Back in 2005, Great Britain was considering a public-private partnership to buy, equip, and operate the RAF’s future aerial tanker fleet. The RAF would fly the 14 Airbus A330-MRTT aircraft on operational missions, and receive absolute preferential access to the planes. A private contractor would handle maintenance, receive payment from the RAF on a per-use basis – and operate them as passenger charter or transport aircraft when the RAF didn’t need them.
The deal became politically controversial, and negotiations on the 27-year, multi-billion pound deal charted new territory for both the government, and for private industry. Which may help to explain why a contract to move ahead on a “Private Financing Initiative” basis had yet to be issued, and procurement had yet to begin, over 7 years after the program began. In March 2008, however, Britain issued the world’s largest-ever Defence Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contract. This FOCUS Article describes the current British fleet, the aircraft they chose to replace them, how the new fleet will compare, the innovative deal structure they’ve chosen, and ongoing FSTA developments.
The A330-200 MRTT is a derivative of the Airbus A330, and was designed from the outset to be able to function as an aerial tanker and a transport aircraft at the same time. Obviously, hauling full loads over long distances would reduce its ability to offload fuel to other aircraft, but many deployments could still be accomplished. Deploying a fighter squadron along with its ground crew and other personnel, for instance, becomes a real possibility with this aircraft. Britain’s A330s will be equipped with Rolls Royce’s Trent 700 engine.
The UK’s A330 “Voyagers” will have up to 3 hose-and-drogue refueling points (2 wing, 1 center), using Cobham plc subsidiary Sargent Fletcher’s FRL900 systems. All 14 will sport 2 wing-mounted 905E aerial refueling pods each, which extend to 28m / 90 feet when fully trailed and can transfer up to 1,200 kg/minute. The Voyager K2s will be limited to that configuration, but half (7) will be 3-point Voyager K3s which also host 805E center-line Fuselage Refueling Unit that can transfer up to 1,800 kg per minute. The RAF will buy just 5 805E FRUs, however, leaving 9-10 aircraft to use just the wing pods.
Voyager 02 will temporarily offer a 3rd type, which is essentially an unconverted civil A330, until it’s fed back into the conversion program around 2015.
Unlike other A330 MRTT customers, Britain’s planes will lack the EADS ARBS refueling boom along the rear centerline. It’s used to refuel planes with dorsal indents, like F-16 and F-15 fighters, C-17 transports, etc., and will be present on A330 MRTTs operated by Australia (KC-30B), Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. The UK’s current tankers are all hose-and-drogue only, and except for its C-17 and RC-135 Rivet Joint planes, Britain has generally bought aircraft to suit. While continuing with this approach will limit flexibility with some allies, removal of the boom greatly simplifies civilian conversion and employment.
So, too, does the more problematic omission of full defensive systems to protect against radar-guided threats. Without such systems, however, Britain is unlikely to be able to deploy its new tankers over zones that are rated as dangerous.
FSTA vs. VC10The A330 MRTT has a maximum fuel capacity of 111,800 kg, or over 246,000 pounds. In the tanker role, the A330-200 provides twice as much fuel to receiver aircraft as the VC-10. The aircraft also has the capacity to carry 43,000 kg of cargo, including up to 32 463L cargo pallets, or up to 272 passengers, while carrying a full fuel load. AirTanker offers a scenario in which the A330 can fly 270 troops and 8,000 kg of their equipment some 4,700 miles, while also operating as an aerial tanker. Fuel capacity is slightly less than the TriStar’s 139,700 kg, but it carries slightly more passengers (272 vs. 266) and has slightly greater cargo capacity (43t vs. 31t). What it will not have, is the ability to take on more fuel in the air itself, in order to extend its own missions.
Based on the figures in this article, the FSTA program’s 14 A330-200 MRTT aircraft would provide only 50% of the aircraft compared to its present fleet, while offering 71% of the fuel capacity. Carriage on much more efficient aircraft will increase the percentage of fuel available for dispensing, though this may not close the refueling gap completely. On the other hand, the smaller FSTA fleet will boast 116% of the legacy fleet’s total troop carrying capacity, and 185% of its total cargo capacity.
UK FSTA: Program Details & Industrial Team Making FSTAThe program will offer 14 A330-200 aircraft configured to UK specifications, under a 27-year, GBP 13 billion deal. As noted above, they will not be able to refuel in mid-air themselves, and will use only hose-and-drogue refueling that excludes some client aircraft.
As of July 2014, all 9 “core fleet” aircraft were delivered and in service: 4 x Voyager K2s, and 5 x Voyager K3s. Another 5 A330 Voyagers will serve in a surge fleet, and can operate as civilian aircraft unless called upon by the RAF for extraordinary duties. If called up, they may be fitted with Voyager K2 equipment. The balance of the 14-aircraft fleet is expected to become available to the RAF by 2016.
ScheduleThe first A330-200 FSTA aircraft in-service flight took place in April 2012 (back in 2005, it was expected in 2010), and began air-to-air refueling duties in 2013.
When the A330 arrangements were first announced, the RAF operated a very identifiable set of 28 VC10 and L-1011 tanker aircraft, which were entirely retired before the FSTA program even stood up its core fleet of 9 A330s. All of the RAF’s aerial tankers were operated out of RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire, and that will continue. AirTanker will be based at a new, purpose-built facility at the same location used by the existing fleet: RAF Brize Norton. AirTanker will then provide an integrated all-inclusive service to the RAF that includes full maintenance, flight and fleet management, ground services and state-of-the-art training for RAF FSTA personnel.
Corporate structureAirTanker Ltd. holds the contract with the UK MoD, and formally owns the aircraft. It is a UK company, and its current shareholders are EADS (40%), Rolls-Royce (20%), Cobham (13.33%), Thales UK (13.33%) and VT Group (13.33%). While EADS and Thales are non-UK firms, the use of Thales’ UK subsidiary ensured that majority ownership would be held by British companies. The related AirTanker Services will operate the aircraft, and has a slightly different shareholding, at EADS (28%), Rolls Royce (22%), Thales UK (22%), VT Group (22%), and Cobham plc’s Flight Refueling Ltd. (5%).
Once fully operational, the FSTA service will employ around 500 personnel, with a 60:40 split between military and civilian.
Despite BAE’s divestment of its Airbus share, Airbus manufacturing still goes on in Britain. AirTanker Ltd. claims that around 7,500 jobs (3,000 direct, 4,500 indirect) will be directly or indirectly dependent on the FSTA project. The first 2 A330 aircraft will be converted at Airbus Military facilities in Madrid, but after that approximately 50% of the basic aircraft and 100% of the conversion work will be carried out in the UK. Principal work locations will include:
May 12/17: In a world first, Airbus has successfully completed the first test of its automatic air-to-air refueling (AAR) contact system. During the flight, the company’s A330 MRTT demonstrator was successfully steered into the receptacle of a Portuguese air force F-16 using image processing software that the company has been developing for more than a year. As many as six contacts were made over a 75 minute period, at 25,000 feet and 270 knots. The AAR system requires no additional equipment on the receiver and could be introduced on current production A330MRTTs as soon as 2019.
May 20/16: The UK has sent a RAF Voyager tanker to NAS Patuxent River to participate in air-to-air aerial refueling trials of the F-35B. Since arriving on April 18, the British tanker has participated in five flights out of a scheduled 20, which are due to be completed in mid-June. It remains unclear whether the Voyager’s deployment to the US was caused by refueling issues that arose from the B variant being unable to take fuel from the wing pods of KC-10 and KC-135 tankers.
November 4/15: The Pentagon is urgently trying to gain the necessary clearances required for combat aircraft to refuel from Airbus A330 MRTTs, used by coalition partners operating above Syria and Iraq. The Navy is also looking to gain clearances to use hose-and-drogue refueling systems installed on Royal Air Force Voyager tankers to certify the F-35B for this type of refuelling method. A Royal Australian Air Force KC-30A (a modified A330 MRTT) has already been used to conduct trials with a F-35A in September, with tests planned on a variety of other platforms.
2013 – 2014TriStars retire; Full Voyager core fleet in service; 1st lease to a civil operator; Mechanical incident; Are the projected costs reported by NAO just fiddled figures?
July 14/14: Minister for Defence Equipment, Support and Technology Philip Dunne greets a Voyager aircraft that has arrived for its Farnborough display, and confirms that the entire core fleet of 9 planes is fully in service after being delivered on time and on budget. He’s encouraging about that, saying:
“These events provide evidence that DE&S is becoming a higher-performing delivery organisation, better able to deliver vital equipment and support to the armed forces on time.”
It certainly beats failure, though FSTA’s structure suggests that AirTanker LLC also deserves a fair bit of credit. Sources: UK MoD, “RAF Voyager aircraft arrive on schedule”
June 24/14: Civil lease. One of AirTanker’s 5 “surge” fleet Voyagers has been leased by Thomas Cook Airlines under a 3-year agreement, as the airline becomes AirTankers 1st civil customer. The single A330-200 will be configured for an all-economy 323-seat configuration, and will operate in airline livery with seconded Thomas Cook Captains, First Officers, and cabin crew flying alongside AirTanker’s own civilian pilots. Beginning in May 2015, it will fly scheduled routes from Glasgow, Manchester and Stansted to Las Vegas, Cancun and Orlando.
The plane will be operated by AirTanker under its civil Air Operator’s Certificate, with base maintenance provided, but Thomas Cook will provide line maintenance. Sources: AirTanker, “AirTanker and Thomas Cook Airlines agree landmark civil leasing deal”.
1st civil lease
May 29/14: Core complete. RAF Brize Norton accepts the 9th Voyager, ZZ338. This completes the RAF’s core fleet, which will consist of 4 K2s with wing pods, and 5 x K3s with an added centerline hose.
The other 5 will be “surge capability” planes that can be leased to the civil market unless and until the RAF needs them. AirTanker, “ZZ338 arrival completes the RAF Voyager core fleet”.
Core fleet delivered
April 7/14: France. An AirTanker release highlights the efforts of Armee de l’Air pilot Capitaine Francois Gilbert, who is on secondment to RAF No.10 Squadron at Brize Norton:
“The French Air Force is expected to place its first order for the MRTT later this year. With the first of 12 tankers built by Airbus Defence and Space to be delivered by 2018, they will replace France’s 14-strong [refueling and transport] fleet of C135 FR jets, three A310 and two A340.
“I’m here to build an understanding of the MRTT, its capability and training required to fly it so that when I go back, the knowledge and understanding that I have gained here, can be applied to the French AAR programme”, he says.”
It also provides a solid foundation if France should need to buy FSTA flight hours before 2018, though that’s looking less likely. Sources: AirTanker, “Entente [Most] Cordiale”.
March 24/14: TriStar retires. A pair of 216 Squadron TriStars fly from RAF Brize Norton on an air-to-air refuelling mission over the North Sea, then one conducts flypasts at airfields associated with its history. It marks the end of the L-1011 TriStar’s service with the RAF. The 4 remaining TriStars will fly to Bruntingthorpe Airfield, Leics for disposal.
Over the last 8 years, 216 Sqn flew to Afghanistan 1,642 times, carrying around 250,000 troops into and out of theater. Its 139,700 kg fuel load will also missed, but it’s worth remembering that this fuel is for the parent aircraft as well. The Voyager’s flight efficiency means that its 110,000 kg fuel load can’t be used as a direct comparison. Sources: RAF, “TriStar Retires After 30 Years Service with the RAF”.
TriStar fleet retired
Feb 13/14: NAO Report. Britain’s National Audit Office releases their 2013 Major Projects Report. They’ve changed the cost basis slightly, as fuel isn’t normally part of program reporting. Even with that discrepancy normalized, the program has still seen its overall whole-life cost to 2035 drop by GBP 386 million from initial approval, to GBP 11.393 billion. Poking deeper into the report, the largest sources of savings involve changes toward a risk-based method for costing equipment obsolescence and projected refinancing savings (GBP 398 million total). On the flip side, this year saw GBP 45 million added because of revised inflation estimates. Time will tell whether those changes are valid.
The program remains on schedule. Infrastructure at Brize Norton is complete, and the training service is operating. This was interesting:
“MoD placed on contract the enhanced FSTA Aircraft Platform Protection system (EDAS). Embodiment is under way, as planned in the programme and is also reflected in wider defence capability planning.”
Feb 9/14: Incident. An AirTanker Voyager aircraft suddenly plummets about 5,000 feet while in flight from RAF Brize Norton to Camp Bastion, Afghanistan. The pilot regained control, the aircraft was diverted to a landing at Incirlik AB in Turkey, and passengers were treated for minor injuries.
The military fleet remains grounded while an investigation takes place, and AirTanker may have to reimburse the Ministry for lost flying hours. The civil Voyager 02 will keep flying, which will keep the Falklands air bridge open, but it isn’t cleared to fly to Afghanistan. AirTanker, “Incident 9/2/14: Flight between RAF Brize Norton and Camp Bastion” | Daily Mail, “RAF grounds all Voyager planes after one aircraft plummets several thousand feet during flight to Afghanistan” | Dailt Mirror, “Voyager planes grounded after aircraft carrying 190 people plummeted thousands of feet during flight” | Reuters, “Britain grounds Voyager military fleet after in-flight incident”.
