangerous modern long-range air defense systems. Which is why the EA-18G is so important to the fleet.

What’s Next for the Super Hornet? CBC: Boeing’s pitch
click for video

In the immediate term, a special centerline fuel tank with an embedded IRST sensor pod is being developed to give the Super Hornet some parity with peer fighters, albeit at the cost of extra drag.

Immediate improvements are also being made to ground attack, via a Distributed Targeting System (DTS) that brings together data feeds from different sensors, and adds a pre-loaded, high-resolution imagery database to overlay on top of the sensor data. The idea is to be able to fire ground attack weapons with more certainty about the target, and less delay from navigating through multiple screens, handing off coordinates, etc.

F/A-18F Advanced
(click to view full)

In order to compete farther into the future, Boeing invested in private development alongside its partners, and created a Super Hornet Roadmap centered around 3 areas: (1) doubling down on electronic advances, (2) trying to improve flight performance in strike or air superiority roles, and (3) improving the design’s radar signature (RCS).

Electronics. A new cockpit based on large touch-screen technology and more advanced computers is designed to bring the Super Hornets closer to sensor fusion parity with the F-35, without relying on a helmet-mounted-display as their single point of failure. An internal IRST will detect infrared emissions from enemy aircraft, replacing the current drag-inducing IRST/fuel centerline tank option, and addressing a disadvantage vs. the F-35 and contemporary European and Russian fighters. Full spherical laser and missile warning systems would be added to improve survivability.

The EA-18G, which is built around and for electronics, will receive special upgrades of its own if the USA’s Next Generation Jammer goes into production.

Performance.On the performance side, improved engines would offer the Super Hornet family either better fuel use and range (F414 EDE), or more power (F414 EPE).

Up top, new dorsal Conformal Fuel Tanks (CFT) are shaped to add lift, adding 3,500 pounds of fuel for strike and EW missions, but creating almost zero net drag at sub-sonic cruising speeds. Boeing engineers are quite proud of the CFTs, which are actually a Northrop Grumman product. The net extension is some combination of up to 130 nautical miles of combat radius (+260 nmi range), or 30 minutes of extra station time. That gives the “Advanced Super Hornet” a maximum base combat radius of 700 nautical miles with unmodified F414-GE-400 engines.

In an era where the Navy is emphasizing the Pacific theater and its vast distances, while inheriting carrier-based fighters with a shrunken strike reach, upgrades to add the CFTs could represent a huge return on investment. The EA-18G will appreciate this range boost the most, because the fighter’s canted pylons mean that each of its 3 required drop tanks generates a lot of drag.

On the flip side, the CFTs do add weight and some transonic drag, hurting already-marginal transonic acceleration. Missions like Combat Air Patrol would probably accept the extra cruising drag inherent in multiple droppable tanks, in order to make full use of a cleaner configuration and improved engines in dogfights.

“Stealth” F/A-18E
(click to view full)

Stealth. The final set of upgrades involve stealth. The Super Hornet will never be as stealthy as an F-35, but it has a notably smaller Radar Cross Section than earlier F/A-18s, even though it’s a bigger plane. Advanced Super Hornets can widen that advantage by adjusting the design a bit, adding special RCS-reducing coatings, and carrying up to 3 enclosed and specially-shaped weapon pods. Each pod could carry up to 4 x AMRAAM missiles, or 2 x 500 pound/ 1 x 2,000 pound bomb each.

Combat radius with the CFTs and a centerline weapon pod, but no external ordnance, rises by 130 nautical miles to around 700 nmi. If the plane stays within the existing 570 nmi circle, it adds 30 minutes of station time instead.

Testing also showed that a “clean” F/A-18F Advanced with CFTs and a single centerline weapons pod dropped radar cross-section by 50%, compared to a Super Hornet whose external pylons had to be loaded with fuel tanks and the same weapons.

Will that be enough?

Boeing and Northrop Grumman have been funding the testing, and investing along with Hornet Industry Team partners GE Aviation and Raytheon. As of August 2013, Boeing says that these enhancements are ready for inclusion as new-build options, or as retrofits to existing fighters. That’s an attractive proposition.

Boeing’s customers will decide if it’s enough. The US Navy would like to keep buying Super Hornet family planes beyond 2014, but the most likely path for upgrades is some kind of retrofit program. Australia has ordered 12 more EA-18Gs soon, which could keep the line running at reduced output into early 2016. After that, Canada, Denmark, Malaysia, and the Gulf Cooperation nations Bahrain, Kuwait and Qatar are seen as the most likely export prospects.

The USA’s Super Hornet Family Program (click to view full) Excel
download

The EA-18G Growler is bought under the same multi-year contract, and uses the F/A-18F Block II’s base airframe and equipment. As noted above, some equipment is swapped out, and other internal equipment is added for the conversion. Then jamming pods, fuel tanks, and weapons are hung on the fighter’s hardpoints to create a fully mission-ready plane. Australia was initially going to buy just the basic EA-18G with internal equipment, but decided to buy the full array of specialty stores. That pushed their costs up by about $1.25 billion for 12 fighters.

Fortunately for the US Navy, it can re-use existing AN/ALQ-99 underwing jamming pods from its EA-6B Prowler fighters. Unfortunately for the US Navy, those pods are wearing out fast, have reliability issues, and use technology that will have trouble coping with mid-band threats beyond 2018. A separate program called the Next Generation Jammer will have to survive, and start delivering gear, in order to fix that; its totals are not listed here.

The MYP-III Buy F/A-18E, Parked
(click to view full)

Unlike countries like France, the USA sets its defense budget on a year-by-year basis. Multi-year contracts are not a new concept in American defense procurement, however, and they are often used to save money. Contractors get the predictability of production and deliveries over 4-5 years, which allows them to negotiate with their sub-contractors for quantity discounts, make longer term investments, and pass some of the savings along. The down-side from the government’s point of view is that if requirements change, or circumstances intervene, these contracts are much more expensive to cancel or restructure. Most of the Super Hornet program has been made up of multi-year contracts:

After the first 62 Super Hornets were bought under Low Rate Initial Production, the first multi-year Full Rate Production contract bought 210 Super Hornet fighters from FY 2000-2004 inclusive. MYP-II bought 230 Super Hornet family fighters from FY 2005-2009 inclusive, and deliveries from those contracts will continue into 2011. Boeing claims that these 2 multi-year contracts saved the US Navy about $1.7 billion.

Initially, the plan was to replace MYP-II with single year procurements in 2010, 2011 and 2012, in order to finish up the program. Congress was less certain. Concerns about the F-35 program’s timing, and the Navy’s fighter gap as older aircraft retire, led to pressure for another multi-year contract. In order to qualify for a multi-year deal, however, any proposed buy must first meet several legislative criteria. In My 2010, the Pentagon certified that a Super Hornet family MYP-III would meet those criteria, paving the way for the current MYP-III contract. It covers FY 2010-2014 buys, with deliveries through to August 2015.

MYP-II and MYP-III have produced the entire planned program of EA-18G electronic warfare fighters, with MYP-III having a very slight edge at 50.9% of those aircraft. MYP-III comprises a much smaller percentage of overall F/A-18E/F Super Hornet production for the USA, and its percentage would be even lower if delays to the F-35C program hadn’t forced emergency Super Hornet buys.

Sharp-eyed readers will note a big difference between these budgets, and the announced MYP-III multi-year contract figure with Boeing. Once a multi-year contract is signed, it’s important to understand how fighters are bought, in order to understand the difference. The $5.3 billion MYP-III contract, like its $8.56 billion MYP-II predecessor, covered only the airframes, which are used by the Super Hornet and Growler programs alike. Engines, radars, jamming devices, and other equipment are installed under these MYP contracts, but they are usually specified, designed, and paid for under separate contracts, as “government furnished equipment.” This drives the final cost of fielding operational fighters much higher than any initial MYP contract would suggest, though reports seem to settle around a $60 million flyaway cost for the F/A-18E/F.

To highlight GFE’s range and importance, a section below tracks items that are directly traceable to F/A-18E/F family purchases in general, which is inevitably just a subset of the real total.

Contracts & Key Events, FY 2010-2015 F/A-18F, landing
(click to view full)

The EA-18G Growler electronic warfare aircraft has a history and role that extend beyond this MYP contract. It’s covered separately in its own FOCUS article, though its base airframes come from this contract.

Unless otherwise specified, The Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) in Patuxent River, MD, USA manages these contracts, and Boeing subsidiary McDonnell Douglas Corp. in St. Louis, MO is the contractor. Northrop Grumman is the original creator of the YF-17 that spawned the F/A-18 series, and manufactures about 40% of each Super Hornet (center & aft fuselage, vertical tails) or 50% of each EA-18G (above plus Electronic Attack systems). All work performed in “El Segundo, CA” is almost certainly NGC’s work.

Finally, note that any links in this section are not updated if their owners allow them to lapse.

June 9/15: Raytheon has been awarded a $10.6 million contract to provide testing equipment for assessing the Small Diameter Bomb II on the FA-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft, including jettison test vehicles and instrumented measurement vehicles, with these presumably to assess the future viability of using the SDBII with Super Hornets. The SDBII recently passed Milestone C, facilitating its progression to low rate initial production by manufacturer Raytheon.

FY 2014

USN debates its future options; Loss in Brazil, Preliminary work to integrate Kongsberg’s new JSM naval strike missile; Australian ANAO report cites platform issues – US DOT&E report explains them; Advanced Super Hornet prototype flies. F/A-18E
(click to view full)

Aug 7/14: Iraq. With thousands of Yezidis trapped on Mt. Sinjar, and The Islamic State threatening the Kurdish capital of Erbil with captured heavy equipment from the Iraqi army, the US President orders USAF relief airdrops and limited airstrikes from American carriers.

The aircraft use Paveway laser-guided bombs, but this is exactly the kind of environment and situation that’s well suited to MBDA’s Brimstone missiles (q.v. July 20/14) under analysis by the Navy. Sources: White House, “President Obama Makes a Statement on the Crisis in Iraq”.

July 20/14: Weapons. Navy Recognition reports that the US Navy is “beginning environmental and integration analysis” of the dual-mode laser/MMW radar Brimstone 2 missile, as a potential option for Navy Super Hornets. Brimstone was originally developed as a close air support weapon, but MBDA has also been touting Brimstone 2’s naval capabilities, including demonstrations against fast boat swarms.

Adding Brimstones would give the Super Hornet a comparable capability to the AGM-65 Maverick carried by Navy F/A-18C/D Hornets, plus more weapons on station. Unlike Lockheed Martin’s Hellfires or Raytheon’s SeaGriffin, Brimstone is designed and qualified for use from fast jets, offering a strike missile that can replace the AGM-65 Maverick on a 3-for-1 basis at each hardpoint. Laser-guided rockets like APKWS could one-up that to 7-for-1 replacement, but only the shelved Navy LOGIR program’s imaging infrared guidance mode would match Brimstone’s fire-and-forget targeting/ salvo firing capabilities.

Positive reports from Congressional committees that want to “counter high-speed, erratically maneuvering targets on land and at sea” may give the Navy another $10 million in FY 2015 to pursue the idea. Sources: Navy Recognition, “U.S. Navy is evaluating MBDA’s Dual Mode Brimstone for its F/A-18 Super Hornet jets”.

July 16/14: Industrial. Super Hornet program manager Capt. Frank Morley says that the U.S. Navy might agree to accept slower deliveries than 2 planes per month to help extend the company’s production line by a year to the end of 2017. On the other hand, “my marching orders are not to do that at any additional cost to us.”

He adds that Boeing has already used some of its own funds to pay early procurement costs for another 12 EA-18G jets, which does seem to be the way things are working out in Congress. Sources: Reuters, “AIRSHOW-U.S. open to slower Boeing deliveries, but no extra cost”.

June 30/14: +11. Boeing in St. Louis, MO receives a $1.939 billion fixed-price-incentive-fee contract for full rate production of 11 FRP Lot 38 F/A-18E aircraft for the US Navy, and 33 EA-18G aircraft for the US Navy (21) and the government of Australia (12 for $533.4 million, which is 27.3% of the total). The USN’s total is $1.406 billion, using USN FY 2013 (F/A-18E) and 2014 (EA-18G) aircraft budgets (72.7%).

The extra F/A-18Es come from a $605 million Congressional markup in FY 2013. Which is why FY 2014 may not be the very last Super Hornet family order, if Congressional mark-ups of the 2015 National Defense Authorization bill or defense appropriations bill survive the budget process. The House Armed Services Committee has approved 5 Growlers, and the House Appropriations Committee has approved funds for 12 Growlers.

Work will be performed in El Segundo, CA (46%); St. Louis, MO (30%); Fort Worth, TX (2%); East Aurora, NY (1.5%); Irvine, CA (1percent); Ajax, Ontario, Canada (1%), and various locations within the United States (18.5%), and is expected to be complete in December 2016. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to 10 USC. 2304(c)(1). US NAVAIR in Patuxent River, MD manages the contracts for the US Navy, and acts as Australia’s agent (N00019-14-C-0032). See also US NAVAIR, “Contract awarded to produce F/A-18 Super Hornets, EA-18G Growlers” | Seapower, “Boeing Awarded to $1.94 Billion Contract for F/A-18 Super Hornets, EA-18G Growlers”.

44 bought: 11 F/A-18Es, 33 EA-18Gs

May 22/14: Support. Boeing in St. Louis, MO receives a $9.8 million cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order modification to an existing performance based logistics contract, covering F/A-18E/F supply chain management of spares and repairs. All funds are committed immediately.

Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO (40%), and Jacksonville, FL (60%); and is expected to be complete by December 2015. US NAVSUP Weapon Systems Support in Philadelphia, PA manages the contract (N00383-06-D-001J-0014).

May 6/14: Politics. House Armed Services Committee (HASC) chair Buck McKeon [R-CA] is proposing to add $450 million to fund 5 EA-18Gs and their equipment in the FY 2015 budget, instead of the 22 on the unfunded priorities list. The committee’s proposed changes would also preserve all F-35 funding, while cutting the Navy’s unmanned UCLASS R&D budget in half to $200 million.

Meanwhile, Missouri Lawmakers say that they’ve already gathered over 80 signatures from Republicans and Democrats in the House of Representatives, and the International Association of Machinists will be weighing in. The HASC markup will make the lobbying job more challenging, and they’ll need to more than triple that number of allies in order to get the full 22 planes. As the saying goes – show me. Sources: Flightglobal, “House bill promotes EA-18G and U-2S, but hits UCLASS” | Reuters, “Boeing, backers to fight for funding for 22 Boeing jets”.

May 5/14: Sharp-eyed readers might note that the last full contract for Super Hornet family jets was in FY 2012. That isn’t an accident. Boeing program manager Mike Gibbons says that they’ve finally hammered out a contract for 47 planes: 11 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets (FY 2013) + 21 EA-18G Growlers (FY 2014) + 3 EA-18Gs included in a legal settlement with the US government + 12 EA-18G Growlers for Australia. If so, there should be an announcement shortly.

It’s worth emphasizing that all of these planes are long-planned buys, it just took a while to come to terms on this batch. If the FY 2015 budget funds another 22 EA-18Gs, they would be the subject of a separate contract negotiation. Sources: Reuters, “Boeing sees contract soon for 47 more F/A-18, EA-18G fighters”.

May 5/14: EA-18G #100. Boeing [NYSE: BA] delivers the 100th EA-18G Growler to the US Navy, and the ceremony was turned into one more element of Boeing’s push to increase the Navy’s buy from 114 to 136. Sources: US Navy, “Navy’s Newest Electronic Attack Aircraft Reaches Centennial Milestone” | Boeing, “Boeing Delivers 100th EA-18G Growler to US Navy”.

100th EA-18G

March 11/14: Budgets. CNO Adm. Jonathan Greenert has confirmed that the Navy has placed 22 more EA-18Gs on their FY15 unfunded request submission. The Pentagon’s FY14 budget already contains a $75 million option for advance procurement, as a result of Congressional additions. If the Navy’s FY15 suggestion is approved for inclusion by the Secretary of Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff, the $2.14 billion request would receive more momentum toward a possible Congressional insert in FY15.

The unfunded requests list has a number of items on it. If Congress does decide to fund 22 EA-18Gs as one of their choices, the US Navy would use it to raise some squadron rosters to 7 jets, while Boeing would use it to extend the Super Hornet production line by a year or more. Sources: Reuters, “UPDATE 1-U.S. Navy confirms Boeing jets on ‘unfunded’ priority list”.

March 4/14: FY15 Budget. The Navy unveils a preliminary budget request briefing. It doesn’t break down individual programs into dollars, but it does offer planned purchase numbers for the Navy’s biggest programs from FY 2014 – 2019. Short answer: no plans to buy any more Super Hornets or EA-18Gs, but that doesn’t mean that Congress couldn’t add some later. This interesting tidbit came from the US Navy’s detailed RDT&E justifications for PE 0204136N:

“Delays in the schedule for IRST [pod] are due to technical challenges with the Fuel Tank which led to additional flight test requirements.”

Source: US Dept. of the Navy, PB15 Press Briefing [PDF] | US Navy, detailed budget justification.

Feb 28/14: Support. A $22.4 million cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order against a previously issued basic ordering agreement for supplies and services to support follow-on test and evaluation of the F/A-18 E/F and EA-18G aircraft.

All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2014 Navy aircraft budgets. Work will be performed at the Naval Air Station Patuxent River, MD (76%), St. Louis, MO (22%), El Segundo, CA (1%), and Bethpage, N.Y. (1%) and is expected to be complete in January 2015 (N00019-11-G-0001, 0166).

Jan 31/14: Support. A $38.1 million cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order for F/A-18E/F logistics support and associated material requirements.

All funds are committed immediately, using USN FY 2014 budgets. Work will be performed at St. Louis, MO, and is expected to be complete by Dec 31/15. The contract was not competitively procured in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2304 (c)(1) by US Naval Supply Systems Command’s Weapon Systems Support group in Philadelphia, PA (N00383-06-D-001J, 0017).

Jan 28/14: DOT&E Testing Report. The Pentagon releases the FY 2013 Annual Report from its Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E). The Super Hornet family is included, and as is often the case these days, software at various levels is the main issue.

Quick background: All F/A-18E/F Block II Super Hornets and EA-18Gs use high-order language or “H-series” software, and will carry the APG-79 AESA radar. Their current “OS version” (System Configuration Set, or SCS) is H8E Phase I, and Phase II is in testing. F/A-18A-D Hornets and F/A-18E/F Block I Super Hornets (to Lot 26) use “X-series” software, currently SCS 23X, with SCS 25X in testing. These USN aircraft use the APG-73 radar.

SCS 25X has been delayed for a year, with system qualification testing only beginning in FY 2014. SCS H8E has also hit delays, to the point where 6 of its 14 new capabilities were stripped out: AESA electronic warfare capability, integrated ESM and high-gain ESM to detect emitters using only onboard sensors, the ability to identify specific emitters, single-ship geolocation, integration of the ALQ-214(V)4 defensive jammer, and RNAV (Area Navigation) for GPS civil airspace navigation instead of using TACAN. They’ll presumably be pushed back to SCS H9, along with AGM-154C-1 JSOW integration (q.v. Nov 17/13). Testing for the remaining 8 H8E enhancements is expected to end in March 2014.

The biggest news for the Super Hornet family, however, is the 2 major weaknesses that H8E will not correct. One is the APG-79 AESA radar, whose software instability has been a problem for 7 years. That wasn’t even on the agenda for SCS H8E. Neither was “an end-to-end multi-AIM-120 missile shot” to take on multiple opponents, which has never been successfully operationally tested. That isn’t a good statement to make about a nation’s core naval fighter, and the Navy doesn’t plan to fix that until SCS H12 in FY 2016-2017. Those situations, and these statements from DOT&E, are legitimately concerning:

“…operational testing has yet to demonstrate a statistically significant difference in mission accomplishment between F/A-18E/F aircraft equipped with AESA and those equipped with the legacy radar…. Overall, the F/A-18E/F/G is not operationally effective for use in certain threat environments, the details of which are addressed in DOT&E’s classified report….”

Jan 22/14: SLEP. Boeing in Jacksonville, FL receives a $17.8 million firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity delivery order under the F/A-18 A-F Depot Level Service Life Extension Program, for remanufacturing activities and associated maintenance and sustainment.

$249,399 in FY 2014 USN aircraft budgets is committed immediately. Work will be performed in Jacksonville, FL (92%) and St. Louis, MO (8%), and is expected to be complete in September 2014. This contract was not competitively procured, pursuant to FAR 6.302-1 (N00019-14-D-0001).

Jan 22/14: Support. Boeing in Jacksonville, FL receives a $17.8 million firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity delivery order contract to support the F/A-18 A-F Depot Level Service Life Extension Program, including both maintenance and remanufacturing work.

Around $250,000 in FY 2014 USN aircraft budgets is committed immediately. Work will be performed in Jacksonville, FL (92%) and St. Louis, MO (8%), and is expected to be complete in September 2014. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to FAR 6.302-1 (N00019-14-D-0001).

Dec 30/13: Support. A $22.2 million firm-fixed-price delivery order for Super Hornet Family automated maintenance environment integrated software. Your car dealer has these for your machine, and the US Navy has them for its machines. The difference is that new software capabilities can also deliver enough maintenance savings to justify development, and the military’s fighters change more than your car does. This contract combines purchases for the U.S. Navy ($19.25M / 86.6%) and the government of Australia ($3M / 13.4%).

All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2013 US Navy aircraft budgets and FMS funding from Australia. Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO, and is expected to be complete in December 2015 (N00019-11-G-0001, DO 0140).

Dec 30/13: Support. A $46.7 million firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order against a previously issued basic ordering agreement for integrated logistics support and sustaining engineering for F/A-18A-D, F/A-18E/F, and EA-18G aircraft for the U.S. Navy ($36.6M / 78.3%) and Australia ($7M / 15.1%); plus $501,289 / 1.1% each from Canada, Finland, Kuwait, Malaysia, Spain, and Switzerland. Support will include logistics, engineering, provisioning, information systems, technical data updates, support equipment engineering, training and software integration support.

All funds are committed immediately. Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO (70%); El Segundo, CA (15%); Oklahoma City, OK (6%); Bethpage, NY (5%); and San Diego, CA (4%), and is expected to be complete in December 2014 (N00019-11-G-0001, 0110).

Nov 25/13: ECP. A $37.3 million delivery order modification to a delivery order for F/A-18E/F and EA-18G Trailing Edge Flap engineering change proposal retrofit kits. They’re buying 48 Trailing Edge Flap Redesign kits, 48 left hand units, and 48 right hand units.

All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2014 USN aircraft budgets. Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO, and is expected to be complete in July 2017. Fiscal 2014 aircraft procurement, Navy contract funds in the amount $37,338,608 will be obligated at time of award; none of which expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-11-G-0001, DO 007302).

Nov 17/13: ANAO Report. Australia’s National Audit Office releases their 2012-13 Major Projects Report, which includes some interesting notes concerning the JSOW-C1/ Block III. Australia to place an interim buy of AGM-154Cs in time for the F/A-18F’s planned December 2010 Initial Operating Capability, and they did. But the AGM-154C-1s that are effective against ships and moving targets won’t be done until at least February 2016, because software and integration issues forced the US Navy to delay adding JSOW-C1 until the next core software release. The USN also canceled the planned September 2014 tests. Other issues and notes:

“The Super Hornet is meeting its capability objectives. Identified anomalies, limitations and improvements of the USN common aircraft software, radar, electronic warfare, mission planning, and training devices are being fed back into the USN spiral development program as part of Super Hornet sustainment, and RAAF/DMO are accessing opportunities to influence USN decision makers on the priority for addressing these areas under a RAAF/USN common paradigm.

….Spares availability has been affected by late delivery of spares because of Original Equipment Manufacturer delays and USN delays in award of Supplier contracts leading to an impact on performance, supportability and schedule.

….There is a possibility that the Forward Looking Infra Red performance will be degraded. This was identified as an emergent risk in the 2011-12 MPR and has now been realised. Engineering Change Proposal No 35 will introduce an Electronic Image Stabilisation Card. This issue has been transferred to Air Combat and Electronic Attack Systems Program Office Risk and Issues Log for management.”

Dec 18/13: Brazil. Saab picks Saab’s Gripen NG as their future fighter in a surprise announcement, shortly after reports that a deal for Super Hornets was killed by public revelations that the NSA had spied on Brazil’s presidency and government (q.v. Aug 12/13). The 36 plane contract will be worth about $4.5 billion, which is about 29% less than Boeing’s reported $5.8 billion bid. A final contract and financing deal is expected in December 2014, along with a long-term maintenance deal estimated at around $1.5 billion. Deliveries are expected to begin 4 years later.

The Brazilian Air Force has a dedicated website to explain its choice. Dassault issued a terse statement pointing out the presence of US parts on Gripens, and positioning the Rafale in a different league. Which may or may not be true, but it’s indisputably true that global fighter buys have historically been heavily weighted toward a less-expensive league. Gripen and the Super Hornet are just within that low to mid price range. Rafale isn’t. Indeed, its reported $10.2 billion purchase + maintenance costs would have been 70% more expensive than the Gripen. Sources: Brazil MdD, “FX-2: Amorim anuncia vencedor de programa para compra de novos cacas” | MdD, “Perguntas & Respostas sobre a definição do Programa F-X2″ (Q&A) | Dassault, “FX2 contest – 2013/12/18″ | Folha de Sao Paulo, “Dilma agradece Hollande por apoio contra espionagem dos EUA”.

NSA spying loses Brazil deal

Dec 9/13: Industrial. Boeing’s VP in charge of the Super Hornet family, Mike Gibbons, sees USN fleet upgrade funds to add Advanced Super Hornet features as “a given.” He says that Boeing is “extremely bullish about how much of a future we think we have on Super Hornet and Growler production,” and cites recent multi-million dollar investments in their St. Louis production line as proof of the firm’s belief that local and export orders can keep it open to 2020 and beyond. USN Program Director Capt. Frank Morley says the Navy has taken delivery of 490/ 563 planned Super Hornets, and 90/ 135 planned EA-18G Growlers.

Barring further orders, Gibbons says that March 2014 is the industrial deadline for Boeing to decide whether it will invest its own funds to keep supplier orders coming. The firm has studied C-17 program lessons on how to cut production rates in half, leaving Super Hornet capacity at 24/year without increasing costs. Gibbons gives Boeing a $37 million share of the flyaway cost for a ~$50 million F/A-18E/F, while placing EA-18G flyaway cost at ~$60 million.

On the other hand, Gibbons concedes that Boeing was waiting until the US Navy’s FY 2015 budget request comes out before buying long-lead items, and another set of mandated across-the-board cuts would likely cement the program’s termination. One option to keep the plane as an option beyond 2016 would involve combining the adjacent F/A-18 and F-15 production lines into a single flexible line. That would require serious investment, but it would extend the production life of both planes. Aviation Week, “Boeing Faces March Funding Decision On Super Hornet, Growler” | Reuters, “Boeing must decide on F/A-18 production in March 2014: executive”

Dec 5/13: Politics. House Armed Services Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee Chair Rep. Randy Forbes [R-VA-04] sends a letter urging the Pentagon to buy more Super Hornets beyond 2014, or find other ways to keep the line open (q.v. upgrade option Nov 4/13) past 2016. His argument is fairly straightforward:

“With future carrier-based aircraft still in development until 2019, I strongly believe that creating a single U.S. tactical aircraft supply chain at this time is too great a risk…. will eliminate vital competition that could result in spiraling costs…. also eliminate competition among aircraft radar and engine producers. In other instances, the Department has taken steps to appropriately ensure multiple manufacturers in the shipbuilding and submarine industries. The Navy and the Department should nurture its tactical aviation manufacturing in the same way.”

Despite Rep. Forbes’ title, he’s going to have a very hard time prevailing amidst current budget cuts. Reuters offers some hope, saying that the USN is very interested in buying more, but had no funding available. In other words, “let’s see if rumblings among some Republicans are followed by actions that ease the sequester’s disproportionate effect on defense.” If not, the US Navy’s proposal to deal with further sequestration cuts by pausing F-35C production and pushing its IOC to 2021 creates strong pressure in the Pentagon to end Super Hornet buys now, lest continued production begin eating into F-35 purchases and encourage further F-35B/C cuts. Sources: J. Randy Forbes letter, “Forbes: Continuation of F/A-18 Production Line Crucial for Strength of Tactical Aircraft Industrial Base” | Reuters, “U.S. lawmaker urges continuation of Boeing F/A-18 fighter line”.

Nov 6/13: Weapons. Boeing and Kongsberg take the 1st step toward Joint Strike Missile integration with the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighter family. All they did was ensure that the weapons fit on the aircraft’s external pylons. Next, they have to conduct wind tunnel tests in early 2014, to assess the effect of the missiles on the plane’s aerodynamics, and likely stress on the pylons. That has to be followed by live captive carry testing to verify their conclusions, and of course full integration with the aircraft’s electronics will be its own separate effort.

Norway doesn’t fly Super Hornets, but potential JSM partner Australia does (q.v. May 16/13), and so does the US Navy. F-35 integration won’t be ready until 2021-2022, but successful F/A-18 integration would give the JSM an early deployment option with any future Super Hornet customers, such as Kuwait, Brazil, or Denmark. It would also provide an incentive for Australia to commit to JSM early and deploy the missiles well before 2025, by offering them a much more immediate fleet upgrade. Finally, Super Hornet integration would provide an opening to put JSM forward as an AGM-84 Harpoon missile replacement for the US Navy, if the higher-end LRASM program falls to coming budget cuts. Sources: Boeing, Nov 6/13 release.

Nov 4/13: USN Upgrades? US Navy F/A-18 and EA-18G Program Manager, Capt. Frank Morley, discusses the Advanced Super Hornet with Defense Tech:

“We’re getting good performance numbers on it and good signature measurements. These are items the Navy is considering…. We reduced the signature of the aircraft by over 50-percent. We added low-signature treatments to specific areas of the airplane and then when we designed the conformal fuel tanks and enclosed weapons pod….”

Oct 31/13: Trick, or Treat? An FBO.gov Pre-solicitation notice for up to 36 Super Hornet family fighters in FY 2015 is cancelled. This effectively terminates media speculation concerning the potential for additional US Navy orders, in light of added F-35 delays resulting from R&D budget cuts.

On the other hand, FY 2014 may not be the Super Hornet family’s last order year. Australia has confirmed plans to buy another 12 EA-18Gs, and the official request to negotiate that deal is already cleared. Denmark intends to make a decision concerning 24-32 fighters in mid-2015; the Super Hornet is competing against Lockheed Martin’s much more expensive F-35A, and Saab’s JAS-39E/F Gripen. Brazil was reportedly ready to buy 36 Super Hornets in 2013; NSA spying scandals torpedoed negotiations, but the competition hasn’t been closed. In the Middle East, Kuwait and Qatar are both evaluating future fighters, and preparing to order new planes.

Australia’s 12-plane order is very likely to arrive before supplier shutdowns begin; after that, timing will begin to matter to Boeing. FBO.gov | Breaking Defense | Flight Global.

FY 2013

Another 15 extra bought; 2014 budget switches final production to EA-18Gs from Super Hornets. F/A-18F & EA-18G
(click to view full)

Sept 23/13: ECP. A $38.2 million award for fixed-price, incentive-fee delivery order for F/A-18E/F and EA-18G trailing edge flap retrofit kits. The flaps were redesigned as part of an engineering change proposal, and the order includes 48 trailing edge flap kits, 48 left hand units, and 48 right hand units. All funds are committed immediately.

Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO, and is expected to be completed in July 2017 (N00019-11-G-0001, 0073).

Aug 12/13: Brazil – NSA fallout. Reuters reports that revelations of NSA spying may have damaged the Boeing Super Hornet’s chances in Brazil. US Secretary of State John Kerry’s October meeting with Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff won’t discuss the deal, and the unnamed political source was blunt: “We cannot talk about the fighters now… You cannot give such a contract to a country that you do not trust.”

In July, the O Globo newspaper published documents leaked by Edward Snowden that revealed U.S. surveillance of Internet communications in Brazil and other Latin American countries. Nobody who has been paying attention can possibly be surprised, given concerns regarding transnational drug cartels, Brazil’s close relationship with Iran, and the growth of Islamist activities in the “triple border” junction area of Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay. Brazilian senators may not have been paying attention, or may just have been playing their expected role when they questioned President Rousseff’s visit to Washington in toto.

Brazil could just go ahead and pick another plane, but fighters seem to be dropping down the government’s priority list. Huge protests against corruption and misuse of public money have left the government skittish about big outlays, and another government source tells Reuters that they no longer expect a decision in 2013. With 2014 as an election year, that means 2015 for any fighter decision. The Brazilian government isn’t exactly responding with denials following the Reuters report, and for Boeing, later is better than sooner. Reuters, “Spying scandal sets back U.S. chances for fighter jet sale to Brazil”.

May 24/13: SAR. The Pentagon finally releases its Dec 31/12 Selected Acquisitions Report [PDF]. The EA-18G is included, thanks to the 2014 budget switch that shifted the final Super Hornet buy and added a few more:

“EA-18G Growler Aircraft – Program costs increased $2,023.9 million (+18.3%) from $11,060.3 million to $13,084.2 million, due primarily to a quantity increase of 21 aircraft from 114 to 135 aircraft (+$1,752.1 million) and associated schedule and estimating allocations (-$60.7 million). There were also increases in support costs for integrated logistics support/reliability demonstration, production engineering, and developmental testing) (+$306.6 million).”

SAR – Super Hornet switch

May 9/13: Testing. Boeing in St. Louis, MO receives an $18.3 million cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery to support Follow-On Test and Evaluation of the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft.

Work will be performed at the Naval Air Station, Patuxent River, MD (78%); St. Louis, (21%); El Segundo, CA (0.5%); and Bethpage, NY (0.5%), and is expected to be complete in February 2014. All contract funds are committed immediately by US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD (N00019-11-G-0001).

April 10/13: FY 2014 budget. The Obama administration finally releases its budget proposals, including the Pentagon’s FY 2014 requests. One of the most notable changes in the Navy’s “Procurement by Weapon” file is the addition of 21 more EA-18Gs, with a $2 billion budget. At the same time, plans to buy 13 F/A-18E/F fighters for around $1.14 billion were canceled. The $274 million in FY 2014 involves spares, and shared costs related to the EA-18G. In effect, the Super Hornet order was transmuted into Growlers, raised pro rata by about $375 million total for that switch, then had 8 more planes added to it.

The shift into an all-Growler buy was helped by the Australian purchase of 12 Airborne Electronic Attack kits, which lowered costs for added US orders. Strike while the iron is hot, and all that. The other story associated with this shift involves the F-35B/C. The F-35 program is improving, but it has basically stood still or even gone backwards over the last 5 years. That means late introduction, and even later Initial Operating Capability. Especially given the poor progress of software development, and the additional progress required to create a combat-ready F-35. Not having stealth-enhanced F-35s is more than a fighter gap – it’s also a strike gap against improving air defenses. The most obvious way to close that gap is to add to the EA-18G fleet, in order to help existing naval fighters get through enemy defenses before F-35s start contributing sometime in the early 2020s. Even after F-35s arrive, EA-18Gs will remain invaluable to coalition warfare for a long time, and have real utility in small wars that feature remotely-detonated bombs.

FY 2014 is expected to end Super Hornet family orders, barring exports outside the USA. That leaves the USN’s Super Hornet program finishing with 552 fighters bought (though DID’s records show 549), and the EA-18G program finishing with a higher-than-expected 135 planes. Recall that at one time, the planned buy of EA-18Gs was just 80.

April 3/13: Embraer. Embraer’s CEO Luiz Carlos Aguiar talks to Defense News about F-X2 and other subjects. Regarding the fighters:

“I think [the decision is] going to be in the next months, this year, I would say. Our role in that depends… on who is going to win. We have a memorandum of understanding with all three of the contenders. Each of them offers an offset program, but we prefer not declaring publicly our preference…. Whatever they choose, we’re going to be in the process. They need to make this decision because Brazil needs that…. With the F-X, we can even go further in terms of technology, and even some new products could come up with one of these three contenders. That’s what I can tell you, I can’t go further than that.”

Given Embraer’s dominant position in the Brazilian aerospace industry, it would be shocking if any of the contenders had chosen not to sign industrial partnership MoUs with Embraer. In light of the April and August 2012 agreements, the “new products” comment suggests that Boeing may have replaced Saab as Embraer’s preferred choice. That isn’t at all certain, however – as Aguliar surely intended. Defense News.

March 13/13: Denmark. The Danes pick up their fighter competition as promised, following their announced hiatus in April 2010. Invited bidders include the same set of Lockheed Martin (F-35A), Boeing (Super Hornet), and Saab (JAS-39E/F) – plus EADS (Eurofighter), who had withdrawn from the Danish competition in 2007. The goal of a 2014 F-16 replacement decision has been moved a bit farther back, and now involves a recommendation by the end of 2014, and a selection by June 2015.

The Flyvevabnet are reported to have 30 operational F-16s, with 15 more in reserve, out of an original order of 58. Past statements indicate that they’re looking to buy around 25 fighters as replacements, but there are reports of a range from 24-32, depending on price. Danish Forsvarsministeriet [in Danish] | Eurofighter GmbH | Saab | JSF Nieuws.

March 8/13: Brazil. Brazil has asked the 3 F-X2 finalists to extend their bids for another 6 months from the March 30/13 deadline, as the Brazilian commodity economy remains mired in a 2-year slump. The competitors had hoped for a decision by the time the LAAD 2013 expo opened in April.

The length of the cumulative delays could create changes for the bids, and it effectively squashes any faint hopes that the new jets would be able to fly in time for the 2014 World Cup. Reuters.

Dec 28/12: Support. Boeing in St. Louis, MO receives an $81.75 million firm-fixed-price delivery order covering integrated logistics support and sustaining engineering services for the F/A-18 A-D Hornet and F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet fighters, and EA-18G Growler tactical jamming aircraft. They’ll provide in-service engineering, information systems, automated maintenance environment, technical data updates, support equipment engineering, training, and software integration support for the US Navy ($69.5M / 85%); and the Governments of Australia ($9.0M / 10.98%); Canada ($544,992 / .67%); Finland ($544,992 / 0.67%); Kuwait ($544,992 / 0.67%); Malaysia ($544,992 / 0.67%); Spain ($544,992 / 0.67%); and Switzerland ($544,992 / 0.67%)

Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO (70%); El Segundo, CA (15%); Oklahoma City, OK (6%); Bethpage, NY (5%); and San Diego, CA (4%), and is expected to be complete in December 2013. This contract combines purchases under the Foreign Military Sales Program. All contract funds are committed immediately, and only $342,372 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/13. US NAVAIR in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00383-06-D-001J).

Nov 30/12: +15. A $687.6 million ceiling-priced fixed-price-incentive-fee contract modification for 15 Production Lot 37 (FY 2013) F/A-18E Super Hornet airframes “in accordance with the aircraft variation in quantity clause.” Which is to say, beyond planned multi-year orders. This follows a similar Jan 25/12 order from Production Lot 36.

Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO (45.2%); El Segundo, CA (44.6%); Hazelwood, MO (3.4%); Cleveland, OH (1.7%); Torrance, CA (1.4%); Vandalia, OH (1.0%); Ajax, Canada (1.0%), and various other sites within the continental USA (1.7%), and is expected to be complete in July 2015. $645.5 million is committed on award (N00019-09-C-0019).

FY 2012

Japan loss; 15 extra bought; MYP-II deliveries done; Boeing lobbying to extend MYP-III. Australian F/A-18Fs
(click to view full)

Sept 10/12: A $12 million cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order, to perform requirements planning and analysis “necessary to identify Production Transition Support for the F/A-18 E/F and E/A-18G aircraft programs”. Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO, and is expected to be completed in May 2013 (N00019-11-G-0001).

Aug 23/12: Australia. Minister for Defence Stephen Smith and Minister for Defence Materiel Jason Clare announce their decision to proceed with the conversion of 12 Super Hornets into Growlers for about $1.5 billion, with availability expected for 2018.

This doesn’t affect MYP-III, since all 24 of Australia’s F/A-18F Block II Hornets were bought under MYP-II (vid. Feb 22/12 entry), and all of them have already been delivered. This conversion order takes the 12 Australian F/A-18Fs that were pre-wired for EA-18G conversion, and adds the internal electronics and pods. Australia DoD.

Australia EA-18G conversion

April 1/12: Raytheon in El Segundo, CA receives a $7 million order for 13 ECP-6279 retrofit kits in support of F/A-18 E/F and EA-18G aircraft. ECP = Engineering Change Proposal, a design alternation. Work will be performed in Forest, MS (80%), and El Segundo, CA (20%), and is expected to be complete in December 2013 (N00019-10-G-0006).

March 30/12: Extend MYP-III? That’s what Boeing is lobbying for. The $2.5 billion add-on would extend production by as many as 37 Super Hornet family fighters, beginning with a $60 million increase in the Navy’s FY 2013 budget for advance purchases.

Boeing’s document claims that the Super Hornet program supports 100,000 direct and indirect jobs and has 1,900 suppliers across the US. Additional orders beyond 2014 would keep the line open past 2015. In return, they’d keep the Navy from suffering a fighter shortfall due to the F-35B/C program’s extended delays. The F-35s aren’t likely to see Initial Operational Capability before 2018, and could run later than that. Bloomberg | DoD Buzz.

Feb 22/12: MYP-II done. Final delivery of all orders under the previous MYP-II contract, which Boeing says covered 233 aircraft for the USA (210 + 23 added options), and another 24 F/A-18Fs for Australia. Boeing.

MYP-II final delivery

Jan 31/12: Support. A $48.1 million firm-fixed-price delivery order contract modification for integrated logistics support and sustaining engineering services in support of US Navy F/A-18 A-D, F/A-18 E/F, and EA-18 G aircraft. This includes in-service engineering, information systems work, technical data updates, support equipment engineering, training and software integration support.

Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO (70%); El Segundo, CA (15%); Oklahoma City, OK (6%); Bethpage, NY (5%); and San Diego, CA (4%); and is expected to be complete in December 2012 (N00383-06-D-001J).

Jan 25/12: +15. A $687.5 million ceiling-priced modification to the MYP-III fixed-price-incentive-fee multi-year procurement contract buys another 15 FY 2012 Super Hornets in Full-Rate Production Lot 36, using the variation in quantity clause: another 14 single-seat F/A-18Es, and an F/A-18F.

Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO (45.2%); El Segundo, CA (44.6%); Hazelwood, MO (3.4%); Cleveland, OH (1.7%); Torrance, CA (1.4%); Vandalia, OH (1%); Ajax, Canada (1%); Irvine, CA (0.7%); Johnson City, N.Y. (0.5%); and Grand Rapids, MI (0.5%); and is expected to be complete in October 2014 (N00019-09-C-0019).

15 more added

Dec 20/11: Japan loss. Japan’s F-X competition picks Lockheed Martin’s F-35 over Boeing’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet International, and EADS’ Eurofighter.

Japan

FY 2011

More for USN; More for Australia?; #500 delivered; USN’s long-term maintenance planning. F/A-18Es over Afghanistan
(click to view full)

Sept 30/11: Support. A $22 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to provide non-recurring engineering in support of the F/A18E/F and EA-18G multi-year procurement. Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO, and is expected to be complete in October 2014 (N00019-09-C-0019).

Sept 29/11: Support. A $298.6 million cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order for logistics support and associated material requirements for the F/A-18E/F aircraft. This effort also includes the government of Australia (3%, $8.96M) under the Foreign Military Sale Program.

Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO, and is to be complete by December 2014. US Naval Supply Systems Command Weapon Systems Support in Philadelphia, PA manages this contract (N00383-06-D-001J, #0014).

Sept 12/11: Australia. During a joint press conference with Canada’s defense minister Peter MacKay, Australian Minister for Defence Stephen Smith says that they might buy more Super Hornets – but no decision has been taken. The window is closing, however, unless the USA extends production beyond MYP-III. So:

“Our position on Joint Strike Fighters I’ll restate. We’ve committed ourselves to 14. The White Paper or the Defence Capability Plan talks in terms of ultimately a number up to or around 100, but we’ve committed to 14… we’ll do an exhaustive risk assessment in the course of next year and make a judgment next year about whether we need any transition capability… The last thing I will allow will be a gap in our capability for our air combat capability. And if I am concerned or worried or not persuaded there won’t be a gap in terms of delivery of the Joint Strike Fighters, then an obvious option for us is more Super Hornets. We’ve made no decision to that effect.”

July 12/11: Former USAF F-16 pilot Mike Gerzanics pens “Testing the new-generation Super Hornet“, documenting his experience flying an F/A-18F Block II simulator. Overall, he was impressed by the radar and liked the aircraft, but said:

“My overall feel for the pilot/vehicle interface, while it is effective and combat proven, was that it lags newer aircraft. Tactical information, for the most part, is presented on separate displays, forcing the pilot to do much of the fusion. This federated arrangement is no different from what I experienced when I flew a Block 60 F-16 simulator… [In contrast,] The F-35’s level of integration and sensor fusion was a generation ahead of what I experienced in the Block II Super Hornet and Block 60 F-16 simulator sessions… A next-generation [Super Hornet] cockpit is also under development and has a very large 19in x 11in touch-sensitive display. I was able to fly a cockpit built around this display and can confirm that it provides an ideal palette to display fused tactical information.”

June 13/11: +9. A $408.8 million ceiling-priced fixed-price-incentive-fee contract modification for 9 single-seat F/A-18Es from Full-Rate Production Lot 35, in accordance with clauses that let the US Navy add aircraft above baseline FY 2011 purchases.

As usual, note that these contracts are for airframes and integration, leaving out purchases of minor accouterments like radar, engines, etc. Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO, and is expected to be complete in December 2013 (N00019-09-C-0019).

9 more added

April 20/11: #500. Boeing and the U.S. Navy celebrate the induction of the 500th Super Hornet family fighter (F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and EA-18G Growlers) into the US Navy. Boeing.

#500

April 15/11: SAR – more planes. The Pentagon’s Selected Acquisitions Report ending Dec 30/10 includes the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. While EA-18G plans rise to 114 aircraft:

“F/A-18 E/F – Program costs increased $2,888.8 million (+6.0 percent) from $48,091.4 million to $50,980.2 million, due primarily to a quantity increase of 41 aircraft from 515 to 556 aircraft (+$3,105.4 million) and associated schedule, engineering, and estimating allocations

• (+$208.6 million), the application of revised escalation indices (+$392.2 million), and an increase in initial spares for the additional 41 aircraft (+$94.1 million). These increases are partially offset by a reduction due to multi-year procurement contract award (-$390.4 million), adjustments for current and prior escalation (-$397.8 million), and decreases in other support costs (-$56.5 million).

• Note: Quantity changes are estimated based on the original SAR baseline cost-quantity relationship. Cost changes since the original baseline are separately categorized as schedule, engineering, or estimating “allocations.” The total impact of a quantity change is the identified “quantity” change plus all associated “allocations.”

See also April 1/10 entry.

SAR – more planes

March 3/11: Support. Boeing in St. Louis, MO receives an $8.8 million firm-fixed-price delivery order for integrated logistics support; in-service engineering; information systems; technical data; support equipment engineering; automated maintenance environment; training/software integration support; provisioning; and A-D sustaining engineering services in support of the F/A-18 A-D Hornet, F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet, and EA-18G Growler aircraft.

Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO (70%); El Segundo, CA (15%); Oklahoma City, OK (6%); Bethpage, NY (5%); and San Diego, CA (4%), and is expected to be complete in December 2011. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00383-06-D-001J).

Feb 14/11: FY 2012 request. The Pentagon releases its FY 2012 budget request: $2.662 billion for 28 Super Hornets ($153 million RDT&E, $77.2 million spares, $2.432 billion procurement), and $1.125 billion for 12 more EA-18Gs ($1.108 billion procurement, $17.1 million RDT&E).

Note that this funding also provides the advance procurement resources for 28 FY 2013 aircraft, continues research into planned spiral upgrades of F/A-18E/F onboard systems, and funds common shared cost between the EA-18G and F/A-E/F programs out of the F/A-E/F budget. The EA-18G buy is very much in line with the FY 2011 request, while the Super Hornet order rises sharply from the FY 2011 request of $1.976 billion for 22 aircraft ($148.4 million RDT&E, $41.2 million spares, $1.787 billion procurement). The F-35 program’s lateness is making itself felt here, otherwise the Super Hornet buy would actually have fallen from FY 2011 – 2012.

Jan 18/11: Support. US NAVAIR discusses its efforts to create a 6-year Planned Maintenance Interval (PMI) site for Super Hornet aircraft. With large numbers of Navy Super Hornets near their scheduled deep inspections and maintenance, they plan to use the Fleet Readiness Center Southeast (FRCSE) hangar at Cecil Commerce Center, near Jacksonville, FL, as an overflow and companion facility for NAS Oceana, VA.

This is a boring sort of detail that ensures the continued viability of a fighter fleet intended for operations, not just for show. FRCSE has to tow the aircraft over in NAS Oceana, but the Florida facility will be fly-in/fly-out. Airplanes progress through 4 work cells: disassembly and inspection, repair, final assembly and operations, and flightline preparation for the Functional Check Flight. FRCSE is working on 4 prototypes in FY 2011, with a goal of 16 planes per year.

Jan 6/11: More F/A-18s. The Pentagon announces a number of changes, instead to take $150 billion from administration and weapons programs, and shift them into higher priority weapon programs. The F-35B goes on probation, and F-35 production is cut by over 100 planes during the 2012-2016 period.

In exchange, the Navy will order 41 more F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, using MYP-III options. That means another 15 in FY 2012 & 2013, and another 11 in FY 2014, on top of existing order plans. Pentagon release re: overall plan | Full Gates speech and Gates/Mullen Q&A transcript | F-35 briefing hand-out [PDF] || Atlanta Journal Constitution | The Atlantic | The libertarian Cato Institute | Defense Update | Fort Worth Star-Telegram’s Sky Talk blog | The Hill | NY Times | Politico | Stars and Stripes || Agence France Presse | BBC | Reuters | UK’s Telegraph | China’s Xinhua.

More Super Hornets

Dec 30/10: FIRST. Boeing in St. Louis, MO receives a $69.1 million delivery order under the F/A-18 Integrated Readiness Support Team (FIRST) Program for continued support of F/A-18 A-D Hornet, F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet, and EA-18G Growler fleets of the U.S. Navy ($64.6M/ 93.6%); and the governments of Australia ($1.7M/ 2.5%), Canada ($513,996; 0.7%), Spain ($513,996/ 0.7%), Finland ($513,966/ 0.7%), Switzerland ($513,996; 0.7%), Kuwait ($513,996; 0.7%), and Malaysia ($256,998/ 0.4%).

Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO (70%); El Segundo, CA (15%); Oklahoma City, OK (6%); Bethpage, NY (5%); and San Diego, CA (4%). Work is expected to be complete in December 2011. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages this contract (N00383-06-D-001J). See also Jan 3/06 entry, in this section.

Dec 22/10: Support. An $11.7 million fixed-price-incentive-fee contract modification for one-time engineering in support of the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G Multi-Year III buy. Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO, and is expected to be complete in February 2012 (N00019-09-C-0019).

Dec 6/10: Support. Boeing in St. Louis, MO receives a $17.6 million modification to a delivery order, for supplies and services in support of the follow-on test and evaluation of the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft.

Work will be performed in Naval Air Station Patuxent River, MD (77%); St. Louis, MO (21%); El Segundo, CA (1%); and Bethpage, NY (1%), and is expected to be complete in October 2011. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year (N00019-11-G-0001).

FY 2010

Program expands; MYP-III contract; FY 2010 budget adds more; Super Hornet International. F/A-18F over CV-63
(click to view full)

Sept 28/10: A $5.297 billion modification, converting a previous advance acquisition contract (N00019-09-C-0019) to a fixed-price-incentive-fee multi-year contract. Over its lifetime to May 2015, MYP-III will supply 124 base airframes: 46 single-seat F/A-18Es, 20 two-seat F/A-18Fs, and 58 of the EA-18G electronic attack airframes for the US Navy. Deliveries will begin in 2012. Boeing F/A-18 and EA-18 Programs Vice President Kory Mathews:

“Procurement of these 124 aircraft through a multi-year contract… will generate more than $600 million in cost savings for U.S. taxpayers… Boeing and its Hornet Industry Team suppliers have delivered every Super Hornet and Growler on schedule to the warfighter and on budget for the taxpayer from the first Super Hornet delivery… The first two F/A-18E/F multi-year contracts generated more than $1.7 billion in savings for the United States.”

Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO (45.2%); El Segundo, CA (44.6%); Hazelwood, MO (3.4%); Cleveland, OH (1.7%); Torrance, CA (1.4%); Vandalia, OH (1%); Ajax, Ontario, Canada (1%); Irvine, CA (0.7%); Johnson City, NY (0.5%); and Grand Rapids, MI (0.5%). Work is expected to be complete in May 2015. See also Boeing.

MYP-III

Sept 28/10: Support. A $249 million delivery order under a firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract covers logistics support and associated materials for F/A-18E/F aircraft. Work will be performed in St Louis, MO, and is expected to be complete by September 2011.

This effort combines purchases for the US Navy (99%) and the government of Australia (1%), and was not competitively awarded. The Naval Inventory Control Point in Philadelphia, PA manages this contract (N00383-06-D-001J, #0010).

Sept 24/10: Support. A $21.6 million firm-fixed-price delivery order for integrated logistics support, in-service engineering, information systems, technical data, support equipment engineering, automated maintenance environment, training/software integration support, provisioning and sustaining engineering in support of F/A-18 A-D, E/F, and EA-18G aircraft. This modification combines purchases for the U.S. Navy ($18.5 million; 85.7%) and the governments of Australia ($2.5 million, 11.5%); Canada ($212,300, 1%); Spain ($147,700, 0.7%); Finland ($98,500, 0.5%); Kuwait ($61,500, 0.3%), Switzerland ($52,300, 0.2%), and Malaysia ($12,300; 0.1%), under the Foreign Military Sales program.

Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO (70%); El Segundo, CA (15%); Oklahoma City, OK (6%); Bethpage, NY (5%); and San Diego, CA (4%); and is expected to be complete in December 2010. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00383-06-D-001J).

Aug 10/11: Support. A $9.3 million firm-fixed-price delivery order for organizational level peculiar support equipment in support of 4 emerging F/A-18E/F aircraft squadron stand-ups (VFA-25, VFA-146, VFA-192, and VFA-151). Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO, and is expected to be complete in July 2013. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11. The US Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division in Lakehurst, NJ manages the contract (N68335-10-G-0012).

July 20/10: Super Hornet International. Boeing’s VP and General Manager of Global Strike Systems, Shelley Lavender, announces a “Super Hornet International Road Map” at Farnborough 2010. Technology modifications would include internal IRST to detect infrared emissions from enemy aircraft (instead of the US Navy’s current retrofit approach using a modified centerline fuel tank), an enclosed weapon pod to lower radar signature, full spherical laser and missile warning systems, a new cockpit based on large touch-screen technology, improved F414 engines (EDE/EPE), and conformal fuel tanks mounted up top to boost range.

These enhancements are described as an “international road map,” reflecting ongoing competitions in Brazil, Denmark, India, and elsewhere. These same modifications also have the potential to become part of a US Navy multi-year buy agreement with Boeing, if the Navy is willing. Presentation [PDF] | See also “Future Hornets?” section, below.

June 17/10: Exec change. Boeing announces that 26-year veteran Kory Mathews will serve as program vice president of F/A-18 and EA-18 Programs within Boeing’s Global Strike Systems division. The VP is responsible for customer satisfaction and the quality, cost, and schedule performance of every facet of the F/A-18A-F and the EA-18G family, and leads all activities associated with program development, production, and support.

Mathews moves from his role as VP and Chief Engineer for Boeing Military Aircraft. He succeeds Bob Gower, who has been named to the new position of VP Boeing Military Aircraft (BMA) India.

May 19/10: MYP? As part of its revisions to the FY 2011 defense budget, the House Armed Services Committee’s summary is vocal and insistent about their request for another multi-year buy program:

“…the Committee is extremely concerned by the Navy and Marine Corps managing and accepting an unprecedented level of operational risk within their tactical air force structure while waiting for the completion of the F-35B and F-35C. The Committee estimates that by FY 2017, the Navy and Marine Corps inventory could be at least 250 aircraft short of requirements – the equivalent of five carrier air wings. This is an unacceptable outcome, and the Committee will not support future budget requests [emphasis DID’s] that fail to address the factual realities of a naval strike fighter shortfall. Barring a complete reversal of the development and performance failures in the Joint Strike Fighter program, the Committee expects future budget submissions to continue the production of F-18s to prevent our naval airpower from losing significance in our nation’s arsenal. Because of the Navy’s inability to meet required reporting dates, the bill makes technical corrections to the multi-year authority provided in the FY10 NDAA and requires the Secretary of the Navy to use the savings garnered from the multi-year procurement contract for 124 aircraft, over the previously planned annual procurement contracts, to procure additional F/A-18E or F/A-18F aircraft up to the quantity that the savings would enable.”

See House Armed Service Committee: Chairman’s statement | Summary [PDF] | Tables [PDF].

May 14/10: MYP? The Pentagon takes a big step closer to a multi-year contract for Super Hornet family fighters:

“[Ashton Carter] certified to Congress that the proposed F/A-18 multiyear procurement met statutory requirements, including substantial savings, for 124 F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft. The proposed agreement will run for four years, from fiscal 2010 through 2013… the Department of the Navy will continue to work with Congress to gain necessary legislative authorities required before the Navy may enter into a multiyear contract… [to] acquire the remaining program of record for the 515 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and 114 EA-18G Growlers.

The Navy’s fiscal 2011 budget request, sent to Congress Feb. 1, includes $1.9 billion to buy 22 Super Hornets and $1.1 billion for 12 Growlers. In fiscal 2012, the Navy plans to buy 24 more Growlers and one Super Hornet, with 25 more Super Hornets in fiscal 2013.”

See: US DoD | Rep. Todd Akin [R-MO-2] | Sen. Kit Bond [R-MO] statement and Letter to SecDef Gates [PDF] | DoD Buzz.

May 1/10: MYP? Two months after its 1st request, the Pentagon asks for a second extension of 5 months, in order to negotiate a 3rd multi-year procurement deal for Boeing’s F/A-18 Super Hornet family fighters. Tough sledding, or just bureaucrats stalling? The Hill.

April 6/10: Support. FBO Pre-solicitation #N0001905G0026Phase4ModLine

“The Naval Air Systems Command intends to issue a cost plus fixed fee order under existing basic ordering agreement N00019-05-G-0026 with The Boeing Company in St. Louis, Mo for the procurement of over and above support during the Phase 4 mod line on a sole source basis. Boeing will be installing multiple engineering change proposal kits into F/A-18 E/F and EA-18G aircraft during the phase 4 mod line. The Boeing Company is the sole designer, developer, manufacturer ad integrator of the F/A-18 E/F and EA-18G aircraft and is the only source with the knowledge, expertise and on-site personnel base necessary to accomplish this effort.”

AMRAAM from F/A-18F
(click to view larger)

April 1/10: SAR – more planes. The Pentagon releases its April 2010 Selected Acquisitions Report, covering major program cost changes up to December 2009. All Super Hornet family aircraft are included, because the Pentagon plans to buy more of them:

“EA-18G – Program costs increased $2,901.0 million (+33.5%) from $8,649.1 million to $11,550.1 million, due primarily to a quantity increase of 29 aircraft from 85 to 114 aircraft (+$2,342.5 million) and associated schedule and estimating allocations

• (+$7.8 million), and an increase in support costs for 26 expeditionary aircraft associated with the quantity increase (+$547.6 million).

F/A-18 E/F – Program costs increased $1,746.6 million (+3.8%) from $46,344.8 million to $48,091.4 million, due primarily to a quantity increase of 22 aircraft from 493 to 515 aircraft (+$1,872.9 million), and increases in other support costs and initial spares associated with the quantity increase (+$427.9 million). These increases were partially offset by a reduction in the estimate for foreign military sales (-$198.3 million) [DID: which would have helped defray some American costs] and the estimate for actual contract costs and efficiencies (-$208.6 million), and the application of revised escalation indices (-$131.9 million).”

SAR – more planes

March 1/10: MYP? Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn asks for an extension on the deadline to notify Congress of a new multiyear Super Hornet family deal. Lynn reportedly told the congressional defense committees that the Pentagon had recently received “a viable offer” from Boeing for 124 of the fighters, but would need more time to evaluate the contract offer. The Hill.

July 30/09: The US House of Representatives passes its defense budget (H.R. 3326) by a crushing 400-30 vote. The FY 2010 Super hornet buy had been cut to 9 fighters in the Pentagon request, in order to fund the F-35 program. Both the House and the Senate promptly added $560 million and 9 more Super Hornets to their bills, bringing the FY 2010 total to 40 planes: 18 Super Hornets and 22 EA-18G electronic warfare aircraft.

This is in line with past years, and avoids a production line slowdown at Boeing. It also addresses expressed concerns about a naval fighter numbers gap created by the retirement of older fighters, and the uncertainty of the F-35C’s on-time arrival. The House also appears to be gearing up for another 5-year procurement contract for 150 more Super Hornet family planes, instead of reverting to year-by-year buys.

Reconciliation eventually took place with the Senate’s counterpart S. 1390 bill, and the final total of 40 Super Hornet family planes remained.

June 23/09: MYP? Government Executive magazine reports that Boeing has submitted an unsolicited offer to the US Navy for an MYP-III program that would build 149 Super Hornet family aircraft over the next 5 years for $50 million each base cost, instead of the planned Navy buys of 89 aircraft over the next 3 years. As always, key government-furnished equipment like engines, radars, the EA-18G’s electronic warfare equipment, etc. would fall under their own separate contracts, so actual cost per operational plane will be higher.

