HG S2 (Intel Bot)

JAGM infographic (click to view full) The AGM-114 Hellfire missile remains a mainstay for the US military and its allies around the world, and efforts to replace it have repeatedly stalled. The Joint Common Missile (JCM) was meant to offer new guidance options, and use on fast jets as well as helicopters and UAVs. It performed well, but was canceled. It returned from the procurement dead as JAGM, a program that has undergone several major changes within itself. While other air forces field fast-jet solutions like MBDA’s Brimstone, JAGM will initially be limited to helicopters and UAVs, as a dual-mode guidance upgrade to current model Hellfire missiles. The JAGM Program JAGM Missile Increments Hellfire II: what’s next? (click to view full) Oddly, the problems faced by Hellfire’s JCM and JAGM successors have been largely unrelated to cost or to performance. Rather, the programs kept getting cut to pay for other things. The Hellfires were seen as good enough to equip American helicopters and large UAVs like the Predator. To compete, new entrants had to fit into a new category. Smaller guided 70mm rockets gained a foothold because more of them could be carried in the same space, while small multi-mode glide bombs found a niche by being launched from the back ramps of cargo aircraft. JAGM was a straight substitute, and that wasn’t interesting enough. After enough JCM/JAGM missile program cancellations and resurrections to make even Lazarus give up, the US Army looked at its Hellfire stocks, and realized that they’d need something new anyway. In response, they decided to try squaring this circle using an incremental approach, one focused on replacing the most at-risk AGM-114L radar-guided missiles first. Initial. The JAGM Continued Technology Development phase now aims to create dual-mode laser/radar guidance sections that can equip existing Hellfire II missiles. Essentially, JAGM Increment 1 would create a Hellfire III missile with dual-mode guidance, matched to the AGM-114R’s multi-role warhead and rocket. Initial Army platforms would include the AH-64E Apache attack helicopter, and MQ-1C Gray Eagle UAV. The USMC’s initial platforms will be the AH-1Z Viper attack helicopter and KC-130J Harvest Hawk armed tanker/ transport, for integration by FY 2019. JAGM Increment 2. Intends to increase the maximum range to 12 km, and move to the full tri-mode seeker with semi-active laser, Imaging Infrared (IIR), and millimeter wave radar guidance modes. If Raytheon bids, they’d be offering the tri-mode seeker in Increment 1 as well. JAGM Increment 3. This is the original JAGM concept, more or less. It would have a maximum range of 16 km that would likely force a new rocket motor, alongside other redesigns for carriage and launch from helicopters or fast jets. Initial fixed-wing platforms would include the USMC’s AV-8B Harrier and F-35B Lightning II STOVL fighters, but there’s no set schedule. The earliest F-35 integration slot involves Block 4 fighters, whose software isn’t likely to be ready before 2021-2023. Timeline & Budgets If JAGM can be delivered to the required cost targets, it may add the originally-planned tri-mode (imaging infrared + semi-active laser + millimeter wave radar) guidance set, and Increments 2 & 3 may revive interest in new rocket motor technology that would eventually allow safe launches from fighter jets. Those kinds of advances sit beyond the current timeline. Budgets to date have included: Scope and Scale F-16 fires Maverick If the US Army and Navy have total current program numbers for JAGM, they aren’t disclosing them in recent documents. We do know that JAGM’s scope is much reduced, but it could still expand again. The original Joint Common Missile (JCM) was seen as the next-generation, multi-purpose, air-to-ground precision missile that will replace AGM-114 Hellfire family, AGM-65 Maverick family, and airborne xGM-71 TOW missiles with a single weapon usable by the airplanes, helicopters and UAVs of the US Army, Navy, and Marine Corps. It was also being considered for use on some ground vehicles, and had naval potential. The original JCM had a goal of 54,000 missiles. JAGM was revised lower, and a 2010 GAO document estimated the total 20-year program cost at about $6.4 billion: $1.64 billion for Research, Development, Test and Evaluation; and $4.74 billion to build 33,853 missiles. As of November 2011, the totals had reached $6.88 billion for 35,422 missiles. Then the FY13 budget came in, grinding the program to a near halt as the Navy left. The program was restructured, and the USMC returned to the program in time for the FY15 budget submission, but the program’s scope has been reduced further. Part of the reason involves fewer platforms. “Increment 1 & 2” versions of JAGM can’t replace the Mavericks on fixed-wing jets. Until at least 2019, the missiles will be limited to US Army AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, USMC AH-1Z attack helicopters, US Army MQ-1C Gray Eagle UAVs, and USMC KC-130J Harvest Hawk armed tanker/transports. SDB-II Meanwhile, the US Navy and USAF have a substitute. The Navy expects to follow the AGM-65 Mavericks on its jets with small GBU-53 SDB-II glide bombs, carrying a tri-mode IIR/laser/MMW radar seeker that may yet see derivative use in JAGM. The USAF will be doing likewise, instead of turning to JAGM or to similar missiles like MBDA’s Brimstone. US