Jan 29/14: #7 arrives. Voyager 07 (ZZ337) arrives at Brize Norton. Like 04 – 06, it’s a Voyager K3 tanker with wing and belly-mounted refueling systems, giving AirTanker 4 of the K3 tankers and another 2 K2s with just wing pods. Voyager 02 is a civil charter aircraft. Sources: AirTanker, “Voyager 07 flies into RAF Brize Norton”.
Dec 21/13: Operations. RAF Voyager aircraft have begun flights into Afghanistan, airlifting soldiers from Camp Bastion in Helmland, Afghanistan back to Britain. The accompanying pictures show the planes loading at night, which is one way to handle poor defensive systems.
101 Sqn Wing Commander Ronnie Trasler says that 6 Voyager aircraft are already in service with the RAF, and the core fleet of 9 aircraft is on track to be in service by May 2014. Sources: RAF, “Voyager Flies to Afghanistan”.
2013VC10s retire; RTS for Eurofighters; Program on schedule; Britain creating an operational refueling gap?
Voyager & friendsSept 30/13: Typhoon update. Progress with the Eurofighter Typhoon (q.v. Dec 6/11) and Tornado GR4 strike fighter (q.v. April 5/12) fleets has been slow, so AirTanker is eager to offer a progress update. The UK MoD gave Voyager clearance to begin air-to-air refuelling (AAR) operations with Typhoon in late May 2013, with a formal Release to Service (RTS) on Aug 15/13. “Voyager and Typhoon have now completed more than 350 contacts, offloading 840 tonnes of fuel to the end of this month [Sept].” Tornado GR4 refueling has also been problematic, with clearance received only “at the beginning of summer,” and 1,460t of fuel offloaded since then.
Transport is seeing more action, with the entire military fleet clocking a total of 5,400 hours, carrying more than 110,000 passengers and 6,300 tonnes plus of freight. The civil Voyager 02 is now up to 1,200 hours, almost 30,000 passengers, and more than 1,600 tonnes of freight.
Summer 2013 also saw AirTanker receive its Extended Twin (Engine) Operations (ETOPs) clearance from the Civil Aviation Authority, which lets the civilian airline take on long-range routes and fly up to 180 minutes from the nearest suitable airport. This is a precursor for its expected October 2013 role in support of the Falklands air bridge. Sources: AirTanker, “Voyager and Typhoon complete more than 350 contacts”.
Sept 20/13: Final Flight. The VC10 performs its last operational flight for the RAF. The 2-ship VC10 K3 sortie (tails ZA147 and ZA150) included the full range of counterparts: Typhoon and Tornado GR4 fighters, Hercules transports, even extending the mission by refueling one VC10 from the other. To mark the tanker’s long service, a VC10 flew over various RAF stations, including RAF Lossiemouth, RAF Coningsby, RAF Marham and RAF Leuchars, as well as sites in Warton, Birmingham and Prestwick.
The formal retirement ceremony is Sept 25/13, but in our books, the last flight is the end. Sources: UK MoD release.
VC10s retired
May 29/13: #5 arrives. Voyager 05 (ZZ333), which is also a K3 3-point tanker, arrives at RAFB Brize Norton.
April 26/13: #4 arrives. Voyager 04 arrives in Brize Norton, where it becomes the 1st The first of 7 Voyager K3 tankers configured to include a centerline fuselage tank and hose, in addition to wing pods. The new A330 will join existing Voyager K2s (01 and 03) on the Military Aircraft Register, and operate as ZZ332.
Since the start of operational service in April last year, Voyager 01 (ZZ330) and 03 (ZZ331) have totaled more than 1,700 hours, carrying more than 25,000 passengers and over 2,000 tonnes of freight. The civil Voyager 02 (G-VYGG) has flown more than 230 hours, carrying more than 5,000 passengers and more than 300 tonnes of freight. It forms the core of AirTanker’s airline operation, which began operations with an inaugural flight to Akrotiri in January 2013. Sources: AirTanker, “AirTanker takes receipt of first ‘three-point’ tanker”.
March 14/13: Say what? UK minister for defence equipment, support and technology Philip Dunne confirms to Flight International that new A400Ms won’t have in-flight refueling pods added to let them perform as aerial tankers, because:
“The Ministry of Defence has recently refreshed its study into requirements for air-to-air refuelling capability. This concluded that Voyager will meet all requirements; therefore, there is no need for an air-to-air refuelling capability by the A400M Atlas.”
The RAF’s new A330 Voyager MRTTs lack key defensive systems, in order to avoid conflicts with their secondary use as civil charter planes. Those kinds of warning and decoy systems are necessary for refueling aircraft in even mildly hazardous environments. As tactical military transports with good range and no other uses, the A400Ms would have been well qualified to fill that gap. Flight International.
Jan 24/13: The Little Prince. A Voyager aircraft brings Prince Harry back to England, along with the rest of his Apache attack helicopter unit. Having said that, note the flight points:
“The Prince, who is known as Captain Wales in the Army, touched down at RAF Brize Norton late yesterday afternoon [23/1/13] on an inbound flight from RAF Akrotiri, Cyprus.”
Akrotiri is considered a “safe” airfield – unlike Kandahar in Afghanistan, which would have been Capt. Wales departure point. There are also certifications required to fly those kinds of distances. AirTanker.
20121st service flight; Britain facing capability crunch; Conversion work switches to Airbus in Spain.
Tornado contactDec 19/12: #3 arrives. Voyager 03 flies into RAFB Brize Norton, to join the Voyager fleet on the Military Aircraft Register. Source: AirTanker, “Voyager 03 flies into RAF Brize Norton”.
In contrast, Voyager 02 will be flown on the Civilian Aircraft Register and operated by AirTanker, using its own pilots and supported by AirTanker cabin crew.
Dec 13/12: AOC. AirTanker successfully demonstrates its full service capability to the Civil Aviation Authority in a proving flight to Reykjavik, in order to secure its Air Operating Certificate (AOC). Source: AirTanker, “Voyager 03 flies into RAF Brize Norton”.
June 25/12: Deadline pressures. Flight International explains the deadline pressures facing the transport and tanker fleet:
“By the end of this year, the last of the UK’s Lockheed Martin C-130K Hercules will be retired from use, while the replacement Airbus Military A400M won’t start appearing on the ramp at RAF Brize Norton until during 2014… But it is in the tanker sector that the biggest headache is emerging. The RAF’s last nine Vickers VC10s… [will be] retired in March 2013, with its Lockheed TriStars (including four tankers) to follow by the end of the same year… Only one [A330 Voyager] is currently in service, initially in an air transport capacity only, and I’m hearing that fuel venting problems encountered during earlier refuelling trials have yet to go away… The RAF needs tankers to sustain quick reaction alert duties… as well as supporting deployed examples defending the Falkland Islands and allied strike aircraft flying over Afghanistan. With the noise of the VC10’s “Conway [engine] quartet” to fall silent in only nine months, the pressure is really on for the Voyager to deliver.”
DID is going out on a limb, and predicting that either or both of the VC10 and L-1011 TriStar fleets will remain in service past their current retirement dates. Even private aerial tanker services like Omega wouldn’t be able to fully cover those needs, though a mix of TriStars for distant missions and contractors for Quick Reaction Alerts might work for a limited time.
June 22/12: Conversion switched. Cobham plc and AirTanker Ltd. (in which Cobham is a 13.33% shareholder), issue a joint statement that yanks A330 conversion work from Cobham’s UK facility back to Airbus Military in Spain. Cobham tries to minimize the decision, saying that there are “no technical issues with the conversion process,” adding to co-locating the conversion with the design office in Spain is only about “greatly improving efficiency and shortening the supply chain.” The net effect is to kill 320 British jobs at Bournemouth: 237 Cobham employees, and 83 contractors.
A step like this isn’t taken unless there were serious problems, and significant customer pressure. The core problems are hinted at by AirTanker’s release, which mentions a need “to ensure the timely delivery” of the planes, as part of a focus on delivery “on time and on cost.” The Cobham and AirTanker, they say, “have mutually recognized that this is the best way of meeting their own commitments and have taken the responsible decision…” This is all a kind way of saying that Cobham may not have had technical problems, but they aren’t performing to schedule or cost targets, and the problem is bad enough that the project is in danger of missing its commitments. Two industry sources contacted by The Sun newspaper cited Cobham delays as a problem, and one offered a stark assessment: “Basically, Cobham can’t do the job. They haven’t invested.”
The customer pressure revolves around the schedule. With the VC10 tankers slated to leave service in March 2013, delays to the Voyager fleet would be both an operational problem for the RAF, and a financial problem for AirTanker Ltd. due to penalty clauses. Cobham plc | AirTanker Ltd. | Dorset Echo | Flight International | Reuters | The Sun.
Airbus Military takes refueling conversions from Cobham
May 31/12: Monarch Aircraft Engineering (MAEL) has completed the first C check for the UK’s Airbus A330 multi-role tanker transport “Voyager” fleet, on behalf of AirTanker Services. AirTanker’s in-house capability isn’t available yet.
The C-Check is a full-aircraft inspection, usually done every 15-21 months or after a specific amount of actual Flight Hours. In the Voyager’s case, it’s a matter of time and not flight hours. Flight International.
April 5/12: Hosed? Reuters reports that the A330 Voyager’s hose and drogue system has experienced leakage problems when refueling RAF Tornado fighters:
“A source close to AirTanker said the problem was in pipes which connect the Voyager to Royal Air Force (RAF) Tornado warplanes which leaked when fuel was pumped through them during mid-air testing. The source said the refuelling trial was continuing.”
Failure to meet requirements could result in contract penalties. In response, AirTanker issued a statement via YouTube, while showing a refueling contact with a Tornado GR4:
“The Assistant Chief of the Air Staff (ACAS) signed the Voyager Release to Service and Certificate of Usage yesterday (05 Apr 12) and the aircraft will commence flying operations On the Military Aircraft Register with the RAF next week. Voyager is already a certified tanker and Air to Air Refuelling trials to clear RAF receiver aircraft to receive fuel from Voyager continue. As would be expected with a new aircraft, there have been some technical problems, but these are being addressed. AirTanker fully expects to deliver the core fleet of nine aircraft by 2014 in line with the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) Contract.”
April 4/12: 1st service flight. The aircraft took off from RAF Brize Norton for a training sortie around the United Kingdom, in its 1st service flight for the RAF.
The type was granted a Release To Service for Air Transport, and was placed on Military Aircraft Register the next day. AirTanker LLC | Airbus Military.
1st service flight, Release To Service
Feb 22/12: France. Defense Aerospace reports on a 2012 news conference involving French DGA head Lauren Collet-Billon. He leaves the door open to FSTA participation, but makes it clear France will have its own tankers:
“Although it may buy tanker capacity from the Royal Air Force “if the flight hour price is affordable,” France intends to buy its own fleet of A330 tankers which are required to support the French air force’s sovereign nuclear strike mission. These will be ordered in 2013.”
Feb 2/12: Certification. AirTanker receives Type Certification Exposition version 5 for Air Transport & Aeromed 3. Sources: UK NAO, Major Projects Report.
20111st FSTA arrives.
A330: Voyager 01Dec 6/11: Delay. The British Forces Broadcasting Service reports that:
“The first A330 Voyager had been due to be handed over in October, but isn’t now expected at its new home of Brize Norton until the New Year. The private company that will operate the aircraft says it is down to the availability of Typhoon fast jets for air-to-air refuelling tests.”
The RAF Typhoon fleet’s base availability rate been a subject of some controversy lately. This problem could also stem from the need to have Typhoons on Libyan operations and home patrol missions, which would leave few planes available for other tasks like testing.
Nov 18/11: France. AIN reports that Libyan lessons learned have made new Airbus A330 MRTT aerial tankers a bigger priority for France, alongside their aging C-135FRs.
An interim contract for 5-7 A330 MRTTs planes is now expected in 2013, which means AirTanker LLC is less likely to see any French leasing contracts.
Sept 4/11: Airbus Military delivers the 1st Airbus A330-200 aircraft to Bournemouth, UK, where Cobham Aviation Services will handle conversion into the RAF’s Voyager tanker configuration. It’s actually the 3rd FSTA plane built so far, but the first 2 were built and converted entirely by Airbus Military in Spain.
The conversion program will include 2 wing-mounted 905E aerial refueling pods for each plane, and half (7) of the “Voyagers” will also be fitted for 805E center-line fuselage refueling units. Airbus Military | Cobham Plc [PDF].
Aug 8/11: The 1st Voyager aircraft arrives at RAF Brize Norton. It’s involved in a flight testing program to certify it as a refueler for Tornado strike fighters. The visit was actually more of a stopover from Airbus Military’s home in Getafe, Spain, before departing for MOD Boscombe Down the next day. AirTanker LLC.