Present studies indicate that age and retirement, coupled with the F-35C program’s long lead time, will leave the Navy below its planned number of operational carrier-based fighters, rising to a maximum of 69 planes in 2017.

Feb 3/10: MYP? Ranking House Armed Services Seapower subcommittee Rep. Todd Akin [R-MO] publicly supports building more Super Hornet family aircraft, and advocates a multi-year buy approach for the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G, similar to the 2005-2009 contract. In Rep. Arkin’s release, he says that:

“I remain concerned that the Department of Defense is not taking the Navy’s strike fighter shortfall seriously… The Super Hornet is an active production line, and is dramatically cheaper than the JSF, which may not deliver anywhere close to on time… In this case, a multi-year procurement could save hundreds of millions of dollars, but the DoD seems to have their head in the sand. Secretary Gates mentioned that he thinks we need to have a 10% savings before we use a multi-year agreement. However, the Congress already gave DoD the authority to use a multiyear in this situation, even if the savings is less than 10%… A multiyear procurement could save nearly half a billion dollars over the next few years. To not pursue that savings is just irresponsible.”

FY 2009 and earlier

FY 2010 order raised; F-35 issues; FIRST support contract. F/A-18E, armed
(click to view full)

June 2/09: Budget battles. US Navy CNO Adm. Roughead defends the FY 2010 budget decision to request only 9 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets instead of 18 ($1.19 billion, incl. $127.7 million RDT&E), alongside the planned 22 EA-18G Growlers ($1.69 billion, incl. 55.4 million RDT&E). The decision was made in order to speed up F-35 fielding and procurement, though the F-35C carrier model isn’t scheduled for fielding until 2015. The US Marines’ F-35B STOVL(Short Takeoff, Vertical Landing) variant still hopes to begin fielding in 2012. Current FY 2010 plans call for 30 F-35s: 10 USAF F-35As, 16 USMC F-35Bs, and 4 USN F-35C test aircraft.

Gannett’s Navy Times quotes Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway re: Future plans:

“The initial vertical flight has slid right six or seven months… going to happen this fall… But the most recent information we have out of Fort Worth is that the engine is developing even more power than we thought it might for vertical lift, so we’re encouraged… We reach initial operating capability in 2012… We are the first of the services… We’re anxious to put it aboard ship and see how it performs there. Then we will make a joint Navy-Marine Corps decision in terms of what the resulting numbers of our buy needs to look like. But we’re fairly encouraged by what we see.”

They weren’t successful. Both the House and Senate defense bills went on to add $560 million for 9 more F/A-18 E/F aircraft, raising the FY 2010 buy to 18. There is also talk of a follow-on MYP-III contract.

FIRST: the goal
(click to view full)

Sept 26/07: FIRST prize. The F/A-18 Integrated Readiness Support Teaming (FIRST) program receives the system-level award for excellence in the field of performance-based logistics from the U.S. Department of Defense and the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA). Under FIRST, the US Navy pays for a set level of aircraft readiness, not individual spare parts or services. Industry has the incentive to make parts and systems more reliable, while the customer enjoys increased readiness at a lower cost of ownership.

FIRST has improved the Super Hornet’s mission capable rate from a problematic 57% in 2000 to 73% thus far in 2007, while providing significant cost savings. In Boeing’s press release, FIRST program manager Larry Sellman is quoted as saying something the British already knew, which is that:

“We continue to prove that streamlining the support for a major weapons system through a public/private partnership is the best solution for everyone.”

Jan 3/06: Boeing announces a long-term, $995 million performance-based logistics contract from the US Navy for the F/A-18E/F Integrated Readiness Support Teaming (FIRST) program. FIRST consolidates a number of existing Naval Inventory Control Point (NAVICP) contracts into one, and adds new services including an automated maintenance environment with an integrated software program that improves maintenance data, fault diagnosis and decisions; as well as integrated electronic technical manuals for F/A-18A-D Hornet models.

Under FIRST, Boeing will manage and forecast spares and repairs, oversee spares inventories, make supportability improvements within the budget in order to meet its availability targets, and handle obsolescence management and technology insertion. Like the British “contracting for availability” agreements, the objective is to improve fleet support and aircraft readiness while reducing costs. Boeing will be rewarded for having the aircraft meet in-service readiness targets, rather than getting paid for spare parts or hours worked.

Boeing currently provides field service representatives on site at aircraft bases in California and Virginia under the Hornet support network concept, and this infrastructure will be leveraged for the new contract. Several original equipment manufacturer suppliers, along with Navy depots in California, North Carolina and Florida, will also be used to perform FIRST repairs.

FIRST began in 2001 with annual contracts, and the program is projected to provide approximately $1.0 billion in cost avoidances and savings over the 30-plus-year life cycle of the Super Hornet. FIRST was nominated for the Department of Defense awards program for excellence in performance based logistics by the Navy’s Program Executive Office for Tactical Aircraft in Patuxent River Naval Air Station, MD, USA.

FIRST support contract

GFE: Ancillary Contracts & Developments

As noted above, multi-year procurement buys don’t extend to all Super Hornet and Growler components, many of which are provided as “Government Furnished Equipment.” Nor do they cover many fixes and changes to the fighter family’s design. This section includes some of those ancillary items, from FY 2010 onward. It isn’t 100% comprehensive, but may help readers understand the scope involved.

Additional GFE coverage can be found in DID’s separate Spotlight article covering the AN/APG-79 AESA radar, and an effort to develop long-range Infrared Scan & Track capabilities as a bolt-on addition; those contracts are not included here. Nor are specific items unique to the EA-18G, like jamming equipment, which is covered in the Growler’s own FOCUS article.

FY 2014

AIM-120C7 onto LAU-116
(click to view full)

Sept 19/14: Support. Boeing in St. Louis, MO receives a $9.4 million delivery order for engineering and logistics support services to improve F/A-18A-F and E/A-18G readiness, expand Interactive Electronic Technical Manual/Structural Repair Manual work packages, and perform maintenance planning. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2014 US Navy O&M funds.

Work will be performed in St. Louis, Missouri, and is expected to be complete in September 2015 (N00019-11-G-0001, 0211).

Sept 19/14: Support. Boeing in Jacksonville, FL receives an $8.8 million firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee to a previously awarded indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract modification, exercising an option for depot-level service life extension and remanufacturing activities, including associated maintenance support and sustainment in support of the F/A-18E/F aircraft. Funds will be committed as needed.

Work will be performed in Jacksonville, FL (92%), and St. Louis, MO (8%), and is expected to be complete in September 2015 (N00019-14-D-0001).

Aug 28/14: HARM computers. Raytheon in Tucson, AZ receives $24.6 million for a firm-fixed-price delivery order to provide 158 High Speed Anti-Radiation Command Launch Computers for the U.S. Navy (121) and the government of Australia (37) for F/A-18 E/F and EA-18G aircraft. These CLCs work with AGM-88 HARM and AARGM missiles, which are designed to destroy enemy air defense radars. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2012 – 2013 US Navy ($20.5M / 83.5%) and Australian ($4.1M / 16.5%) budgets.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ, and is expected to be complete in February 2018. US NAVAIR in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-10-G-0006, DO 0060).

Aug 18/14: AMC. General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems in Minneapolis, MN receives a $16.3 million firm-fixed-price contract for the full-rate Lot 38 production of 60 Advanced Mission Computer Type 3s for E/A-18Gs ordered by the US Navy (48 AMCs / $9.8 million / 60%) and the government of Australia (12 AMCs / $6.5 million / 40%). All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2014 US Navy aircraft budgets and Australian FMS funds.

Work will be performed in Bloomington, MN and is expected to be complete in August 2016. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to 10 USC 2304 (c)(1) by US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD (N00019-14-C-0068).

Aug 11/14: Engines. General Electric Co. in Lynn, MA receives a $311.5 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for 75 F414-GE-400 engines and associated devices: 48 production installs for the US Navy ($194.9 million / 63% / all production installs), and 27 for Australia ($116.6 million / 37% / 24 EA-18G production installs and 3 spares), under Production Lot 14. In addition, this modification provides for spare after burner modules, fan modules, high pressure combustor modules, combustor modules, and high and low pressure turbine modules for the US Navy and the government of Australia. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2013-14 US Navy aircraft budgets, and Australian funds.

Work will be performed in Lynn, MA (59%); Hooksett, NH (18%); Rutland, VT (12%); and Madisonville, KY (11%), and is expected to be complete in September 2016. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contracts (N00019-11-C-0045).

July 23/14: Training. L-3 Communications Corp. in Arlington, TX, receives a $14.1 million firm-fixed-price delivery order modification to improve F/A-18E/F and EA-18G Tactical Operational Flight Trainers (TOFT). The update reduces host/instructor operator station hardware, centralizes software storage in a SAN and provides expandable software storage for future TOFT enhancements, allows for multiple software configurations, and updates all analog Mission Management System (MMS) video output to digital. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2014 US Navy aircraft budgets.

Work will be performed in Lemoore, CA (20%); Miramar, CA (20%); Whidbey, WA (15%); Oceana, VA (15%); China Lake, CA (10%); Arlington, TX (10%); and Atsugi, Japan (10%), and is expected to be complete in June 2016. The Us Navy’s Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division in Orlando, FL manages the contract (N61340-12-G-0001).

July 23/14: Support. Boeing in Jacksonville, FL receives a $7.7 million firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract modification for additional FY 2014 F/A-18A-F depot-level service life extension and remanufacturing activities, including associated maintenance support and sustainment. Funds will be committed as individual delivery orders are issued.

Work will be performed in St. Louis, Missouri (61%), and Jacksonville, FL (39%), and is expected to be complete in July 2015. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity (N00019-14-D-0001).

July 14/14: Boeing in St. Louis, MO receives a $6.9 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to a previously awarded for aircraft armament equipment items: SUU-789A/A centerline pylons for the US Navy (35) and Royal Australian Government (15); and ALE-50 well covers for the U.S. Navy (11). All funds are committed immediately.

Work will be performed in El Segundo, CA (95%); Irvine, CA (4%); and St. Louis, MO (1%), and is expected to be complete in May 2017. This contract combines purchase for the U.S. Navy ($4.9 million / 70%) and the government of Australia ($2 million / 30%) under the Foreign Military Sales Program. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity (N00019-14-C-0032).

May 14/14: Ejection seats. Martin Baker Aircraft Co., Ltd. in Higher Denham nar Uxbridge, Middlesex, England receives a $26.4 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to exercise an option for the procurement of 89 Navy aircrew common ejection seats for F/A-18 series and EA-18G aircraft for the U.S. Navy (65) and the government of Australia (24). In addition, this option provides for associated hardware, equipment, technical data, and production support services for the US Navy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the governments of Australia, Switzerland, Malaysia, and Canada. All funds are committed immediately, using a variety of FY 2013 and 2014 budgets.

Work will be performed in Johnstown, PA (60%) and Higher Denham, England (40%), and is expected to be complete in May 2016. This contract combines purchase for the US Navy and Marine Corps ($18.8 million, 71%), NASA ($4,985; 0.2%) and the governments of Australia ($6.9 million, 26%); Canada ($538,347; 2%); Switzerland ($154,525; 0.6%); and Malaysia ($39,878; 0.2%) under the Foreign Military Sales Program. US Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-12-C-0066).

Feb 3/14: A $42.2 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for F/A-18E/F and EA-18G jumper bundles, pylons, and bomb racks.

All funds are committed immediately, using USN FY 2013 aircraft budgets. Work will be performed in Meza, AZ (71%) and St. Louis, MO (29%), and is expected to be complete in May 2018 (N00019-09-C-0019).

Jan 29/14: Raytheon Technical Services Co. LLC in Indianapolis, IN receives a $17.3 million firm-fixed-price delivery order from Australia and the USN for missile launchers. The government of Australia ordered for 28 LAU-115D/A and 30 LAU-116-B/A launchers ($11.4 million / 66%), while the USN ordered 34 LAU-116-B/A missile launchers ($5.8 million / 34%). LAU-115s are used carry air-ti-air missiles like AIM-120 AMRAAM and AIM-9 Sidewinder. LAU-116s are mounted on the undersize of the aircraft, and allow it to carry AIM-120 AMRAAMs there.

All funds are committed immediately, using USN 2013-2014 aircraft budgets and funds from Australia. Work will be performed in Indianapolis, IN, and is expected to be complete in September 2016 (N00019-10-G-0006).

Jan 28/14: Marvin Engineering Co., Inc. in Inglewood, CA receives a $7.4 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, exercising an option for 156 BRU-32 Ejector Bomb Racks in support of the F/A-18 E/F and EA-18G aircraft.

All funds are committed immediately, using USN aircraft budgets. Work will be performed in Inglewood, CA, and is expected to be complete in July 2016 (N00421-13-C-0002).

Nov 6/13: F414. General Electric in Lynn, MA receives an $8 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, for F414-GE-400 engine long-lead materials.

All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2013 budget dollars. Work will be performed in Lynn, MA (59%); Hooksett, NH (18%); Rutland, VT (12%); and Madisonville, KY (11%), and is expected to be complete in October 2015 (N00019-11-C-0045).

Nov 5/13: Boeing in St. Louis, MO receives a $13.7 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for Super Hornet family equipment: 270 station control units, 13 aerial refueling stores (ARS) air probes, 13 ARS fuel probes, 26 ARS suspension lugs, 168 chaff dispenser cover, 26 ALE-50 towed decoy dispensers, 26 ALE-50 decoy protectors, 26 ALE-50 decoy chassis, 26 ALE-67 Radar Warning Receiver mounting bases, 26 mounting retainers, and 12 centerline feed-thru plates.

All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2013 budget dollars. Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO, and is expected to be complete in August 2015 (N00019-09-C-0019).

FY 2013

China Lake TOFT
(click to view full)

Sept 23/13: Avionics. A $12.9 million firm-fixed-price delivery order for 114 Super Hornet advanced navigation system retrofit kits. $2.8 million is committed immediately. Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO, and is expected to be complete in May 2017 (N00019-11-G-0001, 0164).

Sept 23/13: ECP – DTS. A $24.6 million for firm-fixed-price delivery order for Distributed Targeting System B kits (modification kits), bulk data cartridge units and mass storage units. It’s part of the F/A-18E/F Full Rate Production I aircraft Distributed Targeting System engineering change proposal. The DTS is discussed in the “Future Hornets” section.

This contract combines purchases for the U.S. Navy ($17.75M/ 72%) and the Government of Australia ($6.83M/ 28%). All funds are committed immediately.

Work will be performed in Melbourne, FL (75%); St. Louis, MO (21%); North Reading, MA (1.6%); and various other locations in the United States (2.4%); and is expected to be completed in August 2015 (N00019-11-G-0001, 0161).

July 18/13: F414. General Electric in Lynn, MA receives an $87 million firm-fixed-price contract modifications, exercising an option for 22 Full Rate Production Lot 17 F414-GE-400 install engines to equip 11 F/A-18E/F aircraft. Other Lot 17 engine buys have included 18 engines (EA-18Gs, Dec 28/12) and 52 engines (Nov 30/12). All funds are committed immediately from Navy FY 2013 procurement budgets. A Sept 26/12 contract set the maximum at 83 engines, and they’ve now ordered 82 engines for 41 planes.

Work will be performed in Lynn, MA (59%); Hooksett, NH (18%); Rutland, VT (12%); and Madisonville, KY (11%), and is expected to be complete in October 2015. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-11-C-0045).

July 17/13: ECP. Boeing in St. Louis, MO, is being receives an $8.1 million firm-fixed-price delivery order for 84 F/A-18E/F retrofit kits (ECP 6282, AYC 1439 A1). All funds are committed immediately.

Engineering Change Proposals are long-term modifications to the aircraft, involving very specific parts of the plane. Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO (80%), and St. Charles, MO (20%), and is expected to be complete in February 2016. T US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-11-G-0001, #0141).

June 13/13: Radar. Raytheon in El Segundo, CA receives a $22.4 million order, covering 53 ECP-6279 retrofit kits for F/A-18 E/F and EA-18G aircraft. ECPs involve aircraft or component modifications, and the announcement doesn’t explain which one, but our coverage elsewhere shows that it involves improvements to the APG-79 AESA radar. All funds are committed.

Work will be performed in Forest, MS (80%), and El Segundo, CA (20%), and is expected to be completed in July 2015. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-10-G-0006; delivery order 0036).

June 13/13: Radar. Boeing St. Louis, MO receives a $9 million firm-fixed-price delivery order for 30 ECP-6038 R2/R3 retrofit kits for the F/A-18 E/F aircraft, including radomes for the AN/APG-79 active electronically scanned array radar. A fighter’s radome nose cone is very specialized. It needs to allow the right radiation wavelengths to pass in and out easily, while remaining durable enough to handle the shocks and stresses of flight.

Work will be performed in Marion, VA (57%) and St. Louis, Mo. (43%), and is expected to be completed in January 2016. Fiscal 2013 Aircraft Procurement Navy contract funds in the amount of $8,996,280 are being obligated on this award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-11-G-0001).

May 29/13: Avionics. Honeywell Aerospace Defense & Space in Albuquerque, NM receives a $9 million firm-fixed-price contract for 121 F/A-18E/F and EA-18G advanced multi-purpose displays. All funds are committed immediately.

Work will be performed in Albuquerque, NM, and is expected to be complete in January 2015. This contract was not competitively procured, pursuant to FAR 6.302-1. The Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-13-C-0048).

May 9/13: Boeing in St. Louis, MO receives a $6.9 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for F/A-18E/F and EA-18G armament equipment, including SUU-78A/A Pylons and well covers. All funds are committed immediately.

Work will be performed in El Segundo, CA (85%); St. Louis, MO (9%); and Irvine, CA (6%), and is expected to be complete in January 2016. US Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, MD, is the contracting activity (N00019-09-C-0019).

May 9/13: F414. General Electric Co. in Lynn, MA receives a $22.2 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, exercising an option for 6 F414-GE-400 engines, pre-installed in 3 EA-18Gs.

Work will be performed in Lynn, MA (59%); Hooksett, NH (18%); Rutland, VT (12%); and Madisonville, KY (11%), and is expected to be complete in March 2015. Contract funds in the amount of $22,237,386 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, MD, is the contracting activity (N00019-11-C-0045).

May 6/13: F414. General Electric Co. in Lynn, MA receives a $45.2 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, exercising an option for 7 F414-GE-400 spare engines, 1 fan module, 13 high pressure compressor modules, 9 high pressure turbine modules, and 8 low pressure turbine modules.

Work will be performed in Lynn, MA (59%); Hooksett, NH (18%); Rutland, VT (12%); and Madisonville, KY (11%), and is expected to be complete in November 2015. Fiscal 2013 Aircraft Procurement Navy funds in the amount of $45,156,940 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, MD, is the contracting activity (N00019-11-C-0045).

May 6/13: Seats. Martin Baker Aircraft Co. Ltd. in Upper Denham, Middlesex, England receives a $25.2 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, exercising an option for 100 Hornet/ Super Hornet family Navy Aircrew Common Ejection Seats (NACES), on behalf of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps. In addition, this contract provides for NACES hardware, equipment, technical data, and production support services for the US Navy, US Marine Corps, NASA, and the government of Finland. The contract breakdown is: US Navy and Marine Corps ($25M / 99%); NASA ($4,389 / 0.3%, F/A-18 Hornet only); and the government of Finland ($184,379 / 0.7%, F/A-18C/D Hornets only).

Work will be performed in Johnstown, PA (60%), and Upper Denham, Near Uxbridge, Middlesex, England (40%), and is expected to be complete in April 2015. All funds are committed immediately, with $2.9 million expiring at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/13. It’s managed by US Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, MD (N00019-12-C-0066).

April 26/13: Weapons. Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, AZ receives a $12.7 million cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order to integrate the new AGM-154C-1 JSOW into the F/A-18E/F aircraft’s H10E Operational Flight Program (core operating system) software. This JSOW variant can hit moving naval targets, turning the stealthy glide bomb into a short range anti-ship missile.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ, and is expected to be complete in February 2015. $7.7 million in FY 2013 Navy Weapons Procurement funds are committed immediately, with the rest available as needed. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, MD, is the contracting activity (N00019-10-G-0006, #2002).

April 19/13: Boeing in St. Louis, MO receives a maximum $14.8 million contract for airframe structural support components. The award is a firm-fixed-price, sole-source, definite quantity type contract with no quantity options for the USAF.

Work will be performed until Aug 31/18. The contract is managed by the US Defense Logistics Agency Aviation in Richmond, VA, (SPM4A1-09-G-0004-865W).

March 22/13: Gun. General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products in Williston, VT receives a $7 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, exercising an option for 19 M61A2 Lightweight 20mm Gatling Gun Systems in support of FY 2013 F/A-18 E/F aircraft. EA-18Gs don’t carry the cannon.

Work will be performed in Williston, VT and is expected to be complete in March 2015. All funds are committed immediately, from the FY 2013 Aircraft Procurement, Navy budget line. The US Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division in Patuxent River, MD (N00421-10-C-0024).

Feb 27/13: AMC. Harris Corp. in Palm Bay, FL receives a $10.8 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for the obsolescence upgrade to the Fibre Channel Network Switch (FCNS) used in the Advanced Mission Computer & Displays (AMC&D) system on board US Navy F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, EA-18G Growler, and E-2D Advanced Hawkeye aircraft.

Work will be performed in Melbourne, FL and is expected to be complete in September 2015. The USN is using funds from its FY 2012 Aircraft Procurement and FY 2013 Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation accounts, and all funds are committed immediately. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to the FAR 6.302-1. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-13-C-0039).

Jan 10/13: AMC. General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems in Minneapolis, MN receives a $19.2 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, exercising an option for 76 forward fit Type 3 Advanced Mission Computers for the F/A-18E/F and E/A-18G aircraft. All contract funds are committed immediately.

Work will be performed in Bloomington, MN (80%) and Albuquerque, NM (20%), and is expected to be complete in December 2014. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-10-C-0014).

Dec 28/12: F414. General Electric Co., Lynn, MA receives a $67.1 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, exercising an option for 18 F414-GE-400 Production Lot 17 install engines, and 24 “devices”. They’ll be used in EA-18Gs.

Work will be performed in Lynn, MA (59%); Hooksett, NH (18%); Rutland, VT (12%); and Madisonville, KY (11%), and is expected to be complete in March 2015. Contract funds in the amount of $67,141,518 will be obligated on this award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-11-C-0045).

Dec 19/12: Avionics. Boeing in St. Louis, MO receives an $8.9 million firm-fixed-price delivery order against a previously issued Basic Ordering Agreement for 285 Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS) retrofit kits in support of F/A-18C and F/A-18F aircraft.

Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO (56%); Meza, AZ (37%); and El Paso, TX (7%), and is expected to be complete in June 2015. All contract funds are committed immediately, of which $1.35 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/13. US NAVAIR in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract.

Dec 19/12: F414 ECIP. General Electric Aviation in Lynn, MA receives a $17.5 million cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order for engineering and engine system improvement services, as part of the F414 and F404 Engine Component Improvement Programs. $10.8 million are committed immediately, of which $6 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 13/13 (N00019-11-G-0001).

This contract combines purchases for the U.S. Navy ($13.3M / 75.6%) and the Governments of Sweden ($1.3M / 7.4%); Australia ($832,277 / 4.8%); Canada ($516,877 / 3.0%); Spain ($514,156 / 2.9%); Finland ($380,856 / 2.2%); Korea ($225,793 / 1.3%); Kuwait ($233,955 / 1.3%); Switzerland ($204,030 / 1.2%), and Malaysia ($48,967 / 0.3%), under the Foreign Military Sales Program. Work will be performed in Lynn, MA, and is expected to be complete in December 2013. US NAVAIR in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-09-G-0009).

Dec 18/12: Raytheon Technical Services Co. LLC in Indianapolis, IN receives a $17.3 million firm-fixed-price delivery order for 102 LAU-115B/A missile launchers to equip US Navy F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft (86 / $15.1M), and Australian F/A-18Fs (16 / $2.2M). These launchers are used with various adapters for air-to-air missiles: short range AIM-9 Sidewinder/ AIM-132 ASRAAM, or medium range AIM-7 Sparrow/ AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles.

Work will be performed in Indianapolis, IN in and is expected to be complete in October 2015. All contract funds are committed (N00019-10-G-0006).

Nov 30/12: F414. General Electric in Lynn, MA receives a $197.5 million modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract, exercising an option for the procurement of 52 Production Lot 17 F414-GE-400 install engines and devices, used in F/A-18E/F family fighters. That many installed engines would equip 26 planes.

Work will be performed in Lynn, MA (59%); Hooksett, NH (18%); Rutland, VT (12%); and Madisonville, KY (11%), and is expected to be complete in March 2015. All contract funds are committed with this award, which is managed by US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD (N00019-11-C-0045).

Nov 15/12: Marvin Engineering Co. Inc. in Inglewood, CA receives a $17.9 million firm-fixed-price contract for 420 BRU-32 B/A Ejector Racks. These racks can be positioned on the Super Hornet family’s centerline or wing hardpoints, and are used as the base for many stores fittings. BRU-32s have 14- and 30-inch suspension hooks, and can hold single stores or BRU-33/A vertical ejector racks (VER). The 14-inch hooks add compatibility with LAU-115/A, LAU-117/A, and LAU-118/A missile launchers. Operation is via gas pressure, with a safety interlock and sway bracing. Sensing switches are incorporated to provide status information to the cockpit.

Work will be performed in Inglewood, CA, and is expected to be complete in December 2015. All contract funds are now committed. This contract was competitively procured via an electronic request for proposals, with 2 offers received by the US Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division in Patuxent River, MD (N00421-13-C-0002).

Nov 14/12: Training. Boeing discusses an ongoing project to allow flying Super Hornets and F-15E Strike Eagle fighters to interact with virtual opponents flown in simulators, as well as “constructive” threats created wholly by a computer. This will reduce the number of opposing “red” aircraft that have to fly real missions alongside the F/A-18E/Fs or F-15Es.

Boeing began developing this modeling and simulation technology on its own in 2007, and a series of demonstrations with an F-15E through November 2009 verified key components. A Super Hornet recently completed its 1st flight tests with these new technologies, and the most recent flight tests, involved 2 F/A-18Es and 2 F-15Es simulating air combat against 2 live F-16s and 12 virtual aircraft, as well as multiple ground threats. A constructive E-3C Block 40/45 AWACS surrogate provided command and control.

Under the current 3-year, $6.3 million contract with the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory, the pilot project will culminate with a capstone demonstration at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada in late 2013. Boeing.

Nov 13/12: IFF. The US Naval Air Traffic Management Systems (PMA-213) program office plans to begin Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) Mode 5 testing aboard an F/A-18E/F Super Hornet this winter, as part of its effort to field the civil-military signal on nearly every surface, subsurface and airborne platform in the fleet.

Compared to NATO’s Mode 4, it adds better encryption, spread spectrum modulation, time of day authentication, and a unique aircraft identifier. IFF Mode 5 level 2 adds aircraft GPS position information and other attributes, which can help IFF systems when aircraft are grouped closely together. Once fielded, Mode 5 IFF is expected to achieve Joint Initial Operational Capability in FY 2014. US NAVAIR.

Nov 7/12: Training. L-3 Link Simulation & Training (L-3 Link) announces a contract from the US Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division to integrate SimuSphere HD-9 high-definition displays on 13 F/A-18E/F Tactical Operational Flight Trainers (TOFTs) at NAS Lemoore, CA; NAS Oceana, VA; and Naval Air Facility Atsugi, Japan. The Atsugi TOFTs will be new, and the others will be upgrades. This will be followed by upgrades to 4 existing EA-18G TOFTs at NAS Whidbey Island, WA.

This award follows L-3 Link’s successful fielding of SimuSphere HD-9 systems on 4 existing F/A-18C TOFTs at Naval Air Station (NAS) Oceana, VA in April 2012. The changes will help the TOFTs take full advantage of L-3’s HD World simulation product line, which combines high-definition databases, image generation systems, physics-based processing and visual system display technologies. The upgraded TOFTs will support a full range of tactical training capabilities, including the ability to use their actual flight night vision goggles, and experience real-world performance over a 360-degree field-of-regard.

FY 2012 F414-GE-400 engine
(click to see in sections)

Sept 26/12: F414. General Electric Co. in Lynn, MA receives a $327.5 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for 80 Production Lot 16 F414-GE-400 engines, 2 F414-GE-400 spare engines, 1 high pressure turbine module, and long-lead materials for the FY 2013/ Lot 17 order of 83 F414-GE-400 engines.

Work will be performed in Lynn, MA (59%); Hooksett, NH (18%); Rutland, VT (12%); and Madisonville, KY (11%), and is expected to be complete in June 2014. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-11-C-0045).

Sept 26/12: TOFTs. L-3 Link Simulation & Training Division in Arlington, TX receives a $46 million firm-fixed-price delivery order covering high definition visual systems for 23 F/A-18 and EA-18G Tactical Operational Flight Trainers (TOFTs), and installation of 2 government-owned F/A-18E/F TOFTs at the Naval Air Facility Atsugi, in Japan. Looks like the USN’s stock of government-owned TOFTs just hit 3 (q.v. March 1/12 entry).

Work will be performed in Arlington, TX (92%), and Atsugi, Japan (8%), and is expected to be complete in May 2015. The US Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division in Orlando, FL manages this contract (N61340-12-G-0001).

Sept 6/12: AMC-4. Boeing successfully flight tests General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems’ new Type 4 Advanced Mission Computer during a 90-minute flight at Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, CA. Additional testing is planned, and Boeing is set to deliver Super Hornets and Growlers with the new computer in 2014.

The AMC increases Super Hornet family computing power and accelerates image and mission processing functions, in order to support new functions like the Distributed Targeting System, Infrared Search and Track pod, and a new high-definition touch-screen display.Boeing.

Sept 6/12: Boeing in St. Louis, MO receives a $21.2 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft armament equipment. It includes station control units, ALE-50 towed decoy protectors, dispensers and chassis, air probes, fuel probes, suspension lugs, mounting bases, mounting retainers and centerline feed thru plates.

Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO and is expected to be complete in October 2014. The US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-09-C-0019).

Aug 29/12: Memory. A $10.6 million firm-fixed-price delivery order for engineering services required to retrofit a new Digital Memory Device in Production Lot 26-29 F/A-18E/F aircraft.

Work will be performed in Melbourne, FL (78%); St. Louis, MO (19%); and Oklahoma, City, OK (3%), and is expected to be complete in December 2014. $1.2 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-11-G-0001).

July 12/12: F414. General Electric in Lynn, MA receives a $13.2 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for F414-GE-400 engine support.

Work will be performed in Lynn, MA (90%) and Evendale, OH (10%), and is expected to be complete in December 2012. $274,986 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-11-C-0045).

May 23-30/2012: SATCOM. Boeing and the US Navy’s VX-31 Squadron have successfully completed an in-flight satellite communications (SATCOM) system demonstration using an EA-18G. If the system is added to fleet F/A-18E/F Super Hornets as well, it would allow their aircrews to conduct 2-way, secure voice and data communications that reach around the globe.

The test took place at the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division’s Advanced Weapons Lab at China Lake, CA, less than 90 days after the initial request. The secure voice & data transmissions were received by ground personnel at China Lake, and across the country at NAVAIR in Patuxent River, MD.

Boeing says they have delivered more than 480 F/A-18E/Fs to the U.S. Navy, adding that the fighters have logged more than 166,000 combat flight hours supporting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Boeing.

May 29/12: ECM. Raytheon in Goleta, CA receives a $9.4 million firm-fixed-price delivery order for the digital conversion and testing of 56 AN/ALR-67v3 radar warning receivers.

Work will be performed in Forest, MS (48%), San Diego, CA (38%), and Goleta, CA (14%). Work is expected to be complete in September 2014, and US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract.

May 7/12: Boeing in St. Louis, MO receives a $16.3 million firm-fixed-price, fixed-price-incentive-fee contract modification for F/A-18 E/F and EA-18G aircraft armament, including jumper bundles, pylon attach fittings, sensor well covers, adaptors, and pylons.

Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO, and is expected to be completed in May 2015. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-09-C-0019).

May 1/12: Seats. Martin Baker Aircraft Co. Ltd. in Higher Denham near Uxbridge, Middlesex, England receives a $22 million firm-fixed-price contract for 88 Navy aircrew common ejection seats and associated hardware, equipment, technical data, and production support services for the US Navy ($21.9M / 99.69% / 12 F/A-18A+, 22 F/A-18E; 12 F/A-18F; and 24 E/A-18G) and the government of Kuwait ($69,121 / 0.31% / 18 F/A-18C).

Work will be performed in Johnstown, PA (60%), and Upper Denham, Near Uxbridge, Middlesex, England (40%), and is expected to be complete in March 2014. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2304c1. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-12-C-0066).

April 4/12: F414 ECIP. General Electric Aviation in Lynn, MA receives an $8.9 million cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order against a previously issued basic ordering agreement for the F414 Engine Component Improvement Program, to include engineering and engine system improvement support. Work will be performed in Lynn, MA, and is expected to be complete in December 2012.

This contract combines purchases for the US Navy ($8.3M / 93%) and the government of Australia ($578,616 / 7%). US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-09-G-0009).

March 6/12: Boeing in St. Louis, MO receives an $8 million firm-fixed-price, fixed-price-incentive-fee contract modification for 57 SUU-78 A/A pylons, and 40 ALE-50 towed decoy well covers.

Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO, and is expected to be complete in December 2014. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-09-C-0019).

March 5/12: Gun. General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products in Williston, VT receives awarded a $7.8 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to exercise an option for 21 M61A2 20mm Lightweight Gatling Gun Systems in support of FY 2012 F/A-18 E/F aircraft.

Work will be performed in Williston, VT, and is expected to be complete in February 2014. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00421-10-C-0024).

March 1/12: TOFT. The US Navy has installed its only government owned and operated Super Hornet Tactical Operational Flight Trainer (TOFT) at its China Lake, CA facility, in order to save millions of dollars by avoiding shuttle flights to NAS Lemoore, CA.

The TOFT takes up 1,800 square feet, and requires 30 tons of extra air conditioners, but it offers local VX-9 and VX-31 pilots an alternative for qualification training and mission rehearsal. It also allows Navy PMA-205 to conduct software upgrade tests locally, shortening turnaround times. China Lake’s TOFT is identical to those located at NAS Lemoore and NAS Oceana, except that the 9-panel Simusphere visual-display dome has been replaced by a 5 foot flat panel screen. If you try this at home, we want to see the pictures! Boeing.

Feb 29/12: ECM. Raytheon Co., Space and Airborne Systems, Goleta, CA receives a $77.3 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, exercising an option for Full Rate Production Lot 14: 89 AN/ALR-67v3 radar warning receivers, and 9 countermeasure signal processor weapons replacement assemblies.

The AN/ALR-67v3 is the standard RWR system for Super Hornet family fighters, and also equips some F/A-18 Hornets – Canada and Switzerland both operate earlier-generation F/A-18 Hornets, and Australia operates both Hornets and Super Hornets. This Radar Warning Receiver is more like mission central for defensive systems. It doesn’t just alert the pilot(s) that enemy radars are targeting their fighter; it provides accurate identification, lethality, and azimuth displays of both hostile and friendly emitters. In its spare time, it controls the electronic warfare data bus, and interfaces with electronic warfare systems, the onboard radar, the airborne mission computer, and the F/A-18 weapon systems. It’s the first deployed radar warning receiver to combine a fully channelized digital receiver architecture with the power of dual processors.

Work will be performed in Forest, MS (34%); Lansdale, PA (18%); Goleta, CA (17%); Chatsworth, CA (11%); San Diego, CA (10%); Sydney, Australia (4%); Milwaukie, OR (3%); and McKinney, TX (3%). Work is expected to be complete in December 2014. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-09-C-0052).

Feb 17/12: Boeing receives a $22 million cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order for F/A-18 E/F and EA-18G follow-on test and evaluation supplies and services (N00019-11-G-0001).

Work will be performed at the Naval Air Station, Patuxent River, Md. (77%); St. Louis, MO (21%); El Segundo, CA (1%); and Bethpage, NY (1%), and is expected to be completed in February 2013. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-11-G-0001).

Feb 16/12: Displays. Honeywell International Defense & Space Electronic Systems in Albuquerque, NM receives an $8.1 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, exercising an option for 124 full rate production advanced multi-purpose displays (70 5″x5″ forward displays; 36 5″x5″ aft displays; and 18 8″x10″ displays) for Lot 35 F/A-18F and EA-18G aircraft.

Work will be performed in Albuquerque, N.M., and is expected to be completed in December 2013. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md. manages the contract (N00019-10-C-0061).

Feb 10/12: Raytheon in Goleta, CA receives an $11.6 million cost-plus-fixed-fee, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract for 56,488 hours of sensor system software and hardware support in order to update, improve, and enhance F/A-18 Hornet & Super Hornet family aircraft, including the EA-18G.

Work will be performed in Goleta, CA (59%), and El Segundo, CA (41%), and is expected to be complete in February 2015. This contract combines purchases for the U.S. Navy ($7.4M/ 64%); and, under the Foreign Military Sales Program, the governments of Malaysia ($1.3M/ 12%), Finland ($961,391/ 8%), Switzerland ($877,792/ 8%), Australia ($501,595/ 4%), and Kuwait ($501,595/ 4%). This contract was not competitively procured, pursuant to FAR 6.302-1, by the US Naval Air Warfare Center, Weapons Division in China Lake, CA (N68936-12-D-0001).

Feb 2/12: F414. General Electric Aviation in Lynn, MA receives a $7.5 million performance-based logistics requirements contract modification to supply repair & replacement consumables for 879 US Navy F414 engines, which equip its F/A-18 Super Hornet family planes.

Work will be performed at Lynn, MA (90%), and Jacksonville, FL (10%), and will run until Dec 31/12. This was a sole source requirement by NAVSUP Weapon Systems Support in Philadelphia, PA (N00383-11-D-002M).

Jan 27/12: Avionics. General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems in Bloomington, MN received awarded a $20.6 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, exercising an option for the full-rate production of 80 Type 3 Advanced Mission Computers (AMC) for the US Navy’s F/A-18E/F and E/A-18G aircraft ($19.9M/ 96%), and 3 more Type-3 AMC spares for Australia ($0.7M/ 4%).

Work will be performed in Bloomington, MN (80%), and Albuquerque, NM (20%), and is expected to be complete in December 2012. US NAVAIR in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-10-C-0014).

Jan 12/12: A 5-year, $80.6 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for maintenance, manufacturing of parts, instrumentation and engineering support for all models of the F/A-18 & EA-18G aircraft including future variants for both domestic and Foreign Military Sales, to pay for ground and flight test programs at the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division in Patuxent River, MD. Funds will be obligated on individual task orders as they are issued, between now and January 2017.

Work will be performed in Patuxent River, MD (97%), and St. Louis, MO (3%). This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to FAR 6.302-1 by the US Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division in Patuxent River, MD (N00421-12-D-0003).

Dec 8/11: AMC-4. Boeing in St. Louis, MO receives a $6.7 million firm-fixed-price, fixed-price-incentive-fee contract modification for the Delta phase of the Advanced Mission Computer (AMC) Type 4 system, which finalizes development and prepares AMC Type 4 for production. See Sept 15/11 entry for background.

Work will be performed in Bloomington, MN (71%); St. Louis, MO (24%); and Linthicum, MD (5%), and is expected to be complete in December 2013. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-09-C-0019).

Nov 18/11: Launchers. Raytheon Technical Services Co., LLC in Indianapolis, IN receives a $55.9 million delivery order modification, exercising an option for 237 LAU-116B/A and 213 LAU-115D/A launchers, for use on Super Hornet family aircraft. LAU-115 launchers sit under the wings, and mount 2 AIM-9 or AIM-120 air-to-air missiles each, if LAU-7 or LAU-127 launchers are bolted to its sides. They could also carry one past-generation AIM-7P Sparrow missile directly, but don’t. LAU-116 launchers are the ones that sit flush with the plane’s side body, and hold AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles.

Work will be performed in Indianapolis, IN, and is expected to be complete in August 2015. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-10-G-0006).

Nov 18/11: Maintenance Tech. Boeing in St. Louis, MO receives an $11.2 million firm-fixed-price delivery order modification for the automated maintenance environment, data-at-rest, and similar automated maintenance environment in support of the F/A-18 A-D, F/A-18 E/F, and EA-18G aircraft. Your car’s mechanic uses this technology, and the people who maintain $60+ million fighter jets need it, too. It’s one of those “small ticket price, big difference” items.

Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO, and is expected to be complete in December 2012. $263,864 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00383-06-D-001J).

Nov 9/11: Australia. Boeing had been working with Australia’s Production Parts to provide Super Hornet rudder pedal kits, but the firm entered receivership in August 2011. Managing these kinds of minor shifts and contingencies is one of the headaches of running a global supply chain, and foreign suppliers add an extra layer of difficulty, even as their presence helps firms retain international customers.

Over 2 months later, Boeing has signed a contract with Ferra Engineering in Brisbane, Australia. Ferra will produce the rest of Production Parts’ order, as well as 123 additional kits for the global Super Hornet program. The switch has helped by the Australian government’s Global Supply Chain Program, which funded Boeing’s specialist team in its search for an alternative. Boeing works on a number of projects in Australia, and from 2007-2011, 24 Australian companies have won 101 Boeing sub-contracts worth A$ 256 million. Australian DoD.

Oct 3/11: A Boeing video details changes made to the Super Hornet family’s “outer” wing frame design, which converted it from an assembly of many parts from different vendors, into a machined 1-piece frame with far fewer additions. Labor assembly time savings alone were about $16,000 per plane.

Note that despite the name, the outer wing frame sits inside the visible wing. The flip side of this effort is that any cracks or serious damage to that now-larger part, involve replacing a larger and more expensive item, which also needs more storage room. Even there, however, faster replacement time and more certain quality may offer offsetting benefits.

FY 2011 AN/ALR-67 V3
(click to view full)

Sept 29/11: DTS. A $12 million firm-fixed-price delivery order for the low rate initial production of 26 Distributed Targeting Systems and supporting equipment/documentation for the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft. Work will be performed in Melbourne, FL (85%), and St. Louis, MO (15%), and is expected to be complete in December 2013 (N00019-11-G-0001).

The Distributed Targeting System improves onboard hardware and software processing, in order to produce precise ground targeting solutions. It’s part of the US Navy’s F/A-18E/F Network Centric Warfare Upgrades program, and is slated for operational testing in late 2011, and deployment in operational fighters in 2012.

Sept 27/11: DTS. A $7 million firm-fixed-price delivery order against a previously issued basic ordering agreement for the design, development, and first article production of Operational Test Program sets 824, 825, and 560, in support of the F/A-18E/F Aircraft Distributing Targeting System.

Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO, and is expected to be complete in December 2014. The US Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division in Lakehurst, NJ manages the contract (N68335-10-G-0012).

Sept 15/11: ECM. Boeing in St. Louis, MO receives a $7.7 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for F/A-18 E/F and EA-18G aircraft armament equipment, to include a number of systems. 174 station control units comprise the first set of capabilities.

F/A-18E/F Super Hornets with tanks can act as low-capacity hose-and-drogue aerial tankers, and this order covers 22 aerial refueling store (ARS) suspension lugs; 12 centerline feed-through plates; 11 ARS air probes; and 11 ARS fuel probes.

Self-protection items include 6 ALE-50 dispensers for those towed active missile decoys; 6 ALE-50 chassis towed decoys; and 6 ALE-50 protector towed decoys. They’re also ordering 4 sets of mounting bases and retainers for the plane’s ALR-67 radar warning receivers.

Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO, and is expected to be complete in December 2013. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD (N00019-09-C-0019).

Sept 15/11: AMC-4. Boeing in St. Louis, MO received a $7.3 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to continue development of the new Advanced Mission Computer (AMC) Type 4 System for the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft. This modification will also begin the necessary customization of the AMC for use in existing Navy F-18s.

Tom Mantia is Boeing’s AMC Type 4 program manager, and a production contract is expected in 2012. Boeing later adds that the new computers will “increase aircraft performance, address obsolescence issues, and improve image- and mission-processing functions.”

Work will be performed in Bloomington, MN (66.5%); St. Louis, MO (25%); and Linthicum, MD (8.5%), and is expected to be complete in October 2012. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages this contract (N00019-09-C-0019).

Sept 13/11: Boeing in St. Louis, MO receives a $46.7 million cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order 0014 for new spare parts to support the USA’s F/A-18E/F aircraft.

Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO, and is expected to be completed in Dec 30/13. This was a non-competitive requirement, and one offer was received in response to the solicitation by NAVSUP Weapon Systems Support in Philadelphia, PA (N00383-06-D-001J, #0014).

Sept 13/11: F414. General Electric Aircraft Engines in Lynn, MA receives a $38.8 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for 3 F414-GE-400 spare engines; 15 combuster modules; 20 high pressure turbine modules; 15 high pressure compressor modules; and 10 low pressure turbine modules. All will support American Super hornet family aircraft.

Work will be performed in Lynn, MA (51.9%); Madisonville, KY (20.9%); Hooksett, NH (12%); Rutland, VT (4.6%); Dayton, OH (2.5%); Jacksonville, FL (1.8%); Muskegon, MI (1.6%); Terre Haute, IN (1.6%); Bromont, PQ, Canada (1.3%); Asheville, NC (1.2%); and Evendale, OH (0.6%), and is expected to be completed in March 2013. US NAVAIR in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-06-C-0088).

Aug 30/11: ECP. A $16.9 million firm-fixed-price, fixed-price -incentive contract modification for non-recurring and recurring engineering in support of Engineering Change Proposal 6213R2, “Trailing Edge Flap Honeycomb Redesign” for the F/A-18 E/F and EA-18G aircraft. Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO, and is expected to be complete in May 2015.

The “honeycomb” is the flap’s internal structure. The April 27/10 entry documents structural issues discovered in long-term fatigue testing, which have led to this redesign. When combined with the $25 million in the June 17/11 entry, this ECP has reached $41.9 million (N00019-09-C-0019).

Aug 1/11: F414. General Electric Aircraft Engines in Lynn, MA is being awarded a $71.5 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, exercising an option for supplemental engine purchases of 18 F414-GE-400 engines and associated device kits. That would equip 9 Super Hornet family planes, which are seeing more orders due to the F-35C Lightning II’s development delays.

Work will be performed in Lynn, MA (44.8%); Madisonville, KY (18.1%); Evandale, OH (14.1%); Hooksett, NH (10.4%); Rutland, VT (3.9%); Dayton, OH (2.2%); Jacksonville, FL (1.5%); Muskegon, MI (1.4%); Terre Haute, IN (1.4%); Bromont, Canada (1.2%); and Asheville, NC (1%). Work is expected to be complete in July 2013 (N00019-06-C-0088).

July 13/11: Boeing in St. Louis, MO receives a $53.7 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for Super Hornet family “armament equipment,” including jumper bundles, pylon attach fittings, sensor well covers, adaptors, pylons, and tooling.

Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO, and is expected to be complete in February 2015. $19.3 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract.

June 30/11: F414. GE Aviation Engines in Lynn, MA receives a 3.5 year, performance based logistics contract to support the F414 engine components used on the F/A-18E/F, and EA-18G aircraft. The contract is worth up to $414.6 million, and GE will be responsible for engine repair, engine replacement, consumables support, and program support as required.

Work will be performed in Jacksonville, FL, and is expected to be complete by December 2014. This contract was not awarded through full and open competition, but only 1 firm (the engine manufacturer) was solicited, and 1 offer was received by the US Naval Inventory Control Point in Philadelphia, PA (N00383-11-D-002M).

May 12/11: F414. General Electric Aircraft Engines Business Group in Lynn, MA receives a $9.2 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for 1 spare F414-GE-400 engine; 8 combustion modules, 7 fan modules, and 1 high pressure turbine module.

Work will be performed in Lynn, MA (51.8%); Madisonville, KY (20.9%); Hooksett, NH (12%); Rutland, VT (4.6%); Dayton, OH (2.5%); Jacksonville, FL (1.8%); Muskegon, MI. (1.6%); Terre Haute, IN (1.6%); Bromont, QB, Canada (1.4%); Asheville, NC. (1.2%); and Evandale, OH (0.6%), and is expected to be complete in December 2012. US NAVAIR in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-06-C-0088).

April 21/11: ECM. Raytheon Space and Airborne Systems in Goleta, CA receives an $84.8 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, exercising an option for 87 Full Rate Production Lot 13 AN/ALR-67v3 radar warning receivers for the U.S. Navy (77/ $72.1M/ 85%) and the government of Switzerland (10/ $9.4M/ 11%). In addition, this option provides for the procurement of ALR-67 weapons replaceable assemblies for the governments of Canada ($2.5M/ 3%) and Australia ($762,842/ 1%).

Work will be performed in Goleta, CA (41%); Lansdale, PA (18%); Forest, MS (12%); Chatsworth, CA (11%); San Diego, CA (10%); Sydney, Australia (4%); Milwaukie, OR (2%); and McKinney, TX (2%). Work is expected to be complete in December 2013. US NAVAIR in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract. See also Raytheon release.

April 8/11: Boeing receives a $7.3 million cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order for supplies and services to support the F/A-18 E/F Structures Service Life Assessment Program. It’s very important to have a baseline for that, and to test for unexpected early fatigue spots within the fleet.

Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO (82.8%); El Segundo, CA (14.6%); Bethlehem, PA (2.5%); and Lynwood, CA (0.1%); and is expected to be complete in December 2013. $101,924 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-11-G-0001).

March 30/11: A $40 million awarded fixed-price-incentive-fee contract modification for one-time engineering services in support of the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G’s next generation advanced mission computer system.

Work was performed in Bloomington, MN (53.7%), Baltimore, MD (33.3%), and St. Louis, MO (13%). This is a retroactive contract, with the Pentagon noting that “Work was completed in December 2010″ (N00019-09-C-0019).

March 25/11: Avionics. Boeing receives a $10.6 million firm-fixed-price delivery order for 741 Honeywell model GG1320 ring laser gyros, to be installed in F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft for the U.S. Navy (714) and the government of Australia (27 spares).

Work will be performed in Clearwater, FL (87%), and St. Louis, MO (13%), and is expected to be complete in April 2013. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-11-G-0001).

March 22/11: F414. General Electric Aircraft Engines in Lynn, MA receives a $246.5 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, exercising an option for 68 F414-GE-400 engines and device kits from Production Lot 15, to equip F/A-18E/F aircraft. That would equip 34 planes, without spares.

Work will be performed in Lynn, MA (44.8%); Madisonville, KY (18.1%); Evandale, OH (14.1%); Hooksett, NH (10.4%); Rutland, VT (3.9%); Dayton, OH (2.2%); Jacksonville, FL (1.5%); Muskegon, MI (1.4%); Terre Haute, IN (1.4%); Bromont, Quebec, Canada (1.2%); and Asheville, NC (1%); and is expected to be complete in April 2013. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages this contract (N00019-06-C-0088). See also The Daily of Lynn.

On the same day, GEAE also received a $453.1 million firm-fixed-price, sole-source, requirements-type contract for engine parts, from the US Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. This Defense Logistics Agency contract runs until March 31/12, and is almost certain to include some F414 related parts, but also includes engine types equipping other aircraft and helicopters: F/A-18 A-D Hornets, F-16s Falcons, large aircraft like the C-5 Galaxy and VC-25 Air Force One, and helicopters like the UH/AH-1, AH-64, H-60 family, etc. (SPM400-03-D-9404).

March 7/11: Gun. General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products in Williston, VT received a $7.8 million firm-fixed price contract modification, exercising an option to buy 22 M61A2 lightweight 20mm Gatling gun systems in support of the F/A-18 E/F program. Note that EA-18Gs never mount the nose cannon, as the space is taken by electronics.

Work will be performed in Burlington, VT (50%), and Saco, ME (50%), and is expected to be complete in April 2013. The US Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00421-10-C-0024).

March 4/11: Seats. Martin-Baker Aircraft Co., Ltd. in Middlesex, England receives an $18.3 million firm-fixed price contract modification to exercise an option for 65 Navy Aircrew Common Ejection Seats (NACES). They will equip F/A-18 A+/C+ Hornets and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler aircraft flown by the U.S. Navy ($18.2M/ 99.4%), and the air forces of Australia (F/A-18A+ and F/A-18F; $51,920/ 0.27%) and Kuwait (F/A-18C+; $61,730; 0.33%). This option also buys associated hardware, equipment, technical data, and production support services.

Work will be performed in Johnstown, PA (60%), and Middlesex, England (40%), and is expected to be complete in December 2012. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-07-C-0011).

March 4/11: Avionics. Honeywell International Defense & Space Electronic Systems in Albuquerque, NM receives an $8.3 million modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-10-C-0061) to exercise an option for the procurement of 131 Advanced Multi-purpose Displays (68 of their 5″x5″ forward displays; 42 of their 5″x5″ aft displays; and 21 of their 8″x10″ displays) for Lot 35 F/A-18F and EA-18G aircraft.

Work will be performed in Albuquerque, NM, and is expected to be complete in December 2011. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-10-C-0061).

Feb 28/11: Boeing in St. Louis, MO, receives a $29.5 million fixed-price-incentive-fee contract modification for F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft armament equipment, including jumper bundles, pylon attach fittings, sensor well covers, adaptors, and pylons.

Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO, and is expected to be complete in December 2014. $27.2 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-09-C-0019).

Feb 16/11: ECM. ITT Corp. Electronic Warfare Systems in Clifton, NJ receives a $14.9 million firm-fixed-price contract for 6 full rate production Lot 8 AN/ALQ-214v3 onboard jammer systems for installation on the F/A-18E/F aircraft. The AN/ALQ-214 is a major subsystem of the Integrated Defensive Electronic Countermeasures (IDECM) Radio Frequency Countermeasures (RFCM) Program, a self-protection electronic countermeasures suite designed for use against radar guided missiles. It’s integrated with ALE-50 and ALE-55 towed decoy systems.

Work will be performed in Clifton, NJ, and is expected to be complete in November 2013. This contract was not competitively procured by US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD (N00019-11-C-0002). See also ITT on ALQ-214 | BAE on ALQ-214.

Jan 7/11: F414. General Electric Aviation in Lynn, MA receives a 3-year, $576 million performance-based logistics contract for repair, replacement, and program support for F414 engine components used on F/A-18 E/F and EA-18G aircraft. This multi-year procurement arrangement is an availability-based contract, and works through the Navy’s Fleet Readiness Center – Southeast in Jacksonville, FL.

Work will be performed in Jacksonville, FL (62%), and Lynn, MA (38%), and is expected to be complete by December 2013. Funding is provided by Navy Working Capital Funds, and this contract was not competitively awarded by the Naval Inventory Control Point in Philadelphia, PA (N00383-11-D-001M). The Jan 6-7/11 contracts build on the success of a series of previous F414 PBL contracts dating back to 2002. See also GE release.

Jan 6/11: F414. General Electric Aviation in Lynn, MA receives a $58.4M, 6-month extension of its existing performance-based logistics contract for repair, replacement, consumables support, and program support for the F414 engine used on F/A-18 E/F, and EA-18G aircraft.

Work will be performed in Lynn, MA (96%), and Jacksonville, FL (4%), and is expected to be complete by June 2011. Funding is provided by Navy Working Capital Funds, and this contract was not competitively awarded by the Naval Inventory Control Point in Philadelphia, PA (N00383-08-D-002M).

Dec 29/10: ECM. Raytheon in Goleta, CA receives a $7.8 million firm-fixed-price delivery order for the retrofit and testing of 33 digital [electronic] countermeasure receivers, in support of the F/A-18 E/F. ECM receivers capture opposing signals for analysis and subsequent jamming.

Work will be performed in Forest, MS (65%), and Goleta, CA (35%), and is expected to be complete in February 2013. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-10-G-0006).

FY 2010 F/A-18F w. tanks
(click to view full)

Sept 24/10: Tanks. GE Aviation Systems, LLC in Santa Ana, CA received a $21.5 million firm-fixed-price contract for 241 FPU-12/A 480 gallon external fuel tanks for the F/A-18 E/F (136) and the EA-18G (105) aircraft, including related program support. Work will be performed in Santa Ana, CA, and is expected to be complete in February 2012. This contract was not competitively procured by US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD (N00019-10-C-0076).

Sept 24/10: A $28 million firm-fixed-priced delivery order against a previously issued order basic ordering agreement for Super Hornet and EA-18G aircraft armament equipment including pylons, well and chaff dispenser covers, station control units, protector and dispenser magazines, dispenser chassis, probes, lugs, plates, and mounting bases and retainers.

Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO, and is expected to be completed in June 2013. $3.55 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/10. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages the contract (N00019-05-G-0026).

Sept 23/10: Avionics. Honeywell International Defense and Space Electronic Systems in Albuquerque, NM received a $10.6 million firm-fixed-price contract for 185 advanced multi-purpose displays – 116 of the 5″ x 5″ forward displays; 46 of the 5″ x 5″ aft displays; and 23 of the 8″ x 10″ displays – for F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft.

Work will be performed in Albuquerque, NM, and is expected to be complete in December 2011. This contract was not competitively procured by US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD (N00019-10-C-0061).

Aug 19/10: F414. GE Aviation in Lynn, MA receives a $6.3 million order against a previously issued basic ordering agreement (N00019-09-G-0009) to work on the F414 Component Improvement Program. Work will be performed in Lynn, MA, and is expected to be complete in June 2011.

July 28/10: F414. General Electric Aircraft Engines Business Group in Lynn, MA receives a $28.2 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for the procurement of 6 F414-GE-400 engines; 4 F414-GE-400 engine fan modules; 14 F414-GE-400 engine high pressure combustion modules; and 5 F414-GE-400 combuster modules, for installation in F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft.

Work will be performed in Lynn, MA (49%); Madisonville, KY (21%); Hooksett, NH (12%); Albuquerque, NM (7%); Rutland, VT (5%); Dayton, OH (2%); Wilmington, NC (2%); Evendale, OH (1%); and Bromont, Canada (1%), and is expected to be complete in December 2011 (N00019-06-C-0088)

July 8/10: IFF. Boeing in St. Louis, MO receives a $43.3 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to integrate IFF(Identification Friend or Foe) Mode 5 capability into the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G’s AN/APX-111 combined interrogator transponder (CIT), including upgrades to 3 Mode 5 CITs, buying 14 Mode CITs for test, and implementation of Mode 5 into automated test equipment.

Identification friend or foe (IFF) systems aren’t foolproof, but they can reduce friendly fire dangers. IFF Mode 3/A is also required for flight in many regions of civilian airspace. BAE’s AN/APX-118 CITs provide both IFF coded query and IFF coded response. The new Mode 5 is a NATO IFF standard. Compared to NATO’s Mode 4, it adds better encryption, spread spectrum modulation, time of day authentication, and a unique aircraft identifier. IFF Mode 5 level 2 adds aircraft GPS position information and other attributes, which can help IFF systems when aircraft are grouped closely together. In this respect, Mode 5 shares some characteristics with the new civilian IFF Mode-S.

Work will be performed in Greenlawn, NY (75%), and St. Louis, MO (25%), and is expected to be complete in September 2014. This contract was not competitively procured (N00019-10-C-0078).

June 17/10: ECP. Boeing announces a $25 million modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-04-C-0014) to incorporate engineering change proposal 6213R2SOW, “trailing edge flap honeycomb redesign” into the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft. The “honeycomb” is the flap’s internal structure. Hints of why that might be underway can be found in the April 27/10 entry.

Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO, and is expected to be complete in October 2013. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/10 (N00019-04-C-0014).

May 27/10: ECP. Boeing in St. Louis, MO received a $6.4 million firm-fixed-price delivery order against a previously issued basic ordering agreement (N00019-05-G-0026) for 144 kits in support of F/A-18E/F engineering change proposal #6282, “Fatigue Test Article 50/Fatigue Test Article 77 Post-Cost Reduction Initiative Inner Wing Retrofit Out of Warranty Kits.”

Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO, and is expected to be complete in January 2015. The Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages this contract.

May 21/10: Gun. General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products in Burlington, VT receives a $9.8 million firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for 30 M61A2 20mm lightweight gatling gun systems for the F/A-18E/F.

Work will be performed in Burlington, VT (50%), and Saco, Maine (50%), and is expected to be complete in September 2012. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year, and this contract was not competitively procured pursuant to FAR 6.302-1 by the US Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division in Patuxent River, MD (N00421-10-C-0024).

May 5/10: F414 Improvements. GE describes 3 of the programs underway to improve its F414 engine, which powers all Super Hornet family fighters.

The US Navy wants the F414 EDE (Enhanced Durability Engine), which uses an advanced high pressure turbine and 6-stage high pressure compressor (HPC) that offers a 2-3x hot-section durability gain, and reduced fuel consumption.

The F414 EPE (Enhanced Performance Engine) is based on the EDE, but it has a new fan to increase airflow, and aims to increase thrust by 20%. It is explicitly “targeted for potential international customers,” but may also have applications in future Super Hornets. F414 EPE longevity and fuel gains will not be the same as the EDE on which it’s based, owing to its design differences.

The 3rd program is a retrofittable F414 noise reduction kit project, with serrated nozzle edges where each “lobe” penetrates into or out of the primary airflow and generates a secondary flow, reducing jet noise by 2-3-decibels. The USN has identified funding for a program to further test and mature the technology to prepare it for incorporation in the USN F414 engine fleet, with work scheduled to continue through 2011. GE Aviation.