Navy MH-60s can expect eventual JAGM integration, since AGM-114 Hellfire deliveries are set to end in 2017. Farther into the future, the USMC wants to equip its AV-8B and F-35B fighters with JAGM Increment 3. Note, however, that there’s no set schedule for missile upgrades. On the export front, if JAGM is added to F-35Bs, it will be competing with the MBDA Brimstone and SPEAR missiles that Britain plans to integrate into its own F-35B fleet. Other opportunities exist. Vehicle-mounted options for Hellfire-class missiles are springing up, but competition from dedicated anti-armor weapons like the shorter-range Javelin, MMP, and Spike, or the longer range Spike-NLOS, will be fierce. Naval options may be even more promising for fire-and-forget missiles, where JAGM could replace the AGM-114L Hellfire on the USA’s Littoral Combat ships, or fit out other vessels who need a deadly fire-and-forget counter to small boat swarms. In that arena, MBDA’s laser/radar guided Brimstone and Raytheon’s GPS/laser/IIR guided Griffin C will be its main competitors. Competition: MBDA’s Brimstone/ SPEAR Brimstones on GR4s (click to view full) While the JCM/ JAGM program has churned specifications and burned time, a different program has already produced an interesting competitor with many of the same specifications, and some of the flexibility. AGM-114P/R Hellfire missiles are now qualified for use at high-altitudes on UAVs like the MQ-9 Reaper, but they aren’t a solution for fixed-wing jets, and range limitations make Hellfire dangerous to use against even short-range air defenses. MBDA’s Brimstone 2 solves those problems. The Brimstone’s first combat use came in 2011 over Libya, where its man-in-the-loop option and attack profiles made it one of the few weapons that NATO commanders could use to attack enemy armor in urban areas. It has been integrated with Britain’s Royal Air Force Tornado GR4 strike aircraft and Harrier GR9 jump-jets, and is slated to add the Eurofighter Typhoon to that list. F-35 integration was scheduled for F-35B Block 3 in 2018, but overall F-35 development problems look set to push the British effort back to Block 4 in 2021-2023. SPEAR With combat credentials and a significant head start, MBDA can be expected to make more market inroads. Nor is MBDA resting on its technical laurels. Their SPEAR project for Britain’s Complex Weapons program aims to take the Brimstone’s warhead and guidance, and mount it on a larger missile with a range of 75 – 100 km. SPEAR will be mounted in multiples on external hardpoints, or carried inside the weapons bay of Britain’s forthcoming F-35Bs. Contracts and Key Events The JAGM program will be managed by the U.S. Army’s Aviation and Missile Command in Redstone Arsenal, AL. FY 2018-2022 USMC back in the program; Raytheon out of CTD; Brimstone for MQ-9 Reaper UAVs? JAGM Inc 1 (click to view full) July 15/22: Short-Range Defense News reports that Lockheed Martin is evaluating how its Joint Air-to-Ground Missile can be configured for mobile, short-range air defense. “It’s a concept we have. We think it will have applicability to a number of platforms,” Rita Flaherty, the company’s vice president for strategy and business operations within its Missiles and Fire Control sector was quoted as saying. December 20/18: More missiles needed The US Army is buying more Joint-Air-to-Ground missiles. Lockheed Martin is receiving a contract modification valued at $91 million that extends JAGM procurement as part of LRIP 3. The JAGM is an air-to-ground missile that provides advanced line-of-sight and beyond-line-of-sight capabilities and will eventually replace the Army’s inventory of Hellfire missiles. The missile is designed to engage a variety of targets, including heavy vehicles, patrol craft, bunkers and buildings. The Army expects to achieve JAGM’s IOC in early 2019. Work will be performed at Lockheed’s factory in Orlando, Florida and is expected to be completed by February 2022. September 13/18: Order The US Army is ordering more Joint Air-to-Ground Missiles (JAGMs) from Lockheed Martin. The company will procure an unspecified number of the Hellfire replacements at a cost of $49.6 million. The JAGM is an air-to-ground missile that provides advanced line-of-sight and beyond-line-of-sight capabilities. The missile is equipped with a fire-and-forget seeker and boasts an increased range and lethality compared to its predecessor. The JAGM is able to engage a multitude of targets ranging from heavy vehicles and patrol craft to bunkers and buildings. Work will be performed at Lockheed’s facility in Orlando, Florida and is set to run through February, 2021. August 20/18: Hellfire Adé! The US Army is moving ahead with its Hellfire replacement. Lockheed Martin is being awarded with a contract modification that provides for the procurement of Joint-Air-to-Ground missiles at a cost of $26.4 million. The JAGM was cleared for low-rate initial production on June 27th. Its seeker combines a semi-active laser with millimeter-wave radar sensors that give it the capability to go up against stationary and moving land and maritime targets in bad weather or obscured conditions at ranges up to 16km. Initial operational capability through the Army is expected in early 2019. Work will be performed at Lockheed’s facility in Orlando, Florida and is expected to be completed by February 28th, 2020. FY 2016 June 6/16: The US Army has successfully