April 18/11: 1st FSTA arrives. The 1st FSTA aircraft arrives in the UK, touching down at Boscombe Down in Wiltshire. The aircraft also picks up a formal military name: Voyager.
Boscombe Down will host 2 of the Voyager aircraft for an intensive program of testing and trials in the refuelling role, set to continue into 2012 with Tornado, Sentry, Typhoon and Hercules aircraft. Those first 2 development aircraft had their military conversion process and initial flight testing done at Airbus Military’s facility near Madrid, Spain, but the next 12 Voyagers will be converted by Cobham at their facility in Bournemouth, UK. UK MoD | Airbus Military | AirTanker.
March 31/11: RAF Brize Norton’s 2-bay hangar and support building officially opens. It will become the FSTA program’s maintenance facility, flight operations centre and office headquarters. AirTanker.
2010FSTA production
Dec 20/10: Due to extreme bad weather at RAF Brize Norton, 2 of RAF 99 Squadron’s C-17s end up spending the night on aeromedical standby inside AirTanker’s hangar, which has been built but not fully fitted out yet. AirTanker.
Dec 13/10: Testing. 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.
Nov 2/10: France. The “UK-France Summit 2010 Declaration on Defence and Security Co-operation” has this to say:
“15. Air to air refuelling and passenger air transport. We are currently investigating the potential to use spare capacity that may be available in the UK’s Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) programme to meet the needs of France for air to air refuelling and military air transport, provided it is financially acceptable to both nations.”
France currently flies 14 C-135FRs for aerial refueling, and will probably need to keep these Boeing 707 relatives in service for refueling in combat zones and nuclear strike missions. Their planned replacement buy of A330 MRTT refueling and transport planes has been pushed back due to budget concerns, however, creating a need for a stopgap than can lower the C-135FR fleet’s flight hours, and fill some of the gaps. The FSTA tankers will be downgraded versions of France’s own future buy, making it an attractive option that could even result in a reduced future purchase of A330s for the Armée de L’Air.
On the British side, more hours bought by military users beyond Britain makes key modifications like defensive systems easier to justify, and easier to handle operationally because the need for civilian conversions and removal/ modification is reduced.
Oct 26/10: Maiden flight of Britain’s 2nd AirTanker A330 MRTT, which was converted from a basic A330-200 by Airbus Military in Getafe, Spain. Airbus Military.
Sept 16/10: FSTA PFI Rubbished. Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee releases its study of the tanker PFI arrangement, and it is not positive. Excerpts from “Delivering Multi-Role Tanker Aircraft Capability” :
“PFI works best where activities and demand are predictable. This is clearly not the case for FSTA. For instance, it is simply astonishing that the Department did not decide until 2006 that FSTA should be able to fly into high threat environments such as Afghanistan. Yet the Department is inhibited from changing the specification because of the implications to the cost of the PFI. Just two years after the deal was signed, the forthcoming Strategic Defence and Security Review is likely to change the demand for the services AirTanker has been contracted to deliver. As the Committee’s previous work shows, dealing with changes on PFI deals is expensive and the Review may question whether this PFI deal is sensible or affordable. The fact that no other country has chosen to procure air-to-air refuelling and passenger transport using PFI type arrangements is further indication that PFI is not a suitable procurement route for such important military capabilities.
There are significant shortcomings in the Department’s procurement of FSTA and we do not believe the procurement was value for money. The shortcomings include…”
See also: British Forces News (incl. video) | BBC | Daily Mail | The Guardian | The Independent | Public Finance magazine | Sky News (incl. video) | The Telegraph | Think Defence.
Sept 16/10: Maiden flight. The first FSTA A330 completes its maiden flight from the Airbus Military facility at Getafe, Spain. Airbus Military | Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
Aug 27/10: Rollout. The first A330-200 FSTA plane rolls out of Airbus Military’s hangar in Getafe, Spain, at the end of its indoor conversion and testing. First flight is expected in September 2010. AirTanker Services.
July 7/10: France. French defense minister Hervé Morin tells the parliamentary defense committee that France will postpone program contracts worth EUR 5.4 billion, in an effort to slash EUR 3.5 billion from the military budget over the next 3 years. France’s plan to replace its aged C-135FR aerial tankers with 14 A330-200 MRTT aircraft by 2015 is one of the delayed programs, even though it’s critical to many of the goals in the government’s 2009 defense white paper.
The parliamentary committee reportedly asked Morin if sharing the British FSTA service might help as a stopgap. If so, it would be a partial one at best. Not only is FSTA unable to operate in even low-threat areas, a commercial service cannot be used to refuel nuclear-armed strike aircraft. That was not an issue for Britain, whose nuclear weapons are limited to submarine-launched Trident missiles. Defense News.
March 20/10: NAO report. Britain’s NAO auditors publish their report “Ministry of Defence: Delivering multi-role tanker aircraft capability.” The key takeaway: “The National Audit Office has been unable to conclude that the Ministry of Defence has achieved value for money from the procurement phase of its £10.5 billion private finance deal for the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA).” Excerpts:
“During the negotiation of the deal… testing showed that the PFI solution was between 15 per cent better and 5 per cent worse than the [public sector] Comparator depending on which aircraft, discount factor and delivery confidence level was selected, and offered better value for money in seven of the eight scenarios presented… the Department never gained visibility of detailed sub-contractor costs and margins for the aircraft and their modification… until 2004, the project team had insufficient staff with PFI experience and frequent changes of team leader… there has been no compensating reduction in the support costs for the TriStar and VC10 fleets, which stood at approximately [GBP] 105 million in 2008-09.
…Since contract signature, the project has achieved its delivery milestones and is on budget… The Department is undertaking a large scale re-development at RAF Brize Norton with the intention that new facilities are operational by 2012, shortly after FSTA’s entry into service [in 2011]. However, there is little timescale contingency in these plans.
…The Department managed the later stages of the procurement of FSTA well, including making effective use of advisers and skilled Departmental staff in the latter stages of the negotiation, and transferring the risk to AirTanker for the introduction of the service. The Department did well to close the deal in difficult market conditions… [but, in earlier phases] The Department chose a PFI strategy for FSTA with no realistic assessment of alternatives… The Department was forced to narrow the field to one bidder while a number of significant issues remained… The Department never gained visibility of sub-contractor costs and margins… Neither did the Department undertake any “should-cost” modelling… Between the start of the formal assessment phase and contract signature, the Department spent [GBP] 48 million managing the project, including [GBP] 27 million on advisers, [GBP] 10 million on supporting the bidders and [GBP] 11 million on internal costs.”
March 29/10: Progress report. AirTanker Services offers a program update 2 years in, saying that all major milestones have been met since the Contract was signed on March 27/08. Construction at RAF Brize Norton continues to plan; the exterior work on the modern 2-bay hangar and support building was completed at the end of 2009, the interior fit out is well underway, the first milestone on the training center was completed 7 weeks ahead of schedule, and the Main Operating Base is scheduled to finish early in 2011. AirTanker is preparing for the first test flight in military configuration later in 2010. AirTanker Services release [PDF].
2009Program on track.
FSTA-1 to GetafeJuly 10/09: The FSTA program’s first Airbus A330-200 flies from Airbus’ Toulouse, France, factory to the Airbus Military facility at Getafe, Spain, on schedule, today. Conversion of this first FSTA aircraft with military avionics and refuelling capability will now commence, in a new, purpose-built, permanent hangar. AirTanker Services release [PDF].
June 4/09: The first A330-200 aircraft built for the FSTA partnership completes its 3-hour maiden test flight on schedule. As the aircraft was put through a series of maneuvers covering its entire flight envelope, engineers conducted various compliance tests on the engines and onboard systems. UK MoD | AirTanker Services release [PDF].
April 1/09: Progress report. The UK MoD issues a release, covering the state of the FSTA program. In mid-November 2008, ATrS completed and handed over improved facilities at RAF Brize Norton that included bulk diesel and waste fuel tanks, air side motor transport parking, wash pan drainage facilities; and a petrol, oil and lubricants store.
Work has started on a 2-bay hangar and associated workshops, as well as what will be a 4-floor office. the office will host the RAF’s 2 FSTA squadrons, the MOD’s Integrated Project Team, and AirTanker corporate personnel. On which topic, ATrS has hired over 30 new recruits.
Feb 25/09: The first FSTA wingset is completed at Airbus UK’s Broughton factory, and is loaded onto an Airbus Beluga aircraft for the journey to Bremen, Germany, for final equipping. Toulouse, France, will be the site for final assembly. Source.
2008PFI. LAIRCM selected.
FSTA A330-200July 16/08: LAIRCM picked. Northrop Grumman announces that their AN/AAQ-24V Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures Systems (LAIRCM) system has been selected to defend the UK’s aerial tanker fleet. Under the terms of the $93 million contract, Northrop Grumman’s Defensive Systems Division will provide LAIRCM system hardware and support to Thales U.K., a member of the AirTanker consortium.
LAIRCM’s system used laser pulses that hit incoming missiles to confuse their infrared guidance systems, and it has become a very popular system for protecting VIP flights and large aircraft like the C-17, E-3 AWACS, C-130, et. al. NGC’s partnership with EADS to build the A330 variant KC-30B for the American tanker competition didn’t hurt their chances, either.
March 27/08: PFI Contract. Rolls Royce announces that “As a shareholder and sub-contractor to AirTanker, the value to Rolls-Royce over the lifetime of the 27-year programme is estimated at over GBP 700 million.” The firm adds that “In line with its shareholding Rolls-Royce will contribute approximately 20 per cent of the equity investment required for the programme, the majority of which is not payable until the operational phase of the programme.”
Rolls-Royce will source components from its global supply chain, then assemble and test the engines at their Derby facility. It will then provide Mission Ready Management Solutions support for the engines once they’re in service. Program management and real-time, proactive diagnostic support will be provided from Rolls Royce’s Defence Aerospace headquarters in Bristol, with additional personnel based at RAF Brize Norton.
According to Rolls Royce, the Trent 700 engine has 53% of firm and option orders for global A330 fleets, including 70% of orders over the last 5 years. Competitive virtues cited include higher thrust, and a full-length cowl that reduces infra-red signature. While the RAF’s program is large in absolute terms, within the overall context of Rolls Royce’s business, one should consider that Trent 700 manufacturing and service in 3 months of 2008 (about $5 billion/ GBP 2.5 billion) is about 3 times the value of the RAF’s 27-year program. Rolls Royce release.
March 27/08: PFI Contract. AirTanker and its Shareholders (Cobham, EADS, Rolls-Royce, Thales UK and VT Group) sign a GBP 13 billion (about $26.04 billion), 27-year contract with the UK Ministry of Defence for 14 new aerial tanker aircraft based on the Airbus A330-200 MRTT, and powered by Rolls-Royce Trent 700 engines. The aircraft will enter service beginning in 2011, with aerial refueling services beginning in 2014 and full service beginning in 2016. They will replace Britain’s surviving fleet of 19 VC-10 and 9 L-1011 TriStar aircraft.
The FSTA contract also includes the provision of all necessary infrastructure, including a state of the art 2-bay hangar, training, maintenance, flight operations, fleet management and ground services to enable worldwide Air-to-Air Refuelling and Air Transport missions. An infrastructure program will begin in May 2008 at at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire, and the program as a whole is expected to sustain up to 3,000 long-term direct jobs, plus another 4,500 indirect jobs. You may even end up flying in one:
“A number of the aircraft will be operated on the civil register flying commercial Air Transport tasks when not subject to operational requirements, thereby enabling greater productivity for the fleet. Within the PFI agreement, the MoD will only pay for the service once it is available and then only for the capacity that it uses, subject to agreed minimum usage levels.”
The final stage in the process of preparing for contract closure was a financing competition conducted over the last 6 months by the AirTanker consortium, which raised approximately GBP 2.5 billion ($5 billion). UK MoD release | AirTanker Ltd. release [MS Word] | EADS release.
2006 – 2007Contractual progress.
Tanker fuel systemsNov 8/07: In its earnings guidance release, EADS says that:
“In response to the UK PFI Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) requirement, the AirTanker consortium (EADS is 40 percent shareholder and platform provider) has made significant progress in the finalising of contractual arrangements with the UK MoD and in the selection of lenders and financing structure. In the other tanker variant that the Division is currently introducing into the market includes the air-refuelling boom system which is now nearing completion of its development phase and continues flight testing.”
June 6/07: Financing. AirTanker Ltd. announces [PDF format] that it has begun work on the Financing Competition to raise almost GBP 2 billion (about $4 billion) in initial capital, in conjunction with Deutsche Bank. It will be used to start up the business as a fully operational concern, buy the aircraft, and build the new facilities at RAF Brize Norton.
June 6/07: PFI approved. Defence Equipment and Support Minister Lord Drayson announces government approval a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) for the FSTA program. UK MoD release.