April 27/10: ECP. FedBizOpps solicitation #20058-10:

“The Naval Air Systems Command intends to place a Firm Fixed Price order under an existing Basic Ordering Agreement, N00019-05-G-0026 with The Boeing Company of St. Louis, Missouri 63166, for the procurement of 4 sets of Production Tooling and 4 sets of Retrofit Tooling associated with Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) 6213R2C1, “Trailing Edge Flap (TEF) Redesign” for the F/A-18 E/F and E/A-18G aircraft. ECP 6213R2 shall correct the deficiencies found during testing and teardown analysis: Cocure rib 1 shear clip failure, cracks in the inboard hinge area, cracks in the front spar, cracks in the splice rib, numerous fastener failures, cocure skin stability and rib pull off, micro cracking in the cocure rabbet. This ECP should result in an increase of the Safety Flight Hours on the TEF. This synopsis/solicitation is for the Non-recurring portion only. A new pre-award synopsis/solicitation shall be done for the recurring portion of this effort at a later date. Boeing is the sole designer, developer, manufacturer and integrator of the F/A-18 E/F and EA-18 G aircraft in its various configurations and is the only source with the knowledge, expertise and on-site personnel base necessary to accomplish this effort.”

March 11/10: F414. General Electric Aircraft Engines in Lynn, MA received a $326.1 million modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-06-C-0088), exercising a US Navy option for 80 F414-GE-400 engines and modules, 2 spare engines, 1 engine fan module; 8 engine high pressure turbine modules; 33 combuster modules; and 80 engine device kits. The contract also includes advance procurement funding to buy long-lead material for future F414-GE-400 engines.

Work will be performed in Lynn, MA (49%); Madisonville, KY (21%); Hooksett, NH (12%); Albuquerque, NM (7%); Rutland, VT (5%); Dayton, OH (2%); Wilmington, NC (2%); Evendale, OH (1%); and Bromont, Quebec, Canada (1%), and is expected to be completed in May 2012. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages this contract.

March 30/10: ECP. Boeing Co. in St. Louis, MO received a $6.4 million firm-fixed-price delivery order against a previously issued Basic Ordering Agreement (N00019-05-G-0026) under Engineering Change Proposal 6240R1, “FT 50 18K Main Landing Gear Sidebrace Fitting Failure – Revision for Retrofit”, covering 144 kits for the F/A-18E/F aircraft.

Work will be performed in El Segundo, CA, and is expected to be complete in October 2014. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD issued the contract.

March 26/10: Avionics. Rockwell Collins, Inc. in Cedar Rapids, IA receives a $5.9 million modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-priced contract (N00019-09-C-0069), exercising an option for 124 ARC-210 RT-1824C radio receiver transmitters for the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft.

Work will be performed in Cedar Rapids, IA, and is expected to be complete in December 2010. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD.

Feb 16/10: F414 Improvements. General Electric Aircraft Engines in Lynn, MA received a $7.3 million modification to a previously issued order under a basic ordering agreement. This money funds the demonstration of new technologies, with the goal of reducing the specific fuel consumption of the F414-GE-400 engine by 3%. This effort is in support of the “Near Term Energy Efficiency Technology Demonstration and Research Project,” under the USA’s 2009 economic stimulus funding.

Work will be performed in Lynn, MA (89%), and Evendale, OH (11%), and is expected to be completed in December 2010. $7.3 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/10. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD manages this contract (N00019-09-G-0009).

Dec 4/09: F414. General Electric Aircraft Engines in Lynn, MA receives $28.1 million modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract, for engineering and integrated logistics services in support of the F/A-18E/F fighters’ F414-GE-400 engines.

Work will be performed in Lynn, MA (78%); Evendale, OH (13%); Lemoore, CA (5%); and Jacksonville, FL (4%). Work is expected to be complete in December 2010, but $1 million in contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/10. US Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD issued the contract (N00019-06-C-0088).

Future Hornets?

This section will cover efforts that could make significant changes to the Super Hornet family as a whole. Unless otherwise noted, these efforts are not part of any multi-year buy contract.

Super Hornet
International tour
click for video

Aug 28/13: Advanced Super Hornet. Boeing and Northrop Grumman announce that initial flight tests of their “Advanced Super Hornet” have validated the Conformal Fuel Tanks, RCS (stealth) shaping, and Weapons Pod. Combat radius with the CFTs and pod, but no external ordnance, rises by 130 nautical miles to around 700 nmi. Meanwhile, radar cross-section vs. a Super Hornet carrying the fuel and weapons externally drops by 50%.

Northrop Grumman designed and built the conformal tanks ahead of schedule, in less than 10 months, using rapid prototyping. The tanks can be used on all Super Hornet variants, and hold up to 3,500 pounds of additional fuel. That means a combat radius boost of up to 130 nautical miles, 30 minutes more station time, or some combination. The EA-18G will find the tanks especially helpful, as they reduce both overall weight and drag compared with the 2-3 external fuel tanks they’d otherwise carry.

Best of all, from a business standpoint, these capabilities can be retrofitted to existing fighters. Orders from the USA or Australia would give the modifications a big boost, and improve Boeing’s standing in a number of international competitions. A similar F-15SE solution may be about to provide more validation by winning a big tender in South Korea, and competitions are afoot in Brazil, Denmark, Malaysia, several Mideastern countries, and possibly Canada. Boeing’s timing is good. Sources: Boeing feature, incl. video | Boeing Aug 28/13 release | Northrop Grumman Aug 28/13 release.

Advanced Super Hornet

March 26/13: F/A-18i. Malaysia’s Langkawi International Maritime & Aerospace (LIMA) exhibition includes many of the aircraft vying to replace its MiG-29Ns. The F/A-18 Super Hornet exhibit is especially interesting, as the mock-up includes Boeing’s conformal fuel tanks to extend its range. That’s a feature from the Super Hornet International concept, and Boeing is looking to take the tanks into flight tests by summer time. If all goes well, they hope to interest the US Navy in buying some, while offering the tanks to international customers.

Boeing engineers are quite proud of the tanks. Their shaping is said to add lift, creating almost zero net drag at cruising speeds. If tests bear that out, it means that almost all 3,000 pounds of extra fuel could be used to extend range. With that said, nothing in physics comes without cost. The conformal tanks add weight and some transonic drag, reducing the Super Hornet’s already marginal transonic acceleration during missions that add them. This isn’t a fatal problem if the goal is long-range strike, but it could be an issue for air superiority missions like Combat Air Patrol. The logical solution would be to remove the conformal tanks for those kinds of missions, and accept the extra cruising drag inherent in multiple drop tanks. Flight International | DEW Line.

July 10/12: Cockpit. Boeing and its partner Elbit Systems have been working to add wide screen touch displays for its next-generation fighters. The 11″ x 19″ displays themselves are almost as big as the F-35’s, without sacrificing the Head-Up-Display as the F-35 did. The display technology itself is conventional. Making sure that the display can work smoothly with all of a plane’s on-board system is the challenge. Once that’s done, pilots can tap to bring up displays, use fingers to zoom in, even customize which displays to show, how big they should be, and where they go. Sources: Boeing feature, incl. video.

Feb 1/12: Distributed Targeting System. Boeing announces that it has started production of the Super Hornet family’s new DTS. The Navy granted approval for Low Rate Initial Production, following successful initial operational assessments at Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, CA, and Naval Air Station Patuxent River, MD. DTS is part of the US Navy’s F/A-18E/F Flight Plan, and Network Centric Warfare Upgrades program.

DTS upgrades involve a module with its own advanced processor that brings together data feeds from different sensors, and a pre-loaded, high-resolution imagery database to help with geo-registration. The idea is to be able to fire ground attack weapons with more certainty about the target, and less delay from navigating through multiple screens, handing off coordinates, etc. DTS can be retrofitted during scheduled maintenance periods, or see a more aggressive rollout to front line squadrons if required. That will be up to the US Navy.

Boeing representatives would not directly specify exactly which sensors would be integrated by DTS, beyond the APG-79 AESA radar and ATFLR targeting pod. It’s reasonable to believe that DTS will also include input from the plane’s threat monitoring and electronic warfare sensors, in order to backtrack those dangerous threats and quickly target them; the EA-18G already does some of that. Boeing representatives declined to discuss the exact difference in pilot response times enabled by DTS, aside to say that it was “significant” in tests, and noting that pilots seemed to like using the DTS’ pre-loaded high-detail map in the display next to their primary sensor feed. They wouldn’t say exactly why, but it’s certainly easy to see how that might help in any crowded targeting situation. In an urban battle, for example, where you want to make sure you have the right building in your geo-registered crosshairs.

Nov 4/11: Super Hornet International. Boeing continues to discuss Super Hornet International designs. Not much has changed beyond earlier releases, though they do mention that the dorsal conformal fuel tanks will have a similar center of gravity to the aircraft, and that up to 3 weapon pods would be able to carry up to 4 x AMRAAM/ 2 x 500 pound/ 1 x 2,000 pound bomb each. That’s in line with earlier reports, which touted 2 x AMRAAMs and 2 x 500 pound JDAMs per pod, but the 2,000 pound JDAM option is new. So, too, is confirmation that the new design would have additional radar shaping to lower its cross section further.

With the Super Hornet out of contention in India, Japan appears to be the main target, though the Super Hornet is also being marketed to Brazil, Greece, Denmark, Kuwait, and Qatar, among others. Aviation Week.

F/A-18E/F International
(click to view larger)

July 20/10: Super Hornet International. Boeing’s VP and General Manager of Global Strike Systems, Shelley Lavender, announces a “Super Hornet International Road Map” at Farnborough 2010. Technology modifications would include internal IRST to detect infrared emissions from enemy aircraft (instead of the US Navy’s current retrofit approach using a modified centerline fuel tank), an enclosed weapons pod to lower radar signature that can carry up to 2 AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles and 2 JDAM 500 pound smart bombs, full spherical laser and missile warning systems, a new cockpit based on large touch-screen technology, improved F414 engines (EDE/EPE), and conformal fuel tanks mounted up top to boost range.

These enhancements are described as an “international road map,” reflecting ongoing competitions in Brazil, Denmark, India, and elsewhere. These same modifications also have the potential to become part of a US Navy multi-year buy agreement with Boeing, if the Navy is willing. Presentation [PDF]

May 6/10: Aviation Week’s Bill Sweetman details a number of proposed Super Hornet family improvements, unveiled by Boeing at the Navy League show in Washington DC. They include a big-screen cockpit like the F-35’s, but of one single screen; GE’s F414 engine programs; the Navy’s Next Generation Jammer program focused on the EA-18G; and potential integration of either MBDA’s long-range Meteor air-air missile or its own developmental Joint Dual Role Air Dominance Missile (JDRADM).

April 22/10: Green Hornet. The US Navy’s F/A-18F “Green Hornet” test aircraft becomes the first plane to achieve supersonic flight using a biofuel blend fuel that combines 50% conventional JP-5 with 50% renewable additives. “Green Hornet” is actually a range of efforts ranging from test flights like this, to more energy efficient aircraft refueling policies at the Navy’s master jet bases, to ongoing research and development efforts by NAVAIR and General Electric to reduce Specific Fuel Consumption (SFC) for the F414 jet engine.

The biofuel blend used in this Earth Day flight is derived from the camelina sativa plant, which is U.S.-grown, and not used for food. The objective was a flight showing no difference in performance between the biofuel blend and standard JP-5, with an ultimate goal to develop protocols to certify alternative fuels for naval use.

The Navy Fuels Lab at NAVAIR Patuxent River, MD will develop those certification requirements for a variety of biofuel sources, while the USA’s Defense Energy Support Center awarded the $2.7 million contract to Sustainable Oils of Seattle and Bozeman, Mont. for 40,000 gallons of the camelina-based fuel. NAVAIR pre-release | NAVAIR release | Boeing.

June 9/07: More Stealth? Defense Technology International claims that new computing capabilities may allow a stealthier “Block III” version of the Super Hornet, since it’s now possible to accurately model the radar cross section and aerodynamics of an aircraft when it’s loaded with external weapons etc. Boeing’s president for advanced systems, George Muellner, says. “It’s not the bombs and missiles – it’s the interactions between them and the airframe. Ten years ago, it would have taken you six months of Cray time to model it. Now you can do it on a distributed network of PCs.”

Jane’s has also talked about the idea of a stealthier Super Hornet under development by Boeing’s Phantom Works, noting that the basic Super Hornet already incorporates some edge alignments, swept inlets, treated blocker vanes in front of the engines, and other stealth (“low observable”) features. Stealthier external weapons would definitely offer an important next step, since the F/A-18 E/F lacks the internal weapons bays found modern stealth fighters like the F-35 Lightning II and F-22A Raptor.

Additional Readings

These links are kept current by Defense Industry Daily, as they offer especially useful background and research resources. Readers with corrections, comments, or information to contribute are encouraged to contact DID’s Founding Editor, Joe Katzman. We understand the industry – you will only be publicly recognized if you tell us that it’s OK to do so.

Background: Aircraft

• US Navy Fact File – F/A-18 Hornet strike fighter. Less information than some other sources, but does offer useful comparisons of the Hornet and Super Hornet, since both are included.

• Naval Technology – F/A-18E/F Super Hornet – Maritime Strike Attack Aircraft, USA

• Boeing – F/A-18E/F Super Hornet

• DID FOCUS Article – EA-18G Program: The USA’s Electronic Growler

Background: Program

• US Congressional Research Service (updated April 5/10) – Navy F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler Aircraft: Background and Issues for Congress

• DID Spotlight Article – The USA’s 2005-2009 Multi-Year Hornet Procurement Contract. Covered MYP-II. Article no longer updated as contracts ended, converted to full public access.

Background: Aircraft Ancillaries

• GE Engines – Model F414

• DID Spotlight – New APG-79 AESA Radars for Super Hornets

• DID Spotlight – Elec Tricks: Turning AESA Radars Into Broadband Comlinks

• DID – F-18 Super Hornets to Get IRST. InfraRed Scan & Track, which lets planes target enemy planes with infrared missiles from beyond visual range. IR-guided missiles use passive sensors, so they don’t trigger an enemy plane’s radar warning receiver the way radar-guided missiles do. IRST is an increasingly common feature on modern fighters, but the location of the Super Hornet’s IRST will not be: it will be part of a reduced-capacity centerline fuel tank.

News and Views

• Aviation Week (Nov 4/11) – Boeing Reveals Details Of International F-18 [dead link]. Not much change beyond earlier releases re: Super Hornet International: conformal fuel tanks, up to 3 weapon pods with 4 x AMRAAM/ 2 x 500 pound/ 1 x 2,000 pound bomb each, plus F414 EPE engines, and better radar shaping. Japan is seen as the main target.

• Boeing (Oct 3/11) – Wings of change for F/A-18, EA-18G programs. Wing frame redesign project. Includes an embedded video.

• Flight International (July 12/11) – Testing the new-generation Super Hornet. An F/A-18F Block II simulator, to be precise.

• Aviation Week (April 22/11) – Rhino’s Revenge (Super Hornet upgrades). Dead link. At the time, it was the Super Hornet International Roadmap.

• Boeing (Dec 13/10) – Ramping up for delivery. A video feature that looks at the final stages of integration and delivery for EA-18G Growler and Super Hornet jets.

• Boeing (Sept 28/10) – A fighter jet rain check. “When it comes to the F/A-18 Super Hornet, Boeing engineers in St. Louis use a special process called the Water Check Test to rule out areas where moisture could seep into the aircraft and its electronics suite…”

• Boeing Frontiers (July 2008) – Their ‘Flight Plan’ [PDF]. How to modernize the Super Hornet and keep it relevant. At this point, the focus is on the Block II model and new AESA radar, plus an undetermined IRST implementation and the ROVER datalink.

• Flight International (March 13/07) – Ultra Hornet. Describes the updates to create the Hornet Block 30/Block II+; the performance enhancements are all electronic rather than aerodynamic. Interestingly, among future Flightplan enhancements is a limited electronic attack function for all APG-79 AESA radars.

• DID (Oct 22/05) – Supersonic SIGINT: Will F-35, F-22 Also Play EW Role?

Americas

• Lockheed Martin saw a $920.4 million advanced acquisition contract on Thursday for the F-35 program. This award covers the production of 94 low rate initial production Joint Strike Fighters, with these spread across the three F-35 variants.. 78 F-35A models will be manufactured and delivered, with 44 of these destined for the Air Force and the remainder earmarked for international partners. The other 16 aircraft are split between the -B and -C models, with fourteen of the former going to the Marine Corps, as well as Italy and the UK, while two -C models will go to the Navy and Marines.

• The Navy has accepted a third Lockheed Martin-manufactured MUOS communications satellite, with the satellite successfully completing testing in orbit following its launch in January. The Navy has ordered five Mobile User Objective System (MUOS) satellites, which are intended to provide UHF SATCOM capabilities using an Internet Protocol-based system. The first two MUOS satellites were launched in 2012 and 2013, with the fourth scheduled for later this year.

• The Army has begun testing Black Hornet micro UAVs, with the tiny helicopters previously seeing service with the British Army in Afghanistan, as well as with the Norwegian Armed Forces. The Black Hornet has also seen more limited use by US Special Forces.

• Logos Technologies Inc. was awarded a $32.8 million Navy contract on Thursday to research compact sensor packages for unmanned aerial systems, such as the RQ-21 Blackjack and RQ-8 Firescout, specifically looking at wide area airborne surveillance, hyperspectral imaging, high resolution imaging and light detection and ranging capabilities.

Europe

• The UK and France are exploring the possibility of collaborating for Reaper UAV training, logistics and support services. The British operate ten of the aircraft, with these all deployed on operations over Iraq, with France taking delivery of a third Reaper at the end of May, with twelve set to be delivered by 2019.

• A Russian MIG-29 crashed in Southern Russia on Thursday, with both pilots managing to safely eject. Russia bought 16 MIG-29SMTs in 2013, with these set for delivery by 2016.

• The Lithuanian Air Force has taken delivery of the first of three Airbus AS365 N5+ Dauphin search and rescue helicopters, following a contract in October 2013.

Middle East

• Lebanon has requested 1,000 AGM-114 Hellfire II missiles from the US, with this potential deal estimated to value $146 million. The missile is in service with many countries worldwide, with a href=”http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/iraq-wants-hellfires-lots-and-lots-of-them-026078/”>Iraq ordering 5,000 of the missiles in August last year.

• Egypt is also looking to buy a border security system from the US, in order to better equip its border with Libya, in a potential sale valued at $100 million. The proposed sale would include a commercially available system produced by Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and DRS Technologies.

Asia

• Following yesterday’s news that the US and India have signed a set of technology development agreements, the head of the US Navy’s carrier program office Rear Adm. Tom Moore will meet with officials from the Indian Navy later this month to discuss the future of India’s second carrier. The two nations formed a joint working group in January, with development work for the country’s second indigenous aircraft carrier – the INS Vishal – already underway.

• Indian firm Larsen & Toubro has been awarded a $73.1 million contract to design and construction of a floating dock for the Indian Navy. The floating dock will be self-sufficient and capable of operating day and night to service and resupply surface vessels and submarines. The company saw fourth-quarter profits fall by 27% at the end of May.

• Following the latest Indian Air Force Sukhoi SU-30MKI crash in May, Russia & India Report has published an insightful piece assessing the likely causes of the high accident rate amongst the IAF’s SU-30MKI fleet.

Today’s Video

• A RQ-21A launch and recovery at sea…

USN MH-60S test
(click to view full)

Hellfire I/II missiles are the USA’s preferred aerial anti-armor missile, and are widely deployed with America’s allies. They equip America’s helicopter fleets (AH-64, AH-1, OH-58D, MH-60S/R), AH-64 and S-70 helicopters flown by its allies, and even Australia and France’s Eurocopter Tiger attack helicopters. Range is officially listed as 9 km/ 5.6 miles.

While Hellfires lack the fast-jet launch capabilities – and correspondingly extended maximum range – of the UK’s MBDA Brimstone missiles, Lockheed Martin’s missile has made big inroads as the world’s high-end helicopter-launched missile. It has also carved out unique niches as tripod-launched coastal defense assets, as the guided missile integrated into American UAVs like the MQ-1 Predator family, and even as a missile option for transport aircraft like the AC-208B Combat Caravan and C-130J/W Hercules.

Lockheed Martin’s Hellfires AGM-114K-A warhead
(click to view full)

Hellfire II missiles comes in several variants. The AGM-114K is the basic Hellfire II missile, with the standard semi-active laser guidance that allows for flexible designation of targets, and flexible missile attack profiles. It uses a shaped-charge HEAT(High Explosive Anti-Tank) warhead that can destroy armored vehicles, or punch into buildings.

The recently-introduced AGM-114K-A variant adds a blast fragmentation sleeve to the HEAT warhead’s anti-tank capability, giving it added versatility against unarmored targets in the open.

The AM-114M version was originally developed for the Navy; its warhead is solely blast fragmentation, which is effective against boats, lightly armored vehicles, etc.

The AGM-114N variant uses a thermobaric (“metal augmented charge”) warhead that can suck the air out of a cave, collapse a building, or produce an astoundingly large blast radius out in the open.

A new AGM-114R “multi-purpose” Hellfire II is headed into production/ conversion. It adds some guidance and navigation improvements, and goes one step further than the K-A variant: it’s intended to work well against all 3 target types: armored vehicles, fortified positions, or soft/open targets. The “Romeo” will become the mainstay of the future Hellfire fleet, used from helicopters and UAVs, until and unless Hellfire itself is supplanted by the JAGM program. Hellfire systems product manager US Army Lt. Col. Mike Brown:

“One of the most noticeable operational enhancements in the AGM-114R missile is that the pilot can now select the [blast type] while on the move and without having to have a pre-set mission load prior to departure… This is a big deal in insurgency warfare, as witnessed in Afghanistan where the Taliban are fighting in the open and simultaneously planning their next attacks in amongst the local populace using fixed structure facilities to screen their presence.”

The AGM-114R2 goes a step farther, and adds a height of burst sensor to make the 3-way warhead even more useful.

AGM-114P onto MQ-9
(click to view full)

Four more Hellfire variants feature key changes that aren’t related to their warhead types.

The AGM-114L “Longbow Hellfire” adds a millimeter-wave radar seeker, which makes it a “fire-and-forget” missile. It’s integrated with the mast-mounted Longbow radar on AH-64D Apache Longbow helicopters, and AH-1 Cobra family attack helicopters have been tested with different add-ons that would give them similar capabilities. It can also be guided by ship radars, and its fire-and-forget capabilities make it a very useful defense against small boat suicide swarms. The US Navy is taking on Army stocks to use in its Littoral Combat Ship.

The AGM-114P variant is modified for use from UAVs flying at altitude. That requires greater environmental tolerances, as the difference between temperature at launch altitude and near the target can be well over 100 degrees Fahrenheit. The AGM-114P’s 3-axis inertial measuring unit (IMU) also gives it a 360-degree targeting capability, making it easier to fire from UAVs that lack a helicopter’s swivel-and-point maneuverability. Its unique features will also be present in the new AGM-114R, which will succeed it.

The AGM-114Q model is a training round, with an inert mass that’s the same weight as the warhead. It’s used for live-fire training, where it creates less mess.

The TGM M36E7 corresponds to what the USAF would call a “CATM” – a training missile with the seeker head, but no rocket or warhead.

Contracts and Key Events Naval concept
(click to view full)

Unless otherwise noted, orders are issued by the U.S. Army Contracting Command at Redstone Arsenal, AL, to Hellfire Systems, LLC in Orlando, FL – a Lockheed Martin/ Boeing joint venture.

June 5/15: Lebanon has requested 1,000 AGM-114 Hellfire II missiles from the US, with this potential deal estimated to value $146 million. The missile is in service with many countries worldwide, with a href=”http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/iraq-wants-hellfires-lots-and-lots-of-them-026078/”>Iraq ordering 5,000 of the missiles in August last year.

Aug 14/14: The Senate Armed Services Committee and Senate Appropriations Defense subcommittee have deferred action on a Pentagon request to shift $7.1 million from other accounts into the Hellfire missile program, as part of a larger reprogramming request. Note that deferral is not denial, it just means that other things need to happen first.

The FY 2014 budget had expected to buy 550 missiles for $58.5 million, but use in the field leaves the Pentagon $7.1 million short in order to keep stocks stable. Sources: Defense News, “Defense Panels Hold Up $7M Funding Shift for Hellfire Missiles – for Now”.

April 9/14: Hellfire for LCS. The US Navy confirms that they have picked the AGM-114L Hellfire Longbow radar-guided missile as the SUW Package’s initial missile. Hellfire Longbow won’t have any more range than Raytheon’s Griffin (~3.5 nmi), but the radar seeker allows the ship’s radar to perform targeting for salvos of multiple fire-and-forget missiles against incoming boat swarms. In contrast, the Griffin’s laser designation must target one boat at a time, from a position that’s almost certain to have a more restricted field of view.

Lockheed Martin says that the missile has had 3 successful test firings (q.v. Jan 14/14), and there are plans to test-fire the missile from LCS itself in 2014, using a new vertical launcher. Unfortunately for Lockheed Martin, there’s no immediate prospect of orders from the Navy, as its AGM-114L missiles would be drawn from existing US Army stocks. Those have shelf life limitations anyway, which is one reason the Army intends to begin buying JAGM laser/radar guided Hellfire derivatives around FY 2017. On the the other hand, US Navy deployment opens a market niche around the world, so future orders are possible. Sources: DoD Buzz, “Navy Adds Hellfire Missiles to LCS” | USNI News, “Navy Axes Griffin Missile In Favor of Longbow Hellfire for LCS”.

Feb 10/14: FY 2014. Hellfire Systems, LLC in Orlando, FL receives a $157.4 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, exercising an option for FY 2014 Hellfire II missile production requirements that include foreign military sales to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Indonesia.

All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2012 – 2014 budgets. Work will be performed in Orlando, FL, with an estimated completion date of Nov 30/16. US Army Contracting Command ? Redstone Arsenal (Missile) at Redstone, AL manages the contract, and acts an an FMS agent for other countries (W31P4Q-11-C-2042, PO 0068).

FY 2014 order: USA, Jordan, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia

Jan 14/14: Naval test. The US Army and Navy conduct multiple naval test firings of Hellfire Longbow millimeter-wave radar guided missiles, targeting high-speed boat targets at ranges of up to 6 km. The tests were conducted from a launcher aboard a 65-foot surface craft, using progressively more complex scenarios.

The swarming boat threat is subject to much discussion in an era where the boats themselves can be explosive-packed weapons on suicide missions, with the ability to do serious damage to high-end ships. Ship-based solutions are beginning to proliferate, even if purchases and installation remain slow. Lockheed Martin has experience with Hellfire as a helicopter-mounted solution to the problem, so the extension is natural, and the Longbow variant’s fire-and-forget operations is especially well suited to swarm defense. Lockheed Martin also leads the Freedom Class Littoral Combat Ship team.

On the other hand, Longbow Hellfire doesn’t have the range that LCS ships really need. They’re also a bit late to the maritime game. Raytheon’s shorter-range and cheaper AGM-176 Griffin is already in naval use, and the Javelin/Centurion missile & launcher combination for small boats can tie into Raytheon’s land force customer base. Lockheed Martin would also be feeling a bit of pressure from MBDA, who are running demonstrations that tout their dual-mode laser/radar guided Brimstone missile. Sources: Lockheed Martin, “Longbow Missiles Demonstrate Littoral Attack Capability”.

Sept 26/13: A $248.7 million firm-fixed price contract modification for 3,318 Hellfire II missiles in containers (various models) for the US Army, Navy and Air Force; as well as exports to Saudi Arabia, Korea, Kuwait, the Netherlands and Australia.

Work will be performed in Orlando, FL, and purchases will include funding will be from US FY 2011 through 2013 budgets. This was a non-competitive acquisition with one bid solicited and one received (W31P4Q-11-C-0242, PO 0049).

Aug 20/13: UAE. An $8.2 million firm-fixed-price, no-option contract modification with a cumulative maximum value of $886.2 million for Hellfire II foreign military sales (FMS) offset requirement to the United Arab Emirates. It’s part of the USA’s contract, because it’s also the umbrella for other buyers who want to take advantage of the USA’s volume discount. The benefits flow both ways, ans an order of this size will help keep prices down for the US military.

Work will be performed in Orlando, FL. Only 1 bid was solicited, as is common in these situations (W31P4Q-11-C-0242, PO 0043).

Dec 20/12: A $114.1 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to buy various models of Hellfire II tactical missiles in containers. Work will be performed in Orlando, FL with an estimated completion date of Feb 28/14. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received (W31P4Q-11-C-0242). The overall contract has now reached $730.5 million.

Oct 4/12: Finalized. A $403.5 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to buy various models of Hellfire II missiles. Work will be performed in Orlando, FL with an estimated completion date of Dec 31/14. One bid was solicited, with one bid received (W31P4Q-11-C-0242).

Looks like they’ve finalized the underlying contract.

Contract finalized

Jan 5/12: A $53.9 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to buy more Hellfire II missiles, type and numbers unspecified. Inquiries reveal that the underlying contract, announced on Aug 1/11, still hasn’t been finalized.

Work will be performed in Orlando, FL, with an estimated completion date of Dec 31/14. One bid was solicited, with one bid received by US Army Contracting Command in Redstone Arsenal, AL (W31P4Q-11-C-0242).

USMC AH-1Z: Launch!
(click to view full)

Aug 1/11: A $159 million firm-fixed-price, unfinalized contract begins procurement of 3,097 AGM-114N/P/Q/R Hellfire II missiles in containers; 16 Hellfire II guidance test articles to verify production lot performance; and engineering, equipment, and production services. The new multi-year contract’s final terms and number of missiles remain under negotiation, but this contract allows production to continue while those details are hammered out. FBO.gov sets the contract’s limits as:

“HELLFIRE II FY11-14 production contract requirements for a maximum total quantity of 24,000 HELLFIRE II missiles in containaers, conversion of a maximum total quantity of 1,800 HELLFIRE II missiles from one model to another HELLFIRE II model, and production of a maximum total quantity of 5,832 HELLFIRE II spare parts, consisting of 40 different national stock numbers (varying quantities).”

Work will be performed in Orlando, FL, with an estimated completion date of Sept 30/14. Since the missiles have only 1 owning manufacturer, 1 sole-source bid was solicited, with 1 bid received (W31P4Q-11-C-0242).

New multi-year contract

Additional Readings

• Lockheed Martin – Hellfire II Missile

• Boeing – History: Rockwell International AGM-114 Hellfire

• Global Security – AGM-114 Hellfire Modular Missile System (HMMS)

• Designation Systems – Boeing/Lockheed Martin AGM-114 Hellfire

• DID – JAGM: Joint Common Missile Program. JAGM will replace AGM-114 Hellfire, *GM-71 TOW, and AGM-65 Maverick missile variants on Army and Navy helicopters, UAVs, and fighter aircraft… if the program is not cancelled first.

Americas

• The Air Force has released a RFP for its next generation of space launch engines, as it tries to move away from reliance on the Atlas-V’s Russian-produced RD-180 engines. Reports from March expected the RFP to have been released sooner, with industry being given tight deadlines in order to meet Congressional timelines. The Air Force aims to allocate $160 million, which will be distributed between four companies to produce prototypes for evaluation, with the Pentagon recently arguing for the continued use of the RD-180 as an interim measure before new engines can be introduced.

• The Air Force is also reportedly investigating a possible leaking of information prior to the release of a RFP as part of the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program, with this a potential violation of the Procurement Integrity Act. The first competition in over a decade within the EELV program is to launch next-generation GPS-III satellites, with the RFP being released on 14 May.

• Following a contract modification worth $149 million, Raytheon will manufacture 74 Standard Missile-6 (SM-6) air defense rounds for the Navy. This follows a $110 million contract in March and the transition of the SM-6 from low-rate to full-rate production last month.

• The United States and India have announced a set of joint technology programs amid the signing of a ten-year defense cooperation pact by SecDef Carter and Indian counterpart Parikkar. Two projects have been approved initially; one for building generators and another to develop soldier biological and chemical protective equipment. Carter has previously stated that the US would be willing to export the General Atomics-developed EMALS system, building on this on Wednesday with farther-reaching plans to sell the Indians carrier and aircraft engine technology.

• The Air Force awarded Boeing a $466.5 million contract Wednesday to repair Minuteman III ICBMs, with this set to run to 2021. Also on Wednesday, Lockheed Martin was handed a $226.9 million contract for rockets and pods to fulfill Foreign Military Sales to unspecified international customers.

• DARPA also awarded Raytheon BBN Technologies and Vencore Labs Inc contracts totaling 34 million for the Edge-Directed Cyber Technologies for Reliable Mission program – abbreviated to EdgeCT – which aims to build in resilience of communication over IP networks through new capabilities at the edge of wide-area networks.

Europe

• Following the news that the 9 May Airbus A400M crash was most likely the fault of defective engine software, the company announced on Wednesday that the aircraft saw three of its TP400-D6 engines freeze in flight. The focus of attention is not on the structural design of the aircraft, rather the quality assurance procedures in place at the Airbus final assembly plant.

• Romania has taken delivery of six final Panhard PVP armored vehicles, following a 2012 contract for 16 of the vehicles. They will be fitted out for area and perimeter control mission sets by local company CVR.

• The Polish Defense Ministry is looking to acquire two VIP jets and end their reliance on LOT Polish Airlines-chartered Embraer 175 aircraft in a leasing contract which will end in 2017. The new aircraft are scheduled for delivery in 2016, with a contract expected by the end of this year.

• Poland has also released a tender for MP-5 type sub-machine guns, with the intention of procuring up to 218 of the 9x19mm weapons for the nation’s police force. Competitors have until July to prepare documentation, with the final deadline in December. MP-5 manufacturer Heckler & Koch also announced Wednesday the appointment of a new CEO, former COO of Rheinmetall Defence’s Combat Platforms division Nicola Marinelli.

Asia

• Bangladesh has begun construction of eight X12 high-speed patrol boats, with state-owned Dockyard and Engineering Works (DEW) Narayanganj manufacturing the vessels, based on the design of X15 patrol boats built by Indonesian firm North Sea Boats under a technology transfer agreement last year.

• Sweden has supported India’s application to the Missile Technology Control Regime, a multinational association of 34 states aiming to limit the spread of missile and UAV technology through export controls, dialogue and collaboration. India is also seeking to gain early membership of several other non-proliferation organizations, including Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), Australia Group and the Wassenaar Arrangement.

• South Korea has reportedly tested a domestically-produced ballistic missile capable of hitting targets anywhere within the North. This ability stems from a reported range of 300 miles, which can be extended to 500 as a result of an unspecified agreement with the US.

Today’s Video

• The domestically-produced South Korean ballistic missile…

SM-2 Launch, DDG-77
(click to view larger)

Variants of the SM-2 Standard missile are the USA’s primary fleet defense anti-air weapon, and serve with 13 navies worldwide. The most common variant is the RIM-66K-L/ SM-2 Standard Block IIIB, which entered service in 1998. The Standard family extends far beyond the SM-2 missile, however; several nations still use the SM-1, the SM-3 is rising to international prominence as a missile defense weapon, and the SM-6 program is on track to supplement the SM-2. These missiles are designed to be paired with the AEGIS radar and combat system, but can be employed independently by ships with older or newer radar systems.

This article covers each variant in the Standard missile family, plus several years worth of American and Foreign Military Sales requests and contracts and key events; and offers the budgetary, technical, and geopolitical background that can help put all that in context.

The Standard Missile Naval Defense Family: Missiles and Plans 60 years of SM-x
click for video

Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) is the technical direction agent for Standard missile. They work with the US navy, other naval customers, and Raytheon to manage ongoing technical improvements.

Within Raytheon, a long-term effort is underway toward capability-based development, and common components. As each SM-x missile advances, the expectation is that it will use components from other members of the missile family, while contributing new component and software advances that can be re-used elsewhere.

SM-1: Allied Legacy SM-1 on launcher
(click to view full)

The SM-1 was phased out of US service in 2003, but still serves with some allied navies; most US and international orders are currently SM-2s, but many countries operating FFG-7 Oliver Hazard Perry Class frigates and similar vintage ships still use them. The “growth space” inherent in its basic design is a big reason that the Standard missile family remains relevant to this day.

Support for foreign SM-1 missiles has transitioned from the US government to Raytheon, who leads a team of companies that provides customers with continued access to spares and repair services. The SM-1 FSS Program consists of core support (program management, asset storage, test equipment support, logistics support and tasking to demilitarize hardware no longer needed for long-term support of the SM-1 Program), intermediate level maintenance (re-certification of SM-1 Block VI, VIA, VIB missiles), depot level maintenance (repair and maintenance of, or preparation, upgrade and installation of SM-1 Block V, VI, VIA and VIB sections, assemblies, sub-assemblies, and components), MK56 Rocket Motor Regrain Program (qualification and production), test equipment support, All-Up-Round (AUR), and technical engineering services. Countries listed in SM-1 support contracts over the past few years have included: Bahrain, Canada, Chile, Egypt, France, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Taiwan, and Turkey.

SM-2: The Mainstay SM-2 (top), SM-3
 

The RIM-66K-L/ SM-2 Standard. This is the most commonly encountered variant, and a long series of upgrades have kept it current over the years. SM-2 Block IIIA missiles have greater capability at even lower altitudes than previous SM-2 versions, a more powerful fragmentation warhead, and can use Interrupted Continuous Wave Illumination (ICWI) to improve performance against supersonic maneuvering anti-ship missiles. SM-2 Block IIIB is the most popular version at present, swapping ICWI capability for an infrared (IR) guidance mode capability developed by the Missile Homing Improvement Program (MHIP). IR guidance offers a form of backup guidance in saturation missile attacks, where the limited number of illuminators on a ship without active array radars may have to switch back and forth during the targeting process. It also helps against enemy missiles with stealth features, which can be tracked by the infrared plume created by their engines or by air friction.

These SM-2 versions are provided as medium range (50 mile) rounds that can be fired from AEGIS rail launchers, AEGIS vertical launch systems, and Tartar rail launchers. SM-2 has recently completed an upgrade that gives it improved maneuverability via improved steering, thrust-vectoring, and software. This is especially important against supersonic wave-skimming cruise missiles, which offer less than 1 minute to impact from the moment they break the horizon to become visible on a ship’s radar. Tests have also demonstrated a secondary SM-2 capability against small, fast-moving naval targets.

SM-2 Block IVA

An extended range SM-2 Block IV missile added a booster rocket; it had been developed and tested, but few Block IV missiles were bought. They were to be replaced by the SM-2 Block IVA that would add theater ballistic-missile defense capability, but SM-2 Block IVA was canceled in December 2001, with the project over 2 years behind schedule, and average unit costs more than 50% beyond original goals. It has now been revived as the Near Term Sea-Based Terminal weapon (NT-SBT) for last-phase intercepts, following a number of modifications. The May 2006 Pacific Phoenix sea trial, in which an NT-SBT successfully intercepted a Lance missile target, paved the way for production approval, and modifications for the 100 Block IV missiles in stock began in July 2007. NT-SBT is described as an interim solution aimed at the very last phase of a ballistic missile’s flight, just before impact. It will offer extended-range air defense, but its main function is to acting as a second line of defense against incoming ballistic missiles, similar to the Patriot PAC-3 on land.

Raytheon believes that updated SM-2 variants will remain in service for 20-30 years, which means they’ll need to be kept current. Replacing the US Navy’s entire SM-2 stock would be a huge undertaking, and would perpetuate another problem since the Navy already has low stockpiles of missiles for its vertical launch cells. An MoU with Canada, Germany, and The Netherlands reflects long-term foreign interest in upgrades, and these countries have contributed technical development and funding of their own to SM-2 development. Key improvements on the drawing board include combining ICWI and IR guidance capabilities, 3rd party cueing capabilities that allow it to be used “over the horizon” against low-level targets, further aerodynamic and maneuverability improvements, and the insertion of key SM-6 capabilities including reprogrammability and built in test. An SM-2 Block IIIC proposal with some of these capabilities is on the table, but is not funded yet.

SM-3: Ballistic Missile Killer SM-3 Block IA
(click to view full)

SM-3 ABM variants, aka. RIM-161. This larger missile will be the mainstay of naval Anti Ballistic Missile defense, and can also fulfill an “outer air” role via long-range kills of bombers carrying cruise missiles. The SM-3 uses the RIM-156 (SM-2 Extended Range Block IV) test program’s airframe and propulsion/booster, then adds a third-stage rocket motor (a.k.a. Advanced Solid Axial Stage, ASAS, made by ATK), a GPS/INS guidance section (a.k.a. GAINS, GPS-Aided Inertial Navigation System), and a LEAP (Lightweight Exo-Atmospheric Projectile) kinetic warhead (i.e. a non-explosive hit-to-kill maneuvering warhead). At present, SM-3 is in naval service with the USA and Japan, may be ordered by the Netherlands for its air defense destroyers, and is set to play a key role in Europe’s land-based missile defenses from bases in Romania and Poland.

Launching ships, usually CG-47 Ticonderoga Class cruisers or Japanese Kongo Class destroyers, are updated with AEGIS LEAP Intercept (ALI) computer software and hardware (the current version under development is AEGIS BMD Block 2006/2008, Baseline 4.0.1), as well as the Long Range Surveillance and Track (LRS&T) AEGIS enhancements that will be implemented across all AEGIS ships that take the upgrade. When used in conjunction with the USA’s Co-operative Engagement Capability components, the result is a single integrated “picture” available to all CEC-equipped ships in the area – a picture that can even be used to help guide long-range anti-air missiles launched from other ships.

This SM-3/AEGIS LEAP combination plays a prominent role in near-term US and Japanese missile defense plans. These interceptors have a better record in ABM tests than their land-based counterparts to date, and their naval mobility makes them well suited for forward defense. They will also be deployed on land, under current American plans to protect Europe.

The SM-3 Block IA version provides an incremental upgrade that improves reliability and maintainability at a reduced cost. It’s finishing its build run alongside production SM-2s, in Raytheon Missile Systems’ factories in Tucson, AZ, and Camden, AR. The SM-3 kinetic warhead (KW) is built and tested at a state-of-the-art kill vehicle manufacturing facility in Tucson, AZ, and the entire upper stage including KW and third stage also is integrated in Tucson before going to Camden, AR for all up round integration. Work on SM-3 also is done in Anaheim, CA; Sacramento, CA; and Elkton, MD. Raytheon leads an integrated team that includes The Boeing Company, Aerojet, and Alliant Techsystems.

The missile was supposed to end production with FY 2009 orders, but testing problems with its successor kept orders coming until 2012. According to a June 2011 CRS report, its estimated cost per missile is about $9 million.

SM-3 Block IB has become the main variant for orders, as of Q2 FY 2011, but the subsequent FTM-16 test failure put a big dent in orders and deliveries. With Block IB and associated ship-based upgrades, the Navy gains the ability to defend against medium range missiles (MRBM, 1,000 – 3,000 km range) fielded by countries like North Korea and Iran, and some Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles (IRBM, 3,000 – 5,500 km range) under development by those rogue regimes. Upgrades include an advanced 2-color infrared seeker, and a 10-thruster solid throttling divert and attitude control system (TDACS/SDACS) on the kill vehicle to give it improved capability against maneuvering ballistic missiles or warheads. Solid TDACS is a joint Raytheon/Aerojet project, but Boeing supplies some components of the kinetic warhead.

The MDA wanted to buy 472 SM-3 Block IBs by 2020, but flight test issues cut initial orders, and there were still issues to resolve as as of 2014. The FY15 budget seems to indicate a new target of just 332, at an estimated cost per missile of $12 – 15 million.

SM-3 Block II: Next-Generation SM-3 Evolution
(click to view full)

SM-3 Block II will widen the missile body above the booster from 13.5″ to 21″, while shrinking the maneuvering fins. The resulting missile will be faster, and have longer range. That changes the kinds of targets it can take on, and changes its deployment, too. Instead of being able to defend just Israel’s tiny land mass and parts of nearby countries from a ship sailing near Crete, for instance, it becomes possible to defend most of Europe with that same ship. Instead of requiring 3 AEGIS ships to cover Japan, it becomes possible to cover most of Japan with just 1 ship. That’s a strong attraction for the Japanese, who have signed on as development partners.

The SM-3 Block IIA is the co-operative US-Japanese program. It adds the larger diameter, a more maneuverable “high-divert” kill vehicle, plus another sensor/ discrimination upgrade to help deal with harder targets, countermeasures, and decoys. It’s a joint development effort with Japan, which has exceeded both its expected 9-year development time frame, and $2.1 – 2.7 billion price tag. At the end of FY 2011, there were still technical difficulties with the 2nd and 3rd stage rocket motors, and the alternate propellant picked for the DACS thruster system may leave kill vehicle performance below program targets.

The program was rescheduled by joint agreement in September 2011, with flight tests pushed back to FY 2016. It’s currently scheduled to debut around 2018, and Japan has given the go-ahead for exports under certain conditions. Once it’s deployed, the US Navy, Japanese JMSDF, and other customers will have a weapon that can handle the near-strategic IRBM threat, and even engage some Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM). Its estimated cost per missile is $20 – 24 million.

The SM-3 Block IIB NGAM: The “Next Generation Aegis Missile,” was to be an open competition, with the potential to field a new design missile that could destroy IRBMs and even ICBMs. April 2011 contracts for phase 1 concept development included Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon. The new missile was originally meant to be land-based, and set to integrate with AEGIS BMD 5.1 for debut in 2020.

The FY 2014 budget relegated it to a component R&D program, and killed the missile. Technical analysis had concluded that its launch sites in Europe couldn’t protect the USA from Iranian missiles (vid. Feb 11/13 entry). One solution would have involved expanding it from a 21″ diameter missile to a 27″ missile, and switching from solid fuel to liquid fuel, in order to boost speed for earlier intercepts. The bad news is that liquid-fueled missiles aren’t safe on board ship, and 27″ wouldn’t fit in standard strike-length Mk.41 Vertical Launch Systems, even though the North Sea was the best European location from which to defend the USA. So the program wanted land and sea deployment, but didn’t know what propellant it would use, or whether it would fit current BMD ships. On-time development was doubtful, and the development schedule for other SM-3 variants is also backlogged. The final capability will be missed, but the outcome isn’t really a surprise.

SM-6 ERAM: Next-Generation Air Defense SM-6 test
(click to view full)

The SM-6 Block IA ERAM is in full-rate production following a March 2013 approval, despite a rocky test history that hasn’t fully sorted itself out yet. Present plans call for 1,800 SM-6s to supplement the SM-2 missiles in the air/surface defense role against cruise missiles and aircraft. It was approved for Full Rate Production in May 2013. The SM-6 is expected to become useful for ballistic missile defense in 2015, as the Sea based Terminal (SBT) Increment 1 combines SM-6 + Aegis BMD 5.0. Fall 2015 is the expected date for Full Operational Capability, and in 2018, SBT Increment 2 will deploy the SM-6 in conjunction with Aegis BMD 5.1. Production is currently expected to end in FY 2024.

Initial versions of the SM-6 will rely heavily on existing technology, including the airframe of the SM-2 Block IV, and advanced seeker technology derived from the AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM). Radar improvements over the AMRAAM include a much larger and more sensitive seeker (13.5″ vs. 7″ diameter), along with redesigned antennas that boost radar power even further. Active guidance in the missile’s own radar improves anti-jam resistance, and is especially helpful during saturation attacks against ships without active array radars, because it removes some of the combat load from the ships’ limited number of targeting illuminators. Semi-active guidance using large, powerful ship radars remains very useful, however, so the missile retains that option.

CEC Concept
(click to enlarge)

The SM-6 extends and combines those advantages by allowing an “over-the-horizon” targeting mode, where it’s cued by other ships or even aircraft, then uses its own seeker for the final approach. Some of its launch platforms aren’t ready for that yet, so SM-6 ERAM missiles will be launchable in “legacy” mode like an SM-2, or in SM-6 Enhanced Mode that will add 3rd party over-the-horizon targeting and other new capabilities.

Other SM-6 improvements translate into cost performance rather than targeting performance. At present, 25-30% of SM-family missiles must be re-certified each year, a process that involves unloading and moving the missiles. Instead, customers will be able to bring portable testing equipment to a ship and press a button on the SM-6’s “All Up Round” container, whereupon it will test itself. The other big “under the hood” improvement is a design that stresses software programming rather than hardware swap-outs when conducting upgrades. This makes improving the existing missile stock via “spiral development” inserts much easier, much faster, and much cheaper.

The SM-6 program has led the way for Raytheon’s adoption of Earned Value Management as a program management approach; see Sept 5/08 entry, below. It is now in Low-Rate Initial Production. The missile received its first LRIP order in September 2009, and 1st delivery was in April 2011, even as testing continues. Testing has been rocky, as the SM-6 experienced failures in 5 of 12 intercept attempts. Even so, the USA switched all SM-2 missile orders to the SM-6 in FY 2012. Australia has formally declared their intent to order the SM-6, and they are likely to be its 1st export customer. South Korea has also expressed interest.

The Standard Missile Naval Defense Family: Programs Budgets

American budgets for the Standard family of naval air defense missiles are split. One line continues production of the SM-2, and continues development of its follow-on the SM-6 Standard Extended Range Active Missile (ERAM). The usual American annual production order for SM-2 Standard missiles is 75, but that has been dropping lately, even as production budgets rise.

The long-range SM-3, which can be used in a ballistic missile defense role, is part of a separate budget line for “AEGIS BMD,” which also includes radar improvements, ship updates, and other changes required in order to use the SM-3 to its full potential.

American budgets for SM-2/SM-6 work include:

Naval Ballistic Missile Defense is a separate program, run by the US Missile defense Agency (MDA). It involves DDG-51 destroyers and CG-47 cruisers with AEGIS BMD systems, using a combination of AEGIS BMD radar improvements, and SM-3 missiles. For full coverage of those US Navy efforts, read “Serious Dollars for AEGIS Ballistic Missile Defense Modifications (BMD)“.

Across the Pacific, Japan will deploy 4 Kongo Class and 2 Atago Class AEGIS BMD destroyers of its own. Japan has purchased SM-3 Block IA missiles, but are scheduled to eventually receive the jointly-developed SM-3 Block IIA. The USA’s forthcoming DDG-1000 Zumwalt Class destroyers may have potential ABM capability of their own via the SPY-3 radar/ SM-3 combination, if additional software is added.

SM-3 Programs: 2006-2020 Timeline Raytheon factory
click for video

With so many versions in play, it can be challenging to keep track of the SM-3 family of missiles. This timeline covers the period from 2006 to the present, and also includes planned events out to 2020.

The Standard Missile Naval Defense Family: US Contracts & Events SM-3, USS Hopper
(click to view larger)

Unless otherwise specified, all contracts are issued to Raytheon in Tucson, AZ, at the request of US Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA). Note that All Up Rounds (AURs) are missiles in storage containers that contain appropriate electronics, and can be moved from storage to loading as is. ORDALT stands for “ordnance alternation,” i.e. modifications to existing weapons.

Procurement contracts are predominantly American buys, but some foreign customers will also be found in this section due to grouped purchases.

Note that all missile tests have been moved to be part of our in-depth AEGIS BMD coverage. We will cover tests that have a direct impact on missile production, which unfortunately means greater attention to failures. The AEGIS BMD article includes a full chart of naval BMD tests, for a better sense of perspective.

FY 2014 – 2015

SM-6 buy; MDA considers SM-3 IB MYP; SM-6 reached IOC. SM-6 firing
(click to view full)

June 4/15: Following a contract modification worth $149 million, Raytheon will manufacture 74 Standard Missile-6 (SM-6) air defense rounds for the Navy. This follows a $110 million contract in March and the transition of the SM-6 from low-rate to full-rate production last month.

May 8/15: Raytheon’s Standard Missile-6 (SM-6) has moved from low-rate to full-rate production, following the Navy’s decision in January to expand the number of ships the missile is deployed on from 5 to over 35.

May 1/15: Raytheon was awarded a $559.2 million undefinitized contract action by the Missile Defense Agency for multiple fixed-price incentive firm, firm-fixed-price and cost reimbursable contract line items. The first of these is an order for 44 Standard Missile-3 Block IB missiles.

Aug 24/14: SM-2/6 Support. Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, AZ receives an $8.5 million contract modification for SM-2 and SM-6 engineering and technical services. This contract combines purchases for the US Navy (84.5% / $7.2M) and Japan (15.5% / $1.3M), using a combination of FY 2014 US Navy weapons and RDT&E budgets, and Japanese funds.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ (86%); Maizura, Japan (11%); Huntsville, AL (2%); and Camden, AR (1%), and is expected to be complete by July 2015. US NAVSEA in Washington, DC manages the contract, and acts as Japan’s agent (N00024 13 C-5403).

Aug 14/14: SM-6 Testing. The US Navy conducts flight test “Juliet,” in which an SM-6 successfully intercepts a subsonic, low altitude target over land. That’s a tough shot, due to the radar clutter created when looking for a small object against the ground’s own moving signature. Juliet is one of 10 follow on operational test and evaluation (FOT&E) events planned for SM-6’s missile performance and demonstration. Sources: US Navy, “Standard Missile Shows Versatility With “Juliet” Flight Test”.

Aug 1/14: SM-6. Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, AZ receives a $7.5 million contract modification for a lifetime buy of obsolete SM-6 components. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2012 – 2014 US Navy weapons budgets; $6 million will expire on Sept 30/14.

It may be hard to believe this is needed with a new missile, but then, how many of you use 8 year old electronics? Long development times make this a common military problem, and stocking up on items that are ending or have ended production is one way to deal with it.

Work will be performed in Malaga, Spain (67%); Melville, Y (19%); Camden, AR (5%); Dallas, TX (4%); Sandy Hook, CT (2%); Los Alamitos, CA (2%); Wilmington, MA (less than 1%); and Austin, TX (less than 1%); and is expected to be complete by December 2014. US NAVSEA in Washington Navy Yard, Washington, DC manages the contract (N00024 13 C-5407).

June 19/14: SM-6 Testing. Raytheon touts a June 2014 series of tests, in which the Arleigh Burke Flight I destroyer USS John Paul Jones [DDG 53] successfully used SM-6 missiles against 2 tough threats. The 1st involved destroying low-flying cruise missile targets flying ‘over the horizon’ – which is to say, beyond the ship’s own radar. That’s similar to a Aug 23/13 test, and represents an important part of US Navy Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air (NIFC-CA) plans, which involve the ability to cue SM-6 targets using aircraft like the E-2D AWACS or F-35C fighters, or other ships.

Separately, the destroyer used another Raytheon SM-6 to intercept a supersonic target, which simulates modern Russian and Chinese missiles. Sources: Raytheon, “Raytheon Missiles Make History in Long-Range, Supersonic Tests”.

June 27/14: SM-6 FRP-2. Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, AZ, is being awarded a $275.4 million contract modification for FY 2014 SM-6 all-up rounds, and SM-6 and SM-2 spares and containers. All funds are committed immediately, using a mix of FY 2012 and 2014 USN weapons budgets, and FY 2014 USN O&M budgets. $14.3 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/14.

Numbers aren’t given, but the FY 2014 budget projected 81 missiles, a cut from the original 115. Note that the missile still has some technical issues (q.v. Jan 28/14).

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ, (33.7%); Camden, AR (28%); Wolverhampton, United Kingdom (11.6%); Andover, MA (8.6%); Middletown, OH (2.7%); San Jose, CA (2.6%); Huntsville, AL (2.3%); Dallas, TX (2.1%); Anniston, AL (1.4%); Clarkston, GA (1%); San Diego, CA (1%); Warrington, PA (1%); Wichita, KS (1%); Middletown, CT (1%); Thousand Oaks, CA (1%); and Anaheim, CA (1%); work is expected to be completed by March 2017. US NAVSEA manages the contract (N00024-13-C-5407).

FY14: SM-6s

March 14/14: GAO report. The GAO releases GAO-14-248R, regarding the USA’s EPAA plans for defending Europe from ballistic missiles. They’re characterizing SM-3 Block IIA development as “on track” for EPAA Phase 3 in 2018, but SM-3 Block IB still has some issues.

MDA plans to buy 48 Block IBs as part of Phase 2’s Romania deployment from 2015, which will create a bit of an order spike. GAO doesn’t say so, but if Block IIA is late, there will be another Block IB order spike to equip the Polish site in 2018. They do reference the Block IB’s TRSM cold gas regulator issue (q.v. Jan 28/14), and say only that the failure review is still underway, with unclear effects on production.

March 5/14: +36 SM-3 IB. Raytheon in Tucson, AZ receives a not-to-exceed $350.2 million sole-source contract modification bringing FY14 SM-3 Block IB orders to $506.2 million for 44 missiles.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ, with an estimated completion date of September 2016. The US Missile Defense Agency in Dahlgren, VA manages the contract (HQ0276-13-C-0001).

FY14: 36 SM-3-IBs

March 4/14: MDA Budget. The MDA finally releases its FY15 budget request, with information spanning from FY 2014 – 2019. The FY15 request buys AEGIS BMD 4.x upgrades for 3 ships, and installation of received BMD 4.x systems on board 5 ships, while continuing the development of versions 5.0 and 5.1. Beyond that:

“The MDA is requesting $435 million to procure 30 Aegis SM-3 Block IB missiles in FY 2015, for a total [DID: program objective, presumably] of 332 SM-3 Block IB missiles. MDA requests $68.9 million for advance procurement for four long lead items associated with the FY 2016 SM-3 Block IB missile buy to ensure timely delivery to the Combatant Commander. These items include: 1) MK 104 Dual Thrust Rocket Motor, 2) MK 72 Boosters,3) Integrated Dewar Assemblies and 4) Circuit Card assemblies.”

That’s a sharp drop from original plans for 472 missiles, but the Block IB has lost a few years of production. The number will rise again if the SM-3 Block 2A is late.

Jan 28/14: DOT&E Testing Report. The Pentagon releases the FY 2013 Annual Report from its Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E).

The SM-3 Block IA went 4/5 this fiscal year, thanks to a faulty IMU chip in the FTI-01 test’s missile. That chip is only present in a few Block IAs, and isn’t in Block IB. The Navy is taking corrective action.

The SM-3 Block IB went 3/3, but after a string of 5 successful flights, the TSRM cold gas regulator that was redesigned after the FTM-15 fail glitched out during FTM-21’s 2nd pulse rocket motor firing. It didn’t affect the score, because the missile in question was a pre-planned 2nd salvo shot, and the 1st missile had already destroyed the target. The Navy wants to know if there’s a common underlying root cause they haven’t quite fixed.

The SM-6 still has some issues, even though all FY13 flight tests were successful and it has reached Initial Operational Capability (q.v. Nov 28/13). Improved uplink/downlink shrouds have interior delamination issues, but they still worked and didn’t fail externally in test firings. The Navy will treat this as progress and keep monitoring it. On the other hand, a classified missile deficiency discovered during IOT&E remains a problem. The Navy is looking at several possible solutions with varying degrees of complexity, and they’re trying not to hurt the missile’s performance with the fix. A final decision is expected in Q3 FY14, but they don’t know where the funding will come from.

Full SM-6 performance won’t be achieved until The Navy can launch using other sensors (Navy Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air From the Sea/ NIFC-CA FTS) in FY15. They had good initial results from an initial LF-04 test in FY13, using the same Aegis Baseline 9 system that will be present for the 16 planned SM-6 tests en route to NIFC-CA FTS.

Jan 9/13: +8 SM-3-IB. Raytheon in Tucson, AZ receives a not-to-exceed $156 million sole-source, unfinalized contract for 8 SM-3 Block IB missiles and AUR containers ($19.5 million per missile), under a hybrid contract structure with firm-fixed-price and cost reimbursable contract line item numbers. FY14 funds are being used. Raytheon says:

“This contract award is limited due to the continuing resolution; we anticipate the remainder of the FY14 contract to be awarded once the appropriations bill is passed.”

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ through September 2016. The US Missile Defense Agency in Dahlgren, VA manages the contract (HQ0276-13-C-0001).

FY14: 8 SM-3-IBs

Nov 28/13: SM-6. The US Navy declares that the SM-6 has reached Initial Operational Capability, as it begins loading the new missiles into USS Kidd [DDG 100] in San Diego, CA.

SM-6 Full Rate Production was approved on May 22/13, but the Pentagon DOT&E’s Jan 28/14 report confirms that some of the deficiencies outlined in their Jan 17/13 publication still haven’t been fixed. All NAVSEA would say is that 50 SM-6 missiles have been delivered to date, and that “…test and evaluation will continue in 2013 and 2014 to validate the integrated fire control capability in an operationally realistic environment.” Sources: US NAVSEA, “Standard Missile 6 (SM-6) Achieves Initial Operational Capability”.

SM-6 IOC

Nov 25/13: Support. Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, AZ receives a $15.9 million contract modification for Standard Missile family engineering and technical support services. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2012 weapon budgets.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ (82.8%); Andover, MA (12.4%); Huntsville, AL (3.8%), and Camden, AR (1%), and is expected to be complete by November 2014 (N00024-13-C-5403).

Oct 31/13: SM-3-IIA. Raytheon and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries have completed the SM-3 Block IIA’s Critical Design Review (CDR), and the USA and Japan have agreed on workshare arrangements that allocate development responsibility between each country. SM-3-IIA is the key new piece in EPAA Phase 3, and the successful CDR keeps it on track for flight test in 2015.

Raytheon made the announcement at the 2013 AIAA Multinational Ballistic Missile Defense Conference in Warsaw, Poland. Sources: Raytheon, “New, Larger Standard Missile-3 Moves From Design to Testing” | Raytheon, Oct 31/13 release.

SM-3 Block IIA CDR

Oct 15/13: SM-3 IB. The MDA announces its intent to award a sole source contract worth up to $3 billion to Raytheon Missile Systems (RMS) for the production and integration of up to 216 SM-3 Block IB missiles, as a follow on to HQ0276-13-C-0001. This would amount to $13.88 million per missile, presumably including suitable spares and support costs. The agency would like to structure that as a 3-year multiyear procurement (MYP) over FY15-17, for up to 72 missiles per year. If that doesn’t receive congressional approval, they will fall back to an annual contract for FY15 with up to 2 pre-priced annual contract options.