fired Lockheed Martin’s multi-mode Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (MQ-1C Gray Eagle at Dugway Proving Ground, Utah. The Gray Eagle test was the seventh flight test for the JAGM missile. The missile was previously tested on Apache attack helicopters and Marine Corps Cobra helicopters. April 15/16: The Redstone Test Center is playing host to the engineering and development phase of the Joint Air to Ground Missile (JAGM). So far, the missile completed tests on its guidance section which included captive flight testing, tower testing, and environmental testing. The JAGM will now enter the Product Qualification Test (PQT) phase which will see the weapon carried on the Grey Eagle unmanned aerial system (UAS) and AH-64 Apache helicopter for flight testing. FY 2013 – 2015 USMC back in the program; Raytheon out of CTD; Brimstone for MQ-9 Reaper UAVs? Aug 3/15: Lockheed Martin has been awarded a $66.4 million contract to further develop the Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM) for the Army and Navy. The company submitted its bid for the program in April and successfully test fired two JAGMs in mid-July. The JAGM is intended to replace AGM-114 Hellfire, AGM-65 Maverick and BGM-71 TOW missiles currently in service. July 14/15: Lockheed Martin reported on Monday that the company has successfully tested two Joint Air-to-Ground Missiles (JAGM) during recent testing over Elgin AFB in Florida. The company is bidding for its missile to win the Army’s JAGM competition, delivering its proposal in April. Nov 3/14: USMC Plan. The USMC’s Aviation Plan to 2030 deals with weapons as well. JAGM is mentioned, and its 3 planned increments are fully outlined. Under current plans, JAGM Increment 1 will begin integration with AH-1Z attack helicopters in 2015, and will achieve Initial Operational Capability on the AH-1Z and on KC-130J Harvest Hawk armed tanker/ transport planes in 2019. Beyond 2019, the USMC plans to field JAGM Increment 3 on the AV-8B Harrier II and F-35C Lightning II. Note that the earliest available integration slot for the F-35 would involve Block 4 software, around 2021-2023. Britain, is likely to add its competing Brimstone missile to the F-35B in Block 4, after original plans to feature it in Block 3 fell through. Sources: USMC, Marine Aviation Plan 2015 [PDF]. Oct 13/14: Lockheed Martin is preparing its expected JAGM bid with the current dual-mode laser/radar seeker, following successful tests. Raytheon, whose solution was dropped at the same time as JAGM dropped to a dual-guidance mode because of funding shortfalls (q.v. July 18/13), is deciding whether to bid at all. If they do bid, they’re going to stick to their original plan and use the same tri-mode laser/IIR/radar seeker from the GBU-53 Small Diameter Bomb II. It’s a reasonable hedge against perceived risk, offering more capability for the same dollars. Of course, the level of perceived risk could be far more even if both designs had been funded through development. Given the likely scope of future JAGM orders, and the tiny fraction of the procurement budget involved in JAGM development, there’s a legitimate policy question here re: the responsibility of the Pentagon to promote competitive tenders for significant weapon systems. Sources: Aviation Week, “Lockheed Martin Preparing JAGM Bid; Raytheon Unsure”. May 13/14: FBO.gov, “14–JAGM ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING DEVELOPMENT”: “The U.S. Army Contracting Command – Redstone (ACC-R) intends to issue a Draft Request for Proposal (DRFP), W31P4Q-14-R-0107, for the purpose of supporting a full and open competitive procurement to fulfill the requirements for the Joint Air to Ground Missile (JAGM) Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase with options for Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP)…. The JAMS project office plans to host a Pre-proposal Industry Day sometime in the June 2014 timeframe to present general unclassified information on the U.S. Army’s projected procurement strategy of the JAGM and the Army’s vision…” March 4-11/14: Budgets. The US military slowly files its budget documents, detailing planned spending from FY 2014 – 2019. According to those documents, AGM-114 Hellfire orders stop in FY 2015 (USAF), and the last Hellfires will be delivered in April 2017. The Army’s documentation says nothing about JAGM production, except that the Milestone C decision for low-rate production is expected in Q2 FY17: “The Army has depended on Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding to replenish [AGM-114] stocks since FY 2008. The Army continues to evaluate the transition strategy from HELLFIRE to Joint Air to Ground Missile (JAGM).” Meanwhile, Navy documents indicate that they’re back in the program. They show JAGM integration on AH-1Z helicopters beginning in FY15, and orders beginning in FY19. JAGM will be re-using most of the AGM-114R Hellfire, which is already integrated on the AH-1Z, but Navy helicopters are used to the video interface that JAGM won’t have, and don’t typically carry fire-control radars. So, some changes will be necessary. Feb 20/14: Lockheed Martin announces that its JAGM dual-mode guidance section has flown on a Hellfire missile and hit a moving laser-designated target. The missile was fired from 6km during an internally funded flight test at Eglin AFB, FL. Essentially, the missile acted like a normal