July 16/06: AirTanker announces [PDF] that the US State Department has granted umbrella approval, in the form of a brokering licence, which will allow AirTanker to provide the FSTA service to the RAF with aircraft containing US-supplied military equipment.
2000 – 2005Program start. Final bids. A330 picked.
RAF TriStar KC1July 11/05: AirTanker announces [MS Word format] that Phill Blundell has been appointed as the firm’s Chief Executive. He had joined AirTanker from BAE Systems at the start of May 2005 and has been assuming greater responsibilities leading up to his formal appointment. His last role at BAE Systems was Group Managing Director C4ISR (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance), with a focus on non-platform and complex systems integration.
Feb 28/05: Following revisions to AirTanker’s proposals, and its re-assessment to the same evaluation criteria used for the January 2004 assessment, the UK government names the AirTanker consortium as its preferred bidder for the FSTA program, which is expected to be worth GBP 13 billion (about $25 billion in March 2005) over its 27-year lifetime. AirTanker release [PDF] | DID coverage.
January 2004: A330 picked. AirTanker is selected by the UK Ministry of Defence as the bidder most likely to provide a value for money solution, and contractual negotiations on key commercial terms begin.
August 2003: Final bids. Final bids are received from the TTSC (BAE, Boeing, Serco, Spectrum Capital) and AirTanker (EADS, Rolls Royce, Cobham, Thales UK) consortia. The delay from the initial bids is due to the MoD’s 2002 Equipment Planning process.
July 3/01: The MoD receives 2 initial bids: one from a BAE/Boeing consortium, another led by EADS.
Dec 21/2000: An Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) is issued to industry
Dec 19/2000: FSTA begins. The FSTA Program is given initial gate approval by Ministers and enters a formal Assessment phase.
Appendix A: PFI – The Art of the Deal Tony BlairUnder Prime Minister Blair, Britain’s Labor government made far greater use of Public-Private Partnerships/ Private Financing Initiatives, which kept key projects wholly or partly “off the books,” and could make some use of private sector efficiency incentives. When the need to replace their aerial tanker fleet arose, therefore, budgetary provisions were made in 1997 for a PFI. In a June 2/07 Economist article (“What I’ve Learned”), Tony Blair says:
“Public services need to go through the same revolution – professionally, culturally, and in organization – as the private sector has gone through. The old monolithic provision has to be broken down. The user has to be given real power of preference. The system needs proper incentives and rewards…”
The first step in the UK’s tanker PFI process was to select a preferred bidder, but here the government ran into a trap of its own making. Negotiations proved problematic. AirTanker (A330 MRTT) and TTSC (KC-767: BAE, Boeing, Serco, and Spectrum Capital) submitted proposals in July 2001, but the bids were not to the MoD’s liking. By September 2002, they decided to offer to pay the losing bidder up to GBP 10 million, in order to keep the competitors interested in a long and increasingly expensive bid process. After several iterations, the 2 consortia submitted revised bids in August 2003.
The TTSC consortium’s bid was 19% more expensive than AirTanker’s, and 6% above the notional public sector baseline. It also had stringent time limits, requiring a buy by 2005. In January 2004, TTSC was “de-selected” from the competition, and negotiations began with the remaining competitor, AirTanker. Those negotiations also proved difficult, and in May 2004, the FSTA project team recommended cancellation of the entire program.
By this time, however, the focus had moved from competition to financing, and the trap had closed. Working publicly on a public sector fallback plan would create uncertainty in the market, which could raise the cost and difficulty of the required finance deal, making failure a self-fulfilling prophecy. On the political end, the PFI concept itself was based on a practice that has been successful in Britain, but FSTA had surface similarities with the USA’s controversial and canceled KC-767 lease deal, which came to be associated with a corruption scandal. A mirrored failure in the UK, for whatever reasons, would have drawn those comparisons even tighter, and damaged PFIs as a whole. Committed by ideology and also by the threat of loss of face if the deal were scrapped, the government and the Ministry chose to plow ahead. they even sought to avoid planning for fallback options, doing so only in 2007 – and then in an incomplete fashion.
The AirTanker consortium was finally selected as the Preferred Bidder (vice default bidder) in February 2005, along with its proposed A330-200 Multi-Role Tanker-Transport aircraft. Yet even this step did not result in a contract.
The next step was ratification of a Private Financing Initiative as the way forward, as this is a significant departure from the usual buy and own approach for military aircraft. Nevertheless, reform of the defense sector in Britain has been wide-ranging. Huge progress has been made in the spread of “future contracting for availability,” as a common model for changing contractor incentives and supporting key weapons platforms like the RAF’s Tornados throughout their service life. The first decade of the new millennium had also seen significant organizational shifts within the Ministry of Defense.
It also saw shifts within government. Tony Blair’s retirement, and the ascension of the more left-wing Gordon Brown to the prime minister’s post, left a question mark of sorts over the future of service provision reform; the PFI concept is not popular in many parts of the ruling Labour Party. As such, the eventual confirmation by Lord Drayson that a PFI approach would be pursued for a huge program like FSTA had implications that reached beyond the UK’s military.
What it could not do, was make up for lost time. With that approval out of the way, step 3 of FSTA required agreement on a final deal with AirTanker.
Off-duty…In order to make the deal work from AirTanker’s point of view, however, financing terms were almost as important as its terms with the government. AirTanker Ltd. worked with Deutsche Bank as its primary advisor, and held a competition among lenders to finance the initial capital outlay. That competition raised GBP 2.5 billion (about $5 billion) to start up the business as a fully operational concern, buy the aircraft, and build the new facilities from which AirTanker will provide the FSTA service. The firm’s June 6/07 release added that:
“The goal will be to ensure that the final terms agreed with the chosen lenders transfer the risk away from the taxpayer, while guaranteeing full value for money for the MOD.”
This had been the goal since 1997. But a contract was not forthcoming until March 2008. It had taken so long, that the entire plan was 5.5 years behind at the beginning of the program contract.
Under the deal, the A300-200 aircraft will be owned and supported by AirTanker, while the service will be staffed by a mixture of armed services and civilian personnel. As noted above, under the PFI (Private Financing Initiative) concept the RAF would fly the 14 Airbus A330 FSTA aircraft on operational missions and receive absolute preferential access to the planes, while the contractor handled maintenance and operated them as passenger or transport aircraft when the RAF didn’t need them.
The UK MoD would pay for the provision MRTT aircraft on the basis of an agreement that combined per-use payments, plus incentives and penalties. These would be issued on the basis of aircraft availability, and AirTanker’s ability to meet key measurements of performance under the PFI agreement.
Revenues will be generated over time, via the performance-based, pay-per-use contract negotiated with the UK MoD. The NAO laid out expected costs in a 2010 report:
“Across the term of the contract, the Department will pay on average [GBP] 390 million per annum for the baseline FSTA service, which includes the cost of related services and infrastructure. Of this amount, AirTanker expects the cost of operating the service to be [GBP] 80 million, leaving [GBP] 310 million to cover financing, profit and the capital cost of the project… In addition, the Department expects to spend a further [GBP] 60 million per annum on personnel, fuel and other related costs, resulting in a total estimated spend over the life of the project of [GBP] 12.3 billion.”
TriStar & USN F/A-18CsAs always, the devil will be in the details – and in a PFI, any agreement that offers too much of an advantage to either side will ultimately prove to be in the best interests of neither party.
Blind spots can be equally costly, of course. Surprisingly, the original FSTA requirements did not envisage the aircraft flying into dangerous environments – even danger on the minimal scale of Afghanistan. When the need for possible additional aircraft protection measures arose, requirements were not changed; negotiations were proving difficult enough as it was. The UK MoD is now considering the technical requirements, costs that Britain’s NAO auditors estimate as “hundreds of millions of pounds,” and an in-service schedule that could be several years after the tanker service is “operational.” The existing British tanker fleet would have to cover the gap for areas most likely to see sustained aerial operations, or allies would have to cooperate, until that could be achieved.
In retrospect, Britain’s Parliament has been sharply critical of the deal, citing it as a god example of when not to use PFI. These arrangements only work, they say, when demand is predictable and changes are rare. That unpredictable demand was actually seen as an initial plus for the PFI, by making use of otherwise “wasted” time. The problem is that civilian and military carriage requirements aren’t harmonized yet, and many of the protective systems the military would want to install have too many classified technologies on board for use on civilian aircraft in civilian airports. Meanwhile, the RAF can no longer depend on operating tankers only “behind the front lines,” as long-range missiles and irregular warfare mean that the front lines themselves are disappearing.
That kind of collision, say the critics, is exactly why military systems are poor candidates for PFI arrangements. Given the rapidly changing nature of military operations, they say, the Labour government’s prioritization of political face over “plan B” options has been especially damaging and expensive. With so many contracts signed, and so little extra money on hand to cover the expenses of both cancellation and replacement, FSTA is the only option Britain has left. Somehow, the RAF will have to make it work – and extend the life of the existing TriStar and/or VC10 fleets to cover immediate front line needs.
Appendix B: Britain Former Refueling FleetOver the course of the FSTA acquisition process, the RAF has worked to phase out its legacy fleet of refueling aircraft.
By the time the FSTA contract was signed, both of the RAF’s legacy aircraft types had been out of production for over 20 years. A few commercial fleets still operated the L-1011 TriStar, but the RAF’s fleet had begun to show its age, and was nearing the end of its operational lifespan. By then, the RAF was the only global operator of the VC10s. Hence the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft program, which received its formal go-ahead in 2000. It was a hard slog (q.v. Appendix A), but the fleet is now in active service.
Tri-version TriStars TriStar & TornadosThe RAF’s 9 Lockheed L-1011 TriStars previously served with British Airways and Pan-Am. They have a unique 3-engine profile that includes an air intake on top, in front of the tail stabilizer. The TriStars and are the larger of the 2 major tanker classes, with more fuel capacity and range. They were operated by No 216 Squadron until March 2014, and broke down into 3 different models.
K1 and KC1 aircraft could perform air-air refueling. A total fuel load of 139,700 kg could be carried, which can be used by the aircraft itself, or given away to receivers. Although the aircraft had 2 hosedrum refueling units, only 1 could be used at a time, restricting aircraft to single-point refueling. On a typical AAR flight from the UK to Cyprus, or Gander (Canada), the RAF 4 TriStar KC1 aircraft could each refuel up to 4 fast-jet aircraft, while carrying up to 31 tonnes/ 34.1 tons of passengers and/or freight.
The addition of a large, fuselage freight-door and a roller-conveyor system allowed outsized palletized cargo to be carried on the KC1s, but the RAF’s 2 TriStar K1 aircraft weren’t fitted for this. TriStar K1s carry up to 187 passengers instead, in addition to their refueling equipment.
The KC2/KC2A TriStars were ex-Pan Am transport aircraft that remained largely unchanged from their airline days. They carried up to 266 passengers, and were used for transport duties only.
VC10s: Distinctive, but Discontinued VC10 & Tornado F3sThe RAF’s 19 Vickers VC-10s were famous for having 4 engines – 2 mounted on each side of their rear fuselage. This has the happy side-effect of minimizing turbulence for pilots taking up refueling stations behind their wings. Unlike the TriStars, VC10s were equipped with a probe-and-drogue refueling system capable of refueling 2 aircraft simultaneously from the 2 underwing pods; they could also use a single fuselage-mounted Hose Drum Unit (HDU). They also differed from the TriStars in that they could be refueled themselves, thanks to the installation of a fixed refueling probe in their nose. Only 11 were serving by 2002, in 3 tanker versions:
The VC10-C1Ks were converted to the aerial refueling role in 1993 with the fitting of a Mk32 refueling pod under the outboard section of each wing. They carry their internal fuel, and can also accommodate 124 troops plus 9 crew, or aero-medical evacuation of up to 68 stretchers. A large, cabin-freight door on the forward left side of the aircraft allows combi passenger/freight or full-freight configuration. In its full-freight role, the cabin could hold up to 20,400 kg/ 22.4 tons of palletized freight, ground equipment or vehicles, on its permanently strengthened floor. They were operated by 10 Squadron.
The RAF’s 4 VC10-K3s were equipped with fuselage fuel tanks mounted in the passenger compartment, and could carry up to 78,000 kg of fuel. They had very limited passenger-carrying capacity, which was used almost exclusively to carry ground crew and other operational support personnel. The K3s and K4 are operated by 101 Squadron.
The RAF’s 4 VC10-K4s carried 69,800 kg of fuel using their original 8 fuel tanks, and add another 1,750 gallon tank in the fin. The aircraft had been purchased in 1981 from British Airways, and were converted by BAe in 1990. These VC10s went through almost a complete rebuild, emerging without the airframe fatigue flight restrictions placed on many of the other VC10s in the fleet.