The 72/year procurement rate is in line with the MDA’s April 2014 budget submission [PDF], though that document assumes a gross/weapon system unit cost of around $10.35 million for Block IB missiles (a dozen block IIAs raise the projected average cost/missile in FY2017). Even after adding ancillary costs like canisters and production engineering, it is not immediately clear why the MDA seems to seek a contract at costs higher than what it had budgeted so far, right when volumes would ramp up to full rate production rates, and as the missile is maturing as the main production weapon. It also appears the multi-year commitment is more a tool for the MDA to protect itself from budgeting vagaries, rather than to gain pricing leverage with its sole supplier. The fate of the 72 missiles planned for FY18 in the FYDP is not covered by the MDA’s contract intent.

Note that contrarily to some mistaken news reports, this is not yet an award, but rather a declaration of intent pending the availability of matching appropriations. HQ0276-14-R-0099 presolicitation.

FY 2013

SM-2 multinational buy; SM-6 Full Rate Production; SM-3-IA failure in FIT-01; SM-3-IB’s success in FTM-19 clears it for orders; GAO Report. FTM-19: SM-3-IB
(click to view full)

Sept 27/13: SM-6. Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, AZ, was awarded a $243.5 million contract modification for 89 Standard Missile-6 Block I All Up Rounds, spares, containers, and engineering services. This order launches full-rate production of the missile. $236.7 million is committed immediately, and will expire on Sept 30/13.

This contract is added to the Jan 31/13 long-lead items contract for $33.3 million for a FY 2013 total of $276.8 million, or about $3.1 million per missile. That sum compares very closely to Lockheed Martin’s PATRIOT PAC-3, which plays a similar role on land.

Work will be performed in Camden, AK (34.4%); Tucson, AZ (25.5%); Wolverhampton, U.K. (14.6%); Andover, MA (7.3%); Middletown, CA (5.3%); San Jose, CA (3.1%); Dallas, TX, (2.7%); Anniston, AL (1.5%); Clarkston, GA (1.3%); Huntsville, AL (1.1%); Andover, MA (1.1%); San Diego, CA (1.1%); and Warrington, PA (1.0%) and is expected to be complete by March 2016. US Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington Navy Yard, DC manages the contract (N00024-13-C-5407). See also: Raytheon release, Sept 30/13.

FY 2013: 89 SM-6s launches Full-Rate Production

Sept 24/13: Industrial. DRS RSTA, Inc., Infrared Technologies, Huntsville, AL receives a maximum of $17.7 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to design, develop, and fabricate a 2-Color Focal Plane Array (FPA) for the MDA’s Advanced Technology Risk Reduction. The objective is to develop and implement a controlled dual-band, large-format, long wavelength infrared FPA manufacturing process to improve the yield for multiple lots of FPAs. If they can succeed, it would benefit a number of missile defense programs, including a very strong payoff for SM-3 Block IB and higher missiles. It would also benefit Finmeccanica’s DRS, as a premium supplier of this specialized technology.

$125,000 is committed immediately, with the rest awarded over time. Options work includes a digital FPA design, development, and fabrication effort.

All work will be performed in Dallas, TX, and Santa Barbara, CA from Sept 30/13 through Nov 30/17. This contract was competitively procured via FBO.gov, with 112 proposals received by the MDA in Redstone Arsenal, AL (HQ0147-13-C-0021).

Aug 6/13: +29 SM-3 IB. A $218.5 million sole-source, cost-plus-incentive-fee contract modification exercises an option for 29 SM-3 Block IB all-up-round missiles and containers, using FY 2013 defense-wide acquisition funds. This raises the total value of the contract from $179.4 – $398 million, which represents the FY 2013 order.

These 2 orders are good news for the SM-3 Block IB, which faces an imminent full-rate production decision.

The Pentagon says that work will be performed in Tucson, AZ, but that’s just the guidance sections. Final assembly will take place in Raytheon’s new, state-of-the-art Redstone Missile Integration Facility in Huntsville, AL, with an expected completion date of Sept 30/16. The MDA in Dahlgren, VA manages the contract (HQ0276-13-C-0001, CLIN 0002). Raytheon.

Aug 6/13: +4 SM-3 IB. A $48.9 million sole-source cost-plus-incentive-fee contract modification exercises an option for 4 SM-3 Block IB all-up round missiles and containers, using FY 2013 defense-wide acquisition funds. This is the add-back discussed in the July 9/13 entry, and raises the total value of its contract from $1.91 billion – to $1.958 billion.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ with an expected completion date of Sept 30/15. The MDA in Dahlgren, VA manages the contract (N00024-07-C-6119, CLIN 0026).

FY 2013: 33 SM-3-IBs

July 11/13: SM-3 IIA. A $57.2 million sole-source, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract modification for SM-3 Block IIA upgrades and engineering support, using FY 2013 RDT&E finds. The total contract value rises from $1.537 billion to $1.594 billion.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ through Sept 30/16. The MDA in Dahlgren, VA manages the contract (HQ0276-10-C-0005, PO 0046).

July 9/13: SM-3 IB. Raytheon in Tucson, AZ receives a somewhat confusing modification contract, so we’ll summarize in point form:

• $48.9 million cut, along with 4 SM-3 Block IB missiles. CLIN 0016 (q.v. March 29/11 entry) will now buy 20 SM-3-IB missiles.

• The 4 missiles could be added back later as an option, under new Contract Line Item Nimber 0026, for the same $48.9 million. If the option is exercised, it’s expected to happen in Q4 (Summer) 2013.

• $24 million added for “resolving technical and production transition issues,” but CLIN 0016 doesn’t change its March 2011 – December 2013 timeline.

So, the overall cut is $25 million, and the contract’s total value drops from $1.933 billion to $1.908 billion, but the new option could change that to a $24 million boost. The US MDA in Dahlgren, VA manages the contract (N00024-07-C-6119, PO 0117).

May 31/13: Support. Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, AZ, is being awarded a $75.9 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for Standard Missile engineering and technical services. These services include research and development efforts; design, systems, and production engineering; technical services; evaluation services; component improvement services; and production proofing services for missile producibility, missile production, and shipboard integration. This contract includes options that could bring its cumulative value to $316.5 million.

$33.1 million is committed immediately, using a combination of FY 2011-2013 budget lines. Of this, $1.6 million will expire at the end of FY 2013, on Sept 30/13. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ (86.8%); Andover, MA (9.4%); Huntsville, AL (1.7%); Arlington, VA (1.1%); Camden, AK (0.7%); and White Sands, NM (0.3%), and is expected to be completed by December 2017. Since the Standard Missile family is Raytheon’s, this contract was sole sourced under 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1) – only one responsible source. US Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity (N00024-13-C-5403).

May 22/13: SM-6. A Pentagon Defense Acquisition Board approves full-rate production of Raytheon’s Standard Missile-6. The current configuration is the SM-6 Block I, and the team is on track to deliver the first Full-Rate Production missile in April 2015, 3 months ahead of contract. Raytheon.

SM-6 into FRP

SM-3-IB Schedule slips
(click to view full)

April 26/13: GAO Report. The GAO looks at the MDA’s full array of programs in report #GAO-13-342, “Missile Defense: Opportunity To Refocus On Strengthening Acquisition Management.” They have a lot to say about various SM-3 programs:

SM-3 Block IB: After the Sept 1/11 failure, 2012 has been a year of fixes, while Block IB production was cut and production of the previous SM-3 Block IA was extended by 55 missiles. The May and June 2012 tests went well, but MDA experienced further difficulties completing testing of a new maneuvering component, delaying the FTM-19 flight. To keep the production line going, the FY 2013 buy of Block IB missiles was split in 2, with an initial components purchase in early 2013, and the rest to be placed after the FTM-19 test.

During 2012, the SM-3 Block IB program experienced multiple issues completing TDACS qualification tests, including a test failure in October 2012 whose root cause analysis will cost $27.5 million. Completion of qualification testing ended up slipping from late 2011 to February 2013.

SM-3 Block IIA: After the SM-3 Block IIA had its Preliminary Design Review delayed by problems with 4 components (incl. the nosecone, TDACS, and 2nd & 3rd stage rocket motors), the GAO thinks MDA did the right thing by delaying the PDR by a year and adding about $296 million to extend development. The program completed the PDR successfully in March 2012, but the TDACS thrusters that aim the kill vehicle remain an issue. Program management officials say they’re applying SM-3 Block IB program lessons learned, as DACS systems are tough problems that have often challenged SM-3 variants.

SM-3 Block IIB: The missile was effectively canceled shortly after the report, and the report explains why. See SM-3 background section, above, for more.

April 10/13: FY 2014 Budget. The President releases a proposed budget at last, the latest in modern memory. The Senate and House were already working on budgets in his absence, but the Pentagon’s submission is actually important to proceedings going forward. See ongoing DID coverage. The biggest news is the SM-3 Block IIB Next-Generation Aegis Missile’s effective termination into a technology demonstration program. Its ability to defend the USA from European bases became questionable, and its timelines were never realistic. The USA will buy the originally-planned number of land-based GBI missiles instead.

Budget totals are graphed above, and it’s also worth noting that the SM-6 missile saw multi-year production cuts. The Navy’s justification documents explain, though we suspect SM-6 production will end up stretched long beyond 2024 due to future cuts:

“SM-6 was rephased to better align with the combat systems upgrades to Destroyers and Cruisers via [Aegis] ACB-12…. Per OPNAV Direction of 11 July 2012, the Program of Record total procurement quantity for SM-6 is increased from 1200 to 1800. The estimated scheduled completion date is extended from FY19 to FY24.”

March 15/13: SM-3 IIB. Following North Korea’s 3rd nuclear test attempt, the new US Secretary of Defense announces that the USA will add 14 more ground-based interceptors at Fort Greely, AK and Vandenberg AFB, CA, boosting the total number from 30 back to the 44 planned by the previous administration. At the same time, they’re re conducting Environmental Impact Studies for a potential additional GBI site in the United States.

They’re paying for this by “restructuring” the SM-3 Block 2B Next Generation Aegis Missile program, whose 2020 deployment date was never realistic (vid. April 20/12 GAO report).

Japan will continue to collaborate with the USA on the SM-3 Block 2A program, and will get a 2nd AN/TPY-2 radar on its territory. Pentagon AFPS | Full Speech Transcript | Boeing.

SM-3-IIB/ NGAM cancelled

March 11/13: Datalink. Raytheon announces that they’ve begun advanced testing of their company-funded dual-band (S/X) datalink, linking SM-3 missiles to an X-band Thales Nederland Advanced Phased Array Radar (APAR) at a shore-based Dutch facility. Dutch LCF ships have already participated in American missile defense tests as trackers, but they’d need this datalink if they wanted the full radar communication that’s needed to launch their own interceptors.

APAR active array radars are used as fire control radars by Dutch LCF and German F124 frigates, and by the new Danish Ivar Huitfeldt Class. The datalink would also help the US Navy. Their 3 new Zumwalt Class “destroyers” will use Raytheon’s SPY-3 X-band radar, but their SM-2 and SM-3 missile inventories are designed to work with SPY-1 S-band radars.

March 5/13: SM-3 support. Raytheon’s SM-3 Block IB in-service engineering support contract jumps from $594.4 million to $656.7 million, a raise of $62.3 million. Based on subsequent documents, this appears to be an early order for components etc., with the rest to follow if the next test succeeds.

They’ll work on this sole-source, cost-plus-award-fee contract through Sept 30/15, with initial funds coming from FY 2013 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation accounts. The US MDA in Dahlgren, VA manages this contract (HQ0276-11-C-0002, PO 0032).

Feb 28/13: Industrial. Raytheon announces that their new SM-6 production facility, with modern tools that include mobile robots and ultra-precise laser positioning, has delivered its 1st SM-6 all-up-round to the US Navy. See Nov 16/12 entry for more.

Feb 11/13: Block 2B – GAO Report. GAO-13-382R: “Standard Missile-3 Block IIB Analysis of Alternatives” throws cold water on the idea that the SM-3 Block 2B can defend the USA from bases in Poland or Romania. The geometry isn’t very good, and success may require a boost-phase intercept. Those are very tricky, and have limited range, because you have to hit the enemy missile within a very short time/ distance.

Some members of the military think it’s possible, at an initial estimated budget of $130 million extra. The missile may also need to grow from 21″ diameter to 27″, which will change which launchers it can fit into. Then there are other tradeoffs. Liquid propellants can boost speed, but are unsafe on Navy ships due to the fire risks. On the other hand, the middle of the North Sea offers much better missile intercept geometries, which can work after the boost phase. Maybe Block 2B shouldn’t be land-based at all, but then how big an improvement is it over Block 2A? MDA still needs to set the future Block 2B’s missile’s performance requirements and limits. Where should the tradeoffs be made?

This brings us to the GAO’s point about the MDA developing the SM-3 Block IIB under a framework that dispenses with a good chunk of the usual paperwork, including an Analysis of Alternatives. On reflection, this is more than just a bureaucratic point driven by “records show that programs doing the paperwork usually fare better.” One of the EPAA’s key underlying assumptions is now in question, and the proposed solution must now be in question as well. Is the best solution for land-based European missile defense still SM-3 Block IIB? What are the tradeoffs vs. using a system like the enhanced US-based GMD system recommended by the September 2012 NRC report (q.v.), and making Block 2B a ship-deployed missile? Without good answers regarding capability, options, and maintainability, how does the MDA pick the right winning combination among the Block 2B competitors? A full AoA could improve those answers – and hence the odds of a smart pick.

Feb 4/13: Support. A $14.2 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to repair, provide depot and intermediate level maintenance for, and recertify “Standard Missiles” or associated items. The contract covers the US Navy and Foreign Military Sales from FY 2013 – 2017.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ (89%); Camden, AR (8%); Huntsville, AL (2%); and Andover, MA (1%), and is expected to be complete by September 2013. $5.6 million in funding from the FY 2013 “Operations & Maintenance, Navy” is committed immediately, and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year on Sept 30/13. This contract was not competitively procured in accordance with the “one responsible supplier” provision of 10 U.S.C. 2304 (c) (1), as implemented in FAR 6.302-1 (N00024-13-C-5402).

Jan 31/13: SM-6. A $33.3 million cost-only contract for FY 2013 long-lead items, to support SM-6 Block I production.

Work will be performed in Camden, AR (72.6%), Andover, MA (11.5%), Wolverhampton, United Kingdom (9.8%), Tucson, AZ (2%), San Carlos, CA (1.1%), San Diego, CA (0.9%), Anniston, AL (0.7%), Middletown, CT (0.6%), Joplin, MO (0.5%), and Milwaukie, OR (0.3%), and is expected to be complete by February 2015. All funding is committed immediately, via the FY 2012 “Operations and Maintenance, Navy” budget line. This contract was not competitively procured in accordance with the “one responsible source” exemption in 10 U.S.C. 2304 (c) (1), as implemented in FAR 6.302-1 (N00024-13-C-5407).

Jan 17/13: SM-6 DOT&E. The Pentagon releases the FY 2012 Annual Report from its Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E). The SM-6 is included, and the overall recommendation is blunt:

“SM-6 does not meet the flight reliability criteria established by USD(AT&L) for full-rate production…. Until reliability deficiencies are resolved, the Navy should consider issuing tactics that employ multiple missiles for certain targets [DID: because you can’t depend on just 1].”

The good news is that the SM-6 has demonstrated longer downrange engagement than any SM-2. Unfortunately, current Aegis SPY-1 B/D radar and combat system can’t fully test the SM-6’s capabilities, and won’t until Aegis Baseline 9 (aka. Navy Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air) From the Sea combat system enhancements in FY 2014 – 2015. Once that back-end element is delivered, however, initial trials using multiple sensors suggest that “SM-6 battlespace will be significantly expanded.”

The bad news is that the classified deficiency noted in the 2011 report is still there, and the Navy doesn’t have a fix yet. There’s also a problem with debris and the uplink/downlink antenna, which can interfere with initial guidance. The fix hasn’t been fully flight tested, and wind tunnel testing revealed new problems with the antenna sealant material and insulation bonding. Finally, there’s an anomaly with the fuse’s Mk54 Safe-Arm Device.

Jan 17/13: SM-3 DOT&E. The Pentagon releases the FY 2012 Annual Report from its Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E).

With respect to the SM-3’s anomaly in test FTM-15, the 3rd stage rocket motor has been redesigned, and flew successfully in test FTM-18. That stage is common to SM-3 Block IA and Block IB. The program is still trying to fully understand what went wrong in FTM-16, though, and that issue also deals with the 3rd stage motor. DOT&E wants a flight test to verify the correction for FTM-16 Event 2, which didn’t end as well as FTM-15 did.

Beyond that, they recommend that the US Navy engage a medium-range target before the SM-3 Block IB’s Full-Rate Production Decision.

Dec 14/12: Support. A $12.3 million contract modification exercises options for Standard Missile engineering and technical services, including evaluations of advanced missile configurations and advanced technology efforts.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ, and is expected to be complete by March 2013. All funds are committed immediately, and $2.7 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. US Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington DC (N00024-12-C-5400).

Nov 30/12: SM-2. A $108.8 million contract modification to previously awarded contract for SM-2 production, section level components and spares, shipping containers and associated data. It lists itself as a FY 2011 award, and Raytheon confirms that it brings the total FY 2011 contract value to more than $200 million. They also confirm that the award includes 60 SM-2 missiles, while emphasizing that well over half of the contract value is for design agent services, spare sections, and test equipment.

This contract will support foreign military sales to Australia (39.8%), Korea (19.8%), Japan (17.5%), Canada (3.2%), Germany (0.4%), Taiwan (0.2%) and the Netherlands (0.1%). That only totals 81%, so about $20.7 million/ 19.0% must be for the US military, which has committed to supporting SM-2 past 2035.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ (43.5%); Camden, AR (22%); Andover, MA (16.7%); Netherlands (5.3%); Anniston, AL (2.6%); San Diego, CA (2.4%); Lebanon, NH (2.1%); San Jose, CA (1.9%); Joplin, MO (1.8%); and El Segundo, CA (1.6%); and is expected to be complete by March 2014. $8.5 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12 (N00024-11-C-5300). See also Raytheon.

Nov 29/12: SM-3 SDACS R&D. Aerojet-General Corp. in Sacramento, CA wins a $34.9 million contract, Aerojet to develop and test Solid Divert and Attitude Control Systems (SDACS) technologies for exoatmospheric BMD kill vehicles, which are carried by systems like the SM-3, THAAD, etc. Improved SDACS is part of the SM-3’s planned evolution, and Aerojet is just one firm receiving these awards – vid. Sept 27/12 entry.

This contract was competitively procured and the work will be performed at Rancho Cordova, CA, from December 2012 through November 2014. $3.7 million in FY 2013 research, development, test and evaluation funds will be used to incrementally fund this effort. The MDA in Huntsville, AL manages the contract (HQO147-13-C-0005).

Nov 26/12: Industrial. Raytheon opens the doors of its new $75 million, 70,000 square-foot, SM-3/ SM-6 all-up-round production facility at Redstone Arsenal, AL in November 2012. Its advanced features include a fleet of 5-ton capacity laser-guided vehicles that silently move missiles around the factory, and use lasers and software to position missiles within 1/10,000 of an inch. Raytheon.

FY 2012

SM-6 production begins in earnest; SM-3 block IIA work gets big funding injection and continues with Japan; SM-6 test problems; Report examines SM-3 development. SM-2 maintenance
(click to view full)

Sept 27/12: SM-3-IIB MDACS R&D. Alliant Techsystems (ATK) Inc. of Minneapolis, MI receives a $52.8 million award to develop and test solid divert and attitude control systems (SDACS) technologies of interest to the MDA, “for use in final-stage kill vehicles.”

ATK has produced more than 165 earlier-generation solid DACS (SDACS) for the SM-3 program, but a Dec 3/12 release confirms that the work is aimed at the new SM-3 Block IIB (NGAM). The new Modular Divert and Attitude Control System (MDACS) is designed to improve the warhead-killer’s performance.

This contract was a competitively awarded procurement, and the work will be performed at Elkton, MD from October 2012 through September 2014. The contract begins with $200,000 in FY 2012 research, development, test and evaluation funds. The US MDA in Huntsville, AL manages the contract (HQO147-12-C-0016). See also ATK.

Sept 27/12: SM-2. Raytheon in Tucson, AZ receives a $14.2 million firm-fixed-price modification for SM-2 spares.

Work will be performed in Joplin, Mo. (31.6%); Tucson, Ariz. (23.5%); Minneapolis, Minn. (18.7%); Andover, Mass. (13.8%); Stafford Springs, Conn. (6.8%); and other sites below one% (5.6%), and is expected to be completed by March 2014. Contract funds in the amount of $11,738,119 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea System Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity (N00024-11-C-5300).

Sept 21/12: SM-6 test. The high-altitude JLENS radar aerostat is part of a test involving the new SM-6 naval defense missile. During the test, JLENS’ fire-control radar acquired and tracked a target that mimicked an anti-ship cruise missile, then Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) was used to pass the data on to the firing ship. The missile was fired, and used JLENS’ targeting data to move into range of its own radar, before picking up the target and destroying it. Raytheon.

Aug 30/12: +19 SM-3s. A $230.3 million sole-source cost-plus-incentive-fee contract modification buys 14 SM-3 Block IA and 5 SM-3 Block IB missiles. This raises the overall contract value from $1.7 billion to $1.93 billion, and raises FY 2012 orders so far to 14 Block IA and 14 Block IB missiles.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ through Sept 30/14, using FY 2012 Defense-Wide Procurement funds. The MDA in Dahlgren, VA manages this contract (N00024-07-C-6119, PO 0102).

FY 2012: 14 SM-3-IAs, 5 SM-3-IBs

July 31/12: +9 SM-3-IB. A $77.1 million sole-source cost-plus-incentive-fee action exercises an option for 9 SM-3 Block IB AURs. This order increases the total contract value from $1.618 billion to $1.695 billion, and is funded by FY 2012 Defense Wide Procurement funds.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ from July 31/12 through July 31/13, and the MDA in Dahlgren, VA manages the contract (N00024-07-C-6119, PO 0099).

FY 2012: 9 SM-3-IBs

July 25/12: SM-3 IIA SDD Extended. Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, AZ receives a a sole-source $925 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract modification, which raises the total for this FY 2010 contract from $583.4 million to $1,508.4 million. It extends and increases SM-3 Block IIA development through the Critical Design Review stage, and covers flight test support, from July 27/12 – Feb 28/17.

The SM-3 Block IIA began in 2006 as a cooperative development program with Japan, but shifts like the cancellation of the Multiple Kill Vehicle, and technical issues, have delayed the program. A restructuring plan was agreed on in September 2011, and initial flight tests won’t begin until FY 2016.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ, and FY 2012 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation funds will be used to begin funding. The MDA in Dahlgren, VA manages the contract (HQ0276-10-C-0005, PO 0030). Raytheon’s release adds that the missile is “on track for a 2018 deployment date,” and says that they’ve delivered “more than 130 SM-3 variants to the U.S. and Japanese navies…”

SM-3-IIA development extended

May 10/12: SM-6 LRIP-4. A $313.8 million combination fixed-price-incentive, cost-plus-fixed-fee, firm-fixed-price letter contract, for Low-Rate Initial Production of FY 2012 SM-6 Block I all-up rounds, plus special tooling and test equipment, spares, and containers. $63.4 million are committed at time of award, and the rest will be used to place orders over time.

This order is a milestone for the program. FY 2012 was intended to be the shift into SM-6 Full-Rate Production, after 3 LRIP lots. This may be LRIP Lot 4, but as the order’s size indicates, this is where the transition to SM-6 production really begins for the US Navy. Numbers aren’t given, but the figure is close enough to the FY 2012 procurement budget of $356.9 million that one can assume it orders all 89 of those missiles. To date, Australia has also committed to the missile for its Hobart Class destroyers.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ (46%); Camden, AR (24%); Andover, MA (6%); Wolverhampton, United Kingdom (6%); Huntsville, AL (4%); Dallas, TX (4%); Hanahan, SC (3%); Anniston, AL (3%); San Jose, CA (2%); and Middletown, OH (2%), and is expected to complete by March 2015. This contract was not competitively procured, as Raytheon is the sole qualified producer for Standard Missile (N00024-12-C-5401). The Raytheon release doesn’t add anything.

FY 2012: 89 SM-6s

May 9/12: FTM-16E2a – Block IB success. For “FTM-16, Event 2a”, the missile was fired from the guided missile cruiser Lake Erie [CG 70] using the new AEGIS BMD 4.0.1 hardware and software, and the missile used its new 2-color infrared seeker to track and intercept the target. Overall, this is the 20th successful SM-3 intercept, but the Block IB had failed the previous FTM-16 firing test (vid. Sept 1/11). Wes Kremer, vice president of Raytheon Missile Systems’ Air and Missile Defense Systems product line, offers a quick update:

“Raytheon has delivered more than 130 SM-3 Block IAs ahead of schedule and under cos… We are on track to deliver the SM-3 Block IB to the nation by 2015 for deployment at sea and ashore.”

It’s a big moment for the missile. See: US MDA | Lockheed Martin | Raytheon.

FTM-16E2a: SM-3-IB test successful

SM-3 programs
in FY 2011
(click to view full)

April 20/12: GAO report The US GAO releases “Opportunity Exists to Strengthen Acquisitions by Reducing Concurrency.” That bland-sounding title has a lot to say about the Pentagon’s SM-3 missiles, as it reviews the events of FY 2011 and looks at each variant.

SM-3 Block IA: Production was supposed to end in 2009, but Block IB failures led to 41 FY 2010-2011 orders, and may lead to more in FY 2012. The problem with further Block IA orders is an anomaly in test FTM-15. The test still succeeded, but it was serious enough that deliveries were frozen until the problem is fixed. At the time of the GAO’s report, 12 missiles were awaiting delivery (GAO says about 10% of the operational fleet), and at least 7 missiles will need modifications.

SM-3 Block IB: The 2015 political schedule for deploying a European Missile defense is forcing a lot of the program’s overlap between development, testing & production. For instance, the program began production of SM-3 IB interceptors before resolving development issues with the kill vehicle’s TDACS propulsion. TDACS failed qualification testing in early 2010 and required a redesigned propellant moisture protection system, but the version used in the failed FTM-16E2 flight test in 2011 wasn’t the same as approved production design. TDACS is expected to complete qualification testing in 2012, barring further problems, and various issues continue to delay production. After the FTM-16 E2 test failure, FY 2011 orders were cut, and most of those missiles (18/25) are now slated for testing. Those issues aren’t fully resolved, and the Block IA’s FTM-15 test anomaly is also a problem, since the affected system is shared with the Block IB. A decision must be made on the planned FY 2012 order for 46 missiles, even though testing may need until 2013. The MDA wants to buy 472 SM-3 Block IBs by 2020.

SM-3 Block IIA USA/Japan: While this is still technically an “SM-3,” the GAO correctly points out that this 21″ diameter missile will have very little in common with the Block IB. A September 2011 program rescheduling has helped, and an issue with nosecone weight seems to be settled. At the end of FY 2011, however, there were still technical difficulties with the 2nd and 3rd stage rocket motors, and the alternate propellant picked for the new “high-divert” DACS system may offer less kill vehicle performance than hoped.

SM-3 Block IIB NGAM: Being pursued as a competitive program, with 3 design vendors and multiple technology development contracts for key technologies. The GAO is also concerned about concurrency here, as the summer 2013 product development decision will occur before the March 2015 Preliminary Design Review. They add:

“Based on the experience of other SM-3 interceptors, the program must commit to produce flight test interceptors 2 years before the March 2016 first flight. However, this timeline means the commitment to a flight test vehicle would occur a year before the SM-3 Block IIB PDR [in March 2015] has confirmed that the design is feasible and more than a year and a half before CDR has confirmed that the design is stable.”

Key progress report

March 21/12: SM-3. Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, AZ receives a $120 million contract ceiling increase for SM-3 design and engineering, in service engineering support, production engineering and obsolescence, surveillance and flight test support, and transition to production. The change increases the contract’s maximum value from $689 million to $809 million.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ through Sept 30/15. FY 2012 research, development, test and evaluation funds will be used to incrementally fund this initial effort. The MDA in Dahlgren, VA manages the contract (HQ0276-11-C-0002, PO 0017, contract line item number 0003).

Jan 19/12: SDACS. Alliant Techsystems (ATK), Inc. in Minneapolis, MN receives a $13.5 million contract modification to “develop and test Solid Divert and Attitude Control Systems (SDACS) technologies of interest to the Missile Defense Agency.”

This contract represents part of the MDA’s technology development strategy to improve performance and reduce risk for BMD interceptor divert and attitude control systems, which maneuver missile kill vehicles to hit their target in space. ATK’s SDACS is associated with the SM-3 program’s LEAP(Lightweight Exo-Atomspheric Projectile) Kinetic Kill Vehicle, but similar kil vehicles are also used in the land-based THAAD (Boeing liquid DACS) and GBI/GMD (Raytheon/Aerojet EKV) programs. Depending on the technologies tested, there may be spinoff benefits.

The original contract was a competitively awarded procurement. Work will be performed at Elkton, MD, from February 2012 through December 2012, with $800,000 in FY 2012 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation funds as opening funding. The MDA, Huntsville, AL manages the contract (HQOI47-11-C-0003).

Jan 17/12: DOT&E & SM-6. The Pentagon releases the FY2011 Annual Report from its Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E). The SM-3 and SM-6 are included.

For the SM-3, the DOT&E report has little to say. The SM-3 Block IA system is stable, and continues to show progress. There was an anomaly in the SM-3 Block IA interceptor’s flyout during test FTM-15, but it achieved intercept. FTM-16 Event 2 saw a failure by the new SM-3 Block IB. Both incidents are still under investigation.

The SM-6 completed IOT&E flight testing in July 2011, but was assessed as not operationally effective or suitable yet. On the plus side, it showed strong range, and performed well against low-level, maneuvering, and ECM(electronic countermeasure) protected targets. On the other hand, it succeeded in only 7 of 12 intercepts, and those weren’t in an “objective operational environment.” Two missions failed due to fuze-related anomalies, 2 missions were in-flight hardware failures, and 1 was a failure of the missile navigation system.

There were 2 classified performance anomalies that DOT&E believes should have been uncovered in developmental testing, and 2 more anomalies (antenna debris, MK54 safe-arm device) that were found but not fixed, with effects on the test results. The DOT&E wants corrective action on the problems, more flight tests, and an IOT&E test plan for SM-6’s full over-the-horizon capability when Aegis Capability Baseline 12 and the NIFC-CA sensors are fielded after FY 2014.

Dec 8/11: SM-3 IB. A $35 million sole-source modification to Raytheon’s cost-plus-incentive-fee SM-3 Block IB contract, to buy materials and assemblies used in those missiles from December 2011 – May 2012. This raises the contract’s total value to $1.604 billion. The period of performance for this contract action is from December 2011 through May 2012.

FY 2011 RDT&E funds will be used to fully fund this effort. The MDA in Dahlgren, VA manages the contract (N00027-07-C-6119).

Nov 15/11: SM-3 IIA. Raytheon in Tucson, AZ receives a sole-source, $241 million cost-plus-award-fee contract modification, including options, which brings the total contract to $575.6 million. In exchange, they’ll offer engineering services and material for systems engineering, design and development support, and initial hardware fabrication for the SM-3 Block IIA missile, including redesign of the divert and attitude control system (DACS, vid. Sept 17/11 entry).

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ through March 31/12, using FY 2012 research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) funds. The SM-3 block IIA is a collaboration with Japan, but the Pentagon notes that this is not a Foreign Military Sales acquisition. The MDA in Dahlgren, VA manages the contract (HQ0006-10-C-0005). See also Sept 8/11 entry, Raytheon release.

FY 2011

SM-3 block IIB/NGAM, phase 1 R&D contracts; Datalink could expand SM-3 to new ship classes; SM-3 block IIA work continues with Japan; SM-3 block IA production continues after all, following FTM-16’s SM-3 block IB test failure; SM-3 IA demonstrates launch on remote track in FTM-15; Multinational SM-2 contract; SM-6 LRIP-3 contract; 1st SM-6 delivery. SM-3 seeker: target!
(click to view full)

Sept 23/11: FY11 SM-2s. A not-to-exceed $142.6 million cost-only contract for FY 2011’s SM-2 all-up-rounds (number not mentioned), section level components and spares, shipping containers, and associated data. This contract will provide 60 SM-2 Block IIIB all-up-rounds, along with components and spares. This contract combines purchases for the U.S. Navy (17.8%); and, under the Foreign Military Sales Program, the governments of Korea (32.4%), Japan (26.5%), Australia (21.9%), Germany (0.7%), Taiwan (0.5%), and Canada (0.2%). It includes options which could bring the total to $146.2 million.

Work will be performed in Andover, MA (37%); Camden, Ark. (36%); The Netherlands (7%); Anniston, AL (5%); Joplin, Mo. (4%); San Diego, CA (3%); Middleton, CT (3%); El Segundo, CA (3%); and Reisterstown, MD (2%). Work is expected to be complete by June 2013. This contract was not competitively procured by US Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington Navy Yard, DC (N00024-11-C-5300).

FY 2011: 60 SM-2s

Sept 17/11: SM-3-IIA delays. Mianichi Daily News reports US notification to Japan that the SM-3 Block IIA will be delayed 2 years, because the kill vehicle needs additional testing. The USA will cover the additional costs.

The original development plan involved a 9-year effort ending in 2014, with Japan paying $1.0 – 1.2 billion, and the USA $1.1 – 1.5 billion. That will now extend to 2016, with the USA looking to deploy the new missile in 2018.

SM-3-IIA program delayed

Sept 16/11: SM-3 IA order. A maximum $285.8 million unfinalized sole-source, cost-plus-incentive-fee contract modification to build another 23 SM-3 Block IA missiles. The award increases the total contract value from $1.269 billion to $1.555 billion, and appears to cancel the procurement shift indicated by the March 29/11 contract, which cut and seemingly ended SM-3 Block IA production. See also the Sept 1/11 entry, in which the replacement SM-3 Block IB missile failed its 1st intercept test.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ through April 30/14. $60 million in FY 2011 defense-wide procurement funds will be used to incrementally fund this effort. The MDA in Dahlgren, VA manages the contract (N00024-07-C-6119, PO 0068).

FY 2011: 23 SM-3-IAs

Sept 16/11: SM-6. Another $9.1 million fixed-price incentive-fee and firm-fixed-price contract modification for low rate initial production of FY 2011 SM-6 Block I AURs. See also the $182.3 million June 21/11 entry.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ (50%); Camden, AR (23%); Boston, MA (5%); Dallas, TX (4%); Hanahan, SC (3%); Anniston, AL (2%); San Jose, CA (2%); and other areas (11%), each having less than 1%; and is expected to be complete by March 2014 (N00024-09-C-5305).

Sept 13/11: DB Datalink. Raytheon announces successful testing for their prototype dual-band datalink, allowing ships that use either Lockheed Martin SPY-1/ AEGIS or Thales Nederland’s SMART-L and/or APAR radars to employ the full range of Standard Missiles, including the SM-3.

The firm cites up to 20 eligible ships, including SPY-1/ AEGIS/ MK41 VLS operators in Norway (Fridtjof Nansen) and Spain (F100); as well as APAR/ SMART-L/ MK41 radar operators in Denmark (Iver Huitfeldt), Germany (F124 Sachsen), the Netherlands (De Zeven Provincien); and closely derived S1850 operators in France (Horizon), Italy (Horizon) and the United Kingdom (Type 45).

For discussion of the issues, the opportunity, and the ships Raytheon left out, read “Raytheon’s Datalink: A New Naval Standard for the Standard?” See also June 20-21/11 entry.

Sept 8/11: SM-3-IIA. Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, AZ receives a sole-source $48 million cost-plus-award-fee contract modification, to perform SM-3 Block IIA engineering services, design and development support, and initial hardware fabrication, including continued DACS(divert and attitude control system) development work. The award raises the total contract value from $286.5 million to $334.5 million.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ is through Oct 31/11. FY 2011 research, development, test and evaluation funds will be used to incrementally fund this effort, and even though the Block IIA is a joint effort with Japan, his is not a Foreign Military Sales acquisition. The MDA in Dahlgren, VA manages the contract (HQ0006-10-C-0005, PO 0017).

Sept 1/11: FTM-16E2 = SM-3-IB fail. The first ABM test of the new SM-3 Block 1B missile does not go well, as the launch from the AEGIS BMD 4.0.1-equipped USS Lake Erie [CG-70] fails to intercept the target missile during “FTM-16, Event 2″. The US MDA is now 21/26 for SM-3 missile intercept attempts, plus one successful satellite kill.

The root cause of failure turns out to be abnormal performance in the 3rd stage, during thrust pulses for final rocket maneuver. That stage is common to Block IA and Block IB missiles, so the program decides that the least disruptive approach is to change the ship’s Aegis BMD 4 software to control the timing between pulses. There are no further problems in the next 3 SM-3 Block IB tests. US MDA | Aviation Week pre-test | GAO report explains cause.

SM-3-IB test failure

Aug 31/11: TDACS. GenCorp subsidiary Aerojet announces successful SM-3 Block 1B Throttleable Divert and Attitude Control System (TDACS) ground static testing, which is short of full qualification. Aerojet is the Standard Missile’s TDACS supplier, developing the SM-3 Block IB and Block IIA systems, and doing technology research for NGAM Block IIB. Vice President of Missile Defense, Michael Bright:

“These tests confirm the readiness of the TDACS for the upcoming [Block IB] critical flight test… We look forward to a successful flight test.”

Aug 23/11: Raytheon Missile Systems Co. in Tucson, AZ receives a $9.8 million sole-source, cost-plus-award-fee contract modification. The CLIN 0008 option, “Future Upgrades and Engineering Support,” will help the MDA execute technical analysis for the Aegis BMD 5.1/SM-3 Block IIA combination, and increases the total contract value from $276.7 – $286.5 million.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ through Sept 30/16, and will be incrementally funded by FY 2011 research, development, test, and evaluation funds. Though the SM-3 Block IIA is a cooperative program with Japan, this is not a foreign military sales acquisition. The US MDA in Dahlgren, VA manages the contract (HQ0276-10-C-0005, PO 0015).

July 6/11: DSB controversy. In an open letter, the US Defense Science Board aims to dispel impressions that they recommended against the SM-3, which by its nature is a mid-course or terminal phase interceptor:

“The DSB concluded that the Missile Defense Agency is on the right track in developing European Phased Adapted Approach (EPAA) options, including continued evolution of the SM-3 family of missiles… The DSB also examined the potential in the EPAA context for EI [Early Intercept] in regional defense against short-range missiles before threat payloads could be deployed, and concluded that this was not a viable option because of technical constraints… The fact that this form of EI is not viable in shorter-range regional applications does not imply that either SM-3 family interceptors or the EPAA concept are flawed… MDA is on the right track in pursuing this capability for national missile defense, and examining the potential application in regional defense as a function of the range of threat missiles.”

June 23/11: CRS report. The US Congressional Research Service releases the latest update of “Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Program: Background and Issues for Congress” [PDF]. Key excerpts:

“Some observers are concerned… that demands from U.S. regional military commanders for BMD-capable Aegis ships are growing faster than the number of BMD-capable Aegis ships. They are also concerned that demands from U.S. regional military commanders for… BMD operations could strain the Navy’s ability to provide regional military commanders with Aegis ships for performing non-BMD missions… Options for Congress include, among other things, the following: accelerating the modification of Aegis ships to BMD-capable configurations, increasing procurement of new Aegis destroyers, increasing procurement of SM-3 missiles, and providing funding for integrating the SM-2 Block IV BMD interceptor missile into the 4.0.1 version of the Aegis BMD system… MDA states that SM-3 Block IAs have a unit procurement cost of about $9 million to $10 million, that SM-3 Block IBs have an estimated unit procurement cost of about $12 million to $15 million, and that SM-3 Block IIAs have an estimated unit procurement cost of about $20 million to $24 million.”

June 21/11: SM-6 LRIP-3. Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, AZ receives a $182.3 million contract modification to previously awarded contract for FY 2011 low-rate initial production (LRIP Lot 3) of SM-6 Block I all up rounds (AUR), complete with storage and self-test container. The USA is buying 59 SM-6 Block I AURs, 35 instrumentation kits, spares and containers, and engineering/ design agent services.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ (61%); Camden, AR (23%); Boston, MA (5%); Dallas, TX (4%); Hanahan, SC (3%); Anniston, AL (2%); and San Jose, CA (2%). Work is expected to be completed by June 2013 (N00024-09-C-5305). See also July 1/10 entry.

June 3/11: SM-3 IB. A $219.5 million cost-plus-award-fee, cost-plus-incentive-fee, and cost-plus-fixed-fee contract modification, finalizing work for the FTM-16 ballistic missile defense test. This finalizes the total contract at $294.5 million, which includes the engineering, development, testing, support and material necessary to deliver an SM-3 Block 1B missile; and to provide engineering support, production engineering and obsolescence, surveillance and flight test support, and travel during the 55-month (about 4.5 year) performance period.

FTM-16 is scheduled for late summer 2011. It will demonstrate the new AEGIS BMD 4.0.1 fire control standard mounted in USS Lake Erie [CG 70], in conjunction with the 1st flight test of the SM-3 Block IB interceptor. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ through Sept 30/15, and about $32 million in FY 2011 research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) funds will be used. The MDA at Dahlgren Naval Base, VA manages this contract (HQ0276-11-C-0002). See also US MDA testimony to HASC [PDF].

May 27/11: SM-3 IIB R&D. GenCorp subsidiary & rocket propulsion specialist Aerojet announces 2 contracts to develop key technologies required for the SM-3 Block IIB Next-Generation Aegis Missile.

That’s still in competition, and will be for a while, but Aerojet will work to develop improved high-performance, lightweight propulsion components for the missile’s upper stage, and also for the final Kill Vehicle’s maneuvering Divert and Attitude Controls. At this stage, however, it’s extremely preliminary stuff. They’ll identify key propulsion technologies, define and conceptualize propulsion components, and conduct limited testing to provide characterization data. Even prototyping won’t take place until the next stage.

May 26/11: SM-3 IA R&D. A $110.7 million cost-plus-award-fee modification, resulting in a new cumulative contract value of $276 million for SM-3 Block IIA engineering and development. The modification will extend contract line item number (CLIN) 0001 period of performance to from May 1/11 through Sept 30/11, the end of fiscal 2011.

FY 2011 RDT&E (research, development, test and evaluation) funds will be used for this effort with $20 million provided at time of award (HQ0276-10-C-0005, PO 0011). This announcement repeats a May 11/11 Pentagon notice.

April 26/11: SM-6 1st delivery. Raytheon announces that they’ve delivered the 1st SM-6 missile to the US Navy. Raytheon’s Air and Missile Defense Systems product line VP Frank Wyatt implies that the delivery actually took place in March, when he says that:

“Five years ago, Raytheon promised the U.S. Navy that SM-6 would be delivered in March 2011, and we delivered on that promise… and met cost expectations for system development and demonstration.”

SM-6 delivery

April 15/11: FTM-15. Flight Test Standard Missile-15 (FTM-15) fires an SM-3 Block 1A missile against an intermediate-range (officially, 1,864 – 3,418 miles) target, based on AN/TPY-2 ground-based radar data, before the USS O’Kane (DDG 77, equipped with AEGIS BMD 3.6.1) could pick the target up using its own radar. Initial indications are that all components performed as designed, and the missile recorded the 21st successful AEGIS BMD intercept in 25 tries.

The target missile was launched from the Reagan Test Site, located on Kwajalein Atoll in the Republic of the Marshall Islands, approximately 2,300 miles SW of Hawaii. The AN/TPY-2 radar, which is also used as part of the THAAD missile system, was located on Wake Island, and crewed by Soldiers from the 94th Army Air and Missile Defense Command. It detected and tracked the missile, then sent trajectory information to the 613th Air and Space Operations Center’s C2BMC (Command, Control, Battle Management, and Communications) system at Hickam Air Force Base, HI. That was relayed to USS O’Kane, sailing to the west of Hawaii, which launched the SM-3-1A missile about 11 minutes after target take-off. O’Kane’s own AN/SPY-1 radar eventually picked up the incoming missile itself, and controlled the missile until impact.

FTM-15 was less dramatic than the SM-3’s 2008 satellite kill, but it’s equally significant. Launch on remote track was supposed to wait for AEGIS BMD 5.1, and SM-3 Block IB was supposed to begin addressing IRBMs, with full capability only in SM-3 block II. Instead, the test also combined to extend the current system’s proven capabilities, while validating the difficult connections that make a missile defense system more than the sum of its parts, and proving out an important early warning element (STSS satellites) in the system. US MDA | Lockheed Martin | Raytheon | Lexington Institute.

April 12/11: SM-6. Raytheon in Tucson, AZ receives a $17.7 million fixed-price incentive-fee contract modification to get ready for SM-6 production. It includes incorporation of pre-production materials and support required for FY 2011 production of “all up rounds,” i.e. missiles and smart canisters.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ, and is expected to be complete by June 2013. US Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington Navy Yard, DC manages the contract (N00024-09-C-5305).

April 7/11: SM-3 IIB/ NGAM Phase 1. The MDA announces a trio of Phase 1 cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts to work with MDA on the Next Generation AEGIS Missile/ SM-3 Block IIB. The firms will perform concept definition and program planning, offer their competing visions for viable and affordable missile configurations, conduct trade studies, and define an executable development plan. This contract was competitively procured via publication on the Federal Business Opportunities website, and received 4 proposals. Based on previous releases, it would appear that Northrop Grumman is the odd firm out (vid. Nov 10/10 entry). Winners included:

Boeing in Chicago, IL wins a $41.2 million contract. Work will be performed in Huntsville, AL, through December 2013, and $1.4 million in FY 2011 research, development, test and evaluation funds will be used as incremental funding (HQ0147-11-C-0007). Boeing’s core theater missile defense offering is the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense program, run with key team members Orbital Sciences and Northrop Grumman.

Lockheed Martin Corp. in Bethesda, MD wins a $43.3 million contract. Work will be performed by Lockheed Martin Space Systems in Sunnyvale, CA, through December 2013, and $1.4 million in FY 2011 research, development, test and evaluation funds will be used as incremental funding (HQ0147-11-C-0008). Lockheed Martin’s core theater missile defense offering is the THAAD interceptor, and there has been talk of expanding it to a longer-range 21″ diameter weapon. Lockheed Martin’s release touts their lead roles in the AEGIS BMD 5.1 combat system and Mk.41 launcher, which will be used with the land and sea-based SM-3 Block IIBs. This contract was also announced on May 6/11; that announcement was a duplicate.

Current SM-3 incumbent Raytheon Co. in Waltham, MA wins a $42.7 million contract. Work will be performed by Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, AZ, through December 2013, and $1.4 million in FY 2011 research, development, test and evaluation funds will be used as incremental funding (HQ0147-11-C-0009). See also Raytheon’s release notes that “Raytheon has delivered more than 130 SM-3s ahead of schedule and under cost as part of its contract with the Missile Defense Agency.”

SM-3 Block IIB/ NGAM, Phase 1

March 29/11: Shift to the SM-3 Block IB. The MDA takes with one hand, and gives with the other.

Contract #N00024-07-C-6119, CLIN 0004 cuts $72.3 million in funding from the SM-3 Block IA, ordering 18 missiles for $157.6 million instead of 24 missiles for $229.9 million. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ, and will take place from March 2011 through April 2012. This identical change was announced on March 22/11 as well. The MDA tells DID that the original plan was to go to 12 missiles, but Congress added funding for another 6 in the FY 2010 budget/supplemental rounds.

On the other hand, CLIN 0016 for the same contract pays $312.7 million to finish SM-3 Block IB development, and order 24 missiles. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ, and will take place from March 2011 through June 2013. FY 2011 research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) funds will be used to incrementally fund $47.8 million of this order – but the Block IB’s days as a development project are numbered. It’s about to become the main production weapon. See also Raytheon release. The GAO-12-486 report notes that this purchase of 24 Block IB missiles was later canceled.

March 3/11: SM-3 IB. The MDA announces a $75 million sole-source cost-plus-award-fee contract to Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, AZ to support flight test mission 15 involving an SM-3 Block 1B missile, and deliver the SM-3 Block 1B missile for FTM-16. This undefinitized contract action will award contract lines items for in service engineering support and travel, and will also cover engineering development, testing, support and necessary materials.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ from February 2011 through May 2011, and $20 million in FY 2011 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) funds will be used to incrementally fund this effort (HQ0276-11-C-002).

Dec 29/10: SM-3. Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, AZ receives a $24.4 million cost-plus-award-fee modification, exercising an option to provide continued systems engineering and development of the Standard Missile-3.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ from Jan 1/11 through Jan 31/11. FY 2011 research, development, test and evaluation funds will be used to obligate $5 million to provide the initial funding for this effort. The MDA manages this contract (HQ0276-08-C-0001).

Nov 29/10: The US Navy’s PEO-Integrated Warfare Systems issues a readiness and sustainment contract to BAE Systems, to establish and maintain the ship interfaces for the Standard Missile family. That includes, but is not exclusive to, the Mk41 vertical launch systems carrying the missiles. These services include systems and software engineering, systems integration, testing, and computer-aided design. The contract has a 1-year base period, with up to 4 one-year options. If all options are exercised, it will be worth $60 million. Work will be conducted at a BAE Systems Support Solutions facility in Rockville, MD, and at customer sites in Tucson, AZ and around the world.

Under the same contract, the company also works with the Navy to support Standard Missile family interfaces for Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, and Taiwan. BAE Systems.

Nov 22/10: Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, AZ receives a $70 million contract modification for FY 2011 Standard Missile program engineering and technical services. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ, and the option will expire in January 2012 (N00024-09-C-5303).

Nov 10/10: NGAM/ SM-3 IIB. SM-3 Block IIB won’t be sole-sourced to Raytheon. Several firms have submitted proposals to the MDA under its “Next-Generation Aegis Missile” program, a.k.a. SM-3 Block IIB, which aims to provide early intercept capability against intermediate- and long-range (IRBM/ICBM) ballistic missile threats. The new missile will integrated with AEGIS BMD 5.1 equipped ships (4.0.1 is the most advanced version in current ships), and the MK 41 Vertical Launching System, both ashore and at sea.

Competitors beyond Raytheon include Boeing (GMD background), Lockheed Martin (THAAD), and Northrop Grumman (KEI). A 32-month concept definition and program planning phase will begin in 2011 to define design objectives, conduct trade studies, establish a technical baseline, and develop an executable program plan. A competitive product development phase will follow, but the SM-3 Block IIB missiles aren’t expected to be available before 2020. FedBizOpps Pre-Solicitation | Boeing | Lockheed Martin | Northrop Grumman | Brahmand.

Nov 5/10: A $34 million contract modification, exercising an option for R&D engineering and technical services to support the standard missile program. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ, and is expected to be complete by December 2012. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year (N00024-07-C-5361).

FY 2010

SM-3 block IIA work continues with Japan; Pointed debate – is SM-3 a flawed concept?; R&D for early intercept investigation re: SM-3; New Mk.125 warhead for SM-2 and SM-6 missiles; SM-6 LRIP-2 contract; SM-6 risks, cost increases; Upgraded Australian FFG-7 frigate fires SM-2; New missile production facility at Redstone Arsenal, AL. SM-3 Block IA
from USS Decatur
(click to view full)

Sept 23/10: SM-2 spares. A $5.8 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for FY 2010 SM-2 common production spares. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ, and is expected to be complete by December 2012. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/10 (N00024-09-C-5303).

Sept 10/10: SM-1 support. A $60.5 million contract modification to a previously awarded contract (N00024-05-C-5341) for Standard Missile-1 (SM-1) core support, missiles, spare components and parts to Taiwan (98%) and Italy (2%). This contract modification will provide for the procurement of 1 SM-1 Block VI-B inert operational missile, 407 MK 56 regrained dual thrust rocket motors (DTRMs), and 1 option to procure an additional 3 DTRMs.

Work will be performed in Camden, AR (45%); Sacramento, CA (45%); and Tucson, AZ (10%). Work is expected to be complete by August 2013.

Sept 8/10: SM-3-IIA R&D. A $165.2 million cost-plus-award-fee with technical/schedule performance incentive contract, covering SM-3 Block IIA Preliminary Design Review efforts. This may include engineering services and material for systems engineering, design and development support, and initial hardware fabrication for the Standard Missile-3 Block IIA missile.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ, and is expected to be complete by March 31/11. FY 2010 RDTE(Research, development, test and evaluation) funds will be used to for this effort, with initial incremental funding of $40 million (HQ0276-10-C-0005). Raytheon release.

July 19/10: Industrial. Raytheon announces plans to build an all-up-round Standard missile production facility at the US Army’s Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, AL. The 70,000-square-foot facility will be for final assembly and testing of SM-3 and SM-6 missiles. Construction will begin in 2010.

July 1/10: SM-6 LRIP-2. A $65.3 million contract modification for low-rate initial production of FY 2010 SM-6 ERAM Block I all-up-rounds, instrumentation kits, design agent services, spares and containers.

Raytheon informs DID that there are actually several contracts involved, worth up to $368 million. They finalize FY 2009 (Low Rate initial Production Lot 1) work for 19 missiles under an existing letter contract, award FY 2010 (LRIP-2) production of 11 missiles plus spares pending Congressional clearance, and add an option for 59 LRIP Lot 3 missiles in FY 2010, as the firm moves to ramp up to full production in 2012. System and design engineering efforts are also part of these awards. See also May 20/10 contract for long-lead items.

Raytheon will deliver the first missiles in early 2011, with initial operational capability set for March 2011. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ (50%); Camden, AR (23%); Boston, MA (5%); Dallas, TX (4%); Hanahan, SC (3%); Anniston, AL (2%); San Jose, CA (2%); and other locations (11%). Work is expected to be complete by December 2012 (N00024-09-C-5305). See also Raytheon.

FY 2010: 11-70 SM-6s

May 24/10: SM-3 R&D. A $182.6 million cost-plus-award-fee modification for Raytheon to continue systems engineering and development for new SM-3 variants.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ, from May 2010 through December 2010. FY 2010 Research, development, test and evaluation funding will be used to incrementally fund this effort in the amount of $56.2 million. The MDA manages this contract (HQ0276-08-C-0001).

May 20/10: SM-6 lead-in. A $7.2 million fixed-price incentive-fee modification to a previously awarded contract, buying long-lead materials for FY 2010 production of SM-6 Block I all up rounds.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ, and is expected to be complete by June 30/12 (N00024-09-C-5305).

May 17/10: SM-3 dispute. The New York Times runs an article critical of the Navy’s SM-3 program. “Review Cites Flaws in U.S. Antimissile Program” alleges that the MDA’s definition of “successful intercept” is essentially fraudulent, because it does not require a direct hit on the warhead, and cites instances in 1991 where a hit on the missile still resulted in a warhead landing and detonating. They also claim that the technologies used cannot reliably pick the warhead out from simple countermeasures, from “chuffing” rockets to debris fields. Instead of 84% test intercept success, the paper argues that the figure should be 10-20%. Dr. Postol, a former Pentagon science adviser who forcefully (and correctly) criticized the performance of the Patriot system in the 1991 Persian Gulf war, is categorical:

“The system is highly fragile and brittle and will intercept warheads only by accident, if ever.”

The military does not often refer to Wile E. Coyote in public responses, but it does here. The MDA adds that the NY Times chose not to publish extremely relevant information they had been given, in order to push the paper’s version of the story. Excerpts:

“…whether it’s a unitary target or a separating target – [the impact] completely obliterates the warhead and the missile and spreads a debris field along the path of the original trajectory… pieces that… we’ve seen after and intercept, some of them have only been maybe two or three inches across. Even in the case of the satellite that we had to shoot down, there was nothing larger than a football… contrary to what Doctors Postol and Lewis said, after being hit, the – well, the interceptor does not pass through the body of the – of the target missile. That’s akin to, you know, Wile E. Coyote running through a glass or plate glass and leaving the exact outline of his body after he goes through.”

The MDA adds that Postol & Lewis made their assessment without any access to the base data that showed “the complete destruction” of the target missiles, adding that even the public photos they cite cast doubt on their claims. Tests against unitary targets where the warhead does not separate did hit what they were aimed at. MDA also contends that the tests without warheads for the first 3 tests (FM-2/3/4) using prototype interceptors were a sensible move, reducing costs for tests that aimed only to prove that missiles could be intercepted – and did. They also point out that the NY Times was told all of these things, and chose not to publish them. In terms of the overall record, and lethality tests:

“Since 2002, a total of 19 SM-3 missiles have been fired in 16 different test events resulting in 16 intercepts against threat-representative full-size and more challenging subscale unitary and full-size targets with separating warheads. In addition, a modified Aegis BMD/SM-3 system successfully destroyed a malfunctioning U.S. satellite by hitting the satellite in the right spot to negate the hazardous fuel tank… From 1991 through 2010 the MDA has conducted 66 full scale hit-to-kill lethality sled tests and 138 sub-scale hit-to-kill light gas gun tests covering all MDA interceptor types against nuclear, unitary chemical, chemical submunitions, biological bomblets and high-explosive submunition threats. Eighteen of these tests were specifically devoted to the current SM-3 kinetic warhead system.”

See: Lewis & Postol’s May 2010 Arms Control today article and PDF on MIT’s site | NY Times article | DoD roundtable audio | MDA written response | DoD Buzz | WIRED Danger Room #1 | WIRED Danger Room #2.

May 10/10: A $54.3 million cost-plus-incentive-fee modification to deliver SM-3 Block IA spares common and unique material for U.S. and Foreign Military Sales (FMS) manufacturing. The purchase will use $15 million of FY 2010 Research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) funding, and $7.9 million of FY 2010 Foreign Military Sales monies, to incrementally fund this effort in the amount of $22.9 million.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ from May 2010 through March 2011. The MDA manages this contract (N00024-07-C-6119).

May 3/10: Raytheon announces that its SM-6 ERAM missile will begin sea-launched flight testing this month. This would represent an acceleration of the program, based on the GAO’s March 30/10 report. According to Raytheon, the SM-6 is on-time and on-budget, despite the April 1/10 SAR report’s noted increases. Asked by DID about this divergence, Raytheon replied that:

“The report referenced projects costs (including government costs) to manage the program through 2019. We stand by our statement that Raytheon Missile Systems SM-6 is on schedule and on budget through five years of System Development and Demonstration.”

The firm believes that they are on track to achieve the SM-6’s Initial Operational Capability milestone in 2011, with 5 successful land-based flight tests and manufacturing now in low rate initial production.

April 9/10: A $6.5 million modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-08-C-5374) for 6 more SM-2 all-up-round (AUR) missiles; AN/DKT-71A telemetric data transmitting sets; 10 guidance section spares, 9 SCU spares, 36 shipping containers, 30 battery spares, 1638 Innovasic chips; and associated data.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ (74%); Andover, MA (18%); Camden, AR (5%); and Farmington, NM (3%); and is expected to be complete by December 2010.

April 1/10: The Pentagon releases its April 2010 Selected Acquisitions Report, covering major program changes up to December 2009. The SM-6 program is listed, due to cost increases:

“Program costs increased $645.6 million (+10.8%) from $5,954.4 million to $6,600.0 million, due to an increase in known missile component costs and refinement of the production cost estimate (+$563.8 million), an increase to fully fund initial spares (+$225.3 million), and a stretch-out of the procurement buy profile from fiscal 2010 to fiscal 2019 (+$30.6 million). These increases were partially offset by the application of revised escalation indices (-$174.4 million).”

SAR: SM-6 cost increases

March 30/10: GAO report. The US GAO audit office delivers its 8th annual “Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs report. The SM-3 and SM-6 missile programs both come in for comment:

“The Aegis BMD program is putting the SM-3 Block IB at risk for cost growth and schedule delays by planning to begin manufacturing in 2010 before its critical technologies have been demonstrated in a realistic environment. This risk has been deemed acceptable by the MDA… Prototypes of these four critical technologies – the throttleable divert and attitude control system [TDACS], all reflective optics, two-color seeker, and kinetic warhead advanced signal processor – have not completed developmental testing in a relevant environment. Aegis program officials told us that the integrated ground test would not be completed until late 2010. In addition, the first target intercept flight test will not occur until the second quarter of fiscal year 2011… Aegis BMD program officials… stated that the SM-3 Block IB full rate production decision is scheduled for 2012 – after several flight tests. The procurement that is mentioned in this report is for test rounds to conduct developmental and operational flight testing… may also be deployed if a security situation demands…

“The Aegis program completed the system design review for the Block IIA in fiscal year 2009 after a delay of over 5 months. The first operational test of the Block IIA is planned for the third quarter of fiscal year 2014.”

“Land-based [SM-6 ERAM] developmental flight tests against targets representing anti-ship cruise missiles were successful. However, during a developmental test in January 2009, the SM-6 missile failed to launch. Post-test failure investigation identified an issue with the tactical seeker batteries which caused mission computer failure. The contractor implemented corrective actions… in August 2009 it was retested successfully. The SM-6 has not yet been flight tested at sea. As of January 2010, the first operational flight test at sea is scheduled for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2010, following a series of… tests (DT / OT) scheduled to begin in the second quarter of fiscal year 2010… The SM-6 program is pursuing a concurrent testing and production strategy that could result in costly retrofits and schedule delays if unexpected design changes are required as a result of testing… the program has not yet flight tested the SM-6 at sea or tested one key capability – receiving in-flight updates from another Aegis ship (engage-on-remote).”

Feb 16/10: A $143.9 million modification covering FY 2010 production of SM-2 all-up-round missiles, missiles serviced under the service life extension program, section-level spares, post production spares, shipping containers, and associated data.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ (74%); Andover, MA (18%); Camden, AR (5%); and Farmington, NM (3%). Work is expected to be complete by December 2012 (N00024-09-C-5301).

FY 2010: SM-2s

Feb 2/10: BAE Systems Technology Solutions and Services, Inc. in Rockville, MD receives a $9.1 million cost-plus-fixed fee contract for continued design agent and technical engineering support to the Standard Missile Program’s Weapons Direction Systems. This contract includes options which, if exercised, would bring the cumulative value of this contract to $12.2 million.