Hellfire. Tests of the seeker in dual-mode are coming. In a briefing, Lockheed Martin gives JAGM’s range as 8 km, whether launched low or high with its boost-only motor. The M299 launcher interface has a few changes from the basic Hellfire, and hews to the radar-guided AGM-114L Hellfire Longbow missile’s serial interface instead of a video interface. Otherwise, JAGM is basically an AGM-114R Hellfire missile with a new guidance section. System qualification is expected in Q4 2014, and JAGM will be integrated with the Army’s AH-64 Apache attack helicopters and MQ-1C Gray Eagle UAVs. Sources: LMCO, “Lockheed Martin Demonstrates JAGM Dual-Mode Guidance Section in Recent Flight Test” | JAGM Media Briefing with LMCO VP Tactical Missiles/Combat Maneuver Systems Frank St. John. July 18/13: LMCO only. IHS Jane’s, “US Army to move ahead with Lockheed Martin JAGM”: “The US Army will not award Raytheon Missile Systems a contract for the remainder of the Technology Development (TD) phase of the Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)…. [but will] continue to execute the Lockheed Martin contract through the remainder of the TD phase, US Army Colonel James Romero, the project manager for the Joint Attack Munitions Systems, told IHS Jane’s during a 17 July interview at the Pentagon. “A [$36 million] funding shortfall was the primary catalyst for the decision,” Col Romero said.” JAGM is also being scaled back to a dual-mode MMW radar/ laser seeker at first. Raytheon and Boeing’s tri-mode guidance solution is already developed for the SDB-II bomb, so they remain in a position to compete for JAGM production orders if the US military wants to hold a competitive buy when the time comes. TD now Lockheed Martin only May 3/13: Brimstone for Reapers? With JAGM fielding still some way off, if ever, the USAF’s 645th Aeronautical Systems Group rapid acquisition office is reportedly interested in adding MBDA’s longer-range, dual laser/ MW radar guided Brimstone missile to the MQ-9’s arsenal. It’s real attraction is a ‘man in the loop’ feature that lets the firing aircraft abort an attack after launch, or correct a missile that locks on the wrong target. In Libya, those characteristics reportedly made it one of the few weapons NATO commanders could use to hit enemy armored vehicles in urban areas. Brimstone already serves on RAF Tornado GR4 strike jets, and was an option for Britain’s Harrier GR9s before the entire fleet was sold to the US Marines. With Britain’s MQ-9s deployed, they’ve reportedly asked for tests using USAF MQ-9s, and also hope to interest American armed services in the weapon. Defense News | Defense Update. April 10/13: FY 2014 Budget. The President releases a proposed budget at last, the latest in modern memory. The Senate and House were already working on budgets in his absence, but the Pentagon’s submission is actually important to proceedings going forward. See ongoing DID coverage. For JAGM, there isn’t a lot of near-term funding, and there are a lot of milestones to hit on the way to funding it as a Hellfire upgrade beginning around 2017. Budget figures to 2018 are compiled above. R/B JAGM pre-test (click to view full) Dec 11/12: CTD. Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson, AZ receives a “$10 million” firm-fixed-price contract for JAGM’s continued technology development. Work will be performed in Tucson, AZ with an estimated completion date of March 31/13. One bid was solicited, with 1 bid received (W31P4Q-13-C-0080). It appears to have taken longer than expected (vid. Aug 17/12 entry), but Raytheon has its CTD contract. Raytheon’s Dec 3/12 release places the total value of both CTD phases at $65 million, just like Lockheed Martin. During the next 4 months, Raytheon will update its design and complete a delta (design changes) Preliminary Design Review. During the next 24 months, the team will focus on a Critical Design Review, guidance section qualification and testing, and delivery of JAGM guidance sections. The CTD phase will culminate with the US Army integrating Raytheon JAGM guidance sections to Hellfire missiles. Based on current schedules, Raytheon’s SDB II tri-mode seeker will be in its 2nd year of production by the time JAGM CTD concludes. JAGM CTD contract FY 2012 Lockheed Martin CTD. Navy out. LMCO on JAGM click for video Aug 17/12: CTD. Lockheed Martin Missiles & Fire Control in Orlando, FL announces a $64 million extended technology development contract from the US Army, in order to keep the JAGM program one notch above dead. The Pentagon follows with an Aug 27/12 announcement for $32 million to continue developing the seeker & guidance unit, but “50% award announcements” are common, and Lockheed Martin’s figure remains authoritative. Work will be performed in Orlando, FL, with an estimated completion date of Nov 28/14. Two bids were solicited, with 2 bids received (W31P4Q-12-C-0003). Observant readers may notice that $64 million is about half of the $127 million the GAO was talking about for FY 2012 (vid. March 29/12 entry). Raytheon’s head of JAGM business development, J.R. Smith, says that their own CTD contract is currently in negotiation, and expected within the next several weeks. JAGM CTD contract May 31/12: A March 2012 presolicitation from the US Navy for JAGM integration on F/A-18E/F aircraft may have sent mixed signals, but its cancellation confirms the Navy’s intent. March 29/12: GAO report. In its 2012 Selected Weapons Program assessment report, the GAO underlines the uncertain nature of JAGM’s future – not quite cancelled but close. It notes that Hellfires have been working well in theater, weakening the case for an expensive replacement. According to the GAO, $127M in funding for the current fiscal year will allow a 27-month extension of the technology development phase to hopefully address affordability issues and reduce risk. The Pentagon’s comptroller sizes up the savings from stalling on JAGM at $300M in FY2013 and a total of $1.6B over the FYDP. March 20/12: I’m Still Alive. Frank Kendall, undersecretary for acquisition, technology, and logistics, signs an Acquisition Decision Memorandum, granting new life to the JAGM program. Meanwhile, the Army has produced a JAGM affordability study, and provided it to the 2 teams. Can JAGM rise again, perhaps as the Joint Effects Strike Unified Sensors missile? Raytheon’s head of JAGM business development, J.R. Smith, says that he believes there’s about $300 million in prior-year funding left over from FY 2011-12, which can be used to keep the program running. If this feels like a rerun, that’s because it is, as the Dec 30/05 entry shows. AOL Defense. ADM survival Feb 2012: Navy out. In the FY2013 Presidential Request, the US Navy estimates it is a “manageable risk to terminate the Navy’s and USMC’s investment in the JAGM program,” choosing to invest instead in SDB II and continued Hellfire procurement. Unless this decision changes, it makes JAGM an Army-only program. DID therefore humbly suggests rebranding the program as AAGM, or possibly AAHAAGMM given the “living dead” JCM/JAGM history so far. Navy/USMC out FY 2011 Analysis of Alternatives. Industry tests. Raytheon/ Boeing JAGM (click to view full) Aug 2011: JAGM AoA. The program office submits its Analysis of Alternatives, defending JAGM as a cost-effective solution. They will probably have to fight hard to make that case. June 7/11: Testing. Lockheed Martin touts company-funded trials of a JAGM seeker mounted in a Sabreliner 60 executive jet flying at 20,000 feet, which was used to track small, fast naval targets in the Gulf of Mexico near Eglin AFB, FL. Targets included a Revenge Advanced Composites (RAC) state-of-the-art, low-signature, high-speed patrol craft performing evasive maneuvers. The test was designed to highlight robust mid-wave infrared performance, fixed wing performance, high humidity performance, effectiveness against a challenging low-signature target, and EMD readiness – since captive flight isn’t required until the next stage. June 6/11: Bids in. Deadline day for the JAGM RFP, and both Team Lockheed and Team Raytheon submit their bids. A single contract award for the program’s Engineering & Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase is expected during Q4 (summer) 2011. Lockheed Martin | Raytheon. RFP bids May 2/11: Testing. The Raytheon/ Boeing team follows up their Oct 23/10 firing, and completes the series of government-funded JAGM tests. The latest firing uses the new rocket motor, but only after subjecting it to thermal cycling from -45F to 160F degrees. The test was whether the new motor would still work after 5-20 cycles of that treatment. It did, and Raytheon VP Advanced Missiles and Unmanned Systems Bob Francois gets to point out that “Every single test of the Raytheon-Boeing JAGM has been an unqualified success, even those using EMD motors.” April 13/11: The US Army Aviation and Missile Command issues its JAGM Engineering and Manufacturing (EMD) and Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Request for Proposals. The scope of the JAGM EMD contract will be to “complete all major component and subsystem critical design reviews (CDRs), a system-level CDR, component and subsystem testing, design verification testing, engineering development tests and production prove-out tests on the six threshold JAGM platforms.” In addition to the EMD requirements, the RFP calls for 3 fixed-price LRIP production lot options, as well as 2 fixed-priced advance procurement clauses for long lead time components. Lockheed Martin’s team and the Raytheon-Boeing team both formally announce their intent to bid; at this point,a contract is expected in Q3 of FY 2011. EMD/LRIP RFP March 21/11: Test equipment. US NAWCWD announces its intent to hand WINTEC, Inc. of Walton Beach, FL a contract for 5 M299/310 Launcher and Missile Emulator (LME) systems, Part Number JLE00010-4. The LMEs are existing Special Test Equipment used to support the integration, test, and verification of Launchers and missiles at the MIL-STD-1760 interface to host platforms. The LMEs have traditionally been used for AGM-114 Hellfires, but new launcher models/simulations and missile model/simulations have been added, to support the JAGM program objectives for planned laboratory and platform integration testing. The sole source award is being done in accordance with FAR 6.302-1. Anticipated award is May 2011. March 7/11: US FedBizOpps notice #N00019-09-P2-PC041: “The Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) intends to issue a Cost Plus Fixed Fee Order under NAVAIR Basic Ordering Agreement (BOA) N00019-11-G-0001 for the engineering services of hardware integration analysis, wind tunnel tests, ground tests, flight test planning, aircraft/weapon system integration and instrumentation, ground and flight test