Additional Readings & Sources Background: A330 Voyager Tanker/ TransportsNews & Views
hhttps://youtu.be/xPmdD3qeUsA
C2BMC puts the “system” in the Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) System. At least that’s how the US Missile Defense Agency describes the Command and Control, Battle Management, and Communications (C2BMC) element. Basically, C2BMC synchronizes individual missile defense systems, sensors, and operators, which is essential to the layered missile defense approach the agency is working to develop. Since no one system is foolproof, layered system is designed to destroy enemy ballistic missiles by tracking and engaging them in all phases of flight, from boost, mid-course, and terminal phases of ballistic missiles. Tying all that together is a real challenge, since these systems weren’t all designed from the outset to operate together.
Some elements of the USA’s current missile warning and defense architecture include DSP and SBIRS satellites, Aegis BMD ships, Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD), Patriot anti-air missile defense, and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) batteries, along with flexible dual-use elements like the Patriot PAC-3, other sensors that might be plugged into the network, and other elements that will be developed in future…
The C2BMC system receives, processes, and displays tracking and status data from these elements so that commanders at various locations have the same integrated operating picture and can make coordinated decisions about deploying weapons. This allows the central command structure to use the most effective weapons to engage threat ballistic missiles in all flight phases.
The BMDS C2BMC includes 3 parts: C2, battle management, and communications. Its capabilities [PDF] include:
More than 70 C2BMC workstations are fielded at US Strategic, Northern, European, Pacific, and Central Commands (USSTRATCOM, USNORTHCOM, USEUCOM, USPACOM, and USCENTCOM); numerous Army Air and Missile Defense Commands; Air and Space Operations Centers; and other supporting warfighter organizations.
Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor for C2BMC, with Northrop Grumman serving as the principal subcontractor.
Contracts and Key EventsMay 11/17: Northrop Grumman has received a $332 million modification to an existing contract for work at the Joint National Center Research and Development for the Missile Defense Agency and the Department of Defense. Under the terms of the agreement, work to be carried out includes the integration of Ballistic Missile Defense System (BDMS) and testing programs for the program, as well as the provision of logistical services, wargame and readiness exercises, and the development of doctrine, as well as information technology support for the Chief Information Officer for the BDMS. The additional DoD funding will increase the funding maximum from $3.85 billion to $4.18 billion, and may extend task orders until May 2018.
March 14/14: GAO report. The GAO releases GAO-14-248R, regarding the USA’s EPAA plans for defending Europe from ballistic missiles. The report mentions C2BMC, and the news isn’t so good.
C2BMC S6.4 was fielded in 2011 as part of EPAA Phase 1. The issue is S8.2, which is needed to improve the integration of incoming missile tracks for Phase 2, and provides a Lock-On After Launch firing capability for AEGIS BMD systems. It was supposed to be ready in 2015, but current plans now say it won’t be ready until 2017 – and software projects like this are always at risk for further delays. That delay creates follow-on delays for planned improvements to AN/TPY-2 radars.
C2BMC S8.4 has also been changed from its original deployment in 2018 with Phase 3. It’s supposed to provide the ability for AEGIS BMD systems to intercept incoming missiles without using their own radars, thanks to faster integrated tracks, more precise tracking, and resilience in more “complex” conditions. Instead, a 2013 decision by MDA pushed S8.4 to 2020 or later. Phase 3 will now use S8.2x, with unspecified upgrades. That delay creates follow-on delays for planned improvements to AN/TPY-2 radars and THAAD missiles, and AEGIS BMD.
March 4/14: MDA Budget. The MDA finally releases its FY15 budget request, with information spanning from FY 2014 – 2019. C2BMD is slated to receive $2.281 billion over this period based on current plans, and is very consistent at $405 – 466 million per year. The MDA adds:
“In addition to continuing the enhancement of global BMD survivable communications and support for operations and sustainment of C2BMC at fielded sites, in FY 2015 we will integrate Overhead Persistent Infrared data into C2BMC to support cueing of BMD sensors worldwide. We will also improve sensor data integration and battle management in C2BMC to support Aegis BMD cueing and launch-on and engage-on remote capability.”
Sources: US MDA, PB 2015 Appropriation Summary | US MDA, Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 Budget Estimates.
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). C2BMC is included, and their report focuses on testing of C2BMC S6.4 Maintenance Release 1 and 2 (MR1 and MR2). MR1-2 are focused on “debris mitigation,” helping defensive systems separate the warheads from the chaff.
C2BMC can control and direct 1 AN/TPY-2 radar, and some lab tests have involved more than 1 simulated radar, but that hasn’t been fully tested yet. DOT&E wants the Missile Defense Agency to perform tests with multiple TPY-2s within in a single Area of Regard or theater. They want that single focus in order to test tracking coordination.
In addition, C2BMC experienced “some minor latency issues during stressing test cases with large numbers of threats,” especially if more friendly forces are in theater to add complications. The GTI-04e Part 1 test also found “interoperability and command and control deficiencies… that affected track processing, situational awareness, and battle management.”
Sept 10/13: FTO-1. A successful joint test of AEGIS BMD and land-based THAAD missiles from the Pacific Kwajalein Atoll/Reagan Test Site destroys 2 medium range target missiles.
The test involved full inter-operation. A land-based TPY-2 radar was positioned forward as the warning radar. It acquired the targets, and passed that onto the joint C2BMC system. C2BMC cued DDG 74 USS Decatur, outfitted with AEGIS BMD 3.6.1 and the SM-3 Block IA missile. Decatur acquired the track, then launched the SM-3 and killed its target. C2BMC also passed the track to a land-based THAAD battery’s own TPY-2 radar, which provided the intercept guidance for a successful pair of THAAD missile shots. The 2nd THAAD missile was actually aimed at the SM-3’s MRBM, in case it had failed to achieve intercept, but that turned out not to be necessary this time.
C2BMC has been used in a number of other tests, but this complex test was included as an excellent illustration of the system’s intended capabilities. Sources: US MDA, Sept 10/13 release | Lockheed Martin, Sept 11/13 release | Raytheon, Sept 10/13 release.
March 20/12: Northrop Grumman announces a $96 million follow-on contract as part of Lockheed Martin’s Missile Defense National Team, which is responsible for the C2BMC program. Under the 38-month contract, Northrop Grumman will support integrated product teams, provide engineering expertise, and provide test and exercise support for C2BMC systems.
Dec 23/11: Lockheed Martin Information Systems & Global Solutions in Gaithersburg, MD receives a sole-source 5-year, $980 million incentive-based, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract to work with the US Missile Defense Agency to develop C2BMC. Lockheed Martin ISGS will develop, model, fabricate, integrate, test, verify, evaluate, validate, document, deliver, field, train, operate, sustain, and support updates and new capabilities.
Work will be performed in Arlington, VA from Jan 1/12 through Dec 31/16, with initial orders funded from FY 2012 research, development, test and evaluation funds. The US Missile Defense Agency in Huntsville, AL manages the contract (HQ0147-12-D-0003). Lockheed Martin.
Aug 18/10: Northrop Grumman announces that it received from MDA a $90 million, 30-month task order to develop techniques for sensor management and data processing and fusion for future sensors that will be used by the C2BMC system. The company said the techniques will provide more accurate tracking information for intercepting a missile earlier in flight using current and future interceptor systems. These new capabilities will be built on an open systems infrastructure so that any sensor and weapon system can be incorporated into the BMD system, the company said.
April 15/10: Lockheed Martin announces a $424 million 2-year contract modification to beef up the C2BMC system’s security, situational awareness capabilities, and integrate sensors and weapons systems. Work will be conducted in Arlington, VA; Huntsville, AL; and Colorado Springs, CO.
Jan 8/08: Lockheed Martin announces that it received $458 million contract modification in 2007 for development, integration, and installation of the C2BMC capability.
December 2007: Lockheed Martin said C2BMC Spiral 6.2 was promoted to operational status. With this spiral, capabilities provided include Link 16 track, parallel staging of networks for support to development/ integration and operations, new communication capabilities for Aegis UHF/EHF and situational awareness and planner capability enhancements.
Additional Readings C2BMCAustralia isn’t the only Pacific Rim country looking to modernize its Navy these days. China’s rapid shipbuilding program and work on its aircraft carrier project gets a lot of attention – but just to the east, South Korea is fielding its own AEGIS-equipped “air warfare destroyer,” while picking up new capabilities via a new class of amphibious assault LHD ship. Sound familiar? Hobart and Canberra Class, meet the KDX-III King Sejong Class AEGIS destroyer (launched May 2007) and the new “LPH” Dokdo Class LHD (commissioned July 2007).
The 199-meter, 18,860-ton Dokdo Class officially has the less aggressive designation of LPH (landing platform, helicopter), but its well deck and amphibious assault capabilities place it within the LHD category…
The Dokdo Class can carry up to 720 troops, plus a mix of helicopters, tanks/armored vehicles, and wheeled vehicles. Transport to shore is accomplished via landing ships or LCAC hovercraft. The Dokdo Class is only 2/3 the size of Australia’s new Canberra Class, and just over 1/3 the size of the USA’s Wasp Class; but Dokdo is the largest ship in the South Korean Navy.
For defense, they will rely on a combat system from the Samsung Thales Corp. joint venture. It will rely on Thales’ SMART-L long range 3 dimension search radar, with a detection and tracking range of 400 km/ 240 miles. For defensive responses, it can coordinate a SeaRAM guided missile system, 2 Thales “Goalkeeper” 30mm CIWS systems, and various decoying systems. Even so, support from Korea’s frigate-sized KDX-II destroyers and new KDX-III King Sejong Class AEGIS destroyers will be essential.
ROKN GoalkeeperThere has been media speculation that the Dokdo Class is in fact a light aircraft carrier, citing the ability to install a ski jump and operate V/STOL Harriers or STOVL F-35B Lightnings from its deck. America’s 42,000 ton Wasp Class LHDs are used in this manner, and it would be possible from Australia’s Canberra Class LHDs as well.
The smaller size of the Dokdo Class, however, means that using the ship in this way doesn’t make much sense. It would get one very few fighters, while sacrificing most of the ship’s total carrying capacity. Fighter aircraft require a lot of space below-decks, and so does their fuel and weapons storage. South Korea’s prime focus remains North Korea, and aerial cover for amphibious operations a la Inchon can easily be supported from land bases. Meanwhile, international operations featuring Korean LHDs would need Korean helicopters far more than they’d need Korean fighters.
Circumstances can change; but Korea’s Ministry of Defence has stated that they have no plans to operate fighter aircraft from these ships, and military logic makes this a believable assertion. This is not to say that offensive fixed wing aircraft will never operate from Dokdo. It’s just that they’re far more likely to be UAVs akin to the MQ-9 Reaper, rather than supersonic fighters.
LPX: Future Plans for the ClassThe Dokdo Class ship ROKS Marado was scheduled to enter service by 2010, but its budget was canceled. That budget was restored in 2012, and recent regional tensions are making high-end ships like LHDs and Aegis destroyers more attractive to Korea. Marado commemorates a small southern island that is commonly thought of as both the ending and beginning point of Korea, depending on one’s perspective.
Up to 4 ships of class were originally planned, but doctrine has shifted toward 2-3 “rapid response fleets,” each built around 1 Dokdo Class ship and a number of destroyers. If there’s a 3rd ship of class, previous plans involved naming it after Baengnyeong Island, which is located in the Yellow Sea near the disputed Northern Limit Line (NLL) with North Korea.
Contracts and Key Events ROKS Dokdo, docked
May 4/17: South Korea has announced that it has started construction of its second Dokdo-class Landing Platform Helicopter (LPH) amphibious assault ship. The milestone was marked by a keel-laying ceremony at the shipyard of Hanjin Heavy Industries & Construction Co. in Busan, and it is expected that the vessel will be launched in April of next year. It will be delivered to the South Korean Navy in 2020, following sea trials. Seoul’s undertaking in constructing such vessels has been noted as its most major naval transport project in over a decade.
April 13/09: Samsung Thales Corp’s senior vice president, Byun Seung-wan, is quoted by Defense News as saying that Dokdo’s combat system is drawing regional interest:
“Southeast Asian countries have shown interest in one developed for the… Dokdo…. About two years ago, STC completed the five-year Landing Platform Experimental (LPX) combat system, in cooperation with the ADD, based on expertise gathered from its development of combat systems for the South Korean Navy’s KDX-I/II destroyers, frigates and patrol ships…. STC was the prime contractor for the integration and development of the command support and the command and fire-control system.”
The article also traces STC’s growth as a global developer of naval and land combat and battlefield management systems.
July 3/07: The ROKS Dokdo is handed over to the Navy in a ceremony. KOIS report.
Note that the name Dokdo is politically significant, referring to a set of islands whose territorial claim is disputed with Japan. The Korean perspective on Dokdo/Takeshima may be found here. Unsurprisingly, Japan filed a diplomatic protest over the name back in 2005. Asian countries tend to have civilization confidence, however, and the Korean reply was rude.