This contract combines purchases for the US Navy (24.7%), the government of Australia (73.6%) as a Foreign Military Sales Program and the governments of Germany (0.8%) and the Netherlands (0.9%) under Memoranda of Understanding (MOU). Work will be performed in Rockville, MD (85%) and Sydney, Australia (15%), and is expected to be complete by May 2010. Contract funds in the amount of $147,157 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured (N00024-10-C-5345).

Jan 14/10: Raytheon announces success in the SM-6’s 4th guided test vehicle launch, clearing the way for at-sea testing in 2010.

Jan 4/10: Warheads. GenCorp subsidiary Aerojet announces that it has been selected to provide the MK 125 warhead for SM-2 and SM-6 missiles, with deliveries beginning in 2010. Program management and manufacturing will take place at Aerojet’s modern load assembly and pack facility in Camden, AR. Aerojet VP of Tactical Programs John Myers said that:

“The competitive selection of Aerojet to provide this critical warhead is a clear indication that our efforts to cut costs have been effective, while continuing to provide high-quality and on-schedule deliveries. The MK 125 consolidates our position as Raytheon and the U. S. Navy’s major energetic systems provider for the SM-2 and SM-6 missiles, complementing our MK 104 and MK 72 propulsion programs.”

Dec 18/09: A $71.2 million modification, exercising options for engineering and technical services to support SM-2 production. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ, and is expected to be complete by June 2012 (N00024-09-C-5303).

Dec 8/09: SM-3-IIA extension. A $159.5 million modification under cost-plus-award-fee contract HQ0276-08-C-0001, contract line item number (CLIN) 0003, extending its performance period for an additional 10 months to Aug 31/10. Under this contract modification, Raytheon will continue the SM-3 Block IIA cooperative program’s technology development. Their work will be performed in Tucson, AZ.

At the time of award, $4.2 million is committed using the Missile Development Agency’s FY 2010 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation funds. The rest will be allocated over the contract period, as needed.

Nov 17/09: Early BMD intercept? Northrop Grumman announces a 3-month $4.7 million task order from the MDA, under an indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity Joint National Integration Center Research and Development Contract. Under the Sept 29/09 task order, the firm will help the MDA integrate and demonstrate an early-intercept capability using existing SM-3 and GBI missiles.

The Early Intercept effort aims to address renewed focus by the U.S. Department of Defense on dealing with large raids and countermeasures. Early Intercept will demonstrate an integrated architecture of early warning sensors, including space, airborne, land and sea; regional fire control and battle manager systems; and secure communications. This integrated architecture will enable current systems to engage threats earlier in the battle space to improve protection against large raids and facilitate “shoot-look-shoot” opportunities.

Northrop Grumman will begin by assessing existing sensor and battle management systems’ ability to support missile interception in the difficult boost phase, including technology developed for programs like the now-canceled Kinetic Energy Interceptor and battle management projects. The firm will plan demonstration experiments, leading toward the design and development of an experimental, plug-and-play architecture for battle management, command and control.

Nov 5/09: Raytheon in Tucson, AZ receives a $47.8 million modification to a previously awarded contract (N00024-07-C-5361) for engineering and technical services to support the Standard Missile program. This contract is for Round Design Agent engineering and technical services for the design integrity, and total systems integration of the missile round and its components. Work will be performed in Tucson and is expected to be complete by October 2010.

According to the DefenseLINK release, work under this modification includes “flowdown of top level requirements, predicting and monitoring missile performance and reliability, internal/external interfaces, interfaces with ship combat systems, test and packaging, handling, storage and transportation equipment, improving missile design, and maintaining the technical data package.”

FY 2009

SM-3s will be deployed on land, too; Multiple-Kill Vehicle contract cancellation hurts SM-3 block IIA program with Japan; Multi-national SM-2 contract for FY 2009-2010; SM-6 completes final development fight test, begins initial LRIP manufacturing; SM-2 block IV and IIA successfully beat a “Midway high-low” attack. SM-2 Launch w. AEGIS
(click to view larger)

Sept 30/09: FY09/10 SM-2s. Raytheon in Tucson, AZ receives a $206.1 million modification to a previously awarded contract (N00024-09-C-5301). It covers SM-2 related American and Foreign Military Sales buys, in FY 2009 and FY 2010 (options). The order is for 402 SM-2 all-up rounds, 40 AN/DKT-71A telemetric data transmitting sets (TDTS), section level spares, post production spares, shipping containers, and associated data.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ (74%); Andover, MA (18%); Camden, AR (5%); and Farmington, NM (3%), and is expected to be complete by December 2011.

FY 2009: 402 SM-2s

Sept 29/09: Raytheon in Tucson, AZ receives a $7 million modification to a previously awarded contract (N00024-07-C-5361) for R&D Level of effort engineering and technical services to support the standard missile program. This ceiling increase is to permit the continuation of several ongoing efforts which include prototype design, development integration and testing. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ and is expected to be complete by December 2009. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.

While the announcement doesn’t specify, that kind of RDT&E is underway for the SM-3 Block 1B, SM-3 Block II, and SM-6 missiles.

Sept 29/09: Raytheon in Tucson, AZ receives a $6.8 million modification to a previously awarded contract (N00024-09-C-5303) for the delivery of common spares material in support of FY 2009 SM-2 program. Common spares are those items purchased or manufactured during the production of SM-2 all up rounds. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ (72%) and Camden, AR (28%), and is expected to be complete by December 2011. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.

Sept 17/09: EPAA = Land-based SM-3s. The Obama administration announces revised plans for its European missile defense architecture. Instead of positioning Boeing’s Ground-Based Interceptors, which could intercept even the longest-range ballistic missiles, they choose an architecture based around the SM-3. Read “BMD, in from the Sea: SM-3 Missiles Going Ashore” for full, ongoing coverage.

EPAA – land-based SM-3s

Sept 04/09: SM-6 LRIP-1. A $93.9 million fixed price incentive fee, firm fixed price contract to begin low-rate initial production of the FY 09 Standard Missile-6 (SM-6) Block I All Up Rounds (AURs). This contract provides for the procurement of 19 SM-6 Block I AURs, 20 SM-6 Block I AUR instrumentation kits, and SM-6 Block I spares and containers.

Raytheon will perform the work in Tucson, AZ (50%); Camden, AR (23%); Boston, MA (5%); Dallas, TX (4%); Hanahan, SC (3%); Anniston, AL (2%); San Jose, CA (2%); and other locations (11%), and expects to complete it by March 2012. This contract was not competitively procured (N00024-09-C-5305). See also Raytheon release.

LRIP for SM-6

Aug 28/09: SM-6 test. Raytheon completes the SM-6’s final System Design & Development (SDD) phase flight test. By performing a series of pre-programmed maneuvers, the SM-6 missile was pushed to the limits of its performance, allowing the US Navy to gather simulation validation data. Technically, this is the 3rd SDD test. A “4th” test, which was not in the contract, was completed in May 2009: the Advanced Area Defense Interceptor (AADI) test, where an SM-6 was launched using a targeting cue from outside the “ship.”

Aug 18/09: SM-3 to land. In a presentation at the 2009 Space and Missile Defense Conference & Exhibition in Huntsville, AL, Raytheon announces that it is developing a land-based system SM-3 system that would work with THAAD’s Raytheon-made AN/TPY-2 long range radar, and could be ready as early as 2013.

The presentation states that this solution could provide Israel a near-term solution to counter ballistic missiles from Iran, given the deployment of TPY-2 radars in Israel by the US government. It is also reportedly under consideration for use in Europe as the missile component of planned deployments in Poland and the Czech Republic.

It’s no accident that this comes just as Boeing announces a “mobile GBI” proposal for Europe by 2015, and Lockheed Martin has gone farther by submitting a modified THAAD proposal to the MDA for consideration in the 2011 budget. Lockheed Martin has already invested privately funded R&D into a 21″ wide THAAD variant that would nearly double the Army interceptor missile’s range. Current SM-3s are 13.5″ in diameter, current THAADs are 14.5″, and the proposed SM-3 Block II being developed in partnership with Japan will also be 21″ in diameter. It would appear that a competition for the forward-deployed theater defense role may be brewing. Arutz Sheva | Reuters | Aviation Week re: shifts in doctrine | Aviation Week re: THAAD | Jerusalem Post re: Boeing’s “mobile GBI”.

Aug 4/09: MKV ripples. The Pentagon’s decision to cancel Lockheed Martin’s Multiple Kill Vehicle program has contributed to a big jump in the cost of Raytheon’s SM-3 IIA interceptor system now under development with Japan. The system is now expected to cost $3.1 billion by the time it is deployed in 2014, an increase of $700 million over earlier $2.4 billion estimates. Since the change lies entirely on the American side, the USA is expected to shoulder the extra costs. AIA SmartBrief | Aviation Week | NTI Global Security Newswire.

MKV program kill hits SM-3-IIA

Aug 4/09: Colin Clark of DOD Buzz publishes a short video interview with Raytheon VP of advanced missile defense and directed energy Mike Booen. The interview took place at the 2009 Paris Air Show, and the topic is the $50 million FY 2010 US military budget request to study land-based SM-3 deployment.

July 16/09: SDACS. Aerojet General Corporation of Rancho Cordova, CA received a modification for $5.6 million under cost-plus-fixed-fee contract #HQ0006-08-C-0006. They will design and test prototype solid propellant divert thruster components, a composite solid propellant gas generator, and case structure as part of the SM-3 Block IIA development program. Block IIA is the next generation “high divert” variant, which will combine a wider, longer-range missile with a larger diameter kill vehicle that’s more maneuverable and carries a better seeker.

Work will be performed in Rancho Cordova, CA from Ju1y 1/09 – March 29/10. So far, $3.9 million is committed using FY 2009 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation funds. The MDA manages this contract (HQ0006-08-C-0006).

July 13/09: SM-3 Block IB CDR. Raytheon announces that the Standard Missile-3 Block IB program has completed its critical design review, clearing the way for a 2010 flight test and deployment.

The release also includes dates for the SM-3’s 12 successful hit to kill interceptions so far.

SM-3 IB CDR

May 28/08: FY09 SM-2s. An $87.2 million cost-reimbursable-letter contract to buy long lead material in support of the FY 2009 production of SM-2 Block IIIB all up rounds (AURs). These long delivery lead-time materials will support buys of 50 American SM-2 Block IIIB AURs, 104 Block IIIB ORDALT missile rounds, and 69 SM-2 Block IIIA/B AURs for international customers.

Raytheon will perform the work in Andover, MA (37%); Camden, AR (36%); The Netherlands (14%); St Petersburg, FL (5%); Middleton, CN (3%); El Segundo, CA (3%); and Reisterstown, MD (2%), and expects to complete it by December 2011. This contract was not competitively procured (N00024-09-C-5301).

April 27/09: SM-3 – Land, ho? Japan’s Yomiuri Shimbun reports that the MDA has started studying a new missile defense system capable of launching the Standard Missile-3 from the ground. See also Land-Based SM-3s for Israel?

March 24-26/09: SM-2 high/low test. During the Stellar Daggers 2009 exercise, the USS Benfold [DDG-65] fires a pair of SM-2 surface-to-air missiles against 2 very different targets. A ballistic missile target was launched from San Nicolas Island, CA, while a sea-skimming anti-ship cruise missile target was launched from Point Mugu, CA.

An SM-2 Block IV NT-SBT missile intercepted and destroyed the ballistic missile warhead during the last phase of its descent, while an SM-2 Block IIIA intercepted and destroyed the anti-ship missile. This was the 3rd test of the modified SM-2 Block IV’s terminal defense capability against short range ballistic missiles. US Navy | Raytheon.

March 9/09: A $30 million modification to previously awarded contract for FY 2009 engineering and technical services to support SM-2 export customers.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ., and is expected to be complete by March 2010 (N00024-09-C-5303).

Jan 12/09: A $44.3 million modification to previously awarded contract N00024-07-C-5361 for engineering and technical services in support of Standard Missile research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) programs. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ and is expected to be complete by December 2009.

According to the DefenseLINK release, work under this modification includes “flowdown of top level requirements; predicting and monitoring missile performance and reliability; internal external interfaces; interfaces with ship combat systems; interfaces with test and packaging, handling, storage and transportation equipment; improving missile design; and maintaining the technical data package.”

Nov 20/08: A $40 million cost-plus fixed-fee contract for engineering and technical services to support Standard Missile production programs. This contract includes options which would bring the cumulative value of this contract to $334.4 million if exercised.

This contract combines purchases for the U.S. Navy (64%) and Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Program countries (36%). Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ; and is expected to be complete by November 2009 (N00024-09-C-5303).

FY 2008

SM-3 kills a satellite; SM-3 contracts & tests; Multi-national SM-2 contract; SM-6 processor replacement contract, 1st test firing; 100% Earned Value Management score for Raytheon. SM-2 Block IV:
stage separation
(click to view full)

Sept 30/08: FY08 SM-2s. A $422.6 million firm-fixed-price cost plus fixed fee contract for the 419 SM-2 All-Up-Round (AUR) missiles, 96 AN/DKT-71A Telemetric Data Transmitting Sets (TDTS), section level spares, post production spares, 265 shipping containers, and associated data. This contract includes options which, if exercised, would bring the cumulative value of this contract to $428.7 million. This is an international purchase that combines purchases for the U.S. Navy (22.34%) and the governments of Japan (5.75%), South Korea (37.99%), Taiwan (33.91%) and the Netherlands, (0.01%).

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ (74%); Andover, MA (18%); Camden, AK (5%); and Farmington, NM (3%), and is expected to be complete by December 2010. Contract funds in the amount of $9.3 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured (N00024-08-C-5347).

FY 2008: 419 SM-2s

Sept 5/08: EVM 100%. Raytheon Missile Systems announces a 100% score on an Earned Value Management (EVM) Systems compliance review by the Pentagon’s Defense Contract Management Agency. DCMA auditors found that the firm passed all 32 guidelines, which is currently a rare level of performance among major defense firms.

Earned Value Management is a key project management methodology used by America’s Department of Defense, and the SM-6 program was one of 2-3 programs that led the way for Raytheon. Firm sources tell DID that the US Navy encouraged Raytheon not to compromise of EVM, which helped by removing potential conflicts between customer demands and the need for training. Raytheon’s upper management also made a decision to make the financial and time investments required, in order to strengthen that capability within the firm for future projects. That commitment included monthly meetings that spend a full day conducting EVM reviews, in addition to other measures described in the release.

Raytheon EVM 100%

Sept 5/08: SM-6 test. The U.S. Navy conducted its 2nd firing test of the Standard Missile-6 extended range missile, which intercepted a BQM-74 aerial target drone. The active seeker, employing the U.S. Navy’s legacy command system, autonomously acquired and engaged the target.

Note that the SM-6 fills the short range SM-2’s role; its range is extended in comparison to the SM-2, not the longer-range SM-3. Raytheon release.

July 1/08: A $13.2 million modification to a cost plus fixed fee contract for the Processor Replacement Program, Phase I. This project will replace the data processor module that’s common to both the AIM-120 AMRAAM air-air missile and SM-6, which shares its independent radar homing technologies. The problem is that the AMRAAM Data Processor (ADP) and the Input-Output application specific integrated circuits (I/O ASIC) in the guidance section electronics aren’t manufactured any more. The electronics industry has much shorter life cycles than the military does, so the USAF is looking to replace these obsolete parts and do any redesign required.

This effort supports the US military, and foreign military sales to Greece and Taiwan. All funds have already been committed (FA8675-07-C-0055, P00012).

June 23/08: SM-6, 1st test. Raytheon announces the first test of its new SM-6 missile, launched from the Navy’s Desert Ship at the White Sands Missile Range, NM. The SM-6 successfully intercepted a BQM-74 aerial drone, using its active seeker to find and target the drone on its own.

FY 2008: 419 SM-2s

June 6/08: FTM-14: SM-2-IV NT-SBT. The USA’s AEGIS cruiser USS Lake Erie [CG 70] uses a modified SM-2 Block IV missile to hit a short-range ballistic missile target about 100 miles WNW of Kauai, Hawaii. FTM-14 test objectives included evaluation of: the BMDS ability to intercept and kill a short range ballistic missile target with the Aegis BMD, modified with the terminal mission capability; the modified SM-2 Blk IV missile using SPY-1 cue; and system-level integration of the BMDS. FTM-14 marks the 14th overall successful intercept in 16 attempts, for the Aegis BMD program, and the 2nd successful intercept by an SM-2 Blk IV.

The SM-2 Block IV adds a rocket booster and additional guidance technologies to the SM-2, giving it anti-ballistic missile capability at shorter ranges than the SM-3, during the last phase of a missile or warhead’s descent within the atmosphere. The program was canceled in 2001, but revived as the Near Term Sea-Based Terminal weapon (NT-SBT). This test looks to keep it going. US Navy.

SM-2 Block IV NT-SBT test success

Feb 20/08: Satellite Killer. The U.S. Navy’s Ticonderoga Class AEGIS cruiser USS Lake Erie [CG 70] has participated in a number of successful ABM tests, but today was something new. A modified SM-3 Block 1A missile fired from the cruiser destroyed a National Reconnaissance Office satellite traveling at 17,000 mph, about 247 km/ 150 miles over the Pacific Ocean. The satellite was no longer working and falling out of orbit, and contained toxic hydrazine fuel that could pose a health hazard if it hit a populated area. President George W. Bush authorized the Navy to bring down the satellite, in order to avoid that scenario, and the missile appears to have hit the fuel tank itself in a very exacting shot. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Navy Adm. Mike Mullen:

“What we’ve tried to do from the beginning was be as open as possible about the intention… We are taking the shot at what we hope will be an altitude that will minimize the amount of space debris that will occur. We’ve engaged governments throughout the world to tell them what our intentions are. We have been very transparent, very open in that regard.”

Frost & Sullivan Industry Analyst Michael Stuart noted that:

“The amazing thing about using it in this scenario is that it required alterations to not only the tracking assets involved, but also the flight characteristics of the missile itself. The orbit of the satellite was nothing like that of a missile shot from earth and designed to return to earth.”

Perhaps, but after spending $30-60 million, it worked just fine. The capability was always obvious as a potential spin-off, but the wider acknowledgment that comes with a successful test makes this an important inflection point. See also Navy photo essay | Navy satellite impact Video [MPG] | US SecDef Gates comment | Slate looks at the modification effort | The Christian Science Monitor examines the factors driving the decision | India Daily looks at the China/Russian angle | Lexington Institute analysis.

SM-3 Satellite Killer

Feb 15/08: FY08 SM-3s. A $1.016 billion cost-plus-incentive-fee sole source contract modification to manufacture 75 SM-3 block IA missile for the United States, and 27 SM-3 Block IA missiles for Foreign Military Sales “in support of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System” (N00024-07-C-6119). That almost certainly means sales to Japan, which has successfully tested the SM-3 from JS Kongo (see Dec 17/07 entry in exports section).

The principal place of performance is Tucson, AZ, but work will also be performed in Elkton, MD by major subcontractor Alliant Techsystems, and is expected to be complete by February 2012. FY 2007 research and development and Japanese Foreign Military Sales funds will be used for the initial funding, and will expire at the end of the fiscal year. The contract modification will be incrementally funded, committing $92.8 million at the outset – $85.9M FMS funds and $6.9M FY 2007 R&D funds.

FY 2008: 102 SM-3-IAs

Nov 16/07: Raytheon Missile Systems of Tucson, AZ received a $25.5 million cost-plus-award-fee sole source contract modification to revise the statement of work for the manufacture of 29 SM-3 Block IA missiles (20 US, 9 Foreign Military Sales) plus one set of spare sections for the AEGIS ballistic missile defense program. See the June 6/07 DSCA request in the “Foreign Military Sales” section; the 9 are destined for Japan.

The principal place of performance is Tucson, AZ. Work will also be performed in Elkton, MD by major subcontractor Alliant Techsystems and is expected to be complete by July 2008. FY 2007 research and development funds will be used, the contract will be incrementally funded, and at award it will obligate $8.5 million. Contract funds will expire at the end of the fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC issued the contract (N00024-03-C-6111).

Nov 8/07: Raytheon Co. in Tucson, AZ received a $37.3 million modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-07-C-5361) for engineering and technical services in support of Standard Missile research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) programs. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ, and is expected to be complete by September 2009. Contract funds in the amount of $117,743 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.

FY 2007

SM-3 orders from USA & Japan; Multi-national SM-2 contract; 1st SM-2 SBT/Block IV+ delivery; Co-operative defense
(click to view full)

Aug 27/07: SM-3 R&D. A $142 million cost-plus-award-fee contract modification for engineering and technical services for the continued missile design and development, fabrication, test, and flight test support for the SM-3 as part of the Navy’s AEGIS Ballistic Missile Defense System program. The contract modification will be incrementally funded, and at award will obligate $48.6 million of FY 2007 research and development funds. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ and is expected to be complete by December 2007 (N00024-03-C-6111).

July 20/07: FY07 SM-2s. A $201 million firm-fixed-price modification to previously awarded contract for FY 2007 SM-2 production requirements of 190 missiles, 121 shipping containers, spares and associated data for the US (73.12%) and the Governments of Japan (22.17%); Germany (3.28%); Spain (1.10%); and Canada (0.33%) under the Foreign Military Sales Program.

Work will be performed in Tucson, Ariz. (83%); Andover, Mass. (14%); Camden, Ark. (2%); and Farmington, N.M. (1%), and is expected to be complete by September 2009 (N00024-06-C-5350).

FY 2007: 190 SM-2s

July 19/07: SM-2 Block IV/ SBT. Raytheon announces delivery of the first Near Term Sea-Based Terminal weapon (a modified SM-2 Block IV) to the U.S. Navy for use in defending against short-range ballistic missile threats. Raytheon, the Navy and Johns Hopkins University’s Applied Physics Lab partnered to update the Standard Missile 2 Block IV weapon. The idea is to use these missiles as a near term solution and supplement “until a more capable system can be fielded.

Unlike the SM-3, SM-2 SBT is aimed at the very last phase of a ballistic missile’s flight, just before impact. It will fulfill a naval role similar to the Patriot PAC-3 on land, therefore, acting as a second line of defense against incoming missiles. Raytheon release.

SM-2-IV NT-SBT delivered

May 14/07: SM-3 lead-in. A sole source $140.7 million cost contract for long-lead material required for the manufacture and delivery of 36 Standard Missile-3 Block IA missiles to meet U.S. and Foreign Military Sales requirements in support of the AEGIS Ballistic Missile Defense System.

Fiscal Year 2007 research and development and Foreign Military Sales funds will be used. The contract will be incrementally funded, and at award will obligate $20 million FY-07 research and development and $5 million Japan Foreign Military Sales funds. Work will be performed at Tucson, AZ and is expected to be complete by May 2008 (N00024-07-C-6119).

April 19/07: SM-2 upgrade. Raytheon Company and the U.S. Navy announce that they have successfully completed a major update to Standard Missile-2 (SM-2). The improvement, called a “Maneuverability Upgrade,” provides SM-2 with substantially increased performance against new, anti-ship weapons. See also the April 5/06 entry below.

The team included representatives from the U.S. Navy Standard Missile program office and Naval Weapons Station/ Seal Beach and a cross-section of manufacturing and engineering employees from Raytheon Missile Systems. Raytheon release.

SM-2 finishes major upgrade

Jan 30/07: An estimated $30.6 million cost-plus award-fee contract for engineering and technical services in support of Standard Missile Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) programs. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ and is expected to be complete in January 2008. This contract was not competitively procured (N00024-07-C-5361).

Dec 7/06: SM-3. A $20.6 million cost-plus-award-fee contract modification for the development and procurement of additional tooling and test equipment in support of the continued development and delivery of Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IA missiles to meet U.S. and Foreign Military Sales (FMS) requirements in support of the AEGIS Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system. The work will be performed in Tucson, AZ and is expected to be complete by November 2007 (N00024-03-C-6111).

Nov 6/06: SM-2. An estimated $39.3 million cost-plus-award-fee modification to previously awarded contract N00024-03-C-5330, to provide additional engineering and technical services to support SM-2 production efforts for Fiscal Year 2007 U.S. requirements. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ and is expected to be complete by February 2008.

FY 2006 and Earlier

SM-3 orders for USA, Japan; Boeing delivers 1st SM-3 block IA warhead; Multi-national SM-2 order; Upgraded SM-2 block IV tested. SM-3 Launch -
note rocket booster
(click to view full)

Aug 16/06: FY06 SM-3s. A $265.9 cost-plus-award/incentive fee contract modification for 29 SM-3 Block IA missiles to be produced for the United States and Japan and for flight test support, engineering activity, system upgrades and continued cooperative research and development work with the MDA and Japan. The initial delivery order is for $168 million.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ and is expected to be complete by December 2009 (N00024-03-C-6111). The Japanese order may well be related to the June 5-6, 2006 item in the Foreign Sales section, below.

FY 2006: 29 SM-3-IA

Aug 4/06: Spares. An $8 million modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-06-C-5350) for FY06 SM-2 Block IIIB, post-production spares, and FY04 SM-2 common production spares to support of maintenance and repair of shipboard missiles. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ (83%); Andover, MA (14%); Camden, AZ (2%); and Farmington, NM (1%), and is expected to be complete by December 2008.

July 27/06: TDACS. Raytheon Company and Aerojet successfully demonstrate the capability of a solid Throttling Divert and Attitude Control System (TDACS) for the SM-3 in a ground test at Aerojet’s Sacramento, CA facility. Four of the 10 proportional TDACS pintle thrusters move the kinetic warhead sideways while the 6 other thrusters maintain the seeker’s angular alignment and view of the target. On-board electronic controls and software throttle the combustion pressure up and down to alternate between high thrust and coast periods. In addition to the improved intercept capability this gives the hit-to-kill payload, TDACS is also easier to produce, thus holding the potential for significant cost savings. Raytheon release.

June 22/06: As North Korea prepares to test-launch a Taepodong-2 ballistic missile reportedly capable of hitting the US mainland, the US & Japan successfully conducted a joint missile intercept test off of Hawaii using the USS Shiloh [CG 67] guided missile cruiser and its upgraded AEGIS radar & combat system, firing an SM-3 missile. The test was the 7th successful intercept in 8 tests during the current program.

The USS Lake Erie [CG 70], USS Paul Hamilton [DDG 60], & USS Milius [DDG 69] also participated, as did the Japanese Kongo Class destroyer JS Kirishima [DDG-174], which has installed AEGIS Long Range surveillance & Tracking 3.0 but no engagement capability. Testing also included receipt of target data on USS Shiloh from a land-based radar, as well as a second CG-47 Class cruiser that used the flight test to collect data and further the development of an upgraded SPY-1B radar with a new signal processor. See Navy News article | Lockheed Martin release.

June 8/06: Boeing has delivered the first Block 1A Standard Missile-3 Kinetic Warhead (SM-3 KW) to Raytheon. Boeing has been partnered with Raytheon on the SM-3 program since 1996, and is under subcontract to integrate and test the KW hardware. They are responsible for the KW avionics, guidance and control hardware and software, as well as the ejection subsystem. In addition to SM-3 round integration, Raytheon provides the KW infrared seeker, signal and image processor, and the integrated KW software. Boeing release.

May 26/06: SM-3 R&D. An estimated $424 million cost-plus-award fee contract modification (N00024-03-C-6111). It covers the continued systems engineering, design, development, fabrication, and testing of Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IA and IB Missiles for the AEGIS Ballistic Missile Defense Program being conducted by the USA, with some cooperation from Japan. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ and is expected to be complete by May 14, 2008. Initial funding of $96 million has been issued to support engineering services, engineering studies and technology development technical instruction efforts. See June 7, 2006 corporate release.

April 5/06: SM-2 SBT test. A Raytheon Company Standard Missile-2 (SM-2) Block IV with control systems upgrades was successfully flight tested against a subsonic target at White Sands Missile Range, NM on Feb. 16, 2006. The SM-2 Block IV upgrade includes a new steering control section, new thrust vector actuator assembly for the boost rocket motor and a new primary missile battery as well as upgrades to the guidance and control software. The upgrade was completed as part of a value engineering project at Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, AZ, and “will result in a significant cost reduction” by making the missiles more reliable and easier to produce. Raytheon also notes that these improvements will be applied across the Standard missile family to the SM-3 and SM-6 as well.

March 27/06: SM-6. A $9 million modification to previously awarded contract N00024-04-C-5344 exercises an option for engineering and technical services to support the STANDARD missile-6 (SM-6) program. Engineering & technical services include initial performance studies, conceptual design studies, functional design, preliminary design, detailed design and development and round integration studies for potential future improvements. The Contractor shall also provide design assessments as necessary for current improvements. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ (80%); Camden, AK (15%); and Andover, MA (5%), and is expected to be complete by December 2011.

AEGIS-BMD: CG-70
launches SM-3
(click to view full)

Feb 27/06: Spares. A $17.8 million modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-06-C-5350) exercises the United States option for the procurement of the FY06 STANDARD Missile-2 BLOCK IIIB Spares. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ (83%); Andover, MZ (14%); Camden, AK (2%); and Navajo Agricultural Products Industries (NAPI) in Farmington, NM (1%), and is expected to be complete by December 2008.

Feb 15/06: FY06 SM-2s. A $122.2 million modification under a previously awarded contract exercising an option for FY 2006 production of 75 Standard Missile-2 Block IIIB All-Up-Rounds (AUR), 80 SM-2 Block IIIB Service-Life Extension Program (SLEP) Retrofits, and 125 AN/DKT-71A Telemetric Data Transmitting Sets (TDTS) with installation kits. The contract modification will also provide for royalties associated with AUR and SLEP equipment. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ (83%); Andover, MZ (14%); Camden, AK (2%); and Farmington, NM (1%), and is expected to be complete by December 2008 (N00024-06-C-5350).

See also the May 4 Raytheon release. Note that “all-up-rounds” include the missile, its launch container, and related equipment that allows for rapid installation of the naval missiles in vertical launch systems.

FY 2006: 75 SM-2s

Feb 15/06: A $7.9 million option under another previously awarded Raytheon contract (N00024-01-C-5306) to provide FY 2006 Depot Level Maintenance Facility work in support of Standard Missile 2 (SM-2), Guided Missile Program. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ (100%), and is expected to be complete by the end of September 2006 – which is also the end of the US Defense Department’s fiscal year.

Jan 18/06: Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, AZ received a cost-only contract modification that covers the procurement of long lead material and is estimated at $21.7 million. It will be used to build special tooling and test equipment for Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IA Missiles for the AEGIS naval Ballistic Missile Defense program. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ and Camden, AR, and is expected to be complete by April 2006. This contract was not competitively awarded by the Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC (N00024-03-C-6111).

July 20/05: FY05 SM-3s. Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, AZ received a $124.1 million cost-plus-award/ incentive-fee contract modification for the continued development and delivery of 12 Standard Missile-3 Block IA Missiles in support of the AEGIS Ballistic Missile Defense System. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ and is expected to be complete by April 2007. This contract was not competitively awarded. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C. issued the contract (N00024-03-C-6111). DID covered this along with a number of other contracts related to ballistic missile defense.

FY 2005: 12 SM-3-IA

Sept 3/04: SM-6 SDD. Raytheon Co. in Tucson, AZ received a $440.1 million cost-reimbursable contract with cost and technical/schedule performance incentives for the Systems Development and Demonstration (SDD) of the STANDARD Missile-6 Block I/Extended Range Active Missile (SM-6 ERAM). This includes the design, development, fabrication, assembly, integration, test and delivery of flight and non-flight assets.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ (80%); Camden, NJ (15%), and Andover, MA (5%), and is expected to be complete by December 2011. Initial funding in the amount of $5 million will be provided at contract award. This contract was not competitively procured by the Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC (N00024-04-C-5344).

SM-6 SDD

The Standard Missile Naval Defense Family: Exports & Related Key Events AEGIS Combat Control
(click to view full)

Unless otherwise specified, all contracts are issued to Raytheon Co. in Tucson, AZ, at the request of the US Naval Sea Systems Command. See also the above section.

With respect to Japan, the USA and Japan are working together on missile defense, continuing their efforts now that Japan has announced completion of the joint technology research stage. The plan is to have SM-3 missiles as Japan’s outer ABM layer and Patriot PAC-3s as the point defense component. Cooperating partnership contracts between the USA and Japan, and international orders with a strong American component, are listed in the American section, above.

2012 – 2014

RIMPAC 2010: USN & ROKN
(click to view full)

May 26/14: South Korea. South Korean official rule out any deployment of SM-3s for now. Defense Ministry spokesperson Kim Min-seok:

“We’ve never considered adopting the SM-3 missiles… Among issues under consideration is how to boost our maritime-based intercepting capabilities, but we’ve not yet reviewed any details…. Intercepting a missile in the ascending stage goes beyond what our military aims at. It is also beyond our capability…. The KAMD [land-based missile defense architecture] has been under development regardless of the U.S. system, and no changes have been made in our position.”

Planned SM-6 missiles (q.v. June 11-12/13) will give the ROKN terminal BMD intercept capabilities around 2015-2016, and that seems to be enough. The national KAMD system currently includes Israeli Green Pine long-range radars, ex-German PATRIOT PAC-2 missiles, and an AMD-Cell command and control backbone. South Korea is about to to upgrade its PATRIOT batteries to PAC-3/Config 3, and add SM-6 missiles to KDX-III destroyers. They may also field Cheolmae 4 BMD-capable missiles in future, designed in collaboration with Russia. Sources: Yonhap, “Acquiring SM-3 missiles not an option for S. Korea: defense ministry”.

July 17/13: Support. Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, AZ, is being awarded a $19.1 million modification to previously awarded contract, covering exported Standard Missile 2/3/6 engineering and technical services. These services include research and development efforts; design, systems, and production engineering; technical services; evaluation services; component improvement services; and production proofing services for missile producibility, missile production, and shipboard integration for fiscal years 2013-2017.

$18.5 million is committed immediately. The total percentage of foreign orders is 100%: to Japan (28%), Australia (24%), Korea (21.5%), Germany (8.3%), Netherlands (8.3%), Taiwan (7%), Canada (1.7%), and Spain (1.2%). Japan already fields SM-3s, and Australia and South Korea have both expressed plans to adopt the SM-6 on their Aegis destroyers by 2017.

Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ (86.8%); Andover, MA (9.4%); Huntsville, AL (1.7%); Arlington, VA (1.1%); Camden, AR (0.7%); and White Sands, NM (0.3%), and is expected to be complete by July 2014. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity (N00024-13-C-5403).

June 11-12/13: South Korea. The Yonhap news agency quotes “a senior government official” who says that KDX-III destroyers will be armed with SM-6 missiles as of 2016, as part of an overarching Korea Air and Missile Defense System (KAMD) program. If true, that date implies a 2014 order. It also implies a future system upgrade for the ships, from a standard Aegis combat system to Aegis BMD 5.0.

The SM-6 will complement the ROK’s existing SM-2s. Unlike the SM-2s, the new missiles can be used for terminal point defense against ballistic missiles, while also providing long-range air defense against enemy fighters, cruise missiles, etc. KAMD would integrate the ROK’s Green Pine radar, PATRIOT missile batteries, naval missile defense assets, and other surveillance systems into a single “kill chain”, reducing Korea’s dependence on American help. They hope to have KAMD v1.0 ready by 2020. Yonhap | Global Post.

2011 SM-3 IA, JS Kirishima
(click to view full)

Sept 17/11: SM-3-IIA delay. Mianichi Daily News reports US notification to Japan that the SM-3 Block IIA will be delayed 2 years, because the kill vehicle needs additional testing. The USA will cover the additional costs.

The original development plan involved a 9-year effort ending in 2014, with Japan paying $1.0 – 1.2 billion, and the USA $1.1 – 1.5 billion. That will now extend to 2016, with the USA looking to deploy the new missile in 2018. Japan had planned to deploy the SM-3 Block IIA in 2020 on its Kongo Class BMD destroyers, and the question is whether that deployment will also be delayed.

SM-3-IIA delayed

Sept 7/11: Japan. Mianichi Daily News reports that Japan’s Defense Ministry has begun launching about 15 mock missiles and collecting data, in a YEN 8.2 billion (currently about $106 million) bid to boost the accuracy of detecting and tracking missiles under the missile defense plan. The operation is expected to run until the end of March 2013.

Aug 30/11: Australia. Australia’s government approves 4 new defense projects, including the A$ 100 million SEA 4000 Phase 3.2. Note that this is not a contract yet; that will take place later, under the US State Department’s Foreign Military Sales protocols.

Australia’s DoD explains that their upgraded FFG-7 Adelaide Class use SM-2 missiles configured for Rail Launch operations. Under Phase 3.2, many will be converted to the Vertical Launch configuration, for use in Australia’s Hobart Class Air Warfare Destroyers and their MK41 launch systems. They’ll also be upgraded to “the latest [SM-2] version”, and DID worked to clarify further; it only involves and upgrade to the latest SM-2 Block III, rather than the BMD-capable Block IV.

The Hobart Class will eventually carry the SM-6, with active guidance and final defense capabilities against ballistic missiles, but that’s slated for the early 2020s under project SEA 1360 Phase 1.

June 20-21/11: SM-3s for the Europeans? Raytheon Missile Systems VP Ed Miyashiro is telling journalists that a number of other platforms are being looked at for NATO/European ballistic missile defense and SM-3 carriage. They include ships that already carry compatible Mk.41 vertical launch systems (VLS), like the forthcoming Danish Iver Huitfeldt Class, German-Dutch F124s, and Spanish F100 frigates; and also ships with DCNS’ rival Sylver system, like the Franco-Italian Horizon Class, and Britain’s Type 45 destroyers.

The ship types with Sylver launchers are already slated to carry MBDA’s Aster-30, which has just begun land tests against ballistic missiles. In its favor, the SM-3 can cite 3 advantages: a much longer test record, the coming SM-3 Block II’s significant performance improvements, and much cheaper BMD development costs, thanks to American and Japanese advance work. Some reports even float the possibility of SM-3 Block IIB/NGAM becoming a joint American/European project, just as the IIA is an American/Japanese project.

The fleet issue would be integration. F100 frigates are the most straightforward, with the same AN/SPY-1D radars and Mk.41 VLS as American ships. The same BMD upgrade set used in American destroyers would suffice. Dutch, German, and Danish ships also carry the MK.41 VLS, but use higher-performance Thales APAR and SMART-L radars. That requires additional integration and modification work, but all 3 classes are using a shared core system that allows a common upgrade path. The British, French, and Italian ships would be the most work. While they share a similar core air defense system, they all use different radars, while sharing key electronics and DCNS’ Sylver VLS. That means both electronics work, and physical changes to the weapons array. In the latter area, Miyashiro mentions that they’re looking into the possibility of fielding SM-3 compatible inserts in DCNS’ Sylver A70 VLS, which is the required size for the 6.6 meter SM-3. Britain’s Type 45 Daring Class uses only A50 launchers, but there is space for adding the larger A70 launchers up front. Miyashiro has reportedly said that they’re also looking at the possibility of inserting the strike-length Mk.41 VLS in that location. Aviation Week | Defense News | Later coverage: “Raytheon’s Datalink: A New Naval Standard for the Standard?”

May 25/11: Japan. Media reports indicate that Japan is preparing to approve U.S. export of their jointly developed SM-3 Block IIA missiles to 3rd countries, provided each export is discussed, no transfer can occur beyond the buyers, and North Korea, Iran, or any other country under UN sanctions is ruled out. The decision will reportedly be officially communicated to the United States at a June 2011 meeting. Japan plans to begin deploying the missiles itself, beginning in 2018.

It remains to be seen if the SM-3 Block IIB missile, whose design is being competed as the Next Generation AEGIS missile program, ends up avoiding the shared technologies that require this export approval. Japan Times | Defense News | UPI.

Jan 10/11: Japan. Japan’s Yomiuri Shimbun reports that Japan’s government will compile criteria that would allow the United States to deploy and export SM-3 Block IIA missiles in Europe and other parts of the world, without violating the nation’s “3 principles” of not exporting weapons to communist bloc countries, countries subject to U.N. arms embargoes, or countries involved in or likely to become involved in international conflicts.

Officials from Japan’s Defense Ministry, Foreign Ministry, Economy Trade and Industry Ministry and “other relevant government organizations” will soon start discussing how to draw up the criteria, which is expected to take about a year.

In 2004, the Koizumi government relaxed those 3 principles in order to allow joint development with the USA, and Chief Cabinet Secretary Hiroyuki Hosoda issued a statement in December that required those exceptions to be “strictly managed.” The question is what that term will mean in practice, but one thing is clear: Japan will have the power to block SM-3 Bock II exports, and deployments, on the same technology transfer grounds that the USA has so often used with others.

2010 JS Kirishima
(click to view full)

Oct 29/10: Japan JFTM-4 test. The recently upgraded JS Kirishima [DDG-174] successfully hits a separating “1,000 km class” ballistic missile target using an SM-3 Block 1A missile, in test JFTM-4 off the coast of Kauai in Hawaii. It’s the 3rd of 4 successful SM-3 test firings for the JMSDF. America’s USS Lake Erie [GC-70] cruiser and USS Russell destroyer [DDG-59] also participated in this test, tracking the target and simulating their own intercepts.

The firing follows another test earlier this month, in which JS Kirishima acquired a separating target passed from a U.S. destroyer with her own sensors, and performed a simulated engagement. Jeff Bantle, Lockheed Martin’s vice president of Surface-Sea Based Missile Defense Systems, said that “This [live fire] test completes the planned upgrade of the Japanese navy’s destroyers with the Aegis ballistic missile defense capability.” US MDA | Lockheed Martin | Raytheon (incl. video).

Oct 26/10: Japan request. The US DSCA announces [PDF] Japan’s formal request to buy 13 SM-2 Block IIIB missiles, 13 AN/DKT-71A Telemeters, conversion kits, containers, spare and repair parts, support equipment, and support. The estimated cost is $33 million, and these appear to be slated for use as test missiles. The prime contractors are Raytheon Missiles Systems Company in Tucson, AZ; Raytheon Company in Camden, AR; and United Defense LP in Aberdeen, SD.

Japan has already integrated the SM-2 Block IIIB missiles into its ship combat systems, and maintains two Intermediate-Level Maintenance Depots capable of maintaining and supporting the SM-2. As such, implementation of this proposed sale will not require any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives in Japan.

DSCA: Japan SM-2-IIIB request

Oct 26/10: Australia request. The US DSCA announces [PDF] Australia’s formal request to buy 17 Warhead Compatible Telemetry missiles used in missile tests, including AN/DKT-71 Telemeters and assembly kits, spare and repair parts, technical data and publications, personnel training and training equipment, and support. The estimated cost is $46 million. The prime contractors are Raytheon Missiles Systems Company in Tucson, AZ; and Raytheon Company in Camden, AR.

The proposed sale of SM-2 Block IIIB STANDARD missiles will be used for anti-air warfare test firings during Combat Systems Ship Qualification Trials for the Royal Australian Navy’s 3 new Hobart Class Air Warfare Destroyers, currently under construction. Australia, which has already integrated the SM-2 Block IIIA, will have no difficulty absorbing these missiles into its armed forces. Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Australia.

DSCA: Australia SM-2-IIIA request

July 29/10: SM-3 IIA exports. Cooperative weapons programs like the SM-3 Block II come with a catch: export permissions. Japan banned exports of weapons it develops in 1967, with the USA’s 1983 blanket exemption as the only exception to date. The Japan Times reports that Washington recently notified the Japanese government that it plans to begin shipping SM-3 Block 2A missiles in 2018, and asked Tokyo to start preparing to strike export deals with third countries. The US wants a response by the end of 2010.

The SM-3 Block 2 is expected to play a significant role in European missile defense, and is also likely to attract interest from countries like Australia and South Korea. Brahmand.

Feb 26/10: South Korea. A $67.3 million modification to a previously awarded contract (N00024-09-C-5301), exercising the FY 2010 SM-2 production option of 46 SM-2 Block IIIA and 16 SM-2 Block IIIB missiles and associated data.

This contract combines purchases for the US Navy (2.07%), and the governments of Korea (96.15%), Taiwan (1.16%), Japan (0.19%) and Canada (0.43%) under the Foreign Military Sales program. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ (74%); Andover, MA (18%); Camden, AR (5%); and Farmington, NM (3%), and is expected to be complete by December 2012.

Korea: SM-2-IIIA/Bs

Dec 18/09: Australia SM-2 test. The frigate HMAS Melbourne fires the SM-2 Block IIIA, as an enhancement from its previous SM-1 armament. Australia’s upgraded Adelaide Class frigates are slated to add this capability, and the lessons learned may allow Raytheon to offer a more standardized upgrade package for other operators of the SM-1 missile and/or FFG-7 Oliver Hazard Perry Class Australian DoD | Raytheon.

2009 ROKS King Sejong
the Great
(click to view full)

May 27/09: South Korea request. The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency announces [PDF] South Korea’s official request for 46 SM-2 Block IIIA missiles, 35 SM-2 Block IIIB missiles, 3 SM-2 Block IIIB Telemetry Missiles for testing, 84 SM-2 missile containers, and associated test and support equipment, spare and repair parts, training, and other forms of support. The estimated cost is $170 million.

South Korea uses the SM-2 missiles on its KDX-II (SM-2 Block IIIA) and its KDX-III AEGIS (SM-2 Block IIIB) destroyers. Read “South Korea Beefs Up Anti-Air Defenses as North Blusters” for a look at this missile request in the context of South Korea’s overall defense modernization efforts, and increased tensions with North Korea.

DSCA: Korea SM-2-IIIA/B request

May 2/09: Australia. Australia’s new defense White Paper says that the forthcoming Hobart class Air Warfare Destroyers will be equipped with SM-6 missiles and Cooperative Engagement Capability, giving them some latent terminal-phase defense capabilities against ballistic missiles. The destroyers will not have the AEGIS BMD modifications to their electronics and radar, however – at least, not at the outset.

2008 Arrow launch
(click to view full)

July 16/08: SM-3 on land? Aviation Week reports that the MDA is considering a land-based variant of the SM-3, and Raytheon is examining options – largely due to specific requests from Israel.

Israel already has its own successful Arrow-2 system, and fields shorter-range Patriots. So why the sudden interest? As it happens, Israel decides later on to keep its Arrow system, but the USA thinks this is a great idea. Read “BMD, in from the Sea: SM-3 Missiles Going Ashore.”

Feb 15/08: Japan order. A $1.016 billion cost-plus-incentive-fee sole source contract modification to manufacture 75 SM-3 block IA missiles for the United States, and 27 SM-3 Block IA missiles for Foreign Military Sales “in support of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System” (N00024-07-C-6119). That almost certainly means sales to Japan, which has successfully tested the SM-3 from JS Kongo (see Dec 17/07 entry, below).

The principal place of performance is Tucson, AZ, but work will also be performed in Elkton, MD by major subcontractor Alliant Techsystems, and is expected to be complete by February 2012. FY 2007 research and development and Japanese Foreign Military Sales funds will be used for the initial funding, and will expire at the end of the fiscal year. The contract modification will be incrementally funded, committing $92.8 million at the outset – $85.9M FMS funds and $6.9M FY 2007 R&D funds.

US/Japan SM-3-IA order

2007 JS Kongo fires SM-3
(click to view full)

Dec 17/07: Japan test. The JS Kongo AEGIS destroyer [DDG-173] becomes the first Japanese ship to destroy a ballistic missile, launching an SM-3 Block 1A missile to successfully intercept a medium-range ballistic missile target fired from the U.S. Navy’s Pacific Missile Range Facility on Kauai, Hawaii. The veteran ABM test participant USS Lake Erie [CG 70] sailed from its homeport of Pearl Harbor to participate as a secondary, using its radar to track the target.

This marks the 12th successful intercept overall for the SM-3, and the first successful ABM interception by anyone other than the US Navy. Read “Japanese Destroyer JS Kongo Intercepts Ballistic Missile” for more information, and links to news articles and reactions around the world.

Japan: 1st BMD intercept

Sept 12/07: Taiwan request. The US DSCA announces [PDF] “The Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States” formal request for 144 SM-2 Block IIIA STANDARD missiles, 16 Telemetry missiles, canisters, containers, spare and repair parts, supply support, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical data, U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance and other related elements of logistics support.

The prime contractor will be Raytheon Missile Systems Corporation in Tucson, AZ, and although “the purchaser generally requires offsets, at this time, there are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.” The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $272 million.

DSCA: Taiwan SM-2-IIIA request

Aug 24/07: Spain request. The US DSCA announces [PDF] Spain’s request for 36 SM-2 Block IIIB STANDARD missiles (36 tactical missiles with warheads), 36 MK 13 MOD 0 canisters, section-level shipping containers, spare and repair parts, support equipment, training, technical assistance, and other related elements of logistics support. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $63 million. The weapons will be carried on the Spanish Navy F-100 Alvaro de Bazan Class Frigates.

DSCA: Spain SM-2-IIIB request

June 8/07: Japan request. The US DSCA announces Japan’s request for Ballistic Missile Defense upgrades to one AEGIS Weapon System (Lockheed-Martin Maritime System and Sensors in Moorestown, NJ), AEGIS BMD Vertical Launch System ORDALTs (BAE’s Mk41 modifications, Minneapolis, MN), 9 SM-3 Block IA STANDARD missiles (Raytheon in Tucson, AZ) with MK 21 Mod 2 canisters, containers, spare and repair parts, publications, documentation, supply support, U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance and other related elements of logistics support. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $475 million.

The intended ship is believed to be the JMSDF destroyer JS Chokai [DDG-176], which is the last of the current Kongo Class destroyers; the 5th and 6th Improved Kongo Class ships currently under construction will reportedly have AEGIS BMD capability pre-installed.

DSCA: Japan AEGIS BMD + SM-3-IA request

May 25/07: Japan request. The US DSCA notifies Congress [PDF] of Japan’s request for 24 SM-2 Block IIIB Tactical STANDARD missiles with MK 13 MOD 0 canisters; 24 AN/DKT-71A telemeters and conversion kits; containers; spare and repair parts; supply support; U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance and other related elements of logistics support. The SM-2 missiles will be used on ships of the Japan Maritime Self Defense Force fleet and the total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $40 million.

Japan has already integrated the SM-2 Block IIIB into its ship combat systems and maintains two Intermediate-Level Maintenance Depots capable of maintaining and supporting the SM-2. The missiles’ prime contractor is Raytheon Company in Tucson, AZ and the MK 13 Mod 0 canister’s prime contractor is BAE Systems of Minneapolis, MN. There are no offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale, and implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Japan.

DSCA: Japan SM-2-IIIB request

April 20/07: South Korea request. The US DSCA announces South Korea’s request for 150 SM-2 Block IIIB Tactical STANDARD missiles, 60 SM-2 Block IIIA Tactical STANDARD missiles with MK 13 Mod 0 canisters, 1 inert Block IIIB Tactical STANDARD missile, spares, intermediate-level maintenance activity section-level shipping containers, test equipment, hardware/software upgrades, test and support equipment, supply support, training and training equipment, publications and technical data, U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance and other related logistics support

South Korea already has these missiles in inventory, and the total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $372 million. Industrial offset agreements associated are expected as part of the contract, and will be negotiated between the South Koreans and Raytheon Systems in Tucson, AZ. See DSCA release [PDF]

DSCA: Korea SM-2-IIIA/B request

Jan 3/07: SM-1 support. A $24.9 million firm-fixed modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-05-C-5341) to procure Full Service Support (FSS) requirements in support of the STANDARD Missile-1 (SM-1) Program of U.S. Allied Nations. This SM-1 FSS FY 2007 option exercise consists of MK56 Dual Thrust Rocket Motor (DTRM) Regrain production and SM-1 Block 6B Missile assembly, testing and delivery for the Governments of Spain (89.5%, see also Oct 20/06 below) and Egypt (10.5%) under the Foreign Military Sales Program.

Work will be performed in Tucson, Ariz. (49%), Sacramento, CA (47%) and Camden, AK (4%), and is expected to be complete by September 2009. The Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC issued the contract.

2006 Spain’s F100 Frigate
(click to view full)

Dec 6/06: Japan. “The U.S. and Japan plan to build a joint base in the Nagasaki Prefecture for the maintenance of Standard Missile-3 interceptors, reports the UPI. According to sources in the Japanese Defense Agency, the facility would be located on a filled-in area off the coast near the U.S. Navy’s Hariojima ammunition depot in Sasebo. The U.S. and Japan would each maintain their own missiles, although the Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force (MSDF) would be able to ask the U.S. military for technical assistance if it encountered problems, allowing it to minimize costs.” Link.

Nov 13/06: SM-1 support. A $31.9 million firm-fixed-price modification under previously awarded contract (N00024-05-C-5341), exercising an option to procure Full Service Support (FSS) requirements in support of the STANDARD Missile-1 (SM-1) Program of U.S. Allied Nations. This SM-1 FSS FY 2007 option exercise consists of MK56 Dual Thrust Rocket Motor (DTRM) Regrain production and SM-1 Block VIA missile assembly, testing and delivery.

This effort combines requirements for the Governments of France (24%); Japan (16%); Turkey (16%); Bahrain (15%); Poland (12%); Italy (11%); and Chile (6%) under the Foreign Military Sales Program. Work will be performed in Camden, AK (85%) and Tucson, AZ (15%), and is expected to be complete by June 2009.

Nov 6/06: SM-2 support. An estimated $25.5 million cost-plus-award-fee modification to previously awarded contract N00024-03-C-5330, to provide additional engineering and technical services in support of the SM-2 Guided Missile Program under the Foreign Military Sales (FMS). Initial funding of $311,095 will provide services for Germany (50.3%) and Canada (49.7%). The purchase of additional services by other countries – Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, and Spain – has not been finalized. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ and is expected to be complete by December 2007.

Oct 20/06: SM-1s for Spain. Defense Aerospace translates a release from the Spanish Council of Ministers, who have authorized the acquisition of 94 SM-1 Block 6B missiles from the US Navy for the amount of EUR 25.7 million (about $32.3 million now) to be paid from 2006-2010 inclusive. The missiles will equip Spain’s six F80 Santa Maria Class frigates, a modified variant of the USA’s Oliver Hazard Perry Class. They will be loaded into the forward section’s Mk. 13 Mod. 4 (aka. “one armed bandit”) missile launchers; each ship has a capacity of up to 32 SM-1MR Standard Missiles.

Spain: 94 SM-1-6B

June 26/06: South Korea request. The US DSCA announces South Korea’s formal request for 48 SM-2 Standard Block IIIB missiles, as well as Mk 13 Mod 0 canisters for vertical launcher systems, containers, Intermediate-Level Maintenance spares and repair parts, supply support, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical data, U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance and other related elements of logistics support. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $111 million.

Korea already uses SM-2 missiles aboard some of its ships, and these SM-2 are slated for use as the primary defensive system aboard its new KDX-III AEGIS destroyers. Industrial offset agreements are expected but not yet defined. See DSCA release [PDF].

DSCA: Korea SM-2-IIIB request

DDG176 Chokai
(click to view full)

June 5-6/06: Japan requests. The US DSCA announces a pair of requests from Japan for Standard-family naval air and missile defense systems, as well as destroyer BMD upgrades. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $528 million. Raytheon, Lockheed, and BAE are the primary contractors.

The first sale for $458 million sale involves 9 longer-range SM-3 missiles plus ballistic missile defense upgrades to one AEGIS Weapon System, AEGIS BMD Vertical Launch System (VLS) alternations, and other support. The JMSDF destroyer JS Myoko [DDG-175] may be the target of the request.

The second sale is for $70 million if all options are exercised, and involves up to 44 shorter-range SM-2 Block IIIB Standard Missiles that serve as the mainstays of the Kongo Class AEGIS destroyers’ air defense, plus various forms of support. See full DID coverage.

DSCA: Japan AEGIS BMD + SM-3-IA + SM-2-IIIB request

April 6/06: SM-2 support. A $29.5 million cost-plus-award-fee modification to previously awarded contract N00024-03-C-5330. This provide for engineering and technical services in support of the Standard Missile 2 (SM-2) Guided Missile Program for foreign military sales for the countries of Taiwan (66.2%) and Korea (33.8%) under the Foreign Military Sales Program. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ and is expected to be complete by March 2007.

2005 JS Kongou
(click to view full)

Dec 30/05: SM-2 orders. Raytheon Co. in Tucson, AZ received a $235.7 million firm-fixed-price contract in for the production of the FY06 Standard Missile-2 Block IIIA and Block IIIB all up rounds (AURs) AN/DKT-71A telemetric data transmitting sets (TDTS), section level spares, and shipping containers for allied nations. Note that “all-up-rounds” include the missile, its launch container, and related equipment that allows for rapid installation of the naval missiles in vertical launch systems. This contract will provide for the procurement of Foreign Military Sales (FMS) and other international customers procurements of 221 SM-2 Standard Block IIIA AURs, 64 SM-2 Block IIIB AURs, 106 TDTS’ with installation kits, 69 various FMS spare sections and 393 various FMS shipping containers. Specific countries were not specified by the US DoD DefenseLINK release.

Work on this contract will be performed in Tucson, AZ (83%), Andover, MA (14%), Camden, AR (2%), and Farmington, N.M. (1%), and work is expected to be complete by December 2008. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured by the Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC is the contracting activity (N00024-06-C-5350).

285 SM-2s for Export

Nov 22/05: SM-1 support. An $8 million firm-fixed-price modification to exercise an option under previously awarded contract (N00024-05-C-5341) to procure Full Service Support (FSS) requirements in support of the STANDARD Missile-1 (SM-1) Program of U.S. Allied Nations. This modification supports the governments of Spain (77%); Poland (14%); Taiwan (4%); Italy (3%); Egypt (1%); and Japan (1%) under the Foreign Military Sales Program. Work will be performed in Sacramento, CA (85%); Camden, AR (10%); and Tucson, AZ (5%); and is expected to be complete by June 2008.

June 29/05: Japan request. The US DSCA announces a Government of Japan request for 9 SM-3 Block IA Standard missiles with MK 21 Mod 2 canisters, Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) upgrades to one AEGIS Radar & weapon control system, AEGIS BMD Vertical Launch System ordnance alternations (ORDALTs), containers, spare and repair parts, publications, documentation, supply support, U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance and other related elements of logistics support. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $387 million.

The target of these BMD upgrades may be the destroyer JS Kongo [DDG-173], as JS Kirishima’s modifications were limited to AEGIS Long Range Scan & Track 3.0, which lacks the weapon control aspect. It is expected that the JS Kirishima will be upgraded later to include engagement as well.

These BMD modifications will provide, in concert with Japan Self Defense Forces PAC-3 Patriot missiles, the initial ballistic missile defense for mainland Japan. The principal contractors will be Lockheed-Martin Maritime System and Sensors in Moorestown, NJ (AEGIS radar) Raytheon Company Equipment Division in Andover, MA (missiles), and BAE Systems in Minneapolis, MN (canisters). DID article | DSCA release [PDF format].

DSCA: Japan AEGIS BMD + SM-3-IA request

June 6/05: Japan request. The U.S. Defense Department notified Congress of a proposed sale to Japan of Raytheon’s SM-2 Block IIIB surface-to-air missiles. The sale includes 40 SM-2 Block IIIB missiles with MK 13 MOD 0 canisters; 24 SM-2 Block IIIB Telemetry Standard missiles with MK 13 MOD 0 canisters, and associated equipment. It would be worth up to $104 million if all options are exercised, with contracts going to Raytheon and United Defense LP.

The Pentagon’s Defense Security and Cooperation Agency said Japan requested the missiles for use on ships of the Japan Maritime Self Defense Force fleet and said it would enhance Japan’s defense of critical sea-lanes. Reuters: U.S. Moves To Sell Japan SM-2 Missiles

DSCA: Japan SM-2-IIIB request

May 31/05: Australia request. The government of Australia has requested a possible sale of up to 175 SM-2 Block IIIA Standard anti-air missiles, up to 30 Telemetry missiles, up to 2 SM-2 Block IIIA inert operational missiles, canisters, containers, spare and repair parts; plus supply support, personnel training and training equipment, publications and technical data, US government and contractor technical assistance, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated cost is $315 million, and the principal contractors will be Raytheon (Tucson, AZ) and General Dynamics (Scottsdale, AZ). There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

The Royal Australian Navy already has SM-1 Standard missiles in its inventory, and intends to use the improved SM-2 missiles on its FFG 7 Oliver Hazard Perry Class frigates for self-defense against air and cruise-missile threats. DSCA release [PDF format].

DSCA: Australia SM-2-IIIA request

May 13/05: SM-1 support. Raytheon Co. in Tucson, AZ is being awarded an $11.2 million firm-fixed-price contract to provide Full Service Support (FSS) for the Standard Missile-1 (SM-1) program of U.S. Allied Nations. This contract combines purchases for the countries of Egypt (43%), Taiwan (26%); Spain (10%); Japan (6%); Turkey (6%); France (3%); Italy (3%); Bahrain (1%); Netherlands (1%); and Poland (1%) under the Foreign Military Sales Program.

This contract was not competitively procured. Work will be performed in Sacramento, CA (67%) and Tucson, AZ (33%), and the contract will expire before the end of September 2006 (N00024-05-C-5341).

March 23/05: SM-2 orders. A $266 million firm-fixed-price modification for production of the FY 2005 SM-2 missile order to equip the U.S. Navy and the navies of Japan, the Netherlands, Germany, Taiwan, Canada, and Korea respectively. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ (56%), Andover, MA (23%), Camden, AR (20%), and Farmington, NM (1%), and is expected to be completed by December 2007. The Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC, issued the contract (N00024-04-C-5342).

U.S. Navy orders include agreed quantities of Block IIIA All-Up-Rounds (AUR), Block IIIB AUR, Block IIIB ORDALT kits, AN/DKT-71A Telemetric Data Transmitting Sets (TDTS), and section level spares.