technology support, data reduction, documentation, and reporting requirements for integration of the Prototype Joint Air to Ground Missile (JAGM) Systems on F/A-18E/F aircraft. NAVAIR intends to negotiate this Order on a sole source basis with McDonnell Douglas Corporation (MDC), A Wholly Owned Subsidiary of the Boeing Company, St. Louis, MO 63166-0516. MDC is the sole designer, developer, manufacturer and supplier of the F/A-18 Weapon System and MDC is the only known source capable of performing this effort within the required time frame.” Feb 8/11: JAGM pre-solicitation #W31P4Q-11-Q-0006 issued: “The Government plans to issue separate Request For Quotations (RFQ) W31P4Q-11-Q-0006 and RFQ) W31P4Q-11-Q-0007 to Lockheed Martin Missile Systems and Raytheon Missile Systems repectively [sic] to provide input, advice, and recommendations regarding JAGM System Engineering integrated product team activities… Solicitation from any other source is not feasible because only the recommendations and input from the two existing JAGM TD prime contractors Lockheed Martin Missile Systems and Raytheon Missile Systems can fulfill Government needs.” Jan 3/11: Testing. Lockheed Martin has had some issues with its JAGM design so far, but continues to push to get where they want to be by the time a winner is picked. They announce successful flight tests aboard a Super Hornet from Oct 5/10 – Nov 2/10. This was a test of the missiles’ ability to handle conditions at various altitudes and speeds, as well as a test of the aerodynamic consequences of mounting the Lockheed Martin/ Marvin engineering JAGM triple rail at various points, with various load-outs. Oct 23/10: Testing – rocket. A Raytheon/Boeing funded test fires a JAGM prototype equipped with the new Boeing-ATK rocket motor, which would be used on their production missile. The test is successful in collecting data to update the missile’s flight and simulation software, and allows the team to advance to engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) and a Preliminary Design Review. This is the team’s 6th missile test, and the 3rd privately-funded test. All tests to date have met their objectives. Raytheon. Oct 15/10: Testing. DoD Buzz reports that Raytheon isn’t using a production version of the JAGM missile in its firing tests, just the seeker. Raytheon replies that the tests’ terms are aimed at the seeker, and do not require production-ready missiles. DoD Buzz must concede the point: “Here is what the RFP says: “The fly-off missile prototypes will represent PDR(Preliminary Design Review) level configurations using a Warhead Replacement Telemetry Unit. It will include a series of Tactical Missile Air-gun and/or Rail Test Firings with a Warhead integrated into a non-functional Tactical Missile to gain insight into Warhead /Fuze functioning.” Lockheed Martin says that their JAGM test missiles have all been production ready configurations – but that will only help them in the short term if failings in their test firings are traceable to their missile design, rather than their seekers. Meanwhile, Raytheon & Boeing will continue component and higher-level testing of their missile design. FY 2010 Preliminary Design Review. JAGM test (loud!) click to play video Sept 10/10: Testing fail. DoD Buzz reports that the cause of Lockheed Martin’s missile failure in its second test-firing was a bracket that holds one of the rocket motors. Unfortunately, they’re going to have to delve into more root cause analysis, because… “The day before the deadline for official government testing, Lockheed Martin’s Joint Air To Ground Missile prototype missed the target, leaving the defense giant with two misses out of three in the competition for the $5 billion program. Raytheon struck the target on its third test, a company source said, giving them their third successful shot of three.” That doesn’t end the team’s chances, it just means that further firing tests would have to come out of Lockheed Martin’s pocket, as the team moves toward its final submission model. Given the huge future stakes involved, there’s no doubt that Lockheed Martin will finance any tests required. Sept 1/10: Testing. Raytheon announces success in the 2nd of 3 government-sponsored JAGM firings. Their missile used its uncooled imaging infrared (IIR) guidance system to hit an armored vehicle target at 4 kilometers/ 2.5 miles. During the most recent test, all three guidance systems operated simultaneously and provided telemetry data that enabled engineers to conduct further analysis of the weapon. The test is significant, because Lockheed Martin’s matching test was an overshoot, and Raytheon’s uncooled IIR sensor s generally seen as a tradeoff between lower cost and maintenance, in exchange for lower performance. This is actually the Boeing/Raytheon team’s 4th test firing, as the team funded 2 of its own tests in April 2010. Aug 16/10: Lockheed PDR. Lockheed Martin and teammates Marvin Engineering and Aerojet announce successful JAGM component and system Preliminary Design Reviews (PDRs). The team completed PDRs on Aerojet’s JAGM propulsion solution, which uses Roxel UK’s minimum-smoke propellant grain, and on launchers that included the U.S. Navy’s quad-missile helicopter (AH-1Z, MH-60R) and tri-missile fixed-wing (F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet) launchers. The team continues to increase the severity of environmental