Additional Readings & Sources
In April 2009 Bath and Ingalls agreed to the Navy’s surface combatant plans, thus heralding a significant restructuring within the American naval shipbuilding community. Under the agreements, the USA would end production at 3 Graf Spee sized DDG-1000 Zumwalt Class “destroyers,” but shift all production from the Congressionally-mandated joint arrangements to General Dynamics Bath Iron Works in Maine, which had already made program-related investments in advanced shipbuilding technologies.
Northrop Grumman (now Huntington Ingalls Industries) would retain its DDG-1000 deckhouse work, but their main exchange was additional orders for DDG-51 Arleigh Burke Class destroyers. Their Ingalls yard in Pascagoula, Mississippi would continue building the DDG-51 destroyers, beginning with 2 ordered in FY 2010-2011.
With the DDG-1000 Zumwalt Class ended at 3 ships, the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke Class ships will become more important to the future navy. The Navy’s FY 2011 budget also terminated the planned CG (X) cruiser program as unaffordable. Instead, the US Navy would field an updated DDG-51 Flight III version, starting in FY 2016.
That date has been pushed back, owing to technical issues with the Flight III ships. Under the current plan, the DDG-51 Flight IIA Restart version would remain in production from FY 2010-2017, buying 13 ships in total (DDG 113 – 125) under a multi-year buy program. Huntington Ingalls Industries ships ordered to date are both named after Congressional Medal of Honor recipients, and include:
Both Bath Iron Works and HII will continue to build ships of class, but lead yard status for the “DDG-51 restart” ships shifted to Northrop Grumman (now HII) during the restructuring. GD Bath Iron Works is currently contracted to build DDG 115 Rafael Peralta and & DDG 116 Thomas Hudner, as the DDG-51 follow-yard.
Beyond the Flight IIAs, US Navy plans once called for buying an undetermined number of DDG-51 Flight IIIs from FY 2016 through at least FY 2022, and perhaps until FY 2031. The follow-on DDG-51 Flight IIIs are expected to carry a smaller version of the new Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR-S) dual-band active array that was slated for the canceled CG (X), along with the upgraded power and cooling systems required to support it. Other enhancements will be fleshed out as detailed design work on the Flight III commences, reportedly in FY 2012-2013. Unfortunately, there have been early reports that integration of the AMDR radar could prove to be a problem. The new radar will need to have a power draw that the ship can handle, cooling needs that the ship’s design can meet, and a size that can fit within the ship’s available space, all without changing the destroyer’s balance and stability. That is, to put it mildly, a challenge. So, too, are growing cost estimates that are edging the DDG-51 Flight III toward the price of larger and more advanced DDG-1000 Zumwalt Class ships.
Flight III buys now appear set to start no earlier than FY 2018, if indeed they start at all. Current plans do call for an interim step, however, as part of the proposed 2012-2017 multi-year buy.
Under the current multi-year proposal, 1 of 2 FY 2016 ships (DDG 123), and both FY 2017 ships (DDG 124-125), will “incorporate Flight III capability,” but not the new radars themselves. The addition of the AMDR-S radar and other associated systems would be funded as an engineering change proposal (ECP), so it doesn’t look like it’s affecting multi-year pricing. Otherwise, the Navy wouldn’t be able to show enough savings [1] to justify a multi-year buy under US laws. The Flight III ECP won’t be awarded until the Flight III Milestone Decision Authority approves the configuration, and the greatest risk would be changes that involve significant retrofits of DDG 123-125, beyond adding the AMDR radar. Those kinds of changes are always much more expensive than installing systems during ship construction.
Contracts & Key EventsArticle coverage essentially terminated in FY 2013, as the USA moved to a multi-year block-buy from both shipyards to finance remaining Flight IIA destroyers, and the initial Flight III ships.
One thing to notice while reading these is that ship construction contracts do not include important equipment like guns, radar, combat systems, missile launchers, etc. Those are bought independently as “Government Furnished Equipment,” though ship construction contracts do pay to have that equipment installed in the ships. Many of those contracts are not publicly announced, or not broken out specifically by ship. As such, any ancillary contracts covered here are suggestive and informative, not comprehensive. Indeed, those “ancillary” contracts make up the largest portion of the ship’s total cost.
FY 2013 – 2017May 4/17: Raytheon has received a $327.1 million US Navy contract for the low-rate production of the Air and Missile Defense Radar system. Known as the AMDR or AN/SPY-6(V) , the order calls for the procurement of three initial systems, including the equipment and engineering systems needed to produce, and will be mounted on Flight III Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers. The Air and Missile Defense Radar is part of the ship’s AEGIS system, and is 30 times more sensitive than the search radars on the Flight II Arleigh Burkes. Work is expected to be completed by October 2020.
February 23/17: Huntington Ingalls Industries has marked a production milestone for the USS Frank E. Petersen during a keel authentication ceremony. The company was contracted by the Navy in March 2016 to produce the Arleigh Burke-class Flight IIA guided missile destroyer which is named after Frank Emmanuel Petersen Jr., who served as the USMC’s first African-American pilot and general officer. During the ceremony, Petersen’s window, Dr. Alicia Petersen said, “He wasn’t a man who wanted a lot of praise or recognition; however, if he could see this great ship being built for other young men and young women to see and look up to, he would be very proud.”
July 22/15: The Chief of Naval Operation Adm. Jonathan Greenert wants to buy ten Arleigh Burke-class destroyers (DDGS) to the tune of two a year, according to his Navigation Plan announced this week. This will bring the total number to be procured by 2020 to seventy-two. The Plan also calls for the procurement of the Navy’s Small Surface Combatant frigates by 2019, as well as investment in deterrent and attack submarines. The latter would involve boosting the fleet of Virginia-class boats to twenty-two within five years, in addition to the maintenance of the Ohio-class ballistic missile boats, with a replacement eyed for 2031.
April 15/15: The future Flight III Arleigh-Burke Class destroyers are making good progress, with an order scheduled for 2019. The Navy recently told Congress that the program would take the shape of a ten-ship multi-year procurement contract.
Nov 4/13: DDG 113. HII officially lays the keel for DDG 113 John Finn. She’s the 1st ship of the DDG 51 program restart, and will become the 29th Arleigh Burke Class ship built by HII. Sources: US NAVSEA, “Keel Laid for Future USS John Finn”.
Sept 12/13: DDG 114. The Navy marked the start of fabrication for DDG 114, the future USS Ralph Johnson. Keel laying won’t take place until Q3 2014. Sources: US NAVSEA, “Future USS Ralph Johnson starts fabrication”.
FY 2012Mk 45 firing
June 7/12: Lead vs. Follow Yard. Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. in Pascagoula, MS receives a $17.3 million cost-plus-award-fee/ cost-plus-fixed-fee contract with performance incentives, for DDG 51 class follow yard services. The firm explained that they remain the follow-yard behind General Dynamics’ Bath Iron Works for previous Arleigh Burke Class destroyers in the US Fleet (DDGs 51-112).
As the follow yard, they offer many of the same services as the lead yard, when required. That includes engineering, technical, material procurement and production support; configuration; class flight upgrades and new technology support; data and logistics management; lessons learned analysis; acceptance trials; post delivery test and trials; post shakedown availability support; reliability and maintainability; system safety program support; material and fleet turnover support; shipyard engineering teams; crew training, design tool/ design standardization, detail design development, and other technical and engineering analyses for the purpose of supporting DDG 51 class ship construction and test and trials.
In addition, DDG 51 class follow-yard services may provide design, engineering, procurement and manufacturing/ production services to support design feasibility studies and analyses that modify DDG 51 class destroyers for Foreign Military Sales programs. Japan’s Kongou Class, and South Korea’s KDX-III destroyers, are both examples of that phenomenon.
Work on this contract will be performed in Pascagoula, MS (98%), and Washington, DC (2%), and is expected to be complete by February 2013. This contract was not competitively procured by US Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC, as these relationships were set a long time ago (N00024-12-C-2312).
Feb 15/12: Naming. The US Navy names DDG 113-115.
DDG 113: John Finn, who retired as a lieutenant, received the Medal of Honor from Adm. Chester Nimitz for displaying “magnificent courage in the face of almost certain death” during the Japanese attack on military installations in Hawaii during Pearl Harbor.
DDG 114: Marine Corps Pfc. Ralph Henry Johnson was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor for shouting a warning to his fellow Marines and hurling himself on an explosive device, saving the life of one Marine and preventing the enemy from penetrating his sector of the patrol’s perimeter during the Vietnam War.
Nov 16/11: Jane’s Navy International is reporting that DDG-51 flight III destroyers with the new AMDR radar and hybrid propulsion drives could cost $3-4 billion each.
If that’s true, it’s about the same cost as a DDG-1000 Zumwalt Class ship, in return for less performance, more vulnerability, and less future upgrade space. AMDR isn’t a final design yet, so it’s still worthwhile to ask what it could cost to give the Flight IIIs’ radar and combat systems ballistic missile defense capabilities – R&D for the function doesn’t go away when it’s rolled into a separate program. Indeed, if the Flight III cost estimate is true, it raises the question of why that would be a worthwhile use of funds, and re-opens the issue of whether continuing DDG-1000 production and upgrades might make more sense. DoD Buzz.
FY 2011
Sept 26/11: The US Navy releases the totals for the June 15/11 contract: $783.6 million in shipbuilding costs for DDG 113. Note that this is just the shipbuilder’s share. It excludes key items like radars, electronics, weapons, and other “government-furnished equipment.” For the recent DDG 1001/1002 contract, Bath Iron Works’ shipbuilding costs were a bit more than $2 billion for 2 ships, each of which is expected to cost a bit less than $3 billion when all is said and done. The actual cost of DDG 113/114 would work out to around $2 billion each at a similar ratio. Equipment for an Arleigh Burke Flight IIA ship has a long production history, is less sophisticated in some ways than DDG 1000’s, and does not include extras from other shipbuilders – like the Zumwalt’s composite deckhouse from HII. As such, DDG 113’s furnished equipment is very likely to be less expensive in absolute terms. The question is, would it be more than 30% less expensive, which is required in order to be lower relative to shipbuilding costs?
The Navy also announces a $697.6 million fixed-price-incentive contract for DDG 114 construction. For DDG 114 construction, significant amounts of work will be performed in Pascagoula, MS; Cincinnati, OH; Walpole, MA; York, PA; Charlottesville, VA; Erie, PA; and Burns Harbor, IN; and is expected to be complete by July 2018. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was procured via a limited competition between Huntington Ingalls and Bath Iron Works, run by US Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC (N00024-11-C-2305). See also HII.
August 17/11: Lockheed Martin Mission Systems and Sensors, Moorestown, NJ, is awarded a $6,986,478 option exercise modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-03-C-5115) for management and engineering services to maintain and modify the design of DDG 51-class combat system compartments and topside arrangements. Required services include program management and operation support, quality assurance, configuration management, ship design integration, fleet lifecycle engineering support, installation support, firmware maintenance, combat system test and evaluation, Navy-furnished material support, special studies, and future-ship integration studies.
Work will be performed in Moorestown, N.J. (37%); Bath, ME (25%); Pascagoula, MO (22%); San Diego, Calif. (6%); Washington, DC (5%); Norfolk, VA (3M); Port Hueneme, CA (1%); and Syracuse, NY (1%). Work is expected to be completed by September 2012. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington Navy Yard, DC, is the contracting activity.
June 15/11: Huntington Ingalls, Inc. in Pascagoula, MS receives a fixed-price-incentive contract for DDG 113 construction, engineering change proposals, and design budgeting – in other words, the main ship contract. The US Navy just won’t tell anyone what the cost is. They’ll only say that “significant work” will be performed in Pascagoula, MS; Cincinnati, OH; Walpole, MA; Burns Harbor, IN; York, PA; and Charlottesville, VA. Work is expected to be complete by July 2017. This contract was not competitively procured by US Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC (N00024-11-C-2309). And yet:
“As this award represents the first DDG 51 class ship to be awarded for the continuation of the DDG 51 class program, and there is a competitive solicitation for [3] additional DDG 51 class ships, the contract award amount and percentages of work to be performed in each location for DDG 113 are considered source selection information (see 41 U.S.C. 2101, et seq., FAR 2.101 and FAR 3.104) and will not be made public at this time.”
We’ve seen a similar pattern recently in the Littoral Combat Ship program, and the net effect is to obscure the program’s major costs from public view. Depending on how long the Navy decides to define the program as competitively solicited, and it has been built in 2 shipyards for a long time now, this could obscure costs for many years. All for a critical component of the American fleet. See also H.I.I. release.
June 15/11: Defense News reports that Saudi Arabia may be shifting their focus away from a fully armed variant of the Littoral Combat Ship, carrying the smaller AN/SPY-1F radar and AEGIS combat system. In its place, they received May 2011 briefings concerning full DDG-51 Arleigh Burke Class destroyers displacing about 3 times the tonnage, with ballistic missile defense capability upgrades. The cost trade-off would be about 4-6 modified LCS ships, in exchange for about 2 DDG-51 Flight IIA BMD ships.