The contract also includes procurement for other navies under the Foreign Military Sales Program: 99 SM-2 Block IIIA AUR, 64 SM-2 Block IIIB AUR, 51 AN/DKT-71A TDTS with Installation Kits, 25 various foreign military sales spare sections and 161 shipping missile containers.

FY 2005 SM-2s

March 22/05: SM-2 support. A $29.6 cost-plus-award-fee modification to a previously awarded contract (N00024-03-C-5330) to provide engineering and technical services in support of the Standard Missile-2 Guided Missile Program for Foreign Military Sales (FMS). This modification satisfies the requirements of the following FMS customers: Germany (16.5%); Japan (16.67%); Korea (16.67%); the Netherlands (16.67%); Spain (16.67%); and Canada (16.67%). Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ and is expected to be completed by December 2005.

Additional Readings

• US Navy Fact file – Standard Missile. Covers SM-2 and SM-6.

• Raytheon – Standard Missile Family

• GlobalSecurity.org – SM Standard Missile.

Associated Systems

• Lockheed Martin – AEGIS, Shield of the Fleet.

• GlobalSecurity.org – AEGIS Weapon System Mk7.

• Wikipedia – AEGIS Combat System.

• GlobalSecurity.org – AN/SPY-1 Radar. Interesting analysis of some of the systems weaknesses as well, but those may or may not be current.

• HighFrontier.org, via WayBack – Sea-Based Platforms.

• DID FOCUS – Serious Dollars for AEGIS Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD).

• DID Spotlight – Japan’s Fleet BMD Upgrades. Covers their Kongo Class AEGIS destroyers.

• DID – SM-3 BMD, in from the Sea: EPAA & Aegis Ashore.

News & Views

• US Congressional Research Service (July 2/13) – Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Program: Background and Issues for Congress [PDF].

• MIT, via WayBack (May 3/10) – A Technically Detailed Description of Flaws in the SM-3 and GMD Missile Defense Systems Revealed by the Defense Department’s Ballistic Missile Test Data [PDF]. By George N. Lewis and Theodore A. Postol. See May 17/10 entry for MDA replies.

• StrategyPage (Aug 4/08) – Aegis Triumphant. “The U.S. Navy, capitalizing on the success of its SM3… wants to equip more ships with it… There are 18 U.S. Navy ships equipped with SM-3, and the navy would like enough money to equip all of its Aegis equipped ships (90) with the SM-3. This is expensive… to equip over 80 additional Aegis ships with SM-3 would cost over three billion dollars.”

• George C. Marshall Institute, via WayBack (Nov 28/08) – Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System – Status and Upgrades [PDF]. By Rear Admiral Alan B. Hicks, Program Director, Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense. Includes discussion of SM-3 Block II.

• DID (Dec 18/07) – US Missile Defense Shifting Toward More Realistic Testing?

• Lexington Institute, via WayBack (Oct 12/07) – The Standard Missile: Standard Bearer Of Reliability

• Information Dissemination, via WayBack (June 21/07) – US Navy Ballistic Missile Defense. Well researched article covering the USA’s plans in this area, including ships slated to receive ABM capability.

• Navy League Seapower Magazine, via WayBack (November 2004) – Navy Pursues SM-6 as Defense Against Cruise Missile Threats.

Americas

• The Air Force is reportedly working on a new hypersonic test vehicle, with the aim of developing the new vehicle by 2023. The Air Force and DARPA are hoping to build on a previous 2013 test, with the X-51A WaveRider intended to be used as a proof of concept.

• On Tuesday Lockheed Martin was awarded a $104.3 million contract modification for the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile Accelerated Acquisition program, which saw a successful test firing in February. The LRASM missile is a joint US Navy/DARPA project aiming to develop next-generation anti-ship missiles capable of overcoming sophisticated defenses and travel longer distances to their targets.This latest modification brings the total contract value to just under $306.9 million. The company was also awarded a $31 million contract Tuesday for Aegis Weapons System integration and testing, up to Advanced Capability Build 12.

• Boeing will likely have to transfer some manufacturing to South Korea if the company wants to bag a $1.2 billion tanker contract. South Korea officials are peeved with the quantity of work allocated to Japanese industry as a result of defense and civilian contracts with the US company and are pushing for better offset arrangements in order to develop the country’s growing industry.

• The Pentagon is expected to relaunch a RFP to industry in October in a new $475 million solicitation for cyber capabilities, following the original solicitation being rescinded on 22 May. The USCYBERCOM RFP was originally intended to develop the Cyber National Mission Force, as part of a concerted effort to bring in private expertise to DoD cyber operations.

• Canada is implementing a third party oversight system for defense contracts valued over C$100 million, with an expert panel convening to provide independent evaluation of procurement decisions. The Independent Review Panel for Defence Acquisition will be made up of five experts and will also provide advice to the Minister of National Defence on acquisition decisions.

Europe

• The Taranis UCAV will undergo a third set of tests toward the end of this year. The Taranis was unveiled in 2010 and is part of the Anglo-French FCAS program, alongside the nEUROn UAV.

• The Czech Republic is looking to buy 3D radar systems from Israeli firm Elta Systems, with the government in talks with the company regarding a potential $240 million deal. The new radar systems are scheduled to come online in 2017, with 40 percent of the workload set to go to local industry under a workshare agreement between Elta and local partner Retia. A subsidiary of Israel Aerospace Industries, Elta Systems produces a variety of radar systems, including the 3D AD-STAR system, in both medium and extended-range configurations.

• The UK Ministry of Defence has awarded a $123 million contract for helicopter training. Royal Navy and RAF crews training to fly Chinooks and Merlin helos will now benefit from Synthetic Training Devices and other training services, care of Lockheed Martin and AgustaWestland.

• France has taken delivery of a third Predator B UAV, following a contract for an additional Predator two months ago. This third UAV will join two already in service, with twelve scheduled for delivery by 2019.

Middle East

• The US has delivered an undisclosed number of BGM-71C TOW missiles to Lebanon, following a similar French delivery in April for Milan Anti-Tank Missiles, funded by Saudi Arabia.

Asia

• South Korea is reportedly looking to develop an indigenous air to ground missile to arm its fleet of light helicopters. With a provisional entry date of 2023, the new missiles are intended to replace the US-manufactured TOW missiles currently in service.

• The Royal Malaysian Air Force is planning to upgrade its fleet of MIG-29N fighters, despite having previously opted to purchase the more advanced SU-30MKM in small numbers. The MIG-29N fleet has been in service for 25 years, with local firm Aerospace Technology Systems Corp. recently offering to provide an upgrade program for the sixteen MIGs.

• The PLA Navy is reportedly developing a lithium-ion battery-powered submarine propulsion system, with the PLAN also recently commissioning three new Type-093G nuclear-powered attack subs.

Today’s Video

• The nEUROn UAV flying in formation with a Rafale and Falcon…

LRASM-A Concept
(click to view full)

The US Navy is beginning to acknowledge a growing problem that threatens its freedom of the seas: its strike reach is shrinking and aging, while potential opponents’ attack reach is expanding and modernizing. As new designs replace older planes, US carrier aircraft range is shrinking to 1950s levels. Meanwhile, its anti-ship and land attack missiles are generally older, medium-range subsonic designs like the Harpoon Block I, which are vulnerable to air defenses. In contrast, China is deploying supersonic SS-N-22 “Sunburn” missiles bought from Russia, and working on a DF-21 anti-ship ballistic missile. The Sunburn is just one of Russia’s supersonic anti-ship missile options for sale, and a joint venture with India has added the supersonic PJ-10 BrahMos.

The math is stark: enemies with longer reach, and better weapons, may be able to create large “no go” zones for the Navy in key conflict areas. In response, think-tanks like CSBA are proposing ideas like AirSea Battle, which emphasizes a combination of advance hardening, more stealth and long-range strike options, and a progressive “blinding and grinding” campaign of strikes and interdiction. Success will require some changes to America’s array, beginning with the missiles that arm its ships and aircraft. Hence LRASM: the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile, with a secondary land-strike role.

LRASM: The Program Goals & Technology AGM-158 JASSM
(click to view full)

The joint DARPA/ US Navy LRASM program was initiated in 2009 to deliver a new generation of anti-ship weapons, offering longer ranges and better odds against improving air defense systems. Rob McHenry, a program manager in the Tactical Technology Office at DARPA, explained it this way to Aviation Week:

“We want US Navy cruisers and destroyers to be able to stand off from outside of potential adversaries’ direct counter fire range, and be able to safely engage and destroy high value targets they may be engaging against from extended range, well beyond potential adversary ranges that we may have to face… “Once the missile flies that far, it has a requirement to be able to independently detect and validate the target that it was shot at. Finding that target, the missile will have to be able to penetrate the air defenses and finally, once it gets to that target, it has to have a lethal capability to make a difference once it gets there.”

The US military is also expecting an environment where enemies try to jam or destroy the GPS system and encrypted datalink transmissions, compounding its difficulties in targeting opponents if it can’t get many of its platforms through advanced air defenses. Those considerations underline the importance of autonomous targeting. Beyond their anti-jamming digital GPS, therefore, LRASM will also rely on a 2-way data link, a radar sensor that can detect ships (and might also be usable for navigation), and a day/night camera for positive identification and final targeting.

LRASM began as the rapid development and demonstration of 2 very distinct variants. Although it’s tempting to see them as an air-launched and a ship-launched variant, ultimately, both designs were intended for launch from either ships or aircraft:

LRASM-A. Lockheed Martin is basing this design on their stealthy, subsonic, turbofan-powered AGM-158B JASSM-ER (Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile – Extended Range) cruise missile, which doubles the AGM-158 JASSM’s range to over 500 miles. The JASSM program has had more than its share of performance problems, but tests in 2010 saved the AGM-158 JASSM for continued production.

Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control has overall responsibility for LRASM. Lockheed Martin Mission Systems and Training manufactures the Mk-114 booster hardware, and the MK 41 VLS used aboard ships around the world. Lockheed Martin Information Systems and Global Solutions collaborates with several Navy laboratories to develop and integrate the Tactical Tomahawk Weapons Control System used on designed ships.

JASSM is an air-launched weapon, but LRASM-A’s air or surface-launch options will make it a close counterpart to JASSM’s top rival, MBDA’s Storm Shadow/ Scalp Naval.

PJ-10 BrahMos
(click to view full)

LRASM-B (Deferred). Envisioned as a ramjet-powered supersonic ship-launched missile, similar to earlier conceptions of hypersonic programs like the now-defunct RATTLRS. It’s intended to leverage prior ramjet development activities, and one of its challenges will be a suite of supporting sensors and avionics that can operate effectively at the temperatures created by high-Mach ramjet speeds. The most comparable missile out there is probably the Indo-Russian PJ-10 BrahMos, a Mach 2.8 heavy strike missile that can hit ships or land targets. Like LRASM-B, a Brahmos variant is currently being adapted for air launch as well. Unlike LRASM-B, there are also plans to put BrahMos on submarines.

LRASM-B development was much riskier from a technical point of view, and the harsh nature of high-Mach environments would add extra risk to its manufacturing and test phases, too. Those risks are normally attractive to DARPA, but in this case, they led the agency to step back and focus on the less risky LRASM-A.

Current Focus: LRASM Development LRASM-A from Mk-41
(click to view full)

Phase 1. Preliminary designs of the LRASM-A and the LRASM-B variants were successfully completed by Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control. DARPA determined that it provided sufficient confidence in the 2 designs to support an investment in flight testing.

Phase 2. Awarded in 2010 to continue the development of both missiles, and culminate in flight demonstrations of tactically relevant prototypes of LRASM-A, LRASM-B, and the common sensor system from BAE Systems. A series of tests will cover key subsystems, including propulsion, sensors, and mission execution software. Detailed designs, analytical assessments and developmental test results will culminate in critical design reviews (CDR), ensuring that each design is ready to continue on to flight demonstration.

P2 Testing shift. LRASM-A was programmed now execute 3 air-launched demonstrations in 2013, and 2 surface-launch demonstrations in 2014. The common sensor system was flight tested in July 2012, but by that time, the sub-sonic LRASM-A was the program’s only survivor. In January 2012, as Lockheed Martin puts it:

“DARPA decided to focus more resources on the mature LRASM-A program, and defer further development on LRASM-B.”

LRASM-B had been set to complete the 4 shipboard Vertical Launch System (VLS) demonstrations, so Lockheed Martin began investing company funds in an LRASM-A variant that could be launched from its Mk.41 VLS. That was followed by a 2013 DARPA contract which added surface-launch development funds, and scheduled 2 initial VLS test firings.

The Future: Service Handoffs and OASuW LRASM
click for video

LRASM’s problem is that a US Navy filled with very high cost ship designs, and a looming fighter shortage on its carriers, may well decide to give missiles short shrift – even if they’re badly needed. Rick Edwards, VP of Tactical Missiles and Combat Maneuver Systems at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, hopes that isn’t the case:

“Both of our LRASM solutions will deliver extraordinary range, willful penetration of ship self defense systems and precise lethality in denied combat environments… The maturity of these weapons and technologies allows near term transition to Navy magazines at an affordable price. These are low risk, practical options…”

His firm needs to prove that, because a big opportunity is waiting in the wings. The US Navy has budgeted about $1.13 billion from FY 2013-2018 for its “Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW) Weapon Dev program” to replace the xGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missile. OASuW’s priority and budgets jumped sharply in the FY 2014 submission, even as the US Navy discarded the concept of an interim weapon based on the xGM-109 Tomahawk long-range cruise missile.

OASuW Increment 1 authorized a limited buy of air-launched LRASMs on Feb 3/14. Production missile purchases will begin in FY 2017, after LRASM has been integrated with Navy F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighters and USAF B-1 bombers.

OASuW Increment 2 will address ship-launched requirements. Harpoon anti-ship missiles were removed from all American frigates many years ago, and haven’t been installed in DDG 51 destroyers since Flight IIA began with DDG 79. The lack of anti-ship missiles on American surface combatants is becoming a problem, and likely cuts will make it a bigger problem as the USN looks to cut operating costs by cutting expensive ships like cruisers. A vertically-launched anti-ship and land strike missile that removed the need for dedicated launchers topside would solve this problem.

The Competition Tomahawk MIC promo

LRASM won’t be alone in competing for the OASuW Increment 2 opportunity.

Kongsberg’s new NSM/JSM is a stealthy cruise missile whose variants can launch from ships, or internally from the F-35 stealth fighter. They tried to compete for OASuW Increment 1 in 2014, and were an obvious candidate for an American OASuW partnership. Next time, they’ll bid with Raytheon as their Increment 1 (air-launched) partner. There’s still a partnership slot open for Increment 2, or Kongberg could use its own resources to develop a variant that works with shipboard Mk.41 vertical launch systems.

Raytheon has already tried to compete their JSOW-ER for OASuW’s air-launched Increment 1, but next time, they’ll be teamed with Kongsberg to offer the Joint Strike Missile. They remain committed to their xGM-109 xGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missile for OASuW Increment 2, for ships that carry strike-length Mk.41 VLS cells. Recent Tomahawk upgrades have added an ESM seeker that locks onto radar or other signal emissions. That would give the long-range missile some moving target capability on land, and some anti-ship capability at sea. Wider upgrades under discussion could add a radar seeker for full “maritime interdiction capability,” as an upgrade to existing stocks of over 2,000 missiles. Upgrades offer a low-cost option, but Tomahawk’s drawback is its lack of stealth, which affects its expected ability to penetrate ship defenses.

MBDA has their air-launched Storm Shadow stealthy cruise missile, which has already been used in combat. Their Scalp Naval/ MdCN is a related missile for use from ships and submarines.

Boeing holds the current Harpoon contract, and has created a stealthier Harpoon alternative in the AGM-84K SLAM-ER. Indeed, the US Navy launched production of Boeing’s SLAM-ER following its pullout from the original JASSM program, and JASSM serves as LRASM-A’s design base. Boeing could unveil further improvements, develop something new, or find a foreign partner.

ATK’s propulsion and missile expertise could also make them a factor, especially if they find a foreign partner with a cutting-edge missile.

Contracts & Key Events

DARPA picked 3 vendors for this program. BAE Systems Information and Electronic Systems Integration in Nashua, NH would design the onboard sensor systems. Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control Strike Weapons in Orlando, FL would demonstrate the LRASM-A subsonic prototype. Lockheed Martin Missile and Fire Control Tactical Missiles in Grand Prairie, TX was to demonstrate the LRASM-B supersonic prototype, but that part of the program was “deferred.”

FY 2015

Chokepoints
(click to view full)

Oct 11/14: American A2/AD. Rep. Randy Forces [R-VA-4] sends a letter to Army Chief of Staff Gen. Odierno on the eve of the AUSA conference, pushing for the Army to set up a modern version of its Coastal Artillery: long-range, land-based anti-ship missiles that would be forward-based in friendly countries to endanger Chinese vessels and shipping. Missiles like LRASM and the longer-ranged but less stealthy AGM-109 Tomahawk are obvious candidates for this sort of thing, significantly outranging competitors like Kongsberg’s Naval Strike Missile or Boeing’s SLAM-ER. The RAND study that Forbes refers to actually posited using shorter-range missiles like NSM, but its maps also showed the number of deployment sites required for effective coverage.

The idea would be a nice turnabout on China’s Anti-Access, Area Denial (A2/AD) strategy, and a Philippine deployment would produce a very tangible benefit all by itself, at low cost. On the other hand, Rep. Forbes probably underestimates the difficulty of getting many countries beyond the Philippines to accept an inherently provocative deployment whose use is technically beyond their control. Recent American waffling around the world suggests an even less palatable conclusion: the penalty for saying yes would be immediate, without any assurance that the weapons would actually be used to help the accepting country if push came to shove.

Contrast with the Russian approach. They just sell SS-N-26 shore batteries to interested countries, helping customers to create the same barrier under their own control, without the offsetting political challenges. India’s derivative PJ-10 BrahMos missile may also wind up being used this way, if India can get its act together on the export front. Sources: RAND, “Employing Land-Based Anti-Ship Missiles in the Western Pacific” | Breaking Defense, “Army Should Build Ship-Killer Missiles: Rep. Randy Forbes”.

FY 2013 – 2014

Contracts begin for air-launched LRASM; Surface-launched LRASM-A gets the green light; Industrial expansion suggests optimism. LRASM-A Concept
(click to view full)

July 2/14: Lockheed Martin in Orlando, FL receives a maximum $200 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for the LRASM Accelerated Acquisition program. $33 million in FY 2014 RDT&E funds are committed immediately. This effort will prepare LRASM missiles for use from Navy F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighters, and USAF B-1B bombers, in time to coincide with initial LRASM buys that begin in FY 2017.

Work will be performed in Orlando & Melbourne, FL; Troy, AL; Nashua, NH; Boulder, CO; and Cincinnati, OH, with an expected completion date of July 6/16. The USA’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in Arlington, VA manages this contract (HR0011-14-C-0079).

OASuW-1 integration

March 26/14: Yes competition. Just not immediately. Navy acquisition chief Sean Stackley says that the initial buy of 90 LRASM missiles from FY 2017 – 2019 is a special justification and authorization buy following DARPA development, in order to deploy the air-launched version on USAF B-1 bombers (which will already have JASSM integrated) and USN F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighters. US budgets actually show 110 missiles from FY 2017 – 2019 (q.v. March 4/14).

That sole-source buy has sparked a GAO protest from Raytheon re: its JSOW-ER, which it argues offer comparable capability at lower cost. The cost assertion is correct, but the capability assertion is not, given that LRASM’s offers almost twice the range at twice the speed. The real question for the Navy is how much capability it really needs, something that’s beyond the GAO’s purview.

However that shakes out, Stackley says that the US military plans to compete OASuW Increment 2 after that. The most important aspect of that program involves launch from ships’ Vertical Launch Cells, in order to correct a tactical Navy deficit that is becoming strategic. Raytheon will have to either offer an upgraded Tomahawk, which it should be on track to do by FY19, or substantially improve JSOW-ER’s capabilities. Kongsberg’s Naval Strike Missile may also have new capabilities by that time. Sources: Reuters, “U.S. Navy plans competition for next-generation missile” | USNI, “Navy to Hold Contest for New Anti-Surface Missile”.

March 20/14: No competition. Inside Defense reports that the Pentagon has rejected bids from Kongsberg (NSM/JSM) and Raytheon (presumably improved Tomahawk), and has approved Lockheed Martin’s LRASM for a major follow-on development contract to prepare it for production in FY17 as OASuW. Sources: Inside Defense, “DOD Expands LRASM Development, Rebuffs Alternate Bids From Raytheon, Kongsberg”.

March 4/14: FY15 Budget. The USN unveils their preliminary budget request briefings. They aren’t precise, but they do offer planned purchase numbers for key programs between FY 2014 – 2019. The briefing pegs FY 2017 as the beginning of low-rate LRASM production: 30 in FY17, 40 in FY18, and 40 in FY19. Source: USN, PB15 Press Briefing [PDF].

Feb 27/14: Industrial. Lockheed Martin breaks ground on a 62,000 square foot annex to its Pike County Operations’ Long Range Strike Systems cruise missile production facility in Troy, AL. When it’s complete, the facility will have expanded its existing space by 67%. The annex is supposed to be done by Q1 2015.

The Pike County facility builds AGM-158 JASSM/ JASSM-ER missiles, and also produces test missiles for the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) development program. While there is foreign interest in JASSM, an expansion of this magnitude suggests that the firm expects LRASM/OASuW to become a program in its own right. Sources: Lockheed Martin, “Lockheed Martin Breaks Ground on New Cruise Missile Annex at Award Winning Facility in Alabama”.

Jan 15/14: Testing. Lockheed Martin announces that a company-funded no-launch test “demonstrated and validated” that LRASM can be launched from any strike-length MK 41 Vertical Launch System, using the existing Tactical Tomahawk Weapons Control System (TTWCS) and a Mk-114 booster with modified software.

The firm says that they’ve invested $30 million of their own funds to accelerate LRASM Initial Operational Capability on the USN’s Arleigh Burke Class Aegis destroyers. Which is just a number. What’s really important is the claim that they can upload some software, and sell the USN a missile and booster that lets them mount LRASM in any of their destroyers without waiting for a major maintenance interval, or spending money beyond the missiles themselves. That kind of proposition ensures that rivals like Raytheon’s non-stealthy BGM-109 Tomahawk Block IV, or Boeing’s xGM-84 non-VLS Harpoon missile family, have no opening to make minor changes and tout themselves as a “good enough” naval alternative. Sources: Lockheed Martin, “Lockheed Martin Successfully Tests LRASM MK 41 Vertical Launch System Interface”.

Nov 14/13: Testing – Air Launch. The 2nd air test goes well, as a LRASM is dropped by a B-1B bomber, navigates through all planned waypoints with in-flight targeting updates from the Weapon Data Link, then identifies and hits a moving naval target while under autonomous guidance. Sources: Lockheed Martin, Nov 14/13 release.

Sept 17/13: Testing – Ship Launch. Lockheed Martin announces that the 1st LRASM vertical launch has been successful. In a privately-funded test aimed at the OASuW opportunity, the Boosted Test Vehicle (LRASM BTV) used a Mk-114 rocket motor from the firm’s VL-ASROC anti-submarine rocket to blast the missile out of a MK-41 Vertical Launch System canister at White Sands Missile Range, NM. The test vehicle then performed a normal guided flight profile, and subsequent examination showed no exit damage to the missile or its coatings.

The US Navy hasn’t had a vertically-launched anti-ship missile, and the absence of anti-ship missile launchers on new destroyers and on the Navy’s frigates/Littoral Combat Ships is a growing problem. In many ways, this private test was more important than the official air launch.

Sept 9/13: Testing – Air Launch. Lockheed Martin announces a successful LRASM test against a floating target at Point Mugu, CA, from B-1 launch, through autonomous navigation, to low level descent and impact. It’s an encouraging result, and further tests will presumably add to the complexity by using moving targets, etc. Source: Lockheed Martin, Sept 9/13 release.

JSOW-ER test
click for video

June 20/13: OASuW. Raytheon VP Harry Schulte discusses OASuW at the 50th Paris Air Show. The firm contends that JSOW-ER will offer a 300 nm air-launch strike weapon at a 67-75% cost savings over LRASM, and touts an anti-ship variant of their GM-109 Tomahawk cruise missile.

In terms of ship-launched weapons, the GM-109’s survival depends on its flight profile rather than its stealth. The Navy’s decision not to pursue an Interim OASuW based on the RGM-109 Tomahawk (q.v. April 10/13) suggests that it’s seen as inadequate against future defenses. On the other hand, there’s an legitimate argument to be had over air-launched weapons. The JSOW-ER’s 200 nautical mile range penalty and slower flight speed are operationally significant, but the US Navy has just begun to see budget cuts. In difficult budgetary times, adopting a much more expensive weapon in the name of “commonality” is a poor decision for the US Navy, unless the difference in air-launched performance justifies the decision. That may be so here, but it’s a case the US Navy should need to argue. Flight Global.

June 3/13: Testing. Lockheed Martin is touting successful vertical launch tests for LRASM-A, but that’s an overstatement. They ran 4 tests proving that the missile can push through the VLS cover without damaging itself, ran a missile-to-canister fit check, and conducted an integrated test of the weapon control system and VLS. All useful steps, but baby steps. Lockheed Martin.

May 13/13: Testing. Lockheed Martin announces that JASSM-ER has successfully completed USAF Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E), scoring 20/ 21 successful flights covering all operational flight modes, at the full range of release conditions from the B-1B. Its success has clear implications that extend to the LRASM-A, which is based on the JASSM-ER. Lockheed Martin.

April 10/13: FY 2014 Budget. The President releases a proposed budget at last, the latest in modern memory. The Senate and House were already working on budgets in his absence, but the Pentagon’s submission is actually important to proceedings going forward. See ongoing DID coverage.

The OASuW Harpoon replacement program gets a sharp boost in this budget. Not only does planned FY 2014 spending jump from $44.3 million to $136 million, but overall budgets from 2014 – 2017 jump by a total of $300 million, as full ramp-up moves forward to 2014 instead of 2017. This increase holds true even though the program is canceling plans for an interim solution based on Raytheon’s xGM-109 Tomahawk long-range cruise missile.

Current plans involve Technology Demonstration (TD) contracts for the full solution in FY 2013, with follow-on competitive prototyping if required in FY 2015. If it isn’t necessary, OSAuW would jump right to a FY 2015 Engineering & Manufacturing Development phase, with a Critical Design Review in fall 2016, and a run-time to the end of FY 2017. Operational Testing would then begin in FY 2018.

March 21/13: LRASM-A. The Pentagon announces the 2nd contract component of Lockheed Martin’s March 5/13 announcement. Lockheed Martin in Orlando, FL receives a $54.4 million cost plus fixed fee contract modification for additional risk reduction efforts, before 2 planned LRASM-A launches from a MK.41 VLS. $16.6 + $54.4 = $71 million.

Work will be performed in Orlando, FL (84.13%), Baltimore, MD (14.24%), and Walled Lake, MI (1.63%) until Dec 31/14. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency manages the contract (HR0011-09-C-0096).

March 5/13: LRASM-A. Lockheed Martin announces $71 million in DARPA contracts related to LRASM-A. Discussions with Lockheed clarify that this announcement includes the $16.6 million contract announced on Oct 1/12, plus an additional $55 million that covers ongoing development work and 2 new requirements.

The ongoing work involves risk reduction efforts like electromagnetic compatibility testing, and follow-on captive carry tests of the sensor suite.

One new requirement is a 3rd air-launched flight test from a B-1B “Bone” bomber, in addition to the 2 scheduled flight tests under the original contract. Those flight tests are expected to take place in 2013. The second new requirement involves further development of LRASM-A’s surface launch configuration, en route to 2 surface-launched LRASM-A flight tests scheduled for 2014.

Development of that surface-launched version is actually underway already, thanks to Lockheed Martin’s investment of its own money. DARPA’s LRASM-A Phase 2 contracts to date amount to about $131 million.

Oct 1/12: LRASM-A. Lockheed Martin in Orlando, FL receives a $16.6 million cost plus fixed fee contract modification under the joint DARPA/ONR Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) demonstration program. It pays for additional risk reduction efforts before the initial flight test of the AGM-158 JASSM derived LRASM-A, and apparently includes a 3rd air-launch test from a B-1B bomber.

Work will be performed in Orlando, FL (97.97%); Crestview, FL (1.40%); Santa Clarita, CA (0.63%); and Bothell, WA (0.003%), and will run until Sept 13/13 (HR0011-09-C-0096).

FY 2009 – 2012

Initial Phase 1 and Phase 2 contracts awarded; Testing begins; LRASM-B canceled. LRASM-B Concept
(click to view full)

Sept 3/12: Not to B. Aviation Week reports that DARPA and the Navy have quietly cancelled the supersonic LRASM-B, as of January 2012. It adds that:

“Full-up tests of an air-launched Lrasm test vehicle are planned for early 2013, followed by tests of a vertically launched variant in late 2014. In the long term, the Jassm-based system could compete against a Tomahawk derivative for a future multipurpose missile.”

LRASM-B canceled

July 16/12: Testing. Lockheed Martin announces that the common LRASM sensor suite has successfully completed its 1st captive-carry flight off the coast of northwest Florida, detecting, classifying and recognizing targets from various altitudes and speeds. The sensors were mounted on a modified Sabreliner business jet, and target data processing algorithms ran real-time in the missile electronics. Ownership of the Sabreliner wasn’t specified, but LRASM sensor suite designer BAE Systems does own a T-39A flight test aircraft.

Testing and validation of subsystems is on schedule, and is expected to lead to All-Up-Round LRASM-A flight tests in early 2013. Lockheed Martin.

Dec 16/10: LRASM-A. Lockheed Martin Corp. in Orlando, FL receives a $60.4 million cost plus fixed-fee contract modification to execute the sub-sonic LRASM-A’s Phase 2, which will end with 2 LRASM-A air-launched demonstrations.

Work will be performed in Orlando, FL (89.47%), Melbourne, FL (8.94%) and Buffalo, NY (1.59%), and is expected to be complete in February 2013. The US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency manages the contract (HR0011-09-C-0096). See also Jan 20/11 Lockheed Martin release for both Nov/Dec contracts.

LRASM-A Phase 2

Nov 30/10: DARPA formally announces [PDF] that it has sufficient confidence in the 2 missile designs to support further investment for flight testing, and the program will move on to Phase 2.

Phase 2 OK for both

Nov 10/10: Lockheed Martin Corp. receives a $157.7 million cost plus fixed-fee contract modification for the supersonic LRASM-B’s Phase 2, culminating in 4 demonstration launches from Mk.41 Vertical Launch Systems (VLS).

Work will be performed in Grand Praire, TX (71.32%); West Palm Beach, FL (12.53%); Broomfield, CO (5.85%); Litchfield Park, AZ (2.87%); Baltimore, MD (2.05%); East Aurora, NY (2.01%); Elkton, MD (1.24%); Portland, OR (1.23%); and Melbourne, FL (0.92%); and is expected to be completed by April 2013. The US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency manages the contract (HR0011-09-C-0097).

LRASM-B Phase 2

July 20/09: Lockheed Martin Corp. in Grand Prairie, TX receives a $10 million cost plus fixed fee contract for Phase 1 of the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile demonstration program.

Work will be performed in Grand Prairie, TX (69%); West Palm Beach, FL (12%); King of Prussia, PA (8%); Plymouth, MN (8%); Baltimore, MD (1%); and Skokie, IL (2%), and is expected to be complete in April 2010. DARPA issued a solicitation in Federal Business Opportunities on June 6/08, and DARPA received 9 proposals, which reportedly included bids from key rivals ATK, Boeing, and Raytheon. (HR0011-09-C-0097). See also Defense Update.

LRASM Phase 1

Additional Readings

Thanks to Lockheed Martin for current images of its LRASM concepts.

Background: LRASM

• DARPA TTO – LRASM. 2011 snapshot.

• Lockheed Martin – LRASM.

• Defense Update – Next Generation Missiles – LRASM.

Background: Emerging Doctrine & Related Tech

• CSBA – AirSea Battle: A point of departure operational concept. Note that CBSA Fellow Bob Work is currently Undersecretary of the US Navy. See also Defense Tech for key excerpts from this 2010 document.

• CSBA – Why AirSea Battle?.

• BAE Systems – Navigation via Signals of Opportunity (NAVSOP). Tries to exploit existing transmissions such as Wi-Fi, TV, radio and mobile phone signals, to calculate the user’s location to within a few yards. One of a number of attempts underway by a variety of firms, aiming to solve this problem.

Competitors

• DID – USA Issues JSOW Block III Production Contracts. Raytheon’s less-expensive JSOW glide bomb has a solid international customer base, and a new JSOW-ER variant turns it into a powered missile with a 150 mile range.

• DID – Kongsberg’s New NSM/JSM Anti-Ship & Strike Missile. May develop a surface-launched version as well.

• MBDA – MdCN. Surface/ submarine fired SCALP variant.

• MBDA – Storm Shadow/ SCALP.

• Missile Threat – SCALP EG/Storm Shadow/Black Shaheen. MBDA’s air-launched stealthy cruise missile.

• DID – Tomahawk’s Chops: xGM-109 Block IV Cruise Missiles. While FY 2014 saw the Tomahawk removed from OASuW as an interim weapon, changes to the missile’s capabilities will create some overlap with OASuW, and influence its future.

News & Views

• USNI (March 13/14) – Navy to Hold Contest for New Anti-Surface Missile. OASuW Increment 2 will be a contest.

• Breaking Defense (July 12/13) – Stick With The Tomahawk, Forget LRASM. The comments section responds with a respectful beat-down, starting with the fact that LRASM is meant to replace the anti-ship Harpoon missile, not the Tomahawk.

• Aviation Week (Sept 3/12) – Net-Enabled Weapons Drive Sea Warfare Change [dead link].

• Aviation Week (Feb 24/11) – Details Emerge On Darpa Anti-Ship Missile [dead link].

• Flight International (June 4/10) – USAF sets 2013 entry for extended-range JASSM.

• Lockheed Martin (Feb 1/10) – Successful Test of Lockheed Martin’s Joint Air-To-Surface Standoff Missile Validates Missile Upgrades.

• DID (May 21/09) – 2009: AGM-158 JASSM Faces Cancellation, Again. Also offers links outlining the ongoing saga.

• Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest (Vol.18, #2: 1997) – History of Ramjet and Scramjet Propulsion Development for U.S. Navy Missiles.

FALCON HTVs
(click to view full)

The path toward a hypersonic space plane has been a slow one, filled with twists and turns one would expect given the technological leap involved. Speeds of Mach 8+ place tremendous heat and resistance stresses on a craft. Building a vehicle that is both light enough to achieve the speeds desired at reasonable cost, and robust enough to survive those speeds, is no easy task.

Despite the considerable engineering challenges ahead, the potential of a truly hypersonic aircraft for reconnaissance, global strike/ transport, and low-cost access to near-space and space is a compelling goal on both engineering and military grounds. The question, as always, will be balancing the need for funding to prove out new designs and concepts, with risk management that ensures limited exposure if it becomes clear that the challenge is still too great. In October 2008, the US Congress decided that FALCON/Blackswift had reached those limits. That decision led to the program’s cancellation, though some activities will continue.

The FALCON Hypersonic Vehicle: Technical Challenges SR-72/ HTV-3X tech
(click to view full)

The famous SR-71 Blackbird, which cruised at “only” Mach 3, made heavy use of titanium and had to use slip fits instead of rivets in many places, so that the plane wouldn’t tear itself apart when 800-900 degree surface temperatures made it expand. On the ground, and when being refueled shortly after takeoff, the plane would reportedly leak like a sieve until speed and heat had given the airframe its requisite fit.

While the state of the art has advanced since then, so have the desired speeds – and the accompanying challenges.

Making more advanced powered hypersonic aircraft work was always going to take some fancy technologies – and ongoing American interest in military initiatives like “Prompt Global Strike” may yet lead to renewed funding. Engines that can boost a plane to hypersonic speeds are very different, however, as metals tend to melt at the temperatures created by air friction at Mach 9. On Oct 8/06, journalist David Axe offered some insights, back when HTV-3 was still a live goal:

Vulcan tech
(click to view full)

Engineers are improving on this so-called “combined cycle” to propel the Falcon, using a more powerful “scramjet” in place of the ramjet. “We need propulsion that transitions seamlessly from Mach 0 to Mach 9 or 10,” says Lockheed Martin’s Bob Baumgartner.

“For low speed, we’re looking at turbine engines that can perform at speeds from Mach 0 to Mach 4, then a scramjet … that takes over anywhere between Mach 2 and Mach 4 and goes up to higher Mach numbers — depending on the fuel, up to Mach 10,” says Steven Walker, a Darpa researcher. “For sure, we know how turbines work, but we don’t have turbines that work at Mach 4.”

“The scramjets are still at a low-technology readiness level,” he adds. “Combining both flow-paths and looking at how you transition from one to the other and the transition back … that’s all new, break-through technology.”

“Thermal protection … is the next major enabling technology,” Baumgartner says, referring to ways of coping with the high temperatures that Mach-10 flight generates. “We’re looking at durable metallic thermal protection panels to withstand heat and keep it away from structure. We’re also looking at ceramic panels.”

These technologies have uses in a variety of systems, including hypersonic missiles. That’s why research in these areas hasn’t stopped, even if HTV-3 is no longer on the planing board. “DARPA’s Hypersonic Vulcan Engine Meld” covers a program aimed at researching those kinds of advanced combined engine technologies.

The FALCON Hypersonic Vehicle: Industrial Teams HTV, top view

Lockheed Martin has reportedly completed conceptual design of an HTV-3X demonstrator. The are also performing subscale tests of the combined-cycle propulsion system, and have ground-tested inlets and nozzles that are shared by the high-mach turbine and the ramjet.

At this point, Lockheed Martin appears to have secured a team for the main bid that also includes Boeing and ATK.

Rolls-Royce and Williams International are developing candidates for the 13-inch diameter high-Mach jet turbine.

A round-combustor dual-mode ramjet under development by Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne will be used as the ramjet, once the turbine has accelerated the vehicle to a high enough speed.

The FALCON Hypersonic Vehicle: Program History & Changes Falcon HTV Concept
(click to view full)

The HTV (Hypersonic Technology Vehicle) became a joint program involving DARPA and the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory. It is just one part of the broader DARPA/USAF FALCON program for lower-cost access to space. HTV-1 is part of DARPA’s larger FALCON (Force Application and Launch from Continental US) program that includes the HTV and military spaceplane efforts, and also the Small Launch Vehicle (SLV) program for cheap, responsive rocket launches. AirLaunch LLC’s innovative QuickReach C-17 based launch technology is part of the SLV program, as is SpaceX’s Falcon rockets, which have gone on to more success.

In their Jan 27/06 article “High-speed air vehicles designed for rapid global reach,” the USAF promised that:

“…in September 2007, the Falcon HTV-1 is set to complete its inaugural voyage over the Pacific Ocean. Attaining Mach 19, the vehicle will briefly exit the Earth’s atmosphere and re-enter flying between 19 and 28 miles above the planet’s surface. Demonstrating hypersonic glide technology and setting the stage for HTV-2 represent the primary focus of the lower risk, lower performance initial flight.

…For the second demonstration, scheduled for 2008 or 2009, the Falcon HTV-2 will feature a different structural design, enhanced controllability and higher risk performance factors during its high-speed journey. Like its predecessor, the system will reach Mach 22 and then finish its one-hour plus mission over the Pacific Ocean… As of January 2006, HTV-1 is beginning construction.”

According to a May 30/06 Flight International report, however, technical difficulties forced a change in schedule. DARPA and prime contractor Lockheed Martin decided not to build and fly the two planned HTV-1 craft, after subcontractor C-CAT experienced delamination problems with the curved leading edges of the carbon-based aeroshell. Instead, they have shifted efforts to a different HTV-2 design whose multi-piece aeroshell has thinner leading edges, and will be easier to build because it’s less of a technical stretch. Meanwhile, thermal protection research will continue.

As the Flight International article notes, these developments had effects on the program’s schedule:

“The change will delay a first flight from 2007 for the HTV-1, to late 2008 for the first of two ground-launched, expendable HTV-2s. These will be followed by a reusable HTV-3 closer in design to the objective hypersonic cruise vehicle (HCV). The Mach 10 HTV-3 will be unpowered, but Walker says DARPA has received funding to develop and ground test a propulsion system for the HCV.

Walker says Lockheed has selected a high-Mach turbine engine and supersonic-combustion ramjet (scramjet) for a combined-cycle powerplant enabling the HCV to take off from a runway and accelerate to a hypersonic cruise. Tests of the “inward-turning” inlet and scramjet are planned for later this year [2006].”

HTV-3, at least, seemed to retain a great deal in common with the January 2006 USAF article’s description of a reusable Falcon vehicle:

“On the other hand, the third and final Falcon HTV, slated for 2009, will be a departure from the previous demonstrations. The reusable hypersonic glider will lift off from NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility at Wallops Island, Va., and then more than an hour later, be recovered in the Atlantic Ocean.

In addition, the HTV-3, flying at Mach 10, will be designed to achieve high aerodynamic efficiency and to validate external heat barrier panels that will be reusable.”

That proved a bridge too far, for now. In the end, HTV-3 was canceled, and FALCON flights were restricted to rocket-carried, unpowered test vehicles. There were to be 2 HTV-2 launches, in 2010 and 2011, costing about $308 million. Following the failure of the 1st such test in April 2010, the fate of the 2nd test was uncertain, but DARPA appears ready to go ahead.

FALCON Hypersonic Vehicle: Contracts & Key Events

Unless otherwise specified, all of these contracts are issued by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. in Palmdale, CA.

June 3/15: The Air Force is reportedly working on a new hypersonic test vehicle, with the aim of developing the new vehicle by 2023. The Air Force and DARPA are hoping to build on a previous 2013 test, with the X-51A WaveRider intended to be used as a proof of concept.

Nov 16/10: What happened to HTV-2? An independent Engineering Review Board (ERB) says the problem was more yaw than expected, which turned into a roll that was too fast for the autonomous flight control system to handle. The programmed response to that was “flight termination” via a forced roll and pitchover directly into the ocean, which is what happened 9 minutes into the 30 minute flight.

That’s the bad news. The good news is that DARPA got data from the flight covering aerothermal, aerodynamic, thermal protection, navigation, guidance and control; and now knows that the flight termination system works. DARPA TTO Director David Neyland thinks HTV needs tweaks rather than a full redesign, and wants to repeat the test in late 2011, after adjusting the vehicle’s center of gravity, decreasing its angle of attack (nose-up angle), and augmenting the flaps with the onboard reaction control system. Defense Update | Washington Times.

April 26/10: “Team Vandenberg launched the first Minotaur IV Lite launch vehicle at 4 p.m. April 22 from Space Launch Complex-8 here. The rocket launched the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s Falcon Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2. The 30th Space Wing commander, Col. David Buck, was the launch decision authority.”

Unfortunately, a DARPA statement said that:

“The launch vehicle executed first-of-its-kind energy management maneuvers, clamshell payload fairing release and HTV-2 deployment… Approximately 9 minutes into the mission, telemetry assets experienced a loss of signal from the HTV-2. An engineering team is reviewing available data to understand this event.”

Aviation Week adds that:

“Based on a mission timeline released by DARPA in December, the HTV-2 was between beginning reentry and starting its hypersonic glide when telemetry signals were lost.”

See: USAF | Aviation Week | News Ltd., Australia | US NPR | Santa Maria Times | Space News | WIRED Danger Room.

Feb 18/10: US FedBizOpps, opportunity #N00033-10-R-2008:

“This requirement is for the charter of one (1) US flag vessel. The period of performance, if all option periods are exercised, is estimated to be approximately 29 days. The firm period will commence on 03 April 2010, lasting for 21 days. In addition, there will be three (3) 3-day options periods. Vessel is required to provide a variety of terminal impact area support functions to an experimental Hypersonic Technology Vehicle (HTV-2) flight test that is part of the DARPA-USAF Falcon Program. The HTV-2 will be launched on a booster from Vandenberg AFB, CA to an impact near the Reagan Test Site (RTS), Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands. A launch date is planned to occur within an 8-day window lasting from April 20 through April 27, 2010. The vessel will be required to operate in close proximity to the RTS. The primary activities supported in the impact area will be (1) to transport, deploy and retrieve a set of nine impact scoring rafts, along with two Telemetry Buoys and (2) to obtain telemetry from the HTV-2 in its final seconds of flight all the way to impact from a vessel standoff distance of approximately 10 nm.”

This upcoming test is supposed to demonstrate HTV-2’s ability to withstand hypersonic heat buildup, and remain controllable. The launch rocket is expected to be a Minotaur IV Lite. FBO solicitation | WIRED Danger Room.

Oct 13/08: DARPA cancels the Blackswift reusable hypersonic testbed, after a skeptical Congress slashed the program’s FY 2009 budget from $120 – 10 million, cutting DARPA funding from $70 – 10 million and eliminating the Air Force’s requested $50 million entirely.

DARPA says it will continue with the Falcon program by flying unpowered hypersonic test vehicles in 2009, launched by Orbital Sciences Minotaur boosters in order to demonstrate their aerodynamic and structural technologies.

DARPA had hoped to award a contract for the demonstrator later in 2008, and was believed to be negotiating with a Lockheed Martin Skunk Works-led team that included Boeing. The Blackswift was expected to fly in 2012. Defense Technology International | Flight International.

July 25/08: Aviation Week’s Aerospace Daily & Defense Report reports that ATK and Boeing have joined Lockheed Martin’s “Blackswift” team for the FALCON HTV project, adding that Northrop Grumman has declined to bid.

If the reports are true, this would make it very difficult to field a credible competing team from American industry.

March 13/08: DARPA Director Dr. Tony Tether discusses FALCON during congressional testimony before the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities [PDF]:

“When the U.S. Decides to act, we envision using new hypersonic vehicles to quickly reach any point on earth without the need to organize an air refueling tanker fleet to support a long-range mission. With this vision in mind, DARPA’s Falcon program has been working to vastly improve the U.S capability to promptly reach other points on the globe. A major goal of the program is to flight test key hypersonic cruise vehicle technologies in a realistic flight environment. Recently we conducted both low- and high-speed wind tunnel tests that validate the stability and control of the hypersonic technology vehicle across the flight regime. The program is also developing a vehicle test bed called Blackswift. By the end of 2012, our goal is for Blackswift to take off under its own turbojet power from a runway, accelerate to Mach 6 under combined turbojet/scramjet propulsion, and land on a runway.”

Dec 14/07: A $6 million increment of a $40.8 million modification to a previously awarded “other transaction for prototypes agreement,” as part of the Falcon HTV program’s Phase 3.

Phase 3 will include fabrication and assembly of 2 hypersonic technology vehicles to be flight-tested during 2009. Work will be performed in Palmdale, CA (9%), King of Prussia, PA (79%), and Fort Worth, TX (12%), and is expected to be completed in December 2009. Funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This is a sole source award (HR0011-04-9-0010/P00032).

April 10/07: A $10.2 million modification to a previously awarded other transaction for prototypes agreement to exercise an option for the Falcon Combined Cycle Engine Technology portion of the Falcon Hypersonic Technology Vehicle effort.

Work will be performed in Palmdale, CA (20%); Philadelphia, PA (73%); and Fort Worth, TX (7%), and is expected to be complete in September 2008 (HR0011-04-9-0010, P00027).

Oct 25/06: A $33.2 million modification to a previously awarded other transaction for prototypes agreement, to continue development and demonstration of the Hypersonic Technology Vehicle portion of the Falcon program. Work will be performed in Palmdale (20%), Philadelphia, PA (73%), and Fort Worth, TX (7%), and is expected to be completed in September 2008. This agreement is incrementally funded, and this is a sole source award (HR0011-04-9-0010/P00022).

Aug 22/06: A $14.6 million modification exercises options for prototypes, as part of an agreement to continue development and demonstration of the hypersonic technology vehicle portion of the FALCON program. Work will be complete in September 2008. This Agreement is incrementally funded; no funds are being obligated at this time (HR0011-04-9-0010/P00021).

March 3/06: The University of Dayton Research Institute in Dayton, OH received a $9.9 million cost plus fixed fee contract to research heat protection for hypersonic vehicles. Solicitations began in December 2005, and negotiations were complete in February 2006. The Headquarters Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, issued the contract (FA8650-06-C-7615). As the DefenseLINK release notes:

“The Air Vehicles directorate has for several years conducted focused research on high temperature thermal protection systems that support high-speed air vehicles. The primary application of this technology is to un-powered hypersonic technology vehicles such as those being developed in the DARPA/AFSPC Falcon Program. However, this technology has many other applications to high-speed air, re-entry and space access vehicles. Ongoing research into these thermal protection systems is approximately half complete; this effort will carry the research through to completion over the next five years.”

June 27/05: An $8.9 million increment of a $19.9 million modification to a previously awarded other transaction for prototypes agreement. It exercises two options to continue development and demonstration of the hypersonic technology vehicle portion of the Falcon program. Work will be performed in Palmdale, CA and will be complete in September 2008. $2 million will expire at the end of FY 2005 (HR0011-04-9-0010).

March 16/05: A $10.6 million increment toward the DARPA/USAF FALCON program. The increment is part of a $55.2 million modification that exercises the option for Phase IIb of Task 2 (Hypersonic Technology Vehicle). Work will be performed in Palmdale, CA (41.5%) and King of Prussia, PA (58.5%) and will be completed in December 2005. $3 million of these funds will expire at the end of FY 2005 (HR0011-04-9-0010, P00006).

Aug 6/04: A $7.6 million increment of an $8.4 million other transaction for prototypes agreement. It covers Phase IIa of Task 2 (hypersonic technology vehicle) of the DARPA/Air Force Falcon program. Work will be performed in Palmdale, CA (41.5%) and King of Prussia, PA (58.5%) and will be complete in February 2005. $4.6 million of the funds will expire at the end of FY 2004. This was a limited competition among the 4 participants in Phase I of the Falcon HTV program (HR0011-04-9-0010).

Additional Readings & Sources

• DARPA – FALCON Program

• Globalsecurity.org – Military Spaceplane. See also the subsidiary page Hypersonic Technology Vehicle (HTV)

• Globalsecurity.org – X-51 Scramjet Engine Demonstrator – WaveRider (SED-WR)

• ONERA – Ramjet, Scramjet & PDE: An Introduction

• DID – DARPA’s Hypersonic Vulcan Engine Meld

• DID Spotlight – Australia, USA Collaborating on Hypersonic Research (updated). Details the $54 million HIFiRE program, which is making significant contributions to hypersonics research.

• CDI (Sept 26/06) – The future is coming – will we notice the difference? Good companion to the ONERA piece; actually a long look at the details and challenges of ramjet and scramjet technologies, and current research, all written in an accessible style if you can filter for political content.

• Defense Tech (Oct 18/06) – Falcon Fills Blackbird’s Shoes

• Flight International (Aug 29/06) – Hyper activity: Hypersonics research in the USA. Includes details re: HTV, and many related projects that are advancing hypersonic technologies.

• Flight International (May 30/06) – US hypersonic aircraft projects face change as Congress urges joint technology office

• USAF News (Jan 27/06) – High-speed air vehicles designed for rapid global reach

• Talking Proud – The Falcon is coming, hypersonic attack from the US

Americas

• F-35As will take part in USMC exercises for the first time this week, with the fighter also set to drop live ordnance. The Green Flag West exercises will run to June 12, with the Marine Corps’ B model Joint Strike Fighter recently concluding trials aboard USS Wasp.

• In a separate set of exercises, NORAD will flex its interceptor muscles in the early hours on Wednesday, with a planned readiness exercise. The testing will also be a chance for officials to drill personnel and fighters from Joint Air Defense Operations Center (JADOC), as well as civilian agencies under an umbrella exercise named Falcon Virgo 15-09.

• A first group of US Navy sailors are now trained to operate General Atomics’ EMALS system aboard the Pre-Commissioning Unit Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78). Following successful no-load testing in May, shipborne testing of the system is scheduled for later this year, with the government also eyeing export opportunities for the system.

• The FMU-167/B Hard Target Void Sensing Fuse (HTVSF) has passed Milestone C review, with this opening the door to Low Rate Initial Production of the Orbital ATK-manufactured system. The HTVSF is under development with the Air Force and is designed to provide advanced capabilities against hardened and buried targets through the use of in-flight cockpit programmability and multi-function and multi-delay arming technologies

• Northrop Grumman will continue to support the Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures (LAIRCM) system, with the Air Force handing the firm a $111 million contract modification to provide support services and equipment to the system through to April 2017. The system uses a laser to defeat missile threats to large aircraft, an increasingly important consideration owing to the proliferation of MANPADS.

Europe

• Following the award of a twelve-month feasibility study by the UK’s Ministry of Defence, BAE Systems will examine the potential to equip the Eurofighter Typhoon with a common weapon launcher. The study is aiming to assess whether a launcher could carry three weapons, increasing the Typhoon’s firepower and comes on the heels of a contract for the fighter’s Phase 3 Capability Enhancement (P3E) package, which will see the integration of several weapons, including the Brimstone II and Storm Shadow.

• British defense firm Ultra is acquiring the Electronic Warfare business units of Kratos Defense & Security Solutions in an up-to $265 million deal announced Monday. The new business will be known as Ultra Electronics Herley Industries and become part of Ultra’s Tactical & Sonar Division. The deal is a reflection of the UK company’s continuing push into the US market, with Krato’s products equipping many platforms, including the US Navy’s Growlers.

Asia

• Japan has requested four E-2D Advanced Hawkeye early warning and control aircraft from the US, following a decision in November to procure the aircraft along with V-22 Ospreys and Global Hawk UAVs. The Japanese already operate the E-2C version of the Hawkeye, with this potential sale worth an estimated $1.7 billion.

• India has successfully tested a Harpoon anti-ship missile, with the country having requested the Boeing-built missiles twice, in 2008 and again in July last year. Launched from a Jaguar fighter, the missiles are intended to equip the Indian Air Force’s fleets of Jaguar and Poseidon aircraft, as well as the Indian Navy’s Shishumar-class submarines.

• India and the US are also set to sign a defense framework agreement on SecDef Carter’s visit to the country this week, with a specific focus on technology transfer and joint development. The most significant area of cooperation is likely to be missile defense.

Today’s Video

• A Royal Navy frigate demonstrating the Harpoon…

(click to view full)

Northrop Grumman’s E-2C Hawkeye is a carrier-capable “mini-AWACS” aircraft, designed to give long-range warning of incoming aerial threats. Secondary roles include strike command and control, land and maritime surveillance, search and rescue, communications relay, and even civil air traffic control during emergencies. E-2C Hawkeyes began replacing previous Hawkeye versions in 1973. They fly from USN and French carriers, from land bases in the militaries of Egypt, Japan, Mexico, and Taiwan; and in a drug interdiction role for the US Naval Reserve. Over 200 Hawkeyes have been produced.

The $17.5 billion E-2D Advanced Hawkeye program aims to build 75 new aircraft with significant radar, engine, and electronics upgrades in order to deal with a world of stealthier cruise missiles, saturation attacks, and a growing need for ground surveillance as well as aerial scans. It looks a lot like the last generation E-2C Hawkeye 2000 upgrade on the outside – but inside, and even outside to some extent, it’s a whole new aircraft.

From E-2A Hawkeyes to the E-2D NGC on E-2D

The Hawkeye is based on the same airframe as the USA’s C-2 Greyhound cargo aircraft, with the obvious addition of the 24 foot diameter, frisbee-shaped, rotating radome on its back. It carries a crew of 5 – pilot, copilot, and 3 mission system operators.

The first E-2A was delivered in 1964, the first E-2B upgrade in 1969, and as noted above, the first true “second generation” E-2C Hawkeye was delivered in 1973. In 1992, an E-2C Block II update program added the AN/APS-145 and L-304 radar systems; improved Rolls Royce T56-A-427 engines; JTIDS, Link-4A, -11, and 16 datalinks; GPS capability; and various avionics, and electronics upgrades. It finished in 2001. By 2003, Hawkeyes were proving their worth over Iraq in a new capacity: close air support. Smithsonian Air & Space magazine’s July 2008 issue discusses:

“The Hawkeye, of course, wasn’t designed for close air support, but time and again during the fighting in the Gulf, ground troops advanced so rapidly that they passed beyond radio contact with the units that were supposed to coordinate close air support for them. Early on in Iraq, E-2s were pressed into a stopgap role as airborne communications relays between ground forces and the U.S. Army’s Air Support Operations Center. But because the battleground was so fluid and so many airplanes had to be re-routed so quickly, Hawkeyes were given more latitude to pair warfighters with targets. “If the Hawkeye hadn’t been there, I think the [Air Support Operations Center] would have failed,” says Lieutenant Commander Brent Trickel, an E-2 naval flight officer who served as the Navy’s only officer in the Air Support Operations Center during the first few weeks of the war.”

CEC Concept
(click to enlarge)

Technology moves quickly, however, and technology that was cutting edge in 1992 isn’t so cutting edge any more. A subsequent upgrade called the Hawkeye 2000 (HE2K) added the 8-bladed NP2000 propeller, replaced the old computer platform that was inhibiting further modernization with commercial-standard computer component upgrades; and added associated electronics, power, and maintainability modifications, including integrated satellite communications. All of these upgrades pale, however, in comparison to the effectiveness boost offered by adding Co-operative Engagement Capability (CEC). With CEC, the Hawkeye can see everything the ships in its task group can see – and vice-versa, turning the aircraft into a force multiplier to all ships in the group and even enabling ballistic missile defense roles.

Hawkeye 2000 aircraft were first deployed in 2003 aboard USS Nimitz, and additional customers have included Egypt, France, Japan & Taiwan (The UAE submitted a formal request in 2002, but later decided to put its money elsewhere).

E-2D Features
(click to view full)

The next-generation, E-2D Advanced Hawkeye is planned as a major platform upgrade, rather than the incremental improvements of Hawkeye 2000. Cruise missiles are becoming stealthier, smaller targets are becoming important, and surveillance in coastal areas and overland is as important to the Navy as aerial surveillance.

The most important improvement to the E-2D AHE is the new APY-9 radar, which can detect and track smaller (or stealthier) targets, in larger numbers, and at greater ranges. It has been described as a 2-generation improvement over previous Hawkeye aircraft. Figures discussed to date involve up to 2,000 targets over 6 million cubic miles, on land and sea. The electronically scanned array offers improved in-service time and maintenance, allows simultaneous air/ground scans with extremely fast focusing on multiple targets, and features lower ‘sidelobe’ leakage, as well as other improvements. Improved clutter & interference cancellation offer significant improvement in tracking small land and sea targets, as well as better performance against electronic jamming. Additional features allow the radar to flip from 3660 degree scan, to 45 degree focused scan, to full power on one target mode against intermittent or stealthy contacts.

The E-2D’s internal equipment also gets a makeover. ESM (Electronic Support Measures) and IFF (Identification, Friend or Foe) systems offer improved classification of radar contacts at longer ranges. The communications suite is modernized to include dual-band SATCOM (SATellite COMmunications), as well as improved datalinks. Engines are improved. In-flight refueling capability for longer missions on-station is part of the basic aircraft, not an option. Etc.

E-2D vs. E-2C
(click to view full)

Like any electronic system, however, the E-2D needs an improved interface in order to take advantage of its full capabilities. New mission computers and tactical workstations use commercial off-the-shelf components, providing more power to integrate incoming information into a coherent picture, and easier future upgrades. More to the point, the onscreen interface features dramatic improvements, including larger displays and advances in the front seats that allow the pilot or copilot to participate as 4th mission system operator once the aircraft is on station. The cockpit itself has also received attention, and has been fully modernized with an “all glass” (i.e. screens, not dials) system and a number of enhancements.

The end result is an aircraft that looks a lot like the E-2C Hawkeye 2000, but can scan larger areas for smaller targets; offers a new dimension in coverage by combining strong aerial, maritime, coastal, and land surveillance; can function as an integral part of missile defense efforts against both cruise and ballistic missiles; and allows operators to make better use of its capabilities.

Advances have also taken place on the manufacturing floor. When Northrop Grumman was awarded the system development and demonstration contract for the Advanced Hawkeye in 2003, the company chose to change its manufacturing approach. Engineers created a virtual design environment that integrated the engineering team in Bethpage, NY with the manufacturing team in St. Augustine, FL. They then began to re-engineer the structure, beginning with single detail parts.

In previous Hawkeye platforms, individual sheet-metal components were the basis for all structural assemblies. For the E-2D, a number of substructures were re-designed as machined components. This removes many detail parts, improves the production process, and leaves fewer potential points of failure in the finished aircraft.

E-2D Advanced Hawkeye: Program E-2D Rollout
(click to view full)

The US Navy remains the E-2D’s only confirmed customer at this point, but export interest has already been expressed by the UAE and by India. As of April 2011, all 5 test & pilot production E-2Ds had been delivered, and aircraft #10 had begun construction.

Initial operational capability was scheduled for 2011, and the type’s first carrier launch and landing did take place in February 2011, but testing and evaluation lags forced IOC back to October 2014.

As of 2013, an R&D program is underway to add in-flight refueling capability, but that development program will run to 2019.

Full Operational Capability is now scheduled for 2023, when a total of 75 aircraft (2 test, 3 pilot production, 70 operational) will have been delivered as the cornerstone of future US naval surveillance.

American Budgets

At present, total E-2D program cost has risen 40.6% over the original baseline figure of $14.752 billion FY 2012 dollars. The Pentagon’s April 2012 SAR (Selected Acquisition Report) placed the E-2D’s entire program cost, including R&D, production of all aircraft, internal equipment, and equipment required for initial fielding, at $20.737 billion. That works out to $276.5 million per aircraft, up from $196.7 million. Part of the reason for these high figures is that the number bought is only 75, so R&D adds a lot of money per-plane. Part of it is because AWACS aircraft of any type are expensive assets, thanks to all of the advanced radars, electronics etc. crammed into them.