testing in preparation for engineering manufacturing development. Lockheed Martin. Aug 9/10: SDB-II win. Raytheon wins the SDB-II competition against Boeing and Lockheed Martin, and cites its tri-mode seeker as a key reason. It remains to be seen whether their use of the same seeker for JAGM proves helpful. Aug 6/10: Testing. DoD Buzz gets information from Lockheed and Raytheon concerning their manufacturer-financed test shots to date. To date, Lockheed Martin has had 2 flight readiness checks in June & July. A Lockheed-funded check had a pre-launch malfunction. A government-funded check failed when range instruments malfunctioned, but that missile was later used on Aug 2/10 for a successful test shot at White Sands Missile Range, NM. The Aug 2/10 laser-guided shot tested the tri-mode seeker, but used the laser for targeting, and scored a direct hit from 16km. An Aug 3/10 IIR test against a tank target at 4km led to an overshoot. Team Lockheed says they’re confident they’ll have their 3 successful tests by the deadline. Raytheon paid for 2 missile test shots in April 2010 to see if they were on the right path, and met their objectives. Their next test shot on June 23/10 tested the tri-mode seeker, but used the laser for targeting, and scored a direct ht from 16km. A 4th test shot is scheduled for Aug 13/10. July 26/10: Testing. The Raytheon-Boeing team announces that their JAGM design has successfully completed the 1st of 3 government-sponsored firings, using its laser guidance system to hit an 8×8-foot target board from a distance of 10 miles/ 16 km. All 3 guidance modes were used during the flight for telemetry data, but the laser was used to final targeting. This is actually the 3rd test firing of their design, following 2 company funded tests in April 2010. May 5/10: Testing. Raytheon announces that their partnership has completed wind tunnel testing of the Joint Air-to-Ground Missile from the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet. May 5/10: Testing. Lockheed Martin announces a successful end to JAGM wind tunnel tests involving the Navy’s F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet jet fighter. The more than 200 hours of initial high-speed flying qualities wind tunnel tests were conducted at NASA’s Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, CA. The goal was to ensure minimal changes to the fighter’s handling characteristics with the missiles on board. After that, tests moved to 150 hours of work at the Arnold Engineering Development Center (AEDC) wind tunnel in Tullahoma, TN. Those tests further refined the structural requirements of the launcher and JAGM, and included safe launch and separation tests involving Lockheed Martin and Marvin Engineering’s triple-rail JAGM launcher. A final set of tests at the Boeing Vertol wind tunnel in Philadelphia, PA, demonstrated and validated low-speed flight characteristics of the Super Hornet when loaded with JAGM. April 20/10: Testing. Raytheon/Boeing team announce the 1st successful test of its Joint Air-to-Ground Missile at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. The weapon, fired from a ground-based rotary-wing launcher, reportedly performed a series of pre-programmed maneuvers and flew to a predesignated location, validating the flight control software and Brimstone airframe. Raytheon-Boeing release April 13/10: Testing. Lockheed Martin concludes a series of static, tower-based and captive-carry flight tests of its tri-mode JAGM seeker in a limited dirty battlefield/countermeasure rich environment at Redstone Arsenal, AL. The seeker was tested against both active and passive countermeasure systems including white and red phosphorous, fog oil, smoke, millimeter wave chaff, flares, camouflage netting and mobile camouflage systems. This test series was preceded by an array of successful captive-carry tests conducted by Lockheed Martin in clean, non-dirty-battlefield flight environments, during both favorable and adverse weather conditions including sun, rain, freezing rain, sleet and snow. Hady Mourad, JAGM program director at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, said that “the seeker performed precisely as designed.” Lockheed Martin release. April 6/10: Testing – rocket. Lockheed Martin announces successful extreme temperature tests for its proposed JAGM rocket motor, developed in conjunction with Gencorp’s subsidiary Aerojet. The final completed tests were a series of cold temperature missile motor firings were conducted in Camden, AR, using the same rocket motor design planned for the tactical missile, with a composite motor case, with the system conditioned to -65F degrees in order to simulate high-altitude conditions. The partners describe these tests as a “breakthrough,” which may not be an exaggeration. The rocket is one of the program’s most challenging technologies, because it has to do several things at once: smokeless/ low-smoke launch and flight, operation over a wide range of temperatures from searing deserts to extreme cold at fighter-jet altitudes, and a high enough turn-down ratio (flow variance from boost to sustain) to give the missile its required performance and range. The Raytheon/Boeing team is also working on this area, but their partner is ATK. Joint release: Lockheed Martin | Aerojet. March 31/10: Testing. Lockheed Martin announces successful initial tests on the multi-mode seeker for its