The unspoken threat here is, of course, Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs. The unspoken concern is the security of a top-level defense technology, which is critical to defending the USA and its allies, in Saudi hands.
To date, the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke class has never been exported per se, though their AEGIS combat system and accompanying AN/SPY-1D radars have. Japan is the only foreign country with full AEGIS BMD systems, on board their natively produced Kongo Class destroyers. Spanish F100 frigates have participated in US missile defense tests, and are eligible for the full BMD upgrade; Australia’s forthcoming Hobart Class “destroyers” are a close derivative. South Korea’s large KDX-III destroyers could be upgraded to add BMD capabilities, but the smaller SPY-1F radars on Norway’s Fridjhof Nansen Class frigates don’t have that same upgrade path available.
Another possible option for Saudi Arabia would be used US Navy DDG-51 Flight I ships, upgraded with AEGIS BMD. That would allow the Saudis to field more ships for the same money, if an agreement was reached. The costs would lie in questions about hull life and length of service, and the Flight Is’ lack of a helicopter hangar. Helicopters have been shown to be essential defenses against speedboat threats, of the kind that Iran fields in the Persian/Arabian Gulf. Defense News | Information Dissemination.
June 12/11: Looking ahead, Aviation Week reports that DDG-51 Flight III may be hitting design growth problems. Power, cooling, and weight distribution have always been seen as the most likely stumbling blocks to fitting next-generation radars like AMDR on the DDG-51 hull, and:
“As the possible requirements and expectations continue to grow for the proposed DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class Flight III destroyers, so is the concern among defense analysts and contractors that the U.S. Navy may once again be trying to pack too much into one ship… And yet it is the need to field [AMDR] that is driving some of the additional requirements for the Flight IIIs… “Sometimes we get caught up in the glamour of the high technology,” Huntington Ingalls Industries CEO Mike Petters says. “The radars get bounced around. They get changed. Their missions get changed. The technology changes. The challenge is if you let the radars drive the ships, you might not get any ships built.”
June 3/11: BAE Systems Land & Armaments, LP in Minneapolis, MN wins a $54.6 million firm-fixed-price sole-source contract for MK 41 Vertical Launching System mechanical modules and related equipment and services. This contract includes options which, if exercised, would bring its cumulative value to $55.5 million.
A June 22/11 BAE release reveals that the equipment will be installed in HII’s DDG 113 & 114, and Bath Iron Works’ DDG-115. Each ship will receive 2 sets, for a total of 6. Production on the missile launchers will begin in June 2011 and run through 2013, though the contract runs to September 2015. Work will be performed in Aberdeen, SD (45%); Aiken, SC (25%); York, PA (20%); Louisville, KY (5%); and Fridley, MN (5%). Work is expected to be complete by September 2015 (N00024-11-C-5301).
June 2/11: Northrop Grumman spinoff Huntington Ingalls Industries in Pascagoula, MS receives a $25.3 million not-to-exceed contract modification for DDG 113 long lead time materials, which must be bought early to keep the ship on schedule.
Work will be performed in Cincinnati, OH (60%), and Pascagoula, MS (40%), and is expected to be complete by June 2011 (N00024-10-C-2308).
Feb 25/11: Lockheed Martin Mission Systems and Sensors in Moorestown, NJ receives a $26.7 million contract modification, exercising an option for DDG 114’s Aegis weapon system, including a multi-mission signal processor, and associated special tooling and special test equipment.
Work will be performed in Moorestown, NJ (87%), and Clearwater, FL (13%), and is expected to be complete by November 2013. US Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC manages the contract.
Dec 20/10: Raytheon Co. in Sudbury, MA receives a $45.3 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, exercising options for the production of 2 AN/SPY-1Dv transmitter groups and 2 MK 99 Mod 8 fire control systems, for installation on DDG 114 (Northrop Grumman) and DDG 115 (GD). See also May 3/10.
Work will be performed in Andover, MA (88%), and Sudbury, MA (12%), and is expected to be complete by April 2013. US Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington Navy Yard, DC manages the contract (N00024-09-C-5111).
Oct 14/10: Lockheed Martin Mission Systems and Sensors in Moorestown, NJ received a $97 million contract modification t finalize production of the DDG 113 Aegis weapon system (including a multi-mission signal processor [MMSP]); plus an additional MMSP for the Surface Combat System Center on Wallops Island, VA; DDG 114-115 advanced procurement efforts; and associated technical services. Note that DDG 115 is being built by General Dynamics Bath Iron Works.
Work will be performed in Moorestown, NJ (87%), and Clearwater, FL (13%), and is expected to be complete by October 2014 (N00024-09-C-5110).
FY 2010
Sept 29/10: BAE Systems in Louisville, KY receives a $7.8 million cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for engineering services and supplies to convert and upgrade one 5-inch/ 127mm MK 45 MOD 4 gun mount for the future guided missile destroyer DDG 113.
Work will be performed in Louisville, KY (80%), and Minneapolis, MN (20%), and is expected to be complete by February 2013. $282,340 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year, on Sept 30/10. The contract was not competitively procured by the Naval Surface Warfare Center’s Port Hueneme Division in Port Hueneme, CA (N00024-07-G-5438).
Aug 23/10: Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems in Sudbury, MA received a $46.9 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, finalizing a deal to produce an AN/SPY-1D-V radar transmitter group, MK 99 Mod 8 fire control system, and other engineering services in support of DDG 113’s Aegis weapons systems ship set.
Work will be performed in Andover, MA (88%), and Sudbury, MA (12%), and is expected to be complete by February 2014. The Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington Navy Yard, DC manages these contracts (N00024-09-C-5111).
June 21/10: Philadelphia Gear Corp. announces an $80 million contract to provide main reduction gears for 3 new Arleigh Burke Class destroyers (DDG 113, 114, and 115). Options for additional ships could bring the contract’s eventual total to more than $425 million.
Philadelphia Gear has supplied supplied gears, sprockets and transmissions for US Navy ships since the First World War, and the firm now specializes in the design and manufacture of Main Reduction Gears (MRGs) for front line combat and support vessels. Main reduction gears are used to turn the very fast rotational speed of an engine, such as a DDG-51 type destroyers’ LM2500 turbines, into efficient slower speed rotation of the ships’ propellers. The entire assembly weighs over 100,000 pounds, is rated at at 51,550 shp, and uses a reduction ratio of 21.3746 to 1.
Note that this contract will supply both Northrop Grumman (DDG 113/114) and Bath Iron Works (DDG 115). Earlier this year, Philadelphia Gear announced plans to move its West Coast operations from Lynwood, CA to a renovated facility in Santa Fe Springs, near Los Angeles. The new 120,000 square foot facility is slated to open in Q3 2010, and will house all assembly and test, plus more than 80% of the manufacturing work for the US Navy’s DDG program. Philadelphia Gear Corp. | FedBizOpps solicitation, which explains the exact structure of these main reduction gears.
May 3/10: “Government-Furnished Equipment” remains a substantial share of any warship’s cost. Lockheed Martin Mission Systems and Sensors in Moorestown, NJ receives a $91.3 million firm-fixed-price not-to-exceed modification to a previously awarded contract for advance procurement of the consolidated bill of material and associated labor to support beryllium oxide resistors, phase shifters, surface mount work center production and engineering services support of production of the DDG 114 and 115’s Aegis weapon system.
Aegis refers to both the SPY-1 radars that equip these ships, and the combat system that integrates the ship’s radar and weapons into a single coordinated defensive system. It is so integral to this and related ship classes that they are frequently described in common parlance as “Aegis destroyers/ cruisers/ frigates.”
Work will be performed in Moorestown, NJ (85%), and Clearwater, FL (15%), and is expected to be complete by December 2011. The Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington Navy Yard, D.C. manages these contracts (N00024-09-C-5110).
April 22/10: Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc. in Pascagoula, MS receives an $114 million modification to a previously awarded contract (N00024-10-C-2308), exercising an option for long lead time materials. This includes propulsion gas turbines, generators, controllable pitch propeller, and other components to support construction of DDG 114, the firm’s 30th DDG-51 destroyer.
Work will performed in Cincinnati, OH (32%); Walpole, MA (30%); Charlottesville, VA (11%); Erie, PA (7%); Anaheim, CA (7%); Warminster, PA (2%); and various locations (11%). The effort is anticipated to start immediately, with a base period of performance ending 37 months after contract award. The Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington Navy Yard, DC manages the contracts. See also Northrop Grumman release.
Dec 2/09: Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc. in Pascagoula, MS receives a not-to-exceed $170.7 million letter contract for DDG 113 long lead time materials under the DDG 51 Arleigh Burke Class destroyer program. Funds will be used to buy things like propulsion gas turbines, generators, air conditioning systems, controllable pitch propeller and other components, so they’ll be ready in time when construction of DDG 113 begins.
Work is expected to be performed in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Alabama, Indiana, Louisiana., Mississippi, New York, Texas, Virginia and Washington, to be completed by January 2013. This contract was not competitively procured by The Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington Navy Yard, DC, since Northrop Grumman had already been picked to build the ship (N00024-10-C-2308).
The formal award of the DDG 113’s main construction contract is expected in 2010. See also Northrop Grumman release.
FY 2009
April 7/09: Rep. Gene Taylor [D-MS, Seapower subcommittee chair] announces that the Pentagon has reached agreements with General Dynamics’ Bath Iron Works in Maine, and with Northrop Grumman’s Ingalls Shipyard in Mississippi. Read “Bath, Ingalls Agree to Navy’s Surface Combatant Plans” for details of the arrangements.
April 6/09: US Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates announces his recommendations for the FY 2010 defense budget:
“…in this request, we will include funds to complete the buy of two navy destroyers in FY10. These plans depend on being able to work out contracts to allow the Navy to efficiently build all three DDG-1000 class ships at Bath Iron Works in Maine and to smoothly restart the DDG-51 Aegis Destroyer program at Northrop Grumman’s Ingalls shipyard in Mississippi. Even if these arrangements work out, the DDG-1000 program would end with the third ship and the DDG-51 would continue to be built in both yards.
If our efforts with industry are unsuccessful, the department will likely build only a single prototype DDG-1000 at Bath and then review our options for restarting production of the DDG-51.”
Additional Readingsfn1. The FY 2013 budget’s multi-year buy proposal estimates total savings of $1.538 billion, or 8.7% savings over buying the 9 ships with annual contracts. Current destroyers have a hardware cost of $250-350 million each for their Aegis radars and weapons systems, of which “major hardware” is an overwhelming percentage. Even if we use the low-end estimate for current systems, and assume no cost for retrofitting, 3 x $250 million would cut the projected total savings in half, dropping the proposed multi-year buy below the 5% savings threshold. [return]
South Korea continues to modernize its forces, and take steps toward full sovereign control of its defenses. PAC-2 GEM+ missiles were ordered in 2008 to be operational in 2010 and fully in place by 2012. South Korea doesn’t appear to be aiming as high as Japan, with its license-produced Patriot PAC-3s and long-range naval SM-3 systems, but medium range SM-2 Block IIIA/B missiles fired from ROKN KDX-III destroyers do offer another limited option for the ROK’s coastal cities.
As countries like the UAE have been quick to recognize, turning a series of point defenses into a cohesive system that can respond in time requires long-range detection, and strong regional command-and-control systems. Now, a key contract has been signed, as South Korea prepares to field its Air and Missile Defense Cell (AMD-Cell) radars and command system.
Note that this article doesn’t cover every South Korean BMD purchase. It focuses on the core AMD-Cell command and control system, key radars, and overall assessments. Beyond that, it notes key milestones and decisions that may involve weapons within KAMD, like PATRIOT missiles, KDX-III destroyers, etc. Links to in-depth coverage of more specific systems are provided in the “Additional Readings” section.
2010 – 2017 KDX-III destroyerNorth Korea is believed to have deployed more than 600 short-range Scud missiles with a 320-500 km range, and around 200 Rodong missiles with a 1,300 km range.
April 26/17: South Korea is looking to add two additional EL/M-2080 Green Pine early warning radars to the two currently operated by their armed forces. Capable of detecting ballistic missile threats within a range of 800 kms, the extra radars are being sought amid the recent round of rising tensions between Seoul—with their ally in Washington—and an increasingly belligerent North Korea. Deliveries of the Israeli-made radars are expected to be made by the end of the year. Meanwhile, the South Korean government has confirmed that parts of the US THAAD air defense system have been moved onto the site of its deployment in the south of the country and that the deployment is expected to be ready for full operation by the end of this year.
April 18/17: South Korea will decide next month if their M-SAM air-defense system will be declared operational. According to sources, testing and evaluations of the low-tier missile system have been completed and it now awaits a final process next month to determine its suitability for intended combat missions. Seoul had initially intended to have the system deployed in the early 2020s, but ongoing tensions with North Korea caused the government to push the deployment between 2018 and 2019. Employing hit-to-kill technology, the system will intercept incoming hostile ballistic missiles at altitudes of around 20 kilometers.