Excel
download

Finally, part of it is because of deliberate buying decisions by Congress & the Pentagon, which eliminated a money-saving multi-year buy, and slowed production to stretch budgets, even though the program was performing well. Stretching programs out always costs more money, because every year you extend a production program is another year of fixed costs.

Annual budgets to date include:

Industrial Partners E-2D Advanced Hawkeye: Contracts & Key Events E-2D IOC flight
(click to view full)

Unless otherwise specified, US Naval Air Systems Command at Patuxent River, MD manages these contracts, and Northrop Grumman Integrated Systems Corp. in Bethpage, NY, is the contractor.

FY 2015

Japan picks E-2D; Initial Operational Capability

June 2/15: Japan has requested four E-2D Advanced Hawkeye early warning and control aircraft from the US, following a decision in November to procure the aircraft along with V-22 Ospreys and Global Hawk UAVs. The Japanese already operate the E-2C version of the Hawkeye, with this potential sale worth an estimated $1.7 billion.

March 16/15 The E-2D Advanced Hawkeye prop planes are off on their first carrier deployment, five of them having been assigned to the Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71). In addition to having twice the observation resolution, the glass cockpit allows the co-pilot swap between flying duties and helping handle the information inflow.

Dec 1/14: Training. Rockwell Collins won a $26M contract that can reach a maximum value of $40M to upgrade the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye Integrated Training System (HITS). This includes modifications to the tactics trainer, a modification to the maintenance trainer, spares, and an operational flight trainer provided by subcontractor ASI. Rockwell Collins was already the incumbent for the Hawkeye Integrated Training System for Aircrew (HITS-A) since a 2008 award, as well as the Hawkeye Integrated Training System for Maintenance (HITS-M). Previously the company was already involved in the E-2C’s training and simulation.

Japanese E-2C

Nov 21/14: Japan. Japan picks the E-2D as its lower-tier AEW&C aircraft, which will slot in below its upgraded E-767 AWACS. The Advanced Hawkeye beat a joint Itochu/Boeing bid involving the E-737, which is in service with Australia and South Korea. There had been rumors about the E-737 being part of an offset deal with Australia for Japanese submarine technology.

For Japan, the bottom line was cost. Both aircraft met Japan’s requirements, but the E-737’s extra speed and range came with extra costs, and the E-2D offers a smoother transition for all JASDF personnel who already work with the E-2C. As a bonus, the Hawkeye offers some basing advantages related to runway length, but that wasn’t mentioned in the official release. Sources: Japan MoD, “Airborne Early Warning & Control Model Selection” [rough translation from the Japanese].

Japan picks E-2D

Oct 10/14: The E-2D Advanced Hawkeye achieves Initial Operational Capability, signifying that a 5-plane Carrier Airborne Early Warning Squadron (VAW-125 “Tigertails”), is manned, trained, equipped and ready to start deployment preparation.

They’re currently assigned to USS Theodore Roosevelt [CVN 71], with deployment scheduled for 2015. Sources: US NAVAIR, “U.S. Navy’s E-2D Advanced Hawkeye aircraft achieves Initial Operational Capability” | US Navy, “CARAEWRON One Two Five” | C4ISR & Networks, “Navy’s Advanced Hawkeye will deploy next year”.

IOC

FY 2014

$3+ billion multi-year buy; DOT&E continues to report technical issues, esp. CEC; E-2D directs JSOW glide bomb; Program production cut over medium term, despite multi-year deal. E-2D landing
(click to view full)

Sept 11/14: Support. A $7.2 million fixed-price-incentive-firm target contract modification for E-2D FRP Lot 2 software sustainment. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2014 US Navy budgets.

Work will be performed in Melbourne, FL (82%); Liverpool, NY (14%); and Greenlawn, FL (4%), and is expected to be complete in March 2015 (N00019-13-C-9999).

Sept 2/14: Support. A $10.5 million fixed-price-incentive-firm target contract modification for E-2D LRIP Lot 2 product support and engineering investigations. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2014 US Navy aircraft budgets.

Work will be performed in Melbourne, FL (61.32%); Herndon, VA (15.66%); Syracuse, NY (10.84%); Indianapolis, IN (8.81%); Rolling Meadows, IL (2.83%); and St. Augustine, FL (0.54%), and is expected to be complete in April 2015 (N00019-13-C-9999).

Aug 28/14: Support. A $32.5 million to a previously awarded fixed-price-incentive, firm target contract modification for non-recurring engineering in support of the Full Rate Production Lot 2 E-2D Advanced Hawkeye Program. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2014 US Navy budgets.

Work will be performed in Syracuse, NY (53.47%); Melbourne, FL (20.16%); St. Augustine, FL (9.83%); Indianapolis, Indiana (5.70%); Woodlawn Hills, CA (3.63%); Aire Sur L’Adour, France (2.48%); Menlo Park, CA (1.36%); El Segundo, CA (1.11%); Johnson City, NY (0.97%); Greenlawn, NY (0.80%); Falls Church, VA (0.31%); Marlboro, MA (0.14%); and various locations throughout the United States (0.04%), and is expected to be complete in July 2017 (N00019-13-C-999).

Aug 1/14: Japan. In December 2013, Japan introduced a new defense strategy that aims to improve air and maritime surveillance, as part of a drive to counter increasingly-aggressive Chinese moves. In response, Northrop Grumman is promoting the E-2D as a natural upgrade, since Japan already flies the E-2C. APY-9 radar manufacturer Lockheed Martin is also pushing the E-2D:

“Brad Hicks, vice president of radar programs at Lockheed’s Mission Systems and Sensors business, told the conference that the radar on the E-2D, built by his company, can detect advanced threats. He noted that 800 foreign aircraft violated Japan’s airspace last year…. The E-2D is designed to operate in concert with Lockheed’s Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System, Hicks said.”

Japan uses the AEGIS BMD system on its Kongo and Atago Class destroyers. Meanwhile, Northrop Grumman are also touting their Global Hawk family of UAVs, which includes the RQ-4B Global Hawk and a maritime MQ-4C Triton. Sources: Stars and Stripes, “Defense contractors hawk their surveillance planes in Japan”.

July 7/14: Testing. Northrop Grumman Integrated Systems in Bethpage, NY receives a $52.4 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for material and services to perform an Equivalent Flight Hours fatigue test, which will substantiate the E-2D’s expected service life.

$7.8 million is committed immediately, using FY 2014 US Navy R&D funds. Work will be performed in El Segundo, CA (68%); Melbourne, FL (30%); and Bethpage, NY (2%), and is expected to be completed in July 2019. This contract was not competitively procured, pursuant to FAR 6.302-1 (N00019-14-C-0036).

June 30/14: MYP 2014-18. A $3.643 billion modification, finalizing the E-2D’s multi-year fixed-price-incentive-firm target contract for 25 planes from FY 2014 – 2018, bringing the total number of E-2Ds under contract so far to 50, but note that the original proposal to savings that qualified for a multi-year deal involved 32 planes + 7 options (q.v. April 10/13, March 4-11/14). Other contracts that fall within this ambit include:

• $113.7 million: FRP-2 long-lead (July 2/13)

$871.8 million in FY 2014 USN aircraft budgets are committed immediately. Work will be performed in St. Augustine, FL (24.90%); Syracuse, NY (20.58%); Melbourne, FL (7.60%); El Segundo, CA (4.56%); Indianapolis, IN (4.06%); Menlo Park, CA (3.90%); Rolling Meadows, IL (2.30%) and various locations throughout the United States (32.10%); and is expected to be complete in August 2021 (N00019-13-C-9999).

The E-2D Hawkeye is slated to deploy with the first operational squadron, Carrier Airborne Early Warning Squadron (VAW) 125, in Fall 2014. See also NAVAIR, “U.S. Navy awards E-2D aircraft contract, saves $369 million” | NGC, “Northrop Grumman Receives $3.6 Billion Multiyear Contract for 25 E-2D Advanced Hawkeye Aircraft”.

Multi-Year Buy: 25

June 26/14: Support. An $8.3 million contract to repair 51 line items used in the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye system. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2014 US Navy aircraft budgets.

Work will be performed at Melbourne, FL (40.26%); Liverpool, NY (18.39%); Baltimore, MD (13.74%); Davenport, IA (6.54%); Falls Church, VA (5.56%); and 12 other various locations in the United States (15.51%). Work will complete by June 25/15. This is a non-competitive requirement in accordance with 10 U.S.C 2304(c)(1), issued by US NAVSUP Weapons System Support in Philadelphia, PA (N00383-12-G-034G, DO 7252).

May 29/14: CEC. Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems, Largo, Florida, is being awarded an $11 million contract modification. It exercises an option for 5 AN/USG-3B Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) Airborne Systems, which will be installed in E-2Ds to give them 2-way sharing of targeting quality information with other ships and aircraft. The systems need to be installed in new aircraft now, even though performance has been a problem and all parties are working on a fix (q.v. Jan 28/14).

All funds are committed immediately. Work will be performed in St. Petersburg, FL (90%) and Largo, FL (10%), and is expected to be complete by November 2015 (N00024-12-C-5231).

April 17/14: SAR. The Pentagon releases its Dec 31/13 Selected Acquisitions Report. For the E-2D. Costs are increasing, but about 2/3 of that that is Congress & the Pentagon’s fault:

“Program costs increased $1,210.7 million (+5.9%) from $20,455.8 million to $21,666.5 million, due primarily to the net stretch-out of the procurement buy profile delaying 10 aircraft beyond the Future Years Defense Program and extending the end of production two years from FY 2021 to FY 2023 (+$759.1 million). Also, there were other increases for the addition of fighter-to-fighter backlink, data fusion, integrated fire control, net enabled weapons J11 message, navigation warfare anti-global positional system jam electronic protection, and stores performance assessment requested quality (+$341.3 million).”

We haven’t added this to the article’s program dashboard, because Pentagon figures and GAO figures aren’t an apples-to-apples comparison. It’s worthy of note, however, that when past SARs (q.v. March 30/12) are included, Congress and the Pentagon’s decisions have cost this program $2.486 billion.

Delays cost money

March 4-11/14: FY15 Budget. The USN unveils their preliminary budget request briefings, followed by more detailed figures over time. R&D continues, with a FY 2015 focus on adding in-flight refueling, and continuing mission system software development, countermeasures against jamming etc., MIDS-JTRS integration, full-scale fatigue tests, testing and evaluation expenses. RDT&E funding will also be ramping up, rather than down, in subsequent years.

The E-2D continues to be a target for cuts. Despite a multi-year deal for 32 planes and 5 options from FY 2014 – 2018, the current budget aims to cut 7 planes from that base by ordering just 4 in FY15 (-1), 5 in FY16 (-1), 6 in FY17 (-2), 5 in FY18 (-3), and then 5 in FY19. Total cuts from FY 2015 – 2018 are $1.01 billion. Yet the Navy says that:

“The E-2D combined with the SM-6 missile, Cooperative Engagement Capability and the AEGIS combat system is a key component of Naval Integrated Fire Control – Counter Air (NIFC-CA), enabling use of the missile at its maximum kinetic range. The E-2D will ensure the “eyes” of the nation’s sea-based strike capability remain focused on emerging threat systems.”

It’s hard to reconcile the words with the consistent actions. The missing FY15 aircraft can be seen in the Unfunded Priority List That Shall Not Be Named So, and near-term reductions might make sense on technical grounds (q.v. Jan 17/13, Jan 28/14). Cuts 3 and 4 years out tell a different story. Sources: USN, PB15 Press Briefing [PDF] | Detailed budget documents.
March 4/14: Testing. Lockheed Martin Corp. in Liverpool, NY receives a $16.2 million firm-fixed-price contract for specialized test equipment and associated technical data packages and adapters required to perform testing of E-2D AN/APY-9 radar system LRMs (line replacement module “black boxes”).

All funds are committed immediately, using USN FY12 aircraft budgets. Work will be performed in Liverpool, NY, and is expected to be complete in February 2017. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to FAR 6.302-1, and is managed by the US Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division in Lakehurst, NJ (N68335-14-C-0145).

Jan 28/14: DOT&E Testing Report. The Pentagon releases the FY 2013 Annual Report from its Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E). The entry focuses on the USG-3B Cooperative Engagement Capability module used in E-2D naval AWACS aircraft. Bottom line: it’s worse than the USG-3 carried by its E-2C predecessors. UGS-3B is operationally suitable (maintaiable), but not operationally effective.

Key problems include misalignments that make it hard to depend on consistent object tracking between platforms (which is CEC’s core purpose). In a similar vein, the system has an issue with dual tracks for single objects that’s well above normal. There are also integration problems with the mission computer, and EM interference problems that affect the radar altimeter. The problems were persistent enough that the Navy has decoupled CEC testing from the E-2D’s own IOT&E evaluation as a new platform.

Oct 27/13: Testing. At the US Navy’s Trident Warrior 2013 demonstration, Super Hornet fighters simulated the launch of an AGM-154C-1 JSOW precision glide bomb, while the E-2D directed the imaginary weapon toward the positively identified target, and received status updates from the “weapon.” In effect, they made the E-2D itself an offensive weapon.

This mirrors a 2009 simulation involving a JSOW C-1 with a Navy P-3 Orion and USAF E-8C JSTARS battlefield surveillance aircraft. Sources: Raytheon, Oct 27/13 release.

FY 2013

Multi-Year deal for 32 + 5 options; FRP-1 orders; Development order for in-flight refueling capability; Testing has some gaps, but good enough for full production; Exports update. E-2D displays
(click to view full)

Sept 27/13: Refueling. A $226.7 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract to design, develop, install, test, and document an In-flight Refueling capable E-2D Advanced Hawkeye. $8.6 million is committed immediately.

The aerodynamics of in-flight refueling for a plane like the E-2D will be a challenge for NGC engineers, but extending the aircraft’s range would be a very big payoff. USN test squadron VX-20 has been conducting limited scope test flights over the past couple of years, in order to identify potential risks. Aerial refueling would be a nice foundation for a Block II/ Increment 2 variant, and NGC has also been working on improving the Standard Automatic Flight Control System (SAFCS) to assist the pilots when refueling. New seats whose adjustments can address pilot field-of-view and crew fatigue are a minor development with a strong payoff, and NGC’s proposed formation lights certainly have their uses as well.

Work will be performed in Bethpage, NY (64%); St. Augustine, FL (21%); Irvine, CA (3.7%); Endicott, NY (2.7%); Ronkonkoma, NY (1.6%); Bohemia, NY (1%); and various locations throughout the United States (6%), and is expected to be complete in January 2019. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to FAR 6.302-1 (N00019-13-C-0135). See also Northrop Gruman, “Northrop Grumman Awarded $226.7 Million for E-2D Advanced Hawkeye In-Flight Refueling”.

R&D to add in-flight refueling

Sept 17/13: An $11.7 million for firm-fixed-price delivery order orders the design, development, first article, and production units for 10 pieces of support equipment unique to the E-2D (PSE); and the procurement of 29 pieces of existing PSE items. All funds are committed immediately from FY 2011 procurement budgets.

Work will be performed in Bethpage, NY, and is expected to be complete in March 2016. The US Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division in Lakehurst, NJ manages the contract (N68335-10-G-0021, #0009).

Aug 28/13: FRP-1. A $31.4 million firm-fixed-price contract modification buys engineering support for E-2D Full Rate Production Lot 1. All funds are committed immediately.

Work will be performed in Syracuse, NY (29.88%); St. Augustine, FL (24.38%); Bethpage, NY (12.64%); Greenlawn, NY (10.21%); Woodland Hills, CA (8.2%); El Segundo, CA (6.99%); Menlo Park, CA (4.5%); and various locations within the United States (3.2%); and is expected to be complete in September 2016 (N00019-12-C-0063).

July 24/13: FRP-1. A $617.1 million modification finalizes the 5-plane Full Rate Production Lot 1 advance acquisition contract into a firm-fixed-price contract. All funds are committed immediately.

Total announced contracts under FRP-1 have reached $855.8 million (q.v. Feb 1/12, April 24/13, June 4/13, June 27/13, Aug 28/13), or $171.6 million per plane.

The E-2D was cleared for FRP on Feb 8/13. Work will be performed in St. Augustine, FL (24.90%); Syracuse, NY (20.59%); Bethpage, NY (7.60%); El Segundo, CA (4.56%); Indianapolis, IN (4.6%); Menlo Park, CA (3.90%); Rolling Meadows, IL (2.3%), and approximately 200 various locations within the United States (TL 32.1%) that are individually under 5% (N00019-12-C-0063).

FRP-1: 5 E-2Ds

July 2/13: FRP-2. $113.7 million in advance contracts for FRP Lot 2 long lead materials and related support, which will cover 5 aircraft. The Pentagon announced it as a $9.3 million option, which may be true initially, and $9.3 million is committed immediately. Northrop Grumman gave the maximum figure. This award also changes the FRP-2 advance acquisition contract to a fixed-price contract.

Work will be performed in Syracuse, NY (36.9%); Bethpage, NY (15.6%); El Segundo, CA (7.8%); Chicago, IL (7.4%); Menlo Park, CA (7.1%); Indianapolis, IN (6.8%); Cleveland, Ohio (3.3%); Aire-Sur-L’Adour, France (2.6%); Owego, NY (2.4%); Torrance, CA (2.1%); Edgewood, NY (1.7%); Falls Church, VA (1.4%); and various locations throughout the United States (4.9%); and is expected to be complete in March 2014 (N00019-13-C-9999).

NGC says that total E-2D procurement, including low-rate initial production and full-rate production aircraft, now stands at 30. The USN received its 10th E-2D in June, with another 10 in various stages of manufacture and testing. 2015 remains the expected date for Initial Operational Capability with the U.S. Navy. NGC.

June 27/13: Support. A $32.3 million delivery order to provide spares in support of FRP Lot 1’s 5 ordered E-2Ds. All funds are committed immediately.

Work will be performed in Syracuse, NY (37.8%); Indianapolis, IN (23.1%); Bethpage, NY (13.7%); Woodland Hills, CA (6.7%); Greenlawn, NY (3.4%); Marlborough, Mass. (1.9%); Tustin, CA (1.8%); Rockford, IL (1.4%); Falls Church, VA (1.3%); Garden City, NY (1.1%); and other locations within the United States (7.8%), and is expected to be completed in December 2016 (N00019-10-G-0004).

June 4/13: Saved for later. On FBO.gov, NAVAIR announces their intent to give Northrop Grumman a Cost Plus Incentive Fee contract under a “Post Initial Operational Capability” solicitation. The E-2D’s planned IOC date is October 2014, and the contract involves adding an Installation Data Package for adding Secure Internet Protocol Router (SIPR) Chat, Tactical Targeting Network Technology (TTNT) and Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) Accelerated Mid-Term Interoperability Improvement Program (AMIIP). That will allow retrofits of existing aircraft, and installation in production models.

Northrop Grumman will manage the set as a single entity, but each separate capability may be delivered separately and incorporated into the most appropriate E-2D DSSC software build.

June 4/13: Support. A $17.1 million contract modification for additional product, fleet, and engineering investigations support for the 5 planes in Full Rate Production Lot 1.

Work will be performed in Bethpage, NY (81.94%); Norfolk, VA (8.98%); Syracuse, NY (3.71%); Indianapolis, IN (3.32%); and St. Augustine, FL (2.05%), and work is expected to be complete in June 2014. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2013 budgets (N00019-12-C-0063).

June 4/13: Support. A not-to-exceed $7.5 million delivery order for the repair of 43 line items on the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye System. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2013 budgets. This is a sole-source contract in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1), and is managed by NAVSUP Weapon Systems Support in Philadelphia, PA (N00383-12-G-034G, 07192).

May 31/13: R&D. A $12.8 million delivery order modification, to conduct in-flight refueling risk reduction trade studies for the E-2D (N00019-10-G-0004).

Seems a little late for those – wasn’t that supposed to be a standard feature? We’re asking NAVAIR.

Work will be performed in Bethpage, NY (67%); Endicott, NY (12.6%); Irvine, Calif. (10%); Bohemia, NY (3.8%); Ronkonkoma, NY (3.6%); Windsor Locks, CT (2%); St. Augustine, FL (.8%); and Stanford, CT (.2%), and is expected to be completed in September 2013. Fiscal 2013 Research, Development, Test & Evaluation, Navy contract funds in the amount of $12,808,636 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity.

April 24/13: Software. Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. in Bethpage, NY receives a $23 million firm-fixed-price delivery order for software sustainment of Full Rate Production Lot 1 aircraft. This delivery order provides all aspects of software management support, including the update and maintenance through the life cycle support. Test reports say the E-2D has some significant software issues (vid. Jan 17/13 entry), so there’s no shortage of things to do.

Work will be performed in Bethpage, NY (86.5%); Syracuse, NY (9.7%); Marlborough, MA (1.3%); Greenlawn, NY (1.3%), and Woodland Hills, CA (1.2%), and is expected to be complete in October 2014. FY 2011 and 2012 Aircraft Procurement funds are being used, and the entire amount is committed immediately. $14.5 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/13 (N00019-10-G-0004).

April 10/13: FY 2014 Budget. The President releases a proposed budget at last, the latest in modern memory. The Senate and House were already working on budgets in his absence, but the Pentagon’s submission is actually important to proceedings going forward.

The FY 2014 request proposes a multi-year agreement (MYP) for 32 E-2Ds, plus options on another 5 from FY 2014-2018, leaving 18 planes left to buy. If the Navy exercises its MYP options in FY 2015-2016, it could bring full-rate production to a steady rate of 8 planes per year. The Navy is estimating MYP savings of $522.8 million over 5 separate annual contracts. About 30% of that is attributable to electronic components whose minimum buy quantities can’t be met under single year procurements, which makes their cost artificially high unless bought in a multi-year deal.

Note that Navy budget documents show the E-2D as a 114-plane program, a figure that must count a number of E-2C 2000 buys. A careful look at actual E-2D orders and schedules confirms that it remains a 75 plane program.

March 28/13: GAO Report. The US GAO tables its “Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs“. Which is actually a review for 2012, plus time to compile and publish. The assessment notes that the Navy has stretched production out in order to “save” annual funds, but will pay $1.3 billion more in total – nearly double the March 30/12 SAR’s figure. That might be reduced a bit if the program gets a 32-38 plane multi-year buy approved for FY 2014 – 2018.

On the good news front, the E-2D remains a low-drama program, and the long-standing issue of radar reliability (vid. Jan 17/13 entry) has improved and reached the test plan requirement.

Feb 8/13: FRP. US NAVAIR says that the E-2D has been cleared for Full Rate Production by the Pentagon.

NAVAIR added that their own VX-1 Air Test and Evaluation Squadron had declared the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye “suitable and effective” in their Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) report.

FRP approved

Feb 7/13: Exports. A report in Shephard’s UV Online says that India, Malaysia, and the UAE have all been approved for E-2D exports by the US government. Which is not the same thing as saying that all 3 are negotiating contracts.

Northrop Grumman has responded to India’s RFI for a fixed-wing carrier-based AEW platform, to complement its Ka-31 heliborne AEW. The request is a bit odd, because Indian carriers won’t have catapults, but it is just an RFI. Northrop Grumman continues to promote the E-2D in India.

The UAE has issued a full RFP, after establishing an initial AEW&C capability with an interim order of Saab’s S340-AEW Erieye turboprops. The E-2D is expected to compete against an order of more Saab systems, and against Boeing’s E-737 AEW&C.

Jan 17/13: DOT&E testing. The Pentagon releases the FY 2012 Annual Report from its Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E). The E-2D is included, and it has generally performed well in over 600 hours of carrier and land-based Initial Operator Testing & Evaluation (IOT&E) from February – September 2012. The aircraft demonstrated improvements over the E-2C, but a few key gaps remain.

Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) is the biggest gap. It’s supposed to create a single picture, based on inputs from other ships, planes, etc. Instead, it was creating multiple tracks for the same object, and had to be decoupled from other testing. New software loads have been added, and renewed CEC testing began in October 2012, but CEC and full Theater Air & Missile Defense (TAMD) capability won’t be fully tested now until 2015.

The radar and software combination also has a serious problem with tracks. The automated system sometimes swaps labels when tracks get too close, which can be a fatal error. This problem had shown up in previous developmental testing, but IOT&E went ahead anyway. The problem became so serious that operators must now manually label tracks. Obviously, in any stressful environment with many tracks, that’s going to fall apart. Overland reliability in all situations, and radar reliability (vid. March 30/12 entry), were also cited by DOT&E, albeit without specifics.

The final gap is maintenance and training. A maintenance training system for the E-2D won’t be delivered until July 2013, and the E-2D integrated simulator wasn’t available for IOT&E, either.

Dec 28/12: Unplanned Obsolescence. Northrop Grumman Corp., Integrated Systems, Bethpage, NY, is being awarded a $34.3 million firm-fixed-price delivery order for “obsolescent component redesign” of the E-2D’s mission computer and displays, integrated navigation and control display system, and network file system systems. Once again, we see the phenomenon of key computing components that become outdated and/or unavailable before a major US weapon system can even reach Initial Operational Capability.

Work will be performed in Bethpage, NY (49%); Woodland Hills, CA (20%); Marlborough, MA (21%); Redwood City, CA (8%), and at various locations within the United States (2%), and is expected to be complete in December 2014. All contract funds are committed immediately, and $8.5 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/13. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, MD, is the contracting activity (N00019-10-G-0004).

FY 2012

LRIP-4 contract; FRP-1 lead-in; program evaluations. E-2 concept
(click to view full)

Sept 27/12: Support. A $15 million cost-plus-fixed-fee modification to a fixed-price-incentive-fee contract for additional E-2D system engineering and software maintenance for Production Lot 1 and 2 aircraft.

Work will be performed in Bethpage, NY, and is expected to be complete in May 2015. All contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/12 (N00019-08-C-0027).

Sept 27/12: Spares. An $8.4 million firm-fixed-price delivery order modification, to provide spares for 10 E-2D Low Rate Initial Production Lots 3 and 4 aircraft.

Work will be performed in Syracuse, NY (51.3%); Bethpage, NY (13%); Owego, NY (7.1%); Greenlawn, NY (6.3%); Woodland Hills, CA (6.1%); West Chester, OH (4.2%); North Hollywood, CA (3.0%); Marlborough, MA (2.3%); Horsham, PA (1.6%); New Port Richey, FL (1.6%), and various other locations in the United States (3.5%); and is expected to be complete in October 2015 (N00019-10-G-0004).

April 27/12: Spares. A $31.4 million firm-fixed-price delivery order against a previously issued basic order agreement for spare components of the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye low rate initial production, Lots 3 and 4 – which is to say, 10 planes.

Work will be performed in Syracuse, NY (54%); El Segundo, CA (9.6%); Bethpage, NY (5.1%); Greenlawn, NY (4.4%); Owego, NY (3.8%); West Chester, Ohio (3.4%); Woodland Hills, CA (3.2%); Irvine, CA (3.5%); Marlborough, MA (2.1%); Bayshore, NY (1.8%); Cleveland, Ohio (1.3%); Davenport, Iowa (1.3%); North Hollywood, CA (1.1%); Horsham, Pa. (0.9%); Rome, Italy (0 .7%); New Port Richey, FL (0.5%); and various other locations in the United States (3.3%). Work is expected to be completed in August 2016 (N00019-10-G-0004).

April 27/12: Electronics. A $15.3 million firm-fixed-price order to buy, store and deliver 146 E-2D avionic units under test.

Work will be performed in Syracuse, NY (53%); Greenlawn, NY (11%); Bethpage, NY (8%); Woodland Hills, CA (7%); Marlborough, MA (5%); West Chester, Ohio (4%); Falls Church, Va. (3%); Ronkonkoma, NY (3%); Rome, Italy (3%); New Port Richey, FL (2%); and Indianapolis, Ind. (1%). Work is expected to be completed in April 2016 (N00019-10-G-0004).

March 30/12: Good GAO review. The US GAO tables its “Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs” for 2012. The E-2D program is #13 on the list of highest cost programs to complete, at $11.3 billion. That hasn’t been because of poor program performance, though – a “should cost” analysis helped them negotiate a 4.5% reduction in its 3rd production contract. The GAO sees the E-2D’s technologies as mature, and its design and manufacturing processes as stable. Overall development costs are up 18% from the 2003 baseline to $4.53 billion, and costs are up because of buying decisions, but the remaining technical issues are pretty minor:

“[E-2D testing is done, but] Some development test points related to the Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) remain to be completed… because of late deliveries from the CEC program… The E-2D program reported the current radar reliability rate is 71 hours. The radar must achieve a rate of 81 hours prior to the decision to enter full-rate production, which is scheduled for December 2012. DOD test organizations expressed some concern about whether the radar will be able to meet some reliability and performance measures… [but] initial results from a test exercise conducted in November partially addressed the performance concerns, according to an official at a DOD test organization.”

March 30/12: SAR – Congress costs. The Pentagon’s Selected Acquisitions Report ending Dec 31/11 includes the E-2D. The short version: costs are going up because of Congress. They still plan to buy the same 75 planes, just less frugally or intelligently:

“Program costs increased $2,279.3 million (+12.4%) from $18,457.9 million to $20,737.2 million, due primarily to an affordability-driven stretch-out of the procurement buy profile (i.e., movement of 12 aircraft over multiple years) and the addition of two production lots from FY 2012 to FY 2021 (+$780.6 million). The addition of two production lots also increased other support (+$294.7 million). There were further increases due to the removal of projected savings from cancellation of the FY 2014-2018 multi-year procurement (+$651.6 million), the application of revised escalation indices (+$224.6 million), a revised estimate for In-Flight Refueling (+$208.9 million), and increases due to capability enhancements for Secure Internet Protocol Router (SIPR) Chat, E-2D Hawkeye Integrated Fire Control Training, Long Range Tracking, and Counter Electronic Attack (+$161.2 million).”

It’s common for defense programs that are performing well to end up paying for programs that are performing poorly, by being subject to stretch-outs and/or cuts. Unfortunately, the E-2D is a good example.

SAR – how Congress adds costs

March 30/12: Support. A $22.9 million firm-fixed-price order will buy: avionics source data consisting of detailed functional description document packages; development of systems synthesis modeling reports for 34 units under test; and 392 pieces of organizational “O” level support equipment for the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye aircraft.

Work will be performed in Bethpage, NY, and is expected to be complete in June 2015. The US Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division in Lakehurst, NJ manages this contract (N68335-10-G-0021).

Feb 1/12: FRP-1 lead-in. A maximum $157.9 million advance acquisition contract for long lead material etc., in order to support 5 E-2Ds in FY 2013’s Full Rate Production Lot 1. FRP-1 was planned at 7 aircraft, but the eventual plan is reduced to the 5 planes covered here.

Work will be performed in Syracuse, NY (32.6%); Bethpage, NY (15.5%); Dallas, TX (12.4%); Menlo Park, CA (9.8%); Woodland Hills, CA (6%); and various other locations within the United States (23.7%) into March 2013. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to FAR 6.302-1 (N00019-12-C-0063).

Jan 24/12: LRIP-4 contract. A $781.5 million contract modification for 5 FY 2012/ LRIP(low rate initial production) Lot 4 E-2D Advanced Hawkeyes.

Work will be performed in Syracuse, NY (25.36%); Bethpage, NY (25.10%); St. Augustine, FL (19.3%); El Segundo, CA (5.34%); Indianapolis, IN (4.84%); Menlo Park, CA (4.64%); Rolling Meadows, IL (2.50%); and various locations within the United States (12.92%). Work is expected to be complete by May 2015 (N00019-10-C-0044).

LRIP-4: 5 E-2Ds

Jan 20/12: Spares. A $31.9 million cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order for integrated E-2D LRIP program spares support. Work will be performed in Bethpage, NY, and is expected to be complete in May 2013 (N00019-10-G-0004).

Jan 17/12: 2011 DOT&E – Radar & CEC. The Pentagon releases the FY2011 Annual Report for the Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation. The E-2D Hawkeye is included, and concerns revolve around 3 core areas: Overland radar performance; Cooperative Engagement Capability; and Reliability. For radar performance, DOT&E suggests a post-evaluation processor upgrade to boost overland performance. It adds:

“As of December 2011, 93% of CEC test points are complete. Carrier suitability testing and the initial cadre of pilots completed carrier qualification in January, August, and September 2011, to support upcoming IOT&E… Discovery of hardware and software integration discrepancies significantly delayed E-2D/CEC integration and testing in FY11… now appears CEC developmental testing will complete in 1QFY12 and is the pacing event for… IOT&E… for the E-2D… [and] for new CEC aircraft hardware (AN/USG-3B) under development by the Navy…

“The [APY-9] radar system reliability, specifically radar mean time between failures, does not currently meet established requirements of 81 hours. While low radar mean time between failures has been a concern for the last two years, it has steadily improved and was 64.3 hours as of July 2011. [Other data are based on small sample sizes, but are under reliability goals].”

FY 2011

DAB approval; LRIP 2/3; carrier and EMALS launch. 1st carrier takeoff
(click to view full)

Sept 27/11: EMALS launch. The EMALS test site at Lakehurst, NJ launches an E-2D Advanced Hawkeye. The EMALS electro-magnetic catapult, which will outfit the new USS Gerald R. Ford and replace the old steam catapults on refitted Nimitz Class ships, has already launched an F/A-18E Super Hornet, a T-45 Goshawk jet trainer, and the Hawkeye’s C-2A Greyhound cargo cousin.

About 63 – 65 launches are planned for each aircraft type, and the 2nd phase of aircraft compatibility testing is scheduled to begin in 2012. Engineers will continue reliability testing through 2013, then perform installation, checkout, and shipboard testing, with the goal of shipboard certification in 2015.US Navy.

EMALS catapult launch

August 16/11: SDD. A $47.6 million cost-plus-award-fee contract modification for maintenance and repair of components and/or systems that are unique to the E-2D, as part of the SDD program.

Work will be performed in Bethpage, NY (63%); Greenlawn, NY (35%); and Rolling Meadows, IL (2%), and is expected to be complete in December 2012 (N00019-03-C-0057).

July 22/11: LRIP-3 Order. A $760.8 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to manufacture and deliver 5 LRIP Lot 3/ FY 2011 E-2D Advanced Hawkeye aircraft, including associated support connected to the delivery. This contract also provides for long lead time materials and related support for 5 LRIP Lot 4/ FY 2012 planes.

Work will be performed in Syracuse, NY (25.36%); Bethpage, NY (25.10%); St. Augustine, FL (19.3%); El Segundo, CA (5.34%); Indianapolis, IN (4.84%); Menlo Park, CA (4.64%); Rolling Meadows, IL (2.50%); and other locations within the United States (12.92%). Work is expected to be completed by May 2015 (N00019-10-C-0044). See also April 13/11 entry.

LRIP-3: 5 E-2Ds

July 22/11: A $34 million contract modification finalizes a fixed-price-incentive-fee contract for 1 additional LRIP Lot 2/ FY 2010 E-2D Advanced Hawkeye aircraft, bringing it to $170 million, plus long-lead buys, plus Government-Furnished Equipment that’s bought separately.

Work will be performed in Syracuse, NY (25.36%); Bethpage, NY (25.10%); St. Augustine, FL (19.3%); El Segundo, CA (5.34%); Indianapolis, IN (4.84%); Menlo Park, CA (4.64%); Rolling Meadows, IL (2.50%); and various locations throughout the United States (12.92%), and is expected to be complete in July 2013 (N00019-08-C-0027). See also July 22/10 entry.

LRIP-2: now 3 E-2Ds

April 15/11: Spares. A $6.6 million contract modification to provide spare consumables and repairables for the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye LRIP Lot 2 as well as the Hawkeye Integrated Training System trainers.

Work is expected to be complete in August 2013 and will be performed in El Segundo, CA (52%); Woodland Hills, CA (27%); Marlborough, MA (16%); Syracuse, NY (4%); and Rolling Meadows, IL (1%) under contract N00019-10-G-0004.

April 14/11: DAB approval. The E-2D Advanced Hawkeye has a successful Defense Acquisition Board review. That leads to authorized funding for an additional 10 E-2Ds, via an Acquisition Decision Memorandum signed by undersecretary of defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Dr. Ashton Carter. Subsequent conversations with NAVAIR add some clarity to this announcement:

“The Navy’s E-2D Advanced Hawkeye program received approval for procurement of Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Lot 3 (4 aircraft) and Lot 4 (6 aircraft), as well as Advance Acquisition Contract (AAC) for the procurement of long-lead items to support Full Rate Production (FRP) Lot 1 (7 aircraft) [after it] met all criteria needed to continue LRIP.”

LRIP Lot 4 is 6 planes because there are 5 E-2Ds + 1 combat loss replacement requested in FY 2012. To date, Northrop Grumman has delivered 5 E-2D aircraft to the Navy, and production on the 10th aircraft recently began at Northrop Grumman’s East Coast Manufacturing and Flight Test Center in St. Augustine, FL. The aircraft is on track to enter Initial Operational Test and Evaluation later in 2011. Northrop Grumman.

DAB approval

April 13/11: LRIP-4 lead-in. A $94.6 million contract modification to finalizes a previously awarded advance acquisition contract (N00019-10-C-0044) to a fixed-price agreement. As a first step, this modification buys long-lead items for 4 LRIP (Low Rate Initial Production) Lot 4 E-2D Advanced Hawkeyes. NAVAIR tells DID that:

“The average unit recurring flyaway (URF) cost for 70 aircraft in then-year dollars is $166.1 million based on President’s Budget 2012.”

Work will be performed in Syracuse, NY (46.8%); Bethpage, NY (13.5%); El Segundo, CA (2.6%); Potez, France (2.4%); Edgewood, NY (1.9%); Menlo Park, CA (1.6%); Woodland Hills, CA (1.4%); Owego, NY (1.2%); St. Augustine, FL (1.2%); Marlborough, MA (1.1%); Brooklyn Heights, OH (1%); Greenlawn, NY (.6%); and various locations within the United States (24.7%). Work is expected to be complete by December 2011. This contract was not competitively procured (N00019-10-C-0044).

April 5/11: Spares. A $21.3 million firm-fixed-price delivery order for both consumable and repairable E-2D spares, covering the LRIP Lot 2 buy of 3 planes, and Hawkeye Integrated Training System trainers.

Work is expected to be complete in July 2015, and will be performed in El Segundo, CA (30 %); Syracuse, NY (23 %); Woodland Hills, CA (7.6 %); Menlo Park, CA (6.4 %); Marlborough, MA (6.1 %); Bethpage, NY (3.6 %); Indianapolis, IN (3.1 %); Rolling Meadows, IL (1.6 %); St. Augustine, FL (0.75 %); and various locations throughout the United States (17.85%) under contract N00019-10-G-0004.

Feb 8/11: India. India Defence reports that:

“While briefing media personnel in Bangalore on the eve of Aero India 2011, (Retired) Commodore Gyanendra Sharma, Managing Director of Northrop Grumman India announced that the Ministry of Defence has sent a Request for Information (RFI) for E-2D Naval Airborne Early Warning aircraft to Northrop Grumman. As per details given by Mr. Sharma, Indian Navy has shown interest in procuring at least four such aircrafts… Northrop Grumman is positive that a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the same would be issued by year end.”

Feb 1/11: Carrier landing. An E-2D flown by VX-20 squadron makes the type’s 1st carrier takeoff and landing, aboard the USS Harry S. Truman [CVN 75]. Carrier suitability testing is now underway, with 99% of radar testing complete. US Navy | Northrop Grumman.

1st carrier takeoff & landing

Jan 28/11: India. Northrop Grumman announces that an E-2D Advanced Hawkeye crew work-station will be among its Aero India 2011 exhibits, adding that “India is among the very first countries for which the Advanced Hawkeye capability has been released.” Unfortunately, its carriers don’t carry the catapults required to operate it, so any E-2Ds would be based from shore.

Dec 27/10: Industrial. A $7.4 million firm-fixed-price modification to a previously awarded fixed-price-incentive-fee contract. It covers one time efforts associated with turning E-2D engineering drawing changes into E-2D production changes. Work will be performed in Bethpage, NY (71.5%), and St. Augustine, FL (28.5%), and is expected to be complete in December 2012. $1,000,000 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11 (N00019-08-C-0027).

Dec 7/10: Support. A $19.6 million firm-fixed-price delivery order under the basic order agreement to provide integrated logistics support for low rate initial production E-2D aircraft. A performance based support contract is expected down the road, and this contract is expected to handle the transition period. Work will be performed in Bethpage, NY, and is expected to be complete in October 2011 (N00019-10-G-0004).

FY 2010

1st delivery; SATCOM; IFF. Catapult test
(click to view full)

Sept 29/10: IFF. A $59.2 million modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-award-fee contract for IFF Mode 5 and Mode S upgrades. Efforts will include design, implementation, test and evaluation, verification, documentation, acceptance, and certification. Mode 5 IFF offers improved encryption, range, and civil compatibility. It also adds “lethal interrogation” as a must-respond last chance, and the ability to see individual aircraft even when they’re close together. The further addition of the civilian Mode S assigns a discrete ‘squawk’ which is unique to that aircraft. Together, they improve combat identification, and enable unrestricted flight in civilian airspace.

Work will be performed in Bethpage, NY (63%); Greenlawn, NY (35%); and Rolling Meadows, IL (2%). Work is expected to be complete in December 2013 (N00019-03-C-0057).

Sept 29/10: Industrial. A $25 million firm-fixed-price fixed-price-incentive-fee contract modification covers one-time efforts associated with E-2D engineering drawing modifications, and incorporation of open corrective actions required to produce production-ready documentation. Work will be performed in Bethpage, NY (67%), and St. Augustine, FL (33%), and is expected to be complete in September 2012 (N00019-08-C-0027).

Sept 15/10: SATCOM. A $9 million modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-award-fee contract (N00019-03-C-0057) to develop a dual satellite communication capability in the E-2D.

Work will be performed in Bethpage, NY (75%); Menlo Park, CA (17%); Westminster, CO (4%); Ronkonkoma, NY (2%); and Whippany, NJ (2%); and is expected to be complete in July 2011.

July 30/10: Fleet entry. The first Northrop Grumman E-2D Advanced Hawkeye aircraft to enter the U.S. Navy fleet is “welcomed home” in a ceremony held at Norfolk Naval Air Station, VA. The 2 pilot production aircraft bought in July 2007 remain on track for delivery in 2010, and Northrop Grumman claims that “manufacturing of four Low-Rate Initial Production aircraft also is progressing well.” Northrop Grumman.

Aug 11/10: C-2 spinoff? Flight International reports that the US Navy has commissioned a 6-month study from Northrop Grumman to look at remanufacturing C-2A Greyhound bodies using tooling and components already developed for the new E-2D Hawkeye, in order to give its 36 carrier-capable cargo planes longer service life.

The C-2As were originally designed to last for 36,000 carrier landings and 15,000 flight hours, and some have already had their center wing boxes replaced. The E-2 Hawkeye is a close derivative, and with Northrop Grumman ramping up E-2D production, refurbishing or building C-2s could become a cheaper option than buying up to 48 V-22 Osprey tilt-rotors for Navy roles that would be anchored by the same Carrier On-board Delivery function.

July 29/10: The 1st E-2D Advanced Hawkeye AWACS is delivered to the fleet at Chambers Field, Naval Station Norfolk, VA. The E-2D will go to the “Greyhawks” of Airborne Early Warning Fleet Replacement Squadron VAW-120, the “Greyhawks,” first. They will fly and operate the new plane, help set its parameters and procedures, and train pilots and Navy flight officers to fly and operate E-2Ds.

Another 2 pilot production E-2Ds are on schedule for delivery in 2010, and 4 Low Rate Initial Production planes are in various stages of manufacture. US Navy | Northrop Grumman | Virginia Pilot.

1st delivery

July 22/10: LRIP-2 partial. A $136 million unfinalized not-to-exceed contract modification for 1 E-2D Advanced Hawkeye from LRIP Lot 2 (FY 2010). This fixed-price-incentive-fee contract is only partial, as LRIP-2 is expected to include 3 planes.

Work will be performed in Syracuse, NY (32.6%); Bethpage, NY (15.5%); Dallas, TX (12.4%); Menlo Park, CA (9.8%); Indianapolis, IN (6.3%); Woodland Hills, CA (6%); Aire-sur-l’Adour, France (2.7%); Brentwood, NY (2.6%); Owego, NY (2.6%); Greenlawn, NY (2.2%); Irvine, CA (1.7%); Marlboro, MA (1.6%); Clemmons, NC (1.6%); Windsor Locks, CT (1.2%); and various locations throughout the U.S. (1.2%). Work is expected to be complete in December 2012 (N00019-08-C-0027).

LRIP-2: 2-3 E-2Ds

March 15/10: LRIP-3 lead-in. A $94.6 million not-to-exceed advance acquisition contract for long lead materials and support associated with the manufacture and delivery of 4 LRIP Lot 3 E-2D Advanced Hawkeye aircraft in FY 2010.

Work will be performed in Syracuse, NY (32.6%); various locations within the United States (23.7%); Bethpage, NY (15.5%); Dallas, TX (12.4%); Menlo Park, CA (9.8%); and Woodland Hills, CA (6%), and is expected to be complete in May 2011. This contract was not competitively procured, as the manufacturer is already set (N00019-10-C-0044).

March 4/10: Radar. Lockheed Martin announces a $171.8 million low-rate initial production contract from Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems in Bethpage, NY, for 4 AN/APY-9 Airborne Early Warning (AEW) radar systems and spare parts.

The company adds that 2 engineering-development models and 4 pre-production radar systems are currently in flight and qualification testing. Mission system and radar-related testing are currently ahead of schedule, with more than 230 radar flights over the last several months, by the Navy/ Industry integrated test team.

Dec 14/09: Sub-contractors. A $9.3 million modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-08-C-0027) for “non-recurring engineering in support of new supplier qualification and startup in support of E-2D Advanced Hawkeye aircraft low-rate initial production Lot 1 and 2 aircraft.”

According to Northrop Grumman, CPI Aerostructures in Edgewood, NY is the E-2D Outer Wing Panel supplier. They replaced Vought/Schweizer, who provided the E-2C Outer Wing Panel.

Work will be performed in Bethpage, NY (40.63%); Edgewood, NY (22.35%); St. Augustine, FL (20.86%); Aire-sur-l’Adour, France (14.17%); and various locations within the continental United States (1.99%), and is expected to be complete in January 2011.

Dec 14/09: Support. Wyle Laboratories, Inc. in Huntsville, AL receives a $30.6 million modification to a previously awarded indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity multiple award contract (N00421-03-D-0015) for continued E-2C/ E-2D/ C-2 planning, program and financial services in support of the US Navy and the governments of Egypt, France, Taiwan, Singapore, Japan and Canada under the Foreign Military Sales program.

Canada does not operate any C-2 or E-2 family aircraft at this point, which makes their inclusion interesting; the other foreign military inclusions all operate versions of the E-2C. Work will be performed in Patuxent River, MD, and is expected to be completed in December 2010.

Nov 30/09: CEC. A $6.8 million modification to a previously awarded contract (N00024-08-C-5203) build and test AN/USG-3B Airborne Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) Systems for use on the Navy’s new E-2D Hawkeye AWACS aircraft. The AN/USG-3B will create a shared fleet defense capability for the E-2D that will reportedly include assistance with ballistic missile tracking. China’s introduction of anti-ship ballistic missiles will make that a valuable capability twice over.

Work will be performed in Largo, FL (80%); St. Petersburg, FL (19%), and Dallas, TX (1%), and is expected to be complete by June 2011.

Nov 9/09: SDD. A $15.6 million modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-incentive-fee contract (N00019-03-C-0057) to provide Phase I aircraft data management for the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye aircraft, as part of the SDD phase.

Work will be performed in Bethpage, NY (71.3%); Grand Rapids, MI (9.3%); Woodland Hills, CA (6%); St. Augustine, FL (5.4%); Cedar Rapids, IA (3%); Norfolk, VA (2.2%); and various other locations within the United States (2.8%), and is expected to be complete in July 2012.

Oct 16/09: Testing. Northrop Grumman announces that its Delta One test aircraft successfully completed its first land-based catapult launch tests. Both E-2D System Development and Demonstration (SDD) aircraft, Delta One and Delta Two, are currently undergoing shore-based carrier suitability testing at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, MD with the U.S. Navy’s Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 20 (VX-20).

Oct 8/09: India. The US government’s Voice of America news service reports (Text | Video) that India has ordered the E-2D:

“The latest India-U.S. defense deal is the sale of this Airborne Early Warning Air Craft, Hawkeye E-2D, developed by American arms manufacturer, Northrop Grumman. Woolf Gross, the corporate director at the company, says the reconnaissance plane has yet to be introduced in the U.S. Navy. Its sale to India, he says, is a symbol of how close India/U.S. military relations are. “So they [the Indians] could have advanced Hawkeyes in India about the same time that the U.S. Navy becomes fully operational with the same aircraft,” he explained.”

Direct discussions with Northrop Grumman representatives clarified this situation. The E-2D was recently approved for export to India, which clears the way for the USN to conduct E-2D technical briefings with India under American arms export laws. To date, however, there is no sale and no contract.

FY 2009

Operational Assessment; Milestone C; LRIP-1 contract. Interest from India. FLA flight testing
(click to view full)

Sept 24/09: Spares. A $23 million firm-fixed-price order against a previously issued basic ordering agreement (N00421-05-G-0001) for spares in support of 2 E-2D Lot 1 aircraft. Spares include 2 Quick Engine Change Kits; 2 T-56-A-427A engines; 1 Rotodome; and consumables.

Work will be performed in Indianapolis, IN (30.9%); Bethpage, NY (27.8%); Menlo Park, CA (23.9%); Springville, UT (7.5%); St. Augustine, FL (1.8%); and at various locations within the United States (8.1%), is expected to be complete in May 2013.

Sept 23/09: Spares. A $32.3 million firm-fixed-price order against a previously issued basic ordering agreement (N00421-05-G-0001) for various spares in support of two E-2D Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Lot 1 aircraft.

Work will be performed in Syracuse, NY, (41%); Bethpage, NY (15.6%); Menlo Park, CA (5.7%); Greenlawn, NY, (4.8%); Woodland Hills, CA (4.6%); Irvine, CA (3.3%); Cleveland, OH (3.2%); West Chester, OH (3.2%); Indianapolis, IN (2.9%); Freeport, NY (2%), and at various locations within the United States (13.7%), and is expected to be complete in February 2013.

Sept 13/09: India. Indian media report that the US government has cleared the E-2D for possible export to India, following the signing of End User Monitoring Agreement (EUMA) protocols in July 2009.

India is the second country after the UAE to be cleared by the US State and Defense Departments for E-2D sales, but a specific Foreign Military Sales contract would require clearances for other systems as well. The report states that initial operations would be shore-based, because even the converted 40,000t Admiral Gorshkov will lack the required catapults. India would be able to receive E-2Ds within 3 years of signing a contract. Hindustan Times.

July 31/09: SDD. Northrop Grumman Technical Services Sector in Herndon, VA received a $7 million modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-fixed-fee, firm-fixed-price contract (N00421-08-C-0065), exercising an option for approximately 89,886 hours of engineering and logistics services in support of E-2C, C-2A test and E-2D System Design and Development (SDD) aircraft located at the Air Test and Evaluation Squadron TWO ZERO (VX-20) in Patuxent River, MD.

Services will include modification and preparation of the aircraft for test operations, correction of safety of flight discrepancies, quality control inspections, engineering investigations, and logistics and parts support. Work will be performed in Patuxent River, MD, and is expected to be complete in July 2010.

July 7/09: Industrial. Northrop Grumman begin manufacturing its 6th E-2D Hawkeye, and the 1st Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) aircraft for operational use, with the start of keel assembly at the company’s East Coast Manufacturing and Flight Test Center in St. Augustine, FL. This work is being performed under the June 15/09 contract. NGC release.

July 1/09: Engines. A $6.4 million modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-incentive-fee contract (N00019-03-C-0057) to buy NP2000-3 Propellar Systems and associated spares for 3 E-2D pilot production aircraft – in other words, 6 of the Hamilton-Sundstrand propellers, plus associated spares. Northrop Grumman receives the contract because they’re the prime integrator.

Work will be performed in Windsor Locks, CT (80%, Hamilton-Sundstrand) and Bethpage, NY (20%, Northrop Grumman), and is expected to be complete in October 2010.

June 15/09: Milestone C, LRIP-1 contract. The E-2D successfully passes its Milestone C review, and a $360.5 million modification finalizes the previously awarded $20 million April 7/09 contract for 2 Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) E-2D aircraft (N00019-08-C-0027). In addition, this contract provides long lead materials and related support for the 2 FY 2010 LRIP Lot 2 aircraft. A subsequent Northrop Grumman release adds additional items, and places the contract’s total value at $432 million.

Work will be performed in Bethpage, NY (31.27%); Syracuse, NY (23.57%), various locations within the United States (19.06%); St. Augustine, FL (16.36%); Menlo Park, CA (3.81%); Indianapolis, IN (3.76%); and Rolling Meadows, IL (2.17%), and is expected to be completed in October 2011.

Milestone C and LRIP-1: 2 E-2Ds

June 10/09: To Pax. Northrop Grumman announces that an E-2D test aircraft has flown north to Naval Air Station Patuxent River, MD, to begin carrier suitability testing. The bulk of the testing involves catapult and arrested landing structural tests, also called ‘Shake, Rattle, and Roll Tests’, as well as aerodynamic testing for minimum acceptable approach airspeed, and establishing crosswind limits, etc. Logistics, manpower and interoperability compatibility with the carriers are also tested.

June 3/09: The E-2D Advanced Hawkeye Integrated Test Team (ITT) – composed of military, civil service and industry personnel from Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, prime contractor Northrop Grumman, and other program contractors – has received the Weapons Systems Award from the 75 year old Order of Daedalians. Their award, and its Colonel Franklin C. Wolfe Memorial Trophy, are presented annually for the most outstanding weapons system development in the aerospace environment. Other recent awards for the team include recognition as a model ITT by Vice Adm. David Architzel, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development and Acquisition); the U.S. Navy’s VX-20 Test Team of the Quarter for Q2 2008; he 2008 James S. McDonnell Test Team of the Year from the Society of Experimental Flight Test Engineers; and the 2007 Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division Test Team of the Year.

The NGC corporate release identifies the Navy’s current Advanced Hawkeye program manager, Capt. Shane Gahagan; Northrop Grumman’s Jim Culmo, as VP of Airborne Early Warning and Battle Management Command Control Programs for its Aerospace Systems sector; and Marty McCord, as Northrop Grumman’s Contractor Flight Test Director.

May 13/09: Testing. Northrop Grumman announces that the E-2D program recently reached its 1,000th hour of flight testing at Northrop Grumman’s East Coast Manufacturing and Flight Test Center. The release adds that the aircraft “continues to successfully meet, or exceed, all major program and performance milestones… E-2D pilot production continues ahead of schedule on the first three aircraft, and radar long-range detection performance is exceeding expectations.” The E-2D will fly to NAS Patuxent River later in 2009, for the carrier suitability testing phase.

April 30/09: Support. A $12.7 million modification to a previously awarded cost plus incentive fee contract. They will provide integrated logistics services for E-2D Pilot Production aircraft, as part of the SDD phase. Work will be performed in Bethpage, NY (91%) and at various locations throughout the United States (8%), and is expected to be complete in September 2011 (N00019-03-C-0057).

April 7/09: LRIP-1 lead-in. A not-to-exceed $20 million modification to a previously awarded advance acquisition contract (N00019-08-C-0027), buying long lead-time materials and support for the 2 E-2Ds that will be built under LRIP Lot 1.

Work will be performed in Syracuse, NY (32.6%), various locations within the United States (23.7%); Bethpage, NY (15.5%); Dallas, TX (12.4%); Menlo Park, CA (9.8%); and Woodland Hills, CA (6%), and is expected to be complete in August 2011.

March 31/09: GAO report re: delays. The US GAO audit office delivers its 7th annual “Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs report. The E-2D is included among the 47 programs reviewed. Total program cost growth is under 10%, with just 5.8% cost growth during the R&D phase. Overall, the reports rates all 4 of the E-2D AHE’s critical technologies as mature, and the E-2D AHE design as stable. That’s an uncommon combination among similar stage programs, and the cost and schedule figures mark the E-2D as a successful acquisition program. They added that:

“In early flight testing, the program experienced problems with the high power circulators, hydraulic lines, antenna power amplifier modules, and inclement weather, which has resulted in a 4 to 6 month delay in the program’s flight testing schedule… The program is taking a series of steps to address flight testing delays [but] completing flight testing according to its original schedule may not be feasible. According to program officials, the program will experience additional delays due to budget cuts… likely that the budget cuts will impede the program’s ability to meet its planned initial operational capability date due to the reduced number of aircraft available to perform pilot and maintenance training operations to prepare for initial deployment. Program officials estimate this reduction in two aircraft will cause a 12 to 24 month delay in initial operating capability and a 20% increase in the aircraft’s unit cost.”

March 2/09: Electronics. GE Aviation Systems, LLC in Grand Rapids, MI received a $12.1 million ceiling-priced indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract for aircraft recorders. The order includes 27 Crash Survivable Memory Units (CSMU) for the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotors; 120 Crash Survivable Flight Information Recorder (CSFIR) Voice and Data Recorders (VADRs) for the E-2D Hawkeye AWACS plane; and 2 CSFIR Integrated Data Acquisition and Recorder Systems for T-6A trainer aircraft. In addition, this contract provides for CSFIR supply system spares; engineering and product support; CSFIR and CSMU hardware; software upgrades, repairs, and modifications for CSFIR/Structural Flight Recording Set (SFRS) common ground station software.

Work will be performed in Grand Rapids, MI, and is expected to be complete in March 2010. This contract was not competitively procured by the Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD (N00019-09-D-0017).

Feb 6/09: With a new administration in place and the “economic stimulus” package pending in Congress, Northrop Grumman and local leaders step up lobbying for restoration of the FY 2009 budget’s $203.4 million cut to production procurement for the E-2D (see October 2008 entry, and related materials). Tom Vice, sector vice president for Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems sector, says that the firm has the manufacturing capacity to accommodate up to 10 E-2Ds per year.

Program Manager Jim Culmo, Northrop Grumman’s vice president of Airborne Early Warning and Battle Management Command and Control Programs, believes that there’s a key industrial base issue. The last E-2C will be delivered in 2009, leaving the E-2D program as the sole support. As a result:

“We have major concerns about the jobs impact and here’s why. Northrop Grumman and its 280 suppliers will make their final E-2C Hawkeye deliveries this year, as well as transfer our two SD&D aircraft to Patuxent River Naval Air Station. During this critical transition to LRIP, a reduction in the number of aircraft the Navy had planned to produce has dramatic consequences. This will increase the unit cost to the Navy by approximately 20% [for the 2 aircraft ordered]. It will mean a loss of 350 jobs across our supplier base in 38 U.S. states beginning in the first quarter of 2009. This loss will erode the highly skilled workforce, particularly in the state of Florida, that has been dedicated to this program for decades… Getting these critical skills back once they are gone is going to be extremely challenging.”

There’s also a timeline issue, as delays at this juncture are expected to push back the E-2D’s Initial Operating Capability to 2012-13. Arguments are being made that this might also have an effect on foreign sales, but E-2C+ Hawkeye 2000s would be a viable offering if the timing was that critical to the buyer. See: NGC release | Florida Times-Union | Reuters | St. Augustine Record op-ed.

Nov 13/08: OA done. Northrop Grumman announces that its E-2D has completed operational assessment (OA) after more than 600 flight hours, over half involving in-flight radar testing. OA testing involves the performance of the platform in an environment that resembles actual missions. The firm had set a date for OA completion 5 years ago, and met it on schedule with 92% aircraft availability, all test objectives executed, and no major system failures. The OA report is due in December 2008, and the firm has been given a green rating on production readiness; a “Milestone C” decision on low-rate initial production is due in 2009.

NGC’s corporate release notes that the E-2D has been recognized for its program performance with numerous industry awards in 2008. They include Aviation Week’s Military Laureate Award and its Program Excellence Achievement Award; the Society of Experimental Test Pilots Leroy Grumman Award; and NAVAIR Commander’s Award for Program Management.

OA done, industry awards

October 2008: Budget cut. the FY 2009 defense budget is passed, with a cut of $165.5 million from the request for Low-Rate Initial Production Lot 1 (3 planes to 2, aircraft deferred until 2022), and $37.9 million from long lead-time item buys for FY 2010 LRIP-2, for a total of $203.4 million. The timing of the cut will delay the E-2D’s expected Initial Operational Capability by 12-18 months, to 2012-13.

Because the underlying infrastructure fixed costs don’t change, and E-2C production is ending and cannot absorb any slack, the changes caused an approximate 20% jump in cost per aircraft in FY 2009, a 12.5% jump in FY 2010, and increase other costs by lengthening total production time and incurring more fixed costs for infrastructure, labor, etc. to produce the same number of machines.

FY 2008

SDD. Pilot production. E-2D cockpit
(click to view full)

Sept 26/08: Pilot production. A $10.7 million modification to a previously awarded cost plus incentive fee contract for procurement of Aircraft Change Directives in support of the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye (AHE) Pilot Production Aircraft, under the E-2D AHE System Development and Demonstration Program. Work will be performed in Bethpage, NY (71.2%); and St. Augustine, FL, (28.8%) and is expected to be completed in June 2009. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year (N00019-03-C-0057).

Sept 23/08: Support. A $6.2 million modification to a previously awarded cost plus incentive fee contract (N00019-03-C-0057) covers support equipment for the 3 Lot 1 E-2D Advanced Hawkeye Pilot Production Aircraft.

Work will be performed in Bethpage, NY (69.1%); Menlo Park, CA (5.7%); New Port Richey, FL (5.3%) Islip, NY (3.2%); Dover, NJ (3.1%); Holbrook, NY (2.2%); and other various locations within the United States (11.4%), and is expected to be complete in June 2011.

Sept 22/08: Engines. A $12 million modification to a previously awarded cost-plus incentive fee contract for engineering efforts associated with the manufacture and initial fitting of the Lot 1 E-2D Hawkeyes’ T-56-A-427A engines. Work will be performed in Indianapolis, IN (87%) and Bethpage, NY (13%), and is expected to be complete in Sept 2010 (N00019-03-C-0057).

Sept 10/08: The US Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Approves the FY 2009 Defense Appropriations Bill. Their release and summary includes “Funds procurement of 2 E-2D aircraft, a deferral of 1 aircraft.” The aircraft’s radar testing issues are cited as the reason. That approach is accepted in the final, reconciled House/Senate budget.

July 30/08: SDD. Northrop Grumman Technical Services Sector in Herndon, VA received a sole-source $6.3 million cost-plus-fixed-fee, firm-fixed-price contract for approximately 89,886 hours of engineering and logistics services in support of E-2C, C-2A test and E-2D System Design and Development (SDD) aircraft located at the Air Test and Evaluation Squadron TWO ZERO (VX-20) in Patuxent River, MD.

Services to be provided include modification and preparation of the aircraft for test operations, correct safety of flight discrepancies, quality control inspections, engineering investigations, and logistics and parts support. Work will be performed in Patuxent River, MD and the contract will end in July 2009. The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division in Patuxent River, MD issued the contract (N00421-08-C-0065).

July 2008: Radar flight testing resumes for the E-2D, with no subsequent problems reported.

June 27/08: Pilot production engines. A $36.3 million modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for T-56-A-427A engines and spares in support of the 3 E-2D Advanced Hawkeye Pilot Production Aircraft. For 3 aircraft, that’s 6 engines. NGC is listed as the contractor, even though they’re Rolls Royce engines, because NGC is the prime contractor and hence responsible for integration etc.

Work will be performed in Indianapolis, IN (82%) and Bethpage, NY (18%), and is expected to be complete in September 2010 (N00019-03-C-0057).

June 25/08: Spares. A $20.5 million modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-incentive-fee contract (N00019-03-C-0057) covering spare parts for the 3 E-2D Advanced Hawkeye Pilot Production Aircraft of Lot 1.

Work will be performed in Syracuse, NY (52.02%); Bethpage, NY (19.49%); Woodlawn, CA (5.82%); Greenlawn, NY (5.60%); Springville, UT (2.90%); Cincinnati, OH (2.14%); Ronkonkoma, NY (2.06%); and at various locations within the United States (9.97%), and is expected to be complete in Sep. 2010.

June 24/08: Pilot production. A $9.4 million modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-incentive-fee contract (N00019-03-C-0057) for non-recurring engineering efforts involved in the production of required subsystems and components for the Lot 1 E-2D Advanced Hawkeye Pilot production Aircraft.

Work will be performed in Bethpage, NY (28.23%); Torrance, CA (14.47%); Dallas, TX (10.80%); Pomezia, Italy (8.74%); Cleveland, OH (8.36%); New Port Richey, FL (8.13%), Owega, NY (6.71%); Freeport, NY (3. 20%) and various locations within the USA (11.54%), and is expected to be complete in Sep. 2010.

June 4/08: Pilot production. A $9.1 million modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-incentive-fee contract (N00019-03-C-0057) for Electro Magnetic Interference Reduction System Process Hardware for E-2D Advanced Hawkeye Pilot Production Aircraft; 1 Lot (3 subsystems). Work will be performed in Syracuse, N.Y. (90.9%) and Bethpage, N.Y. (9.10%), and is expected to be completed in April 2010.

As noted above, “improved clutter & interference cancellation offers significant improvement in tracking small land and sea targets, as well as better performance against electronic jamming.” It’s also very helpful if an aircraft wishes to collect enemy signals while operating a powerful radar.

April 10/08: SDD. An $11.7 million modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-award-fee contract for one-time engineering efforts centered around replacing the E-2D’s halon system. Halon is an inert gas used to put out fires by depriving them of burnable atmosphere. Work will be performed in Bethpage, NY, (87.3%) and St. Augustine, FL (12.7%) and is expected to be complete in Sept 2011 (N00019-03-C-0057).

March 2008: Radar issues. The E-2D program experiences issues as a result of the new radar’s high power requirements. The “high power circulators” that transfer power from the radar amplifiers to the rotodome antenna were initially unable to handle the power levels required by the new radar.

Design changes, and material changes that changed the insulating material in the antenna, are made. General flight testing continues throughout, but radar flight testing is suspended.

Feb 6/08: SDD. A $12 million modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-award-fee contract (N00019-03-C-0057) for recently-specified changes to the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye design during the Development and Demonstration Program. Work will be performed in Bethpage, NY (79.6%) and St. Augustine, FL (20.4%) and is expected to be complete in June 2008.

Dec 26/07: LRIP-1 lead-in. A $50.4 million not-to-exceed advance acquisition contract for long lead material and support for 3 E-2D Advanced Hawkeye low rate initial production (LRIP) Lot 1 aircraft.

Work will be performed in Syracuse, NY (32.6%), various locations within the United States (23.7%); Bethpage, NY (15.5%); Dallas, TX (12.4%); Menlo Park, CA (9.8%); and Woodland Hills, CA (6%), and is expected to be complete in August 2011. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md. is the contracting activity (N00019-08-C-0027).

Dec 19/07: CEC. A $22.4 million modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-award-fee contract (N00019-03-C-0057) for cooperative engagement capability developmental efforts in support of the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye System Development and Demonstration Program. Work will be performed in Bethpage, N.Y., (92.6%) and St. Augustine, FL (7.4%) and is expected to be completed in July 2009.

CEC allows the Hawkeye to share both a joint battle picture and targeting data with fleet ships, other surveillance aircraft, and even land-based missile units. Like the CEC-equipped E-2C Hawkeye 2000, the E-2D will have targeting capability, and becomes a potential node for ballistic missile defense.

Dec 17/07: India. According to a report in the forthcoming issue of India Strategic defense magazine, the Indian Navy had issued an request for information for the E-2D Hawkeye to the U.S. government. The report said Washington has confirmed India’s interest and said that “as and when a formal request is received from New Delhi, the answer should be positive.” Note also DID’s February 2006 report that Northrop Grumman was working to integrate HAL into its E-2 Hawkeye AWACS program supply chain by way of sourcing aircraft assemblies and components, digitization and other related services

The Indian Navy reportedly wanted their aircraft to be capable of staying in the air for 8 hours instead of 6, and modifications such as “wet” (fuel carrying) wings and the plane’s existing aerial refueling capability are reportedly set to address this. India Today.

Nov 29/07: Testing. Delta Two, the 2nd E-2D Advanced Hawkeye development aircraft, completes its first flight from NGC’s St. Augustine, FL manufacturing and flight test center in just over 2 hours, followed by a second flight on Dec 4/07. During the flights, the team conducted a series of air vehicle tests to evaluate airplane flying qualities, engine response, and cockpit instruments. Chief test pilot Mike Holton later said in Northrop Grumman’s release that:

“Our go-forward plan is to fly another flight to check out engine air start capability, and high angle of attack flying qualities, and then we will complete the installation of the weapon system. Once the weapon system is in, we will fly approximately 200 flights to evaluate the new radar. And just like Delta One, which flew its first flight on Aug. 3, Delta Two flew just like an E-2C.”

FY 2007

Rollout, 1st flight. E-2D, 1st flight
(click to view full)

Sept 26/07: Industrial. A $14.5 million cost-plus-incentive-fee modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-award-fee contract for non-recurring efforts to prepare for E-2D Advanced Hawkeye production at NGC and its suppliers. Work will be performed in Syracuse, NY (56.42%); Menlo Park, CA (23.25%); various locations across the United States, (11.23%); and Bethpage, NY (9.1%) and is expected to be complete in December 2008 (N00019-03-C-0057).

Sept 26/07: Training. A $10 million cost-plus-incentive-fee modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-award-fee contract for the procurement of E-2D Advanced Hawkeye Prime Mission Equipment for E-2D Trainer requirements.

Work will be performed in Marlborough, MA (39%); Woodland Hills, CA (36.7%); Owego, NY (12%); Bethpage, NY (9.7%); Baltimore, MD (1.6%); and Sylmar, CA (1%) and is expected to be complete in July 2009 (N00019-03-C-0057).

Aug 3/07: 1st Dev Flight. The first E-2D Advanced Hawkeye development aircraft, known as Delta One, completes its first flight at St. Augustine, FL. Northrop Grumman Flight Test Pilot Tom Boutin and U.S. Navy Flight Test Pilot Lt. Drew Ballinger along with Northrop Grumman Flight Test Lead Weapon Systems Operator Zyad Hajo lifted off shortly before 11 a.m. and flew for approximately 1.3 hours. NGC release.

1st flight

July 9/07: A $408 million modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-award-fee contract (N00019-03-C-0057) for 3 E-2D Advanced Hawkeye pilot production aircraft, under the SDD phase.

Work will be performed in Bethpage, NY (26.5%); at various locations across the United States (25.88%); Syracuse, NY (23.57%); St. Augustine, FL (18.63%); and Menlo Park, CA (5.42%) and is expected to be complete in August 2010. See also Northrop Grumman release.

Pilot production: 3 E-2Ds

April 30/07: Rollout. The first E-2D Advanced Hawkeye makes its first public appearance at a rollout ceremony in St. Augustine, FL. NGC release.

Rollout

April 9/07: The Pentagon’s periodic Selective Acquisition Report updates us re: cost growth in the E-2D program. Full weapons program costs increased from $15,721.5 million to $17,487.0 million (up $1.76 billion/ 11.2%), due primarily to higher Mission Electronics, general procurement, and mission systems pricing (+$653.7 million), buying fewer aircraft per year over a longer period from FY 2009-2020 (+$374.8 million), and additional pilot production funding (+$169.0 million). There were also increases for the addition of the automatic identification system, dual transit satellite communication, and in-flight refueling requirements (+$137.1 million), a revised estimate to reflect new pricing for the system development and demonstration contract (+$234.3 million), and increases in initial spares, peculiar support equipment and training, and other production support costs (+$159.1 million).

At this estimate, each E-2D aircraft will cost $233.1 million when all R&D, pilot production, equipment, and initial support funds are factored in and amortized.

SAR – baseline

Nov 13-15/06: Northrop Grumman Corporation hosts the 5th annual International Hawkeye Users Conference at its manufacturing center in St. Augustine, FL. Every year, the company brings together members of the air forces and navies of Egypt, France, Japan, Mexico, Taiwan, Singapore and the United States to share lessons-learned and to learn about new capabilities and improvements planned for the world’s E-2 fleet. The NGC release adds that “together, these nations operate over 100 E-2C Hawkeyes…”

FY 2006 and Earlier

Development; CDR. E-2D #1, Assembly
(click to view full)

July 17/06: Northrop Grumman announces that it has mated the major sub-assemblies of the first E-2D Advanced Hawkeye test aircraft into a single fuselage structure at its St. Augustine, FL manufacturing center. NGC release.

Nov 17/05: CDR. Northrop Grumman Corporation and the U.S. Navy announce a successful E-2D critical design review (CDR). All the team’s basic designs, including the new radar, mission computer and workstations had been improved and vetted, and Northrop Grumman can now complete production of the 2 test aircraft to fulfill the SDD phase requirements. NGC release.

CDR

July 20/05: SDD add-on. A $22.6 million modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-award-fee contract (N00019-03-C-0057) to design, develop, fabricate, assemble, integrate, furnish, manage, test and evaluate an On-Board Oxygen Generating System for the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye aircraft. Work will be performed in Bethpage, N.Y. (93.8%) and Davenport, Iowa, (6.2%), and is expected to be completed in December 2012.

March 29/04: SDD add-on. A $63.7 million modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-award-fee contract (N00019-03-C-0057) exercises an option for a Propulsion System Control Monitoring and Maintenance System (PSCMMS) for the E-2 Advanced Hawkeye (AHE). Specifically, the contractor will design, develop, fabricate, assemble, integrate, furnish, manage, test, evaluate and support a PSCMMS as part of the E-2 AHE System Development and Demonstration (SD&D) effort.

Work will be performed in Indianapolis, IN (52.61%); Bethpage, N.Y. (41.08%); Windsor Locks, CT (3.92%); and Irvine, CA (2.39%), and is expected to be completed in May 2011.

Aug 11/03: SDD contract. A $1.932 billion cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for the E-2 Advanced Hawkeye (AHE) system development and demonstration (SDD) phase, which will consist of modifying two E-2 Hawkeye 2000 aircraft to the E-2 AHE configuration. The contractor will design, develop, fabricate, assemble, integrate, furnish, manage, test, evaluate and support the software, hardware and engineering associated with the SDD phase.

Work will be performed in Bethpage, N.Y. (55.39%); at various locations across the United States (20.75%); Syracuse, N.Y. (13.91%); Baltimore, MD (4.98%); Menlo Park, CA (3.22%); and El Segundo, CA (1.75%), and is expected to be complete in December 2012. This contract was not competitively procured (N00019-03-C-0057).

E-2D development

Additional Readings

• Northrop Grumman – E-2D Advanced Hawkeye.

• Northrop Grumman – E-2C Hawkeye 2000.

• Naval Technology – E-2C/D Hawkeye, United States of America.

• Northrop Grumman – Protect the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye. Lobbying site designed to restore $200 million in advance funding.

• Defense News (July 31/12) – Navy: Iraq Experience Validates New E-2 Radar. They’re referring to the E-2C’s overland command and control role, which was tempered by its difficulty picking up targets amid land clutter. The E-2D is significantly better at that task.

• NDIA National Defense Magazine, via WayBack (July 2009) – Navy Awaits Arrival of Powerful New Radar-Equipped Aircraft.

• Smithsonian Air & Space, via WayBack (July 2008) – Detect and Direct: The Navy’s newest Hawkeye gets closer to the fight.

Americas

• The Pentagon will petition Congress to allow it to buy up to 450 F-35s in a three-year international block buy. The bulk purchase from 2018 would drive down the per-unit cost of each aircraft, as well as provide industry contractors with a greater customer commitment to the program.

• A set of serious technical flaws have been identified in the Missile Defense Agency’s Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system, with this the latest technical problem in a program which has cost over $41 billion.

• Northrop Grumman has completed a Critical Design Review for new weapons management software for the B-2 Spirit bomber, as part of the Air Force’s Flexible Strike Phase I program.

• Radio manufacturer Harris Corp. completed its merger with Exelis Inc. on Friday, following a company statement in February that announced the deal worth $4.75 billion. The deal has resulted in Harris’ shareholders owning 85% of the new merged company, with Exelis shareholders the remaining 15%.

Europe

• Analysis of the blackbox of the Airbus A400M which crashed on 9th May has revealed that engine software is the likely cause of the accident. The announcement that the cause was down to incorrectly installed software, rather than structural problems with the aircraft, follows a call by Airbus for A400M customers to check engine software following the crash. The Spanish Air Force took over investigation of the incident from a Spanish civilian team, with many air forces grounding their fleets in the wake of the crash.

• The Russian Navy is planning to construct and field a new carrier by the late 2020’s, according to Russian media reports. The Russians currently operate one active carrier – the Admiral Kuznetsov.

Middle East

• The United Arab Emirates has requested a purchase of 1,600 guided bombs, in a potential deal worth approximately $130 million. 1,000 of these will be GBU-31 variants, with the remaining 600 GBU-12s. The UAE is conducting airstrikes against the Islamic State in Syria, recently sending F-16s to Jordan to carry out operations.

• It has emerged that Iraq lost 2,300 Humvees when Mosul fell to the Islamic State last year, prompting the US government to send 1,000 of the vehicles to the beleaguered country, following a request in December.

Asia

• In an announcement that will shock few, the Indian defense minister announced over the weekend that the country will only purchase the 36 Rafales contracted for in a government to government deal in April, with no plans to purchase the 126 jets the Indian government has been in negotiations with manufacturer Dassault for over the last three years.

• Meanwhile, the Indian Air Force will likely have to wait a further five years before the Tejas MkII will be available for combat operations. The aircraft’s engine – the General Electric F414 – will provide the MkII with more thrust than the MkI’s F404 but will require significant alterations to the aircraft’s structure in order to accommodate its size. The much-delayed program is 32 years in development, with the MkII also set to be equipped with new radar and other components. Additionally, the MkI is also likely to fail to achieve its Final Operating Clearance scheduled for later this year, following a highly critical report released earlier this month which found the aircraft will not meet IAF standards.

• The Indian Navy is planning to test fire a Barak-8 SAM in coming weeks, according to Indian media. The jointly-developed Israeli/Indian missile was successfully tested last November, with this coming test scheduled to take place aboard the INS Kolkata, which will eventually be equipped with 32 of the missiles.

• German firm Atlas Elektronic is supplying the Indian Navy with ASW Active Towed Array Sonar systems, which will equip the Kamorta-class. The Indian Navy has stated that these will assist their vessels when operating in warm waters.

Today’s Video

• F-35Bs refuel from a KC-130…

GMD launch, 2001
(click to view full)

The USA’s Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) program uses land-based missiles to intercept incoming ballistic missiles in the middle of their flight, outside the atmosphere. The missiles are currently based at 2 sites in the USA: 4 at Vandenberg AFB in California, and 20 (eventually 26) at Fort Greely in Alaska.

The well-known Patriot missiles provide what’s known as terminal-phase defense options, while longer-reach options like the land-based THAAD perform terminal or descent-phase interceptions. Even so, their sensors and flight ranges are best suited to defense against shorter range missiles launched from in-theater.

In contrast, GMD is designed to defend against intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). It depends on tracking that begins in the boost phase, in order to allow true mid-course interception attempts in space, before descent or terminal phase options like THAAD and then Patriot would be tried. In order to accomplish that task, GMD missiles must use data feeds from an assortment of long-range sensors, including satellites like SBIRS and DSP, some SPSS/BMEWS huge early-warning radars, and even the naval SBX radar.

GMD Program, Present & Past

According to the Director, Missile Defense Agency (MDA), GMD is expected to remain in service until at least 2032. At present, there are 30 GBI missiles in place: 26 at Fort Geely, AK, and 4 at Vandenberg AFB, CA. Within that set, there are 2 kill vehicle versions. The first kill vehicle, fielded since 2004, is known as the Capability Enhancement I (CE-I). The current production model is CE-II.

In 2009, the Secretary of Defense reduced the number of planned GBIs from 44 to 30, plus 22 more GBIs for testing and spares. In 2013, the Obama administration backtracked on its previous decision, restoring the planned number of deployed GBIs to 44.

(click to see others)

In many ways, the GMD program is a poster child for temporary gain and long term pain. When the threat involves nuclear weapons, that’s a defensible choice, but there is a flip side.

The GMD system arose out of President G.W. Bush’s 2002 directive to deploy an initial set of missile defense capabilities by 2004. Meeting the date resulted in a very concurrent program, which did field 5 CE-I interceptors and a fire control system. That gave the President an important new option, and added uncertainty to hostile states for several years into the Global War on Terror.

The flip side is that the option had costs. A 2008 MDA briefing acknowledged that their approach led to very risky decisions regarding schedule, product quality, and program cost. One example that seems unnecessary involved a design that wasn’t set up for manufacturing ease, creating a long and continuous river of design changes once it came time to build it. Other consequences of this approach have included schedule delays, unexpected cost increases, variations between delivered CE-I EKVs, performance issues, the need for a refurbishment program, and sometimes-questionable infrastructure that eventually forced the USA to shut down Fort Greely, AK’s Missile Field 1.

The FY 2014 budget aims to begin rebuilding Fort Greely’s MF1, including full hardening against EMP (Electro-Magnetic Pulse, created by nuclear airbursts among other things).

GMD: The System

The GMD “system” includes far more than just the GBI missiles and the EKV kill vehicles they carry.

• The COBRA DANE Upgrade Radar at Eareckson Air Station (Shemya Island), AK.

• Upgraded BMEWS Early Warning Radars at Beale AFB, CA; RAF Fylingdales, United Kingdom; and Thule AB, Greenland

• Ground-based Interceptor (GBI) missiles at Fort Greely, AK, plus 4 silos at Vandenberg AFB, California.

• GMD ground system including GMD Fire Control (GFC) nodes at Schriever AFB, CO, and Fort Greely, AK; Command Launch Equipment at Vandenberg AFB, CA, and Fort Greely, AK; and In-Flight Interceptor Communication System Data Terminals at Vandenberg AFB, CA, Fort Greely, AK, and Shemya Island, AK.

• GMD secure data and voice communication system including long-haul communications using the Defense Satellite Communication System, commercial satellite communications, and fiber-optic cable (both terrestrial and submarine).

• External interfaces that connect to Aegis BMD; North American Aerospace Defense – U.S. Northern Command Command Center and Command and Control, Battle Management, and Communications at Peterson AFB, CO; Space Based Infrared System/Defense Support Program at Buckley AFB, CO to relay data from early warning satellites; and the AN/TPY-2 radar at Shariki AB, Japan.

• The Sea-Based X-band radar can be operationally deployed as needed.

Contracts and Recent Events FY 2014-2015

EKV
(click to view full)

June 1/15: A set of serious technical flaws have been identified in the Missile Defense Agency’s Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system, with this the latest technical problem in a program which has cost over $41 billion.

June 22/14: FTG-06b Kill! After a gap lasting more than 5 years, the GMD system has killed an incoming target during a live test. The GBI interceptor was launched from Vandenberg AFB, CA to intercept an intermediate-range ballistic missile target launched from the Kwajalein Atoll in the Republic of the Marshall Islands.

The IRBM target was launched from the Reagan Test Site, then detected and tracked by the US Navy destroyer USS Hopper [DDG 70, with AEGIS BMD 4.0.2] and the Sea-Based X-Band radar, which provided data to GMD fire control using the MDA’s C2BMC back-end system. The intercept was achieved by an EKV CE-II model. Sources: US MDA, “Target Missile Intercepted Over the Pacific Ocean During Missile Defense Exercise” | Raytheon, “Raytheon kill vehicle destroys complex, long-range ballistic missile target in space”.

June 15/14. The LA Times writes a feature about the GMD system, whose $40 billion price tag and 8/16 success record (including just 3/8 successes since becoming operational in 2004) don’t inspire favorable treatment. That record suggests that the USA would need to volley about 4 missiles at each incoming missile, in order to have a high probability of success. Moreover:

“About a third of the kill vehicles now in use — the exact number is classified — are the same model that failed in the 2010 tests, according to people familiar with the system who spoke on condition of anonymity. That model has yet to intercept a target…. interceptors used in test flights burn up when they reenter the atmosphere or are lost in the ocean…. some of the system’s problems can be traced to the kill vehicles’ [inertial measurement unit]…. Scientists suspect that intense vibration during the interceptors’ ascent is the cause of some of the test failures…. It could take years of additional engineering work to solve this and other technical problems in the kill vehicles, scientists said.

Lehner, the Missile Defense Agency spokesman, said vibrations were successfully dampened in a January 2013 flight test [that]… did not involve an attempt to intercept a target…. Engineers who have worked with the system acknowledge that because each kill vehicle is unique, even a successful test might not predict the performance of interceptors launched in combat.”

Sources: LA Times, “$40 billion missile defense system proves unreliable”.

March 4-11/14: FY15 Budget. The US military slowly files its budget documents, detailing planned spending from FY 2014 – 2019. The MDA has decided on a full redesign of the missile’s kill vehicle, which will involve an initial $99.5 million in FY 2015; overall interceptor improvements are budgeted to cost around $700 million from FY 2015 – 2019. MDA adds the usual boilerplate, though executing on these promises does make a difference to long term costs:

“The redesigned EKV will be built with a modular, open architecture and designed with common interfaces and standards, making upgrades easier and broadening our vendor and supplier base. The redesigned EKV will increase performance to address the evolving threat; improve reliability, availability, maintainability, testability and producibility; and increase in-flight communications to improve usage of off-board sensors information and situational awareness to combatant commanders for enabling new tactics such as shoot-assess-shoot.”

See above for an updated chart of GMD budgets, which is still entirely made up of RDT&E funds. The logic when they were deployed was “get the prototypes up, and at least create uncertainty in enemies.” That was actually a logical step; every trader knows that you have to hedge sometimes, in order to manage risk. Every hedge also has a cost. In this case, the end-product isn’t as good, and the USA will pay more over time.

March 4/14: Updates. At an MDA Q&A session, they say that an EKV redesign is needed because of test failures. The Failure Review Board is still ongoing, so they’re not commenting on that, except to say that it’s “not a quality issue.” With respect to the ELV’s path forward, they’re not sure they’re going to compete it, or what the acquisition approach is going to be. A test of the newer CEII EKV is reportedly coming in the summer. That would be a step back from the March 2014 date reported by DOT&E (q.v. Jan 17/13).

Jan 17/13: DOT&E Testing Report. The Pentagon releases the FY 2012 Annual Report from its Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E). For GMD:

“The MDA continues to make progress on the return-to-intercept for the CE-II EKV [final-stage kill vehicle], but will need to successfully conclude its investigation of the CE-I EKV failure before returning the CE-I EKV to intercept flight testing…. The MDA has started, but not completed, the FY11 recommendation to repeat the FTG-06a [CE-II] mission to verify (1) failure root causes, (2) Failure Review Board results, and (3) permanent fixes for the deficiencies found during the flight test. They have identified root cause issues, implemented solutions, and successfully completed the first (CTV-01) of a planned two-flight test series designed to demonstrate the fixes. The MDA has scheduled the second flight test in the series, FTG-06b…”

They’re also trying to figure out what went wrong in the July 2013 “FTG-07″ GMD test that included an older CE-I EKV, but used a more challenging scenario than previous tests. The preliminary Failure Review Board report was delivered in August 2013. The finish by saying that:

“The flight test failures that have occurred during the past three years raise questions regarding the robustness of the EKV’s design…. Consider whether to re-design the EKV using a rigorous systems engineering process”

FY 2012 – 2013

Program slammed for slippery accounting; Boeing/NGC win big support contract; Flight tests resume. GMD CE-II delays
(click to view full)

July 5/13: Testing. A GBI missile launched from Vandenberg AFB, CA fails to intercept a long-range ballistic missile target launched from the U.S. Army’s Reagan Test Site on Kwajalein Atoll in the Republic of the Marshall Islands. US MDA | Pentagon.

Intercept failure

April 26/13: GAO Report. The GAO looks at the Missile Defense Agency’s full array of programs in report #GAO-13-342, “Missile Defense: Opportunity To Refocus On Strengthening Acquisition Management.” Through fiscal year 2012, about $36.5 billion has been spent on GMD, with another $4.5 billion planned between FY 2013-2017. GMD is expected to remain in service until at least 2032. Given those figures and timelines, MDA’s biggest concern is the slippery accounting that makes ovdersight impossible:

“GMD is moving activities and costs from a currently reported baseline to one that will be reported in the future, thereby obscuring cost growth. The GMD program’s current baseline represents activities and associated costs needed to achieve an initial defense of the United States…. Despite significant technical problems, production disruptions and the addition of previously unplanned and costly work in its current efforts, the GMD total cost estimate as reported in the resource baseline has decreased from 2010 to 2012. We reported last year that GMD had a flight test failure in 2010 which revealed design problems, halted production, and increased costs to demonstrate the CE-II from $236 million to [$1.174 billion, and delayed CE-II by 5.5 years]. This cost increase includes retrofit costs to already-delivered CE-II interceptors. Instead of increasing, the total costs reported in the BAR resource baseline have decreased because the program moved activities from out of its reported baseline. By moving these activities, MDA used the funds that were freed up for failure resolution efforts instead.53 In addition, because the baseline for its next set of capabilities will be defined after these activities have already been added to it, the additional cost for these activities will not be identifiable. The full extent of actual cost growth may never be determined or visible for decision makers for either baseline because of this adjustment.”

Meanwhile, the report also clarifies the status of GMD’s companion SBX floating radar, which was moved to “limited test support” status in order to save money. It was recently sent to sea again, in the wake of North Korean threats. They acknowledge that “there is a difference in how the BMDS operates without SBX, the details of which are classified.” As the September 2009 NRC report (q.v.) explains, poorer ability to pick out warheads from debris and decoys is one near-certain consequence, due to differences imposed on UHF radars by the laws of physics.

March 15/13: Following North Korea’s 3rd nuclear test attempt, the new US Secretary of Defense announces that the USA will add 14 more ground-based interceptors at Fort Greely, AK and Vandenberg AFB, CA, boosting the total number from 30 back to the 44 planned by the previous administration. At the same time, they’re conducting Environmental Impact Studies for a potential additional GBI site in the United States, which fits with the NRC’s September 2012 report (q.v.) recommendations. They’re looking at 1 West Coast and 2 East Coast sites, but no decision has been made yet. It’s an open secret that Fort Drum, NY, is one of the locations being surveyed.

They’re paying for all this by “restructuring” the SM-3 Block 2B “Next Generation Aegis Missile” program, whose 2020 deployment date was never realistic. In English, they’ve eliminated it.

Japan will continue to collaborate with the USA on the SM-3 Block 2A program, and will get a 2nd AN/TPY-2 radar on its territory. Pentagon AFPS | Full Speech Transcript | Later Q&A transcript answers a reporter re: GMD changes | Boeing.

Backtrack: GMD will grow to 44

Jan 26/13: Testing resumes. The GMD system begins flight testing again after almost 2 years, though it isn’t an interception test. Flight testing had been halted in early 2011, after a guidance error resulted in a failed December 2010 intercept test. The existing set of missiles have remained operational during that time.

The diagnosed fault is related to what Raytheon’s exoatmospheric kill vehicle (EKV) experiences in space, so the flight measured the redesigned EKV’s performance in navigating to its designated position in space, and performing set maneuvers. The flight test was successful, but it will take another couple of intercept tests to be sure. US MDA | Boeing | Raytheon.

Flight tests resume after 2 years

Clear AFS, AK:
EWR upper right
(click to view full)

September 2012: NRC recommends improved GMD. The US National Research Council publishes “Making Sense of Ballistic Missile Defense: An Assessment of Concepts and Systems for U.S. Boost-Phase Missile Defense in Comparison to Other Alternatives.” The report staff have deeply impressive backgrounds related to missile defense, and their main conclusion is that very fundamental reasons of geography and physics make boost-phase defense systems a waste of time. A secondary conclusion is that geography and physics mean that the European EPAA program won’t be able to help protect the USA. To handle that, they propose an important upgrade to the USA’s midcourse defense sensors, by substituting sets of stacked AN/TPY-2 radars (GBX) for the proposed PTSS satellite constellation, in combination with improved GBI interceptors. First, the core problem:

“…the midcourse discrimination problem must be addressed far more seriously if reasonable confidence is to be achieved… While the current GMD may be effective against the near-term threat… the committee disagrees with the statement… that this capability can be maintained “for the foreseeable future.”1… little help in discrimination of decoys or other countermeasures…. The synergy between X-band radar observations and concurrent optical sensor observations on board a properly designed interceptor (which could be a modified ground-based interceptor) closing on the target complex has not been exploited.”

The affordable sensor fix involves 2 elements. On the ground, 5 FBX (stacked and integrated, rotatable TPY-2 derivative) adjunct X-band radars would be added, with uplink and downlink modes. Four would be co-located with current SPSS ballistic missile early warning sites at Clear AFS, AK; Cape Cod, MA; Thule, Greenland; and Fylingdales, United Kingdom. The 5th would be placed at Grand Forks, ND, which currently houses the 10th Space Warning Squadron. See also NY Times | “Ballistic Missile Defense: Why the Current GMD System’s Radars Can’t Discriminate” for an in-depth technical explanation of why even the huge UEWR radars aren’t suitable for discriminating between warheads, and the decoys used by more advanced missiles.

The 2nd sensor fix involves the GMD-E kill vehicle (EKV), most especially a 30cm aperture, 256 x 256 long-wavelength infrared (LWIR) sensor that can see threat objects at room temperature at a range of 2,000 km. NRC believes it would provide as much as 200 seconds (3.5 minutes) of observation in most first-shot engagements. The EKV’s DACS maneuvering rockets would be sized for a divert capability of 600 m/sec, which, with the almost-1-degree sensor field of view, can handle handover uncertainties of ±30 km or more. A dual-band X/S communication transponder would offer a 2-way encrypted link with either X- or S-band radars, and their associated command centers. Battery capacity would be 1,100 sec.

The interceptor would also change to a GMD-E/ GBI Block II configuration: a smaller, 2-stage interceptor based on the (terminated) boost-phase KEI program’s 1st stage rocket motor, plus a similar but less demanding 2nd stage. Those motors had been deemed ready for flight when KEI was terminated. Together, they’d offer a boosted burn time of 70 sec., and burnout velocity of 6 km/sec. A 3rd interceptor site would be established on the east coast, possibly at Fort Drum, NY, in order to improve coverage of certain inbound trajectories.

NRC’s BMD Report proposes GMD-E, plus new radars

Dec 30/11: Team Boeing wins. The 7-year, $3.48 billion Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) Development and Sustainment Contract (DSC) is awarded to Team Boeing, based in Huntsville, AL. This is about more than just the missiles. It also includes radars, other sensors, command-and-control facilities, communications terminals, and a 20,000-mile fiber optic communications network.

The Pentagon describes the scope of work as including future development; fielding; test; systems engineering, integration and configuration management; equipment manufacturing and refurbishment; training; and operations and sustainment support for the GMD Weapon System and associated support facilities. Northrop Grumman is Boeing’s only announced team member.

Work will be performed at multiple locations, including: Huntsville, AL; Fort Greely, AK; Vandenberg AFB, CA; Schriever AFB, Peterson AFB, Cheyenne Mountain Air Station, and Colorado Springs, CO; Tucson, AZ; other government designated sites; and other contractor designated prime, subcontractor, and supplier operating locations. Contract work will run from December 2011 through December 2018, with initial funding coming from FY 2012 RDT&E funds. The US Missile Defense Agency in Redstone Arsenal, AL manages the contract (HQ0147-12-C-0004).

Boeing wins sustainment contract

April 20/12: GAO report. The US GAO releases report #GAO-12-486, “Opportunity Exists to Strengthen Acquisitions by Reducing Concurrency.” Its implications for missile defense belie the bland title. After noting the GMD program’s deliberate sacrifices for fast fielding, and the long echo of its consequences, they get to current issues:

“The discovery of the design problem while production is under way has increased MDA costs, led to a production break, may require retrofit of fielded equipment, delayed delivery of capability to the war-fighter, and altered the flight test plan. For example, the flight testing cost to confirm the CE-II capability has increased from $236 million to about $1 billion [not including costs already expended during development of the interceptor and target].

In addition, the program will have to undertake another retrofit program, for the 10 CE-II interceptors that have already been manufactured…. MDA has restructured the planned multiyear flight test program in order to test the new design prior to an intercept attempt…. expects the cost to retrofit the CE-II interceptors to be around $18 million each or about $180 million for all 10. Intended to be ready for operational use in fiscal year 2009, it will now be at least fiscal year 2013 before the warfighter will have the information needed to determine whether to declare the variant operational.

High levels of concurrency will continue for the GMD program even if the next two flight tests are successful. GMD will continue its developmental flight testing until at least 2022, well after production of the interceptors are scheduled to be completed. MDA is accepting the risk that these developmental flight tests may discover issues that require costly design changes and retrofit programs to resolve.”

Nov 25/11: Support competition. Revised proposals are in to maintain the USA’s GMD system (vid. Jan 28/11). Boeing (existing contract holder) and Northrop Grumman (GBI missile) are one bid team, but they have not detailed their full team of sub-contractors. This proved to be the winning team.

Lockheed Martin (prime contractor and systems integrator) was teamed with Raytheon (GMD Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle, systems engineering, development, modeling and simulation, operations and sustainment, manufacturing, testing and training), and its supporting team included:

• Alaska Aerospace Corporation (local maintenance)
  
• ARES Corporation
  
• ATK Aerospace Systems (Ground-Based Interceptor missile)
  
• Bechtel National Inc. (engineering support for operations, maintenance and upgrades of launch site, schedule integration for the operational asset management system)
  
• Bluespring Software
  
• CohesionForce Inc.
  
• Dynetics Inc. (information assurance, cyber support training, modeling, systems engineering)
  
• Harris Corporation (In-Flight Interceptor Communications System Data Terminal)
  
• Imprimis Inc.
  
• IroquoiSystems Inc.
  
• Mission Solutions Engineering
  
• NANA Development Corporation’s ASTS-Akima Logistics Services Joint Venture
  
• Northrop Grumman Information Systems (GMD Fire Control and Communications)
  
• Orbital Sciences Corporation (GMD Orbital Boost Vehicle)
  
• Oregon Iron Works Inc.
  
• Quadrus Corporation
  
• QuantiTech Inc.
  
• TDX Power Inc.

See: Boeing and Northrop Grumman | Lockheed Martin | The Hill.

Nov 16/11: Support. The Missile Defense Agency awards a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract modification, exercising a $36.7 million option with Boeing Co. in Huntsville, AL to continue GMD sustainment and operations support from Dec 1/11 through Feb 29/12. That brings the total contract value to $729.6 million, as the US MDA continues to delay awarding a new contract.

Work will be performed in Fort Greely, AK; Vandenberg AFB, CA; Colorado Springs, CO; and Huntsville, AL. FY 2012 research, development, test and evaluation funds will be used. The US Missile Defense Agency in Redstone Arsenal, AL manages the contract (HQ0147-09-C-0007, PO 0049).

FY 2011

Test failure creates program delays.

Aug 26/11: Delays. Aviation Week reports from the annual Space and Missile Defense Conference in Huntsville, AL, and discusses the GMD system’s delays. More design reviews are needed to iron out problems with the EKV kill vehicle, which has failed the 2 tests since December 2008 that pitted it against a target using countermeasures:

“Missile Defense Agency (MDA) Director Army Lt. Gen. Patrick O’Reilly… acknowledged the grounding of the Boeing-led program as the “600-lb. gorilla in the room.” A failure review board has finished its analysis of the latest flight-test flop in December 2010, although he declined to identify the root cause. He says a team is giving the Raytheon EKV Capability Enhancement 2 (CE-2) a second design review, and there is time to conduct a third, if needed, before returning to flight in about a year. At that point, the MDA will conduct its third attempt at a challenging 90-deg. hit-to-kill intercept, geometry simulating a North Korean launch scenario. EKV production will remain suspended pending the outcome of that flight.”

July 15/11: Support. The US MDA exercises a $36.7 million, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract modification for 3 months of GMD operations and maintenance support, from September through November 2011, in Fort Greely, AK, and Colorado Springs, CO. That brings the Boeing support contract’s total awarded value so far to $697 million (HQ0147-09-C-0007).

Note that this is an extension of existing support arrangements, not the award for the new support contract competition.

June 7/11: Support competition. US MDA:

“The pending Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) development and sustainment contract undergoing proposal evaluation is now planned for award late this fall. Boeing and Lockheed Martin have each submitted proposals to compete for the contract award. The award amount will be proposed by the companies in their respective proposals. The Source Selection Authority has determined that it is in the best interest of the government… [to extend] the anticipated award date into November of this year.”

April 15/11: 2011 Budget. H.R.1473, the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011, becomes Public Law 112-010 after passing the House and Senate. This ends reliance on continuing resolution funding.

April 9/11: Notice sent. Northrop Grumman has sent 100 of its Huntsville, AL employees notices they could be furloughed in 60 days, after the current GMD development contract ends on May 31/11. Another 19 employees are also affected: 17 in Colorado Springs, 1 in Florida and 1 in Washington state.

Furloughed employees remain Northrop Grumman employees, with benefits, on a “company-initiated unpaid leave of absence.” If the firm wins the new GMD Development and Sustainment Contract at the end of May 2011, the firm expects to recall all of these employees to work. Huntsville Times.

April 4/11: Continuing resolutions are having an effect on the GMD program, as the 2010 baseline effectively removes planned funding ramp-ups. So, too, is the January intercept failure, which may be traceable to Raytheon’s Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV).

Boeing’s VP of strategic missile defense efforts, Greg Hyslop, says that orders for some components are on hold. Obbital Sciences interceptor rockets are still being built, but they are then stored, in order to avoid retrofits if the EKV turns out to need modifications. Hyslop is putting his priority on getting the GBI missiles flying again, which means the major hit could happen in construction – especially work on missile field 2 at Fort Greely, AK. Aviation Week.

March 24/11: GAO Report. The US GAO issues report #GAO-11-372: “Missile Defense: Actions Needed to Improve Transparency and Accountability.” Key excerpts:

“MDA finalized a new process in which detailed baselines were set for several missile defense systems… [but] GAO found its unit and life-cycle cost baselines had unexplained inconsistencies and documentation for six baselines had insufficient evidence to be a high-quality cost estimate… DOD has not yet determined the [GMD] system’s full capabilities and limitations. In January and December 2010, GMD experienced two flight test failures. In addition, GMD is just beginning to take actions necessary to sustain the capability through 2032… GAO makes 10 recommendations for MDA to strengthen its resource, schedule and test baselines, facilitate baseline reviews, and further improve transparency and accountability. GAO is also making a recommendation to improve MDA’s ability to carry out its test plan. In response, DOD fully concurred with 7 recommendations. It partially concurred with 3…”

March 1/11: Support. Boeing in Huntsville, AL receives a $109 million sole-source cost-plus-fixed-fee contract modification to continue operation and sustainment services for the GMD program ($72 million), and for sensors $37.9 million) in Fort Greely, AK, and Colorado Springs, CO.

The interim award runs from March through August 2011. The Sensors portion of the work is from March through December 2011. FY 2011 research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) funds will be used to incrementally fund $10.5 million, and contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/11. The US Missile Defense Agency manages the contract (HQ0147-09-C-0007, P00031)

Jan 28/11: Support competition. The Boeing/ Northrop Grumman team, and the Lockheed Martin/ Raytheon team, submit their GMD development & sustainment bids. A win is expected to be worth around $600 million per year, but the announcement isn’t expected until May 31/11. Boeing | Lockheed Martin.

Dec 15/10: Missed. A GBI interceptor missile launched from Vandenberg AFB, CA misses a target missile fired from the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands. The participating SBX radar and the interceptor’s own sensors worked, and the EKV kill vehicle was deployed, but it missed. The cause of the failure will be investigated before another test is scheduled. US MDA | Washington Post.

Missed – testing halted

Dec 2/10: Support competition. The US MDA releases its RFP for the GMD maintenance contract. The submission date is Jan 28/11. Lockheed Martin.

Oct 26/10: Support competition. Lockheed Martin announces its final GMD support contract team, as it prepares for its own bid.

Oct 12/10: Support competition. Boeing and Northrop Grumman announce their final GMD support contract team, as an outgrowth of the bid partnership they announced in June 2010.

The support contract’s dates have slipped somewhat. At present, the final RFP is expected before the end of 2010, with the contract award itself in early 2011. At this point, Lockheed Martin looks like they will be leading the sole competing bid team. According to Boeing’s release, the team includes Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and the following firms:

• Alaska Metrology Calibration Services Inc. in Anchorage, AK
  
• All Points Logistics Inc. in Titusville, FL
  
• Davidson Technologies Inc. in Huntsville, AL
  
• Delta Industrial Services Inc. in Delta Junction, AK
  
• DESE Research Inc. in Huntsville, AL
  
• Dynetics Inc. in Huntsville, AL
  
• Harris Corp. in Melbourne, FL
  
• Issac Corp. in Colorado Springs, CO
  
• Jeskell Inc. in Seattle, WA
  
• nLogic in Huntsville, AL
  
• Orbital Sciences Corp. in Chandler, AZ
  
• Oregon Iron Works in Clackamas, OR
  
• Penta Research Inc. in Huntsville, AL
  
• Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, AZ
  
• Trident Group Inc. in Madison, AL
  
• Victory Solutions Inc. in Huntsville, AL

FY 2010

Layoffs; Early intercept study; Support competition ramps up.

Aug 16/10: Testing. Raytheon announces that it successfully demonstrated a 2-stage flyout of the GMD’s exoatmospheric kill vehicle (EKV). The EKV is designed to engage high-speed ballistic missile warheads in the midcourse phase of flight and destroy them using only the force of impact. EKV consists of an infrared sensor used to detect and discriminate the incoming warhead from other objects, as well as its own propulsion, communications link, discrimination algorithms, guidance and control system, and computers to support target selection and intercept.

June 17/10: Support competition. Alaska Aerospace Corporation in Anchorage, AK joins Lockheed Martin’s team, bidding for the new GMD Development and Sustainment Contract. The MDA is currently expected to issue a final RFP in summer 2010, and award the contract in 2011. It will cover support activities at Fort Greely, AK; Vandenberg AFB, CA; Huntsville, AL; Schriever AFB, CO, and at Eareckson Air Station, AK.

Alaska Aerospace will provide operations and maintenance support at Fort Greely, AK, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA. The firm has strong experience with arctic support operations. It developed, owns and operates the Kodiak Launch Complex on Kodiak Island, AK, which provides government and commercial satellite launch services and target missile launch services for missile defense testing. The State of Alaska established the corporation in 1991 to stimulate a high-technology aerospace industry in the state. Lockheed Martin | Alaska Aerospace.

June 14/10: Support competition. Boeing and Northrop Grumman will pursue the GMD maintenance contract together. As part of the strategic partnership, Boeing VP and GMD program director Norm Tew will serve as the joint team’s program manager. Northrop Grumman GMD program director Steve Owens will be the team’s deputy program manager.

Boeing is the current prime contractor incumbent for GMD support, while Northrop Grumman is responsible for designing and deploying the command-and-control systems that form the backbone of the GMD Fire Control/Communications (GFCC) ground systems. Boeing | Northrop Grumman.

June 6/10: Testing. A 2-stage configuration of the GBI’s Orbital Boost Vehicle (OBV) is successfully flight-tested in the Booster Verification Test-1 (BVT-1) mission from Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB), CA. The new rocket offers a shorter boost phase than the original 3-stage OBV design, but is designed to demonstrate similar performance.

This was very much a flight test, therefore, rather than an interception test. Mission objectives included pre-launch built-in test, launch and fly out of the 2-stage GBI missile, flight telemetry, verification of fairing and stage separation systems, and accurate delivery of its payload to a point in space. US MDA | Orbital Sciences | Boeing.

May 4/10: Training. Boeing announces the delivery of a 2nd GMD System Trainer (GST) at Fort Greely, Alaska. Paul Smith, Boeing director of GMD Ground Systems:

“Having two GMD system trainers at Fort Greely opens up new avenues for the warfighter. As we continually upgrade the GMD system, they now can train with either the current or upgraded software versions, use single or dual fire-control nodes, and engage in more realistic training conditions…”

Feb 1/10: 2011 Budget. The Pentagon releases its FY 2011 budget request. It includes $1.346 billion for the GMD system, and would see the eventual deployment of 26 GBIs at Fort Greely, AK and 4 GBIs at Vandenberg AFB, CA. It also provides for improvement and expansion of the GBI fleet, including an additional 5 GBIs with (Fleet Avionics Upgrade/ Obsolescence Program (FAU/OP)) upgrades, to support a new test program and a Stockpile Reliability Program. Missile Field 2 is scheduled to be complete in a 14-silo configuration by FY 2012.

The FY 2011 request is a consistent with recent budgets: $1.03 billion in FY 2009, and $1.47 billion in FY 2010.

Jan 31/10: Testing. The USA MDA announces that the GMD system’s supporting Sea-Based X-band radar (SBX) experienced a problem, after being used successful to support a number of interception tests:

“A target missile was successfully launched at approximately 3:40 p.m. PST from the U.S. Army’s Reagan Test Site at Kwajalein Atoll in the Republic of the Marshall Islands. Approximately six minutes later, a Ground-Based Interceptor was successfully launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. Both the target missile and Ground-Based Interceptor performed nominally after launch. However, the Sea-Based X-band radar did not perform as expected.”

The left-wing Center for Defense Information claims that this test cost about $120 million, and says that it leaves the program with a record of 8 successful flight intercepts in 15 attempts since 1999:

“There have been six flight intercept tests where the interceptor did not hit its target, although the reasons have varied. For example, in one test the cryogenic cooling system on the exo-atmospheric kill vehicle (EKV) did not work properly, in two tests the EKV failed to separate from the interceptor booster, in two tests the interceptor failed to release from its launch silo, and in the Jan. 31, 2010 test the SBX did not perform properly. One of the attempts, on May 25, 2007, was considered a “no test” because the target did not fly out as expected and so the interceptor was never launched. The main purpose of the otherwise successful Dec. 5, 2008 test was not achieved when the target decoys failed to deploy, but the interceptor hit its target… Counting from late 2002 there have been eight flight intercept attempts and three successful intercepts, including the test on Dec. 5, 2008 where the decoys failed to deploy. The five tests where results were disappointing, include four tests where the interceptor missed its target, and also includes the test where the target did not fly out properly…”

Companion SBX problems, GMD Test history

Dec 11/09: Support competition. As expected, Boeing also responds to the Missile Defense Agency’s GMD RFP.

Boeing has been the prime contractor for the GMD system since 2001, overseeing an industry team including Orbital Sciences, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, Bechtel and Teledyne Brown. Their team has been operating under a bridge contact since January 2009, and the contract award for the core completion work is expected in January 2010.

Dec 3/09: Support competition. Northrop Grumman reaffirms its interest in competing for the combined GMD contract, whose draft RFP is expected in early 2010.

Dec 1/09: Support competition. Lockheed Martin announces that it intends to compete for the GMD system’s development and maintenance contract, whose solicitation was released Nov 25/09. The scope of work has expanded from GMD operations and logistics support, and will now include:

“…future development; fielding; test; systems engineering, integration and configuration management; equipment manufacturing and refurbishment; training; and operations and sustainment support.”

Nov 17/09: Early intercept? Northrop Grumman announces a 3-month $4.7 million task order from the US Missile Defense Agency, under an indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity Joint National Integration Center Research and Development Contract. Under the Sept 29/09 task order, the firm will help the MDA integrate and demonstrate an early-intercept capability using existing SM-3 and GBI missiles.

They’ll begin by assessing existing sensor and battle management systems’ ability to support missile interception in the difficult boost phase, including technology developed for programs like the now-cancelled Kinetic Energy Interceptor and battle management projects. The firm will plan demonstration experiments, leading toward the design and development of an experimental, plug-and-play architecture for battle management, command and control.

The Early Intercept effort aims to address renewed focus by the U.S. Department of Defense on dealing with large raids and countermeasures. Early Intercept will demonstrate an integrated architecture of early warning sensors, including space, airborne, land and sea; regional fire control and battle manager systems; and secure communications. This integrated architecture will enable current systems to engage threats earlier in the battle space to improve protection against large raids and facilitate “shoot-look-shoot” opportunities.

Nov 1/09: Infrastructure. The Fairbanks Daily Miner reports that extensive problems with GMD Missile Field 1 at Fort Greely, Alaska will force the shut-down fo 6 silos, and may be partly responsible for the decision to build all 14 silos in Missile Field 2 (q.v. Oct 28/09). Problems reportedly include silos without adequate “hardening” against attack, as well as:

“…leaks in the hot water system, pipes subject to freezing and valve connections that leak [antifreeze], according to one presentation by the agency. There were also problems with joint soldering on copper pipe and expansion and contraction. There was “extensive mold contamination in utilidor” and personnel had to “suit up for hazardous environment” because of the threat. The “demineralized hot water system” was faulty, leading to frozen water lines and dust was getting into small openings on electrical switchgear that could have had “catastrophic impacts.”

The US Missile Defense Agency cites the urgency of the initial Field 1 construction, in order to have some shield in place by Sept 30/04, as its defense. It adds that the lessons learned were incorporated into Missile Fields 2 & 3, and so are not expected to recur.

GMD Field 1 problems

Oct 30/09: Industrial. Northrop Grumman contributes $35,000 to Partners for Progress in Delta, Inc., to further the educational nonprofit group’s goal of helping to build and sustain Alaska’s skilled workforce in electronics and computer systems technology. According to the corporate release:

“Funds will be used to develop or enhance the workforce needed for the U.S. Missile Defense Agency’s Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) facilities.”

Oct 29/09: Layoffs. Boeing announces layoffs for 98 workers at various sites, including Alabama, Alaska, California and Colorado, due to a reduction in FY2010 missile defense program funding. These employees will receive a 60-day advance notification of layoff on Friday, Oct. 30.

“With the Congressional budget cycle nearing completion, Boeing is adjusting employment to match expected funding for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense program and to match the scope of the program in the next fiscal year. Boeing is committed to preserving as many jobs as possible for these valued, highly skilled employees, and the company has taken aggressive steps to lessen the impact of the funding reductions. These steps include redeploying personnel to other programs, evaluating contract labor requirements, and offering career services and related assistance.”

Layoffs

Oct 28/09: 2010 Budget. President Obama signs the FY 2010 defense budget. That budget funds the full $$982.9 million request for Mid Course Defense, adding 7 ordered GBI missiles to bring the total cumulative stock to 35, and authorizes an increase of $20 million for sustainment of the Ground-Based Interceptor vendor base. It also includes a provision that would require a detailed assessment of the GMD system, and a detailed plan for how DOD will achieve and sustain its planned GMD capability of 30 missiles in 34 operational silos. White House | House-
Senate Conference Report summary [PDF] & tables [PDF] | Pentagon AFPS article.

Oct 28/09: Infrastructure. The Department of Defense plans to finish silo construction at Missile Field 2, building all 14 silos instead of just 7; on the other hand, it will de-commission 6 hastily-built silos in Missile Field 1.

The first interceptor missiles were installed at Fort Greely in 2004, and the new plan will leave 34 silos instead of the originally-planned 40. Fairbanks Daily-Miner via Sen. Mark Begich [D-AK].

FY 2008 – 2009

GMD won’t be in Europe; Cancellation threats prompt industrial tallies. GMD control center,
Fort Greely, AK
(click to view full)

Sept 17/09: Out of Europe. The Obama administration announces revised plans for its European missile defense architecture. Instead of positioning Boeing’s GMD and Ground-Based Interceptors at silos in Poland and/or the Czech Republic, which could intercept even the longest-range ballistic missiles, they choose an architecture based around Raytheon’s SM-3, at sea and on land. Gen. Cartwright does say that the US military remains interested in upgrading existing GMD missiles to 2-stage Ground-Based Interceptor missiles with longer range and more speed. Read “Land-Based SM-3s for Israel – and Others” for more.

No GBIs in Europe

Aug 20/09: Edged out of Europe? As the Obama administration has become more supportive of a European missile shield that would emplace advanced radars and up to 10 GMD interceptors in silos, alternatives are growing. Shortly after announcements that Lockheed Martin has invested in, and is proposing, an extended-range THAAD system; and that Raytheon announced support for a land-based version of its successful naval SM-3 missiles, Boeing has floated a more “Russia friendly” GMD proposal. Their proposal would deploy Europe’s defensive shield as semi-mobile 2-stage interceptors that could be flown to NATO bases within 24 hours on C-17 cargo planes, erected quickly on a 60-foot trailer stands, and taken home when judged safe to do so. Boeing VP and General Manager for Missile Defense, Greg Hyslop, told Reuters that:

“If a fixed site is going to be just too hard to get implemented politically or otherwise, we didn’t want people to think that the only way you needed to use a GBI was in a fixed silo.”

Hyslop was quoted as saying that Boeing has just started briefing the US Missile Defense Agency on the proposal, but believes the project would lower infrastructure costs and could be completed by 2015. EurActiv | Jerusalem Post | Reuters | EurActiv re: Obama administration’s increased support for the Euro-shield

Aug 18/09: Infrastructure. Boeing announces that the GMD team has finished building a 2nd GMD interceptor test silo at Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA. Because the silos need to be refurbished after the hot-burning interceptor is fired, having 2 test silos will allow one to support testing while the other is being refurbished. The new silo can also be configured for tactical operations in an emergency.

As of this date, Boeing says that the GMD program has deployed more than 20 operational interceptor missiles.

June 27/09: Infrastructure & numbers. The 2010 budget will direct the Obama administration to finish the first 7 silos in Fort Greely’s Missile Field 2, and authorize shutting down the 6 silos in Missile Field 1. This would leave 27 silos: 7 in Field 2 + 20 in Field 3. The entire facility had initially been planned for 40 silos, but there are some infrastructure problems in Field 1 (vid. Nov 1/09 entry).

The article adds that according to MDA spokesperson Ralph Scott, 16 missiles are currently in silos at Fort Greely, 7 have been returned for maintenance or upgrades, 1 has been pulled as a backup for future tests, and some have been removed for “unscheduled maintenance” [the article believes this is 2]. DMZ Hawai’i.

June 2/09: US Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates tours the GMD complex at Fort Greely, AK, following North Korea’s test of a nuclear weapon, abrogation of the 1953 Korean ceasefire, and preparations to fire a long-range missile. The Pentagon release adds:

“Sixteen interceptors are in the ground here, with plans to add two more. Combined with those at Vandenberg Air Force Base, the United States will have 30 such interceptor systems. More could be added if needed, Gates said.”

April 6/09: 2010 Budget. US Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates announces the Pentagon’s budget recommendations to the President for 2010. With respect to GMD, the plan would remove the planned increase in Alaskan GMD missiles. Existing missiles will be kept, however, and R&D will continue to improve the existing handful of missiles “to defend against long-range rogue missile threats – a threat North Korea’s missile launch this past weekend reminds us is real.”

See “Gates Lays Out Key FY 2010 Budget Recommendations” for full coverage.

March 23/09: Sub-contractors. Raytheon announces a $27 million contract from Boeing to support GMD’s 6-month bridge effort. Work will include continued evolution, maturation, test, and verification of the Raytheon-built X-Band Radar aboard the Boeing-developed Sea-Based X-Band (SBX) Radar vessel, plus work on the Upgraded Early Warning Radars at Beale Air Force Base, CA, and at Fylingdales, England; and the Cobra Dane Upgrade Radar at Shemya, AK.

Feb 2/09: Support. The existing GMD complexes and missiles need to be maintained, unless the new administration decides to pay to dismantle them. To that end, Boeing Integrated Defense Systems’ Global Services and Support Division in St. Louis, MO received $249.9 million for a cost plus fixed-fee contract for “operations and sustainment support” for the fielded portions of the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) System during calendar year 2009, with an option for CY 2010. The contract has been incrementally funded for $133.4 million at award.

The US Missile Defense Agency in Huntsville, AL manages the contract (HQ0147-09-C-0007), but the contract’s funding actually comes from 2 different sources. Fiscal year 2009 program Research, Development, Test and Evaluation funds (RDT&E) will be used for the primary operations and sustainment support activities. FY 2009 Army Operation and Maintenance (O&M) funds will be used to train Army soldier-operators, and unlike the program’s RDT&E funds, those Army funds will expire at the end of the Pentagon’s fiscal year on Sept 30/09.

Work will be performed at Boeing’s facility in Huntsville, AL; Missile Defense Agency facilities at Schriever Air Force Base, CO; and the deployment sites at Vandenberg AFB, CA, and Fort Greely, AK. This sole source contract is awarded pursuant to 10 USC 2304c1, as implemented by Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.302-1, stating that Boeing is the only qualified source to perform this effort without unacceptable delay and unaffordable duplication of costs.

At the same time, this maintenance effort is about to undergo a major structural shift.

This award is an interim measure, used to continue essential support while the US MDA acquires and verifies necessary technical data and develops its strategy for competitive acquisition of future GMD support. The MDA published a formal announcement of its intent on Jan 29/09, with the aim of kick-starting discussions with industry regarding how a competitive acquisition strategy for follow-on GMD support might work, and what the requirements would be. The MDA’s stated intent to make a competitive award in that area no later than calendar year 2011. See also Boeing release.

Missile loading, 2003
(click to view details)

Dec 30/08: R&D. Boeing Integrated Defense Systems in Huntsville, AL receives a $397.9 million not-to-exceed award under a cost plus award fee, cost plus fixed fee contract for anti-missile defenses. This is a sole source contract under the authority of 10 U.S. Code 2304c1, and the Missile Defense Agency in Huntsville, AL manages the contract (HQ0147-09-C-0008).

This order will finance GMD Block 3 development and fielding activities for 6 months from January to June 2009, until a long-term, Core Completion contract for development can be awarded – if that contract is awarded. FY 2009 research, development, test and evaluation funds (RDT&E) funds will be used.

Dec 11/08: Industrial. A Boeing release claims that the GMD program brought $193 million in economic benefits to Arizona in 2007.

Dec 5/08: Testing. A GMD test successfully destroys a ballistic missile target. Boeing release.

Nov 13/08: Industrial. A Boeing release claims that the GMD program brought $246 million in economic benefits to Alaska in 2007.

May 15/08: Industrial. A Boeing release claims that the GMD program brought more than $700 million in economic benefits to Alabama in 2007.

Additional Readings

• US Missile Defense Agency – Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD)

• Boeing – Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) System

• Wikipedia – Ground-based Midcourse Defense. Includes a listing of flight and interception tests.

• DID – SM-3 BMD, in from the Sea: EPAA & Aegis Ashore. Raytheon’s SM-3 Standard missiles were picked to defend Europe, instead of the original plan for a GMD system.

• DID – AN/TPY-2: America’s Portable Missile Defense Radar. An upgraded version could become part of the GMD architecture.

Official Reports

• US National Research Council (September 2012) – Making Sense of Ballistic Missile Defense: An Assessment of Concepts and Systems for U.S. Boost-Phase Missile Defense in Comparison to Other Alternatives It goes far beyond that, with well-researched recommendations across the entire BMD array.

• US GAO (April 20/12, #GAO-12-486) Opportunity Exists to Strengthen Acquisitions by Reducing Concurrency.

• US GAO (March 24/11, #GAO-11-372) – Missile Defense: Actions Needed to Improve Transparency and Accountability.

News & Views

• LA Times (June 15/14) – $40 billion missile defense system proves unreliable.