May 27/14: Thinking THAAD through. The US government is considering exo-atmospheric THAAD interceptors as an option to protect American forces in South Korea, and has conducted a site survey in South Korea. The issue is that South Korea is developing its own national KAMD missile defense system, and continues to reiterate that it won’t be part of a joint system with the USA and Japan. Which means that interoperability with systems like THAAD is a potential issue.
The Americans are thinking in geo-political terms, as a visible response to North Korea, and there’s also that standard underlying “of course they want to do it our way and buy THAAD” flavor. Very American. The thought that perhaps South Korea is happy with its Green Pine radars, frequently says that terminal defense is all it can use, and would rather deploy its own Cheolmae 4-H missile developed in conjunction with Russia, never enters the picture. On the other hand, the Americans might reply that their own forces would rather have THAAD’s protection, that more than 2 long-range radars might be a good idea against an enemy whose war plan includes in-depth terrorist attacks, and that a shared set of PATRIOT PAC-3 and THAAD systems could create a basis for independent command and control systems that can still cooperate. Sources: Wall St. Journal, “Washington Considers Missile-Defense System in South Korea”.
May 26/14: KAMD. Marcin Andrzej Piotrowski looks at past and current regional tensions are preventing South Korea from fully participating in an integrated missile defense network with Japan and the US. The tensions have also prompted Seoul to modernize its defense industry, and to collaborate with Russia and Israel instead. It also has a good summary of KAMD’s current state and plans, though it fails to pay much attention to KM-SAM program efforts with Russia:
“Since 2006, Seoul has been working on low-altitude defence, the Korea Air and Missile Defence (KAMD), which would initially cost $3 billion. This is currently based on the Israeli C3I Citron Tree system and two Green Pine early warning radars. Since 2009, KAMD has included eight strategic location batteries with 48 launchers and 192 PAC-2 GEM-T missiles. Negotiations about the delivery of an additional 112 PAC-2 missiles from the U.S. are ongoing (at a cost of $404 million). Between 2008 and 2012, ROK Navy also received three modern KDX-III Sejong-class destroyers with Aegis systems and SM-2 missiles…. In the context of the growing threat, ROK has decided to augment KAMD further between 2016 and 2020, with American PAC-3 missile interceptors ($1.3 billion). Seoul is planning another three Sejong-class destroyers with SM-6 missiles, more advanced than the SM-2s. It is possible that Seoul will decide to buy more capable missile defence systems, such as THAADs, SM-3s, Arrows, or even S-400s. Due to the scale of the rocket threat, the large area of Seoul and the costs of interceptors, procurement of the Israeli Iron Dome system is much less likely. However, ROK is planning to buy 10 RPS-42 TASRS Israeli radars ($191 million) in the near future, for detecting drones and cruise missiles at very low altitude.”
Sources: ISN, “South Korea’s Air and Missile Defence: Below the Threat Level”.
April 28/14: PATRIOT. South Korea’s defense establishment formally confirms their intent to upgrade existing PATRIOT systems to PAC-3/Config-3 status (q.v. March 12/14). The budget is WON 1.3 – 1.4 trillion (about $1.25 billion), and they aim to deploy the system between 2016 – 2020. Sources: The Korea Herald, “Seoul to upgrade missile defense”.
PATRIOT upgrade OK
July 26/13: KAMD. South Korea is investing in deterrence and ISR capabilities that will complement its KAMD system, and plans to devote $63 billion of its $192.6 billion 2014 – 2018 budget period for KAMD and deterrent systems.
“The activation of a new Air and Missile Defense Cell (AMD-Cell) was planned for this month, after few months delay. This command and control center will support the entire KAMD enterprise. The AMD-Cell will integrate early warning and target tracks from multiple sources, including US Early Warning Satellites (DSP), SPY-1 naval radars deployed on the KDX-III AEGIS destroyers and the new, land-based Green Pine delivered by israel.”
Deterrent systems include their own ballistic missiles and mediu-long range cruise missiles, and the new budget also contemplates high-altitudes, long-endurance RQ-4B Global Hawk Block 30 jet-powered UAVs. These systems aren’t enough to seriously threaten China yet, but once deployed, they will create a full defense and kill chain that completely outclasses North Korea.
Even all of this equipment won’t stop the DPRK from destroying Seoul if the tense cease-fire reverts to full conflict. What it will do is make South Korean retaliation very thinkable if North Korea decides to shell populated areas, blow up a number of Cabinet members in a terrorist attack, sink South Korean ships, etc. as it has done in the past. An enemy that is comprehensively outclassed loses at least some of its escalation dominance, no matter how aggressive they may be. Sources: Defense Update, “Seoul to Invest US$63 Billion in Strategic Deterrence, Missile Defense”.
June 11-12/13: Naval. 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.
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
Dec 23/12: Issues. Korea and the USA are talking about integrating AMD-Cell in Osan with the U.S. Forces Korea’s PATRIOTs. The problem is that they need to create a firewall that would insulate that joint system from other US BMD assets outside South Korea. Which is to say, in Japan.
Korea was invaded by Japan during WW2, and Japanese atrocities left a lot of hard feelings. South Korean governments have faced firestorms of criticism when proposals have been made to share intelligence with Japan, even if that intelligence concerns North Korean missile launches. North Korea’s networks of sympathizers in South Korea are happy to stir up those hard feelings up whenever it’s convenient, of course. Sources: SLD, “Defending South Korea: The Challenge of North Korean Missiles.
Dec 5/12: Green Pine deployment. South Korea’s Green Pine radars are almost ready to deploy:
“South Korea brought in two Israeli-made “Green Pine” radars this year, one of them in August and the other last month, and has since been conducting tests to ensure they have no defects.
“Acceptance testing of the Green Pine radar No. 1 comes to an end today with a final assessment of 24-hour continuous operation,” the source said. “It will be deployed immediately after the acceptance testing and will be in service when North Korea launches its long-range rocket.”
Testing of the second radar will be completed by mid-December and deployed thereafter, the source said.”
Sources: Yonhap, “S. Korea to deploy newly introduced radar ahead of N. Korea rocket launch”.
Green Pine radars deployed
Oct 28/12: PATRIOT. A joint study by the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses and the US Missile Defense Agency concludes that the PATRIOT PAC-2 system has an interception success rate of below 40% against ballistic missiles. South Korea’s government looked at that, then concluded that they need to buy PAC-3 batteries, in order to push their odds above 70% for covered areas.
The PAC-3 systems appear to be a priority, with deliveries to begin in 2014. To achieve that, a DSCA export request will need to be issued in the very near future. As PAC-3 systems arrive, South Korea reportedly plans to divert their billion-dollar buy of German PAC-2 batteries to defend against aircraft and cruise missiles. ROK’s Yonhap News Agency, S. Korea moves to upgrade Patriot defense system” | Chosun Ilbo, “PAC-2 Missiles Flunk Intercept Test”.
Oct 26/12: Made in Korea. Despite American urgings, South Korea sees America’s system as unsuitable for their needs. American systems tend to focus on midcourse intercepts, but the Koreans see hundreds of missiles just 5-10 minutes flight from their territory, and prefer terminal intercept capabilities. They also aren’t about to give up their own research and capabilities in this critical area, given their doubts about US resolve, but it’s best not mention this to your ally:
“The MD system that the United States envisions is a multi-layered defense system, which is fundamentally different from the Korean type of missile defense system that is oriented to low-layer defense,” a defense ministry official told reporters on condition of anonymity. “We cannot but build a low-layer defense system under operational situations on the Korean Peninsula. Therefore, building the KAMD (Korean Air and Missile Defense) means never participating in U.S. efforts to build a multi-layer defense system,” the official said.”
It’s the “never” that tells you there’s more at work here than just operational considerations. Sources: Yonhap, “Defense ministry denies possibility of S. Korea joining U.S. missile defense”.
April 10/10: KAMD. South Korea is sticking to its course and deploying an indigenous missile defense system, with initial deployment scheduled for July 2010.
“South Korea, which decided not to join the U.S.-led global missile defense system, has gradually been building an independent, low-tier missile shield called the Korea Air and Missile Defense System (KAMD) since 2006 by acquiring Patriot missiles and long-range early warning radars.
The KAMD involves early warning radars, ship-to-air and land-based missile defense systems, arming Seoul with the ability to track and shoot down the North’s low-flying, short- and medium-range missiles, with help of U.S. early warning satellites.”
Sources: Yonhap, “S. Korea to deploy indigenous missile defense system in July”.
2009EL/M-2080 “Green Pine”
Sept 23/09: Israel Aerospace Industries announces a $280 million pair of contracts with South Korea, one of which covers the Oren Yarok (EL/M-2080 Block B “Green Pine”) radar. South Korea will join Israel and India as customers for the system. Globes adds that IAI’s usual contract policies involve a down payment of 25-35%, suggesting that it will record $70-98 million revenue from these contracts in its consolidated financial report for 2009.
Reports as early as Sept 17/09 had indicated that the Israeli radar had won the AMD-Cell competition against Raytheon and Thales, and that a contract was imminent. Earlier discussions had revolved around figures of about $215 million for 2 Green Pine radar systems, and current reports offer a figure of $200 million for an undisclosed number of systems. The low number of TA-50 and F/A-50 fighter orders at this early stage of their development, and the EL/M-2032 fighter radar’s low R&D needs given its mature state, make those figures plausible in the absence of a detailed breakout between the 2 contracts. Ha’aretz adds that:
“South Korea is discussing with the IAI the possibility of purchasing the Arrow missile defense system [link DID’s]. Israel is making contacts with other countries on this issue as well, with Turkey among those that have expressed interest. Nonetheless, chances are slim that a foreign country will purchase the Arrow before a joint Israeli-American missile defense development occurs.”
Ha’aretz is referring to 2 trends. One is America’s government using blocking tactics or pressure, in order to stymie Israeli sales to mutual allies in international competitions. If the equipment might be said to contain any American or American-derived technologies, the sale can be blocked outright, or simply made untenable by dithering over permissions. Otherwise, diplomatic pressure and sales of advanced American equipment to Israel become the lever. South Korea’s E-X AWACS competition, India’s MMRCA fighter competition, and Turkey’s tank competition have all featured as recent examples. The other trend is an evolving jockeying between Boeing’s GBI and Arrow, Raytheon’s SM-3 (which Israel is reportedly considering), and Lockheed Martin’s THAAD missile for significant long-term roles in land-based missile defense. IAI release | Korea Times | Ha’aretz newspaper | Globes business | Agence France Presse | Flight International.
2 Green Pine radars
May 19/09: Competition. The Korea Times reports that 3 foreign bidders have submitted contract proposals for South Korea’s AMD-Cell program: Israel’s Elta, Raytheon of the United States, and Thales Nederland.
IAI Elta’s Green Pine radar has already been discussed below. Thales Nederland manufactures a number of advanced active array naval radars, some of which are capable of ballistic missile tracking; SMART-L is probably the best known, and South Korea already uses it on their Dokdo class amphibious assault ships. Raytheon’s products include a number of missile defense radars, including the AN/TPY-2 used as part of the USA’s THAAD theater defense system.
South Korea’s DAPA defense procurement agency plans to select the finalist by the end of the year after reviewing each firm’s contract proposal, and finishing price negotiations.
Feb 15/09: Competition. The Korea Times reports that South Korea’s Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) is likely to select Israel’s EL/M-2080 Green Pine radar systems, buying 2 radar sets by 2010 in a WON 300 billion/ $215 million deal. Green Pine radars are an integral component of Israel’s own national missiles defense system, where they are used in conjunction with Patriot PAC-2 GEM+ missiles and Boeing/IAI’s longer-range Arrow-2 interceptors. They may also become part of India’s emerging ABM system.
Green Pine radars have a claimed detection range of 500 km/ 300 miles, which can be extended to 800 km/ 480 miles in the most modern versions. Just one of those “Super Pine” radars cold cover all of North Korea from a position well behind the armistice’s front lines.
The ballistic missile early warning radars are part of the ROK’s planned Air and Missile Defense-Cell (AMD-Cell), a missile defense command-and-control center that will play a key role in monitoring, tracking and intercepting incoming cruise and ballistic missiles from North Korea. AMD-Cell will reportedly be interoperable with US Forces Korea’s own theater missile defense system.
An anonymous source told the paper that the USA’s Forward-Based X-Band Radar-Transportable (FBX-T) was denied due to export restrictions, which the French M3R radar failed to meet all requirements. Overall:
“The DAPA concluded negotiations with foreign bidders over the selection of the early-warning radar systems last week and believes the Israeli radar is the most suitable for the country’s theater missile shield in terms of price and capabilities.”
Israel and South Korea have had limited defense ties over the years, but those ties appear to be growing. South Korea has begun buying Israeli UAVs, and Israel is considering South Korea’s T-50 jets as its future advanced flight trainers. See also: Korea Herald | Ha’aretz, Israel.
Additional Readings