JAGM contender, demonstrating all of the sensor modes simultaneously. Program officials also recently held Kaizen events, or Structured Improvement Activity (SIA), to streamline the manufacturing process at Lockheed Martin’s seeker and electronics production facilities in Ocala, FL; and Troy, AL. The Lockheed Team is a bit behind their competitors at this point. Upcoming captive-carry testing will verify performance in a flight environment, with thermal and vibration performance, and electromagnetic interference testing slated for later in 2010. Lockheed Martin release. March 30/10: GAO Report. The US GAO audit office delivers its 8th annual “Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs report. With respect to the JAGM program, the GAO document is more an official fact sheet than an analysis, given the program’s early stages. Data from that document has been incorporated into this article. The GAO adds that the program must also complete a “postpreliminary design review assessment” before it can be certified to enter engineering and manufacturing development. Jan 29/10: Testing. Raytheon and Boeing announce the end of their captive flight tests for the Joint Air-to-Ground Missile competition, which test the missile’s ability to pick up targets, guidance, and ability to handle the stresses created by its platforms and their flight environments. The next step would be guided test shots. Oct 6/09: Testing. Raytheon and Boeing announce that they’ve completed a series of captive-carry flight tests of their tri-mode JAGM seeker, within the same size dimensions as their planned JAGM missile. By demonstrating that the seeker fits, and will not be affected by the buffeting associated with carriage on a fast-moving aircraft, the way is clear for installation in prototype missiles and use in live firings. Raytheon’s next-generation tri-mode seeker leverages technology used on their Small Diameter Bomb II (where Boeing is their main competitor) and the NLOS-LS/NETFIRES improved Precision Attack Missile. FY 2009 TD contracts. Lockheed JAGM concept (click to view full) May 13/09: TD. Boeing subsidiary McDonnell Douglas Corp. in St. Louis, MO received a $7.4 million time and material delivery order against a previously issued Basic Ordering Agreement (N00019-05-G-0026) for wind tunnel testing of JAGM prototypes on their F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO (92%); and Philadelphia, PA (8%), and is expected to be complete in March 2011. About $5.8 million in contract funds will expire on Sept 30/09, at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command in Patuxent River, MD will manage this contract. Oct 8/08: TD. Lockheed Martin announces and details its JAGM team. Oct 2/08: TD. The US military announces the initial contracts under the JAGM program, within each contracting team’s limit per earlier entries. Bids were solicited via the Web, and 2 bids were received by the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command in Redstone Arsenal, AL. Raytheon Co. in Tucson, AZ receives an $18.7 million fixed price incentive firm target contract, for 27 months of technology development for the Joint Air Ground Missile Program. Work will be performed in St. Louis, MO (Boeing) and Tucson, AZ (Raytheon) with an estimated completion date of Dec 31/10 (W31P4Q-08-C-A789). Lockheed Martin Corp. in Orlando, FL received an $18.7 million fixed price incentive firm target contract, for 27 months of technology development for the Joint Air Ground Missile Program. Work will be performed in Orlando, FL; Ocala, FL; and Troy, AL, with an estimated completion date of Dec 31/10 (W31P4Q-08-C-A123). FY 2008 Raytheon/Boeing and Lockheed Martin Technology Development. Boeing JCM (click to view full) Sept 22/08: The Raytheon / Boeing team announces a 27-month, $125 million Technology Development contract for the JAGM program. The contract funds a program to develop and fire 3 prototype missiles with fully integrated tri-mode seekers. Sept 18/08: Lockheed Martin announces that it has won a 27-month, $122 million competitive risk-reduction phase for the Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM) system. Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control VP Rick Edwards: “Our extensive risk-reduction tests have significantly mitigated risk on the three critical subsystems [seeker, warhead, rocket motor], our software and simulations are mature and proven, and we have made significant strides in developing low-risk platform integration solutions.” See also the Orlando Sentinel: “Lockheed’s $122M missile contract could create 200 jobs in Orlando area.” JAGM TD contracts April 14/08: Competition. Raytheon Company and Boeing announce a teaming agreement to pursue the U.S. Army-U.S. Navy Joint Air to Ground Missile program, which has an intended in-service date of 2016. Raytheon will be the prime contractor within the team, and the move is significant in that Boeing will not be teamed up with Northrop Grumman this time around. Raytheon makes existing TOW and Maverick missiles, and the team-up with Boeing creates commonality on a different level: integration with the manufacturer of many USAF and Navy aircraft, an area that Lockheed Martin covers on its own. Boeing is also part of the MBDA-led team that developed the Brimstone missile, Britain’s answer to the JCM program. Raytheon release. Feb/March 2008: JAGM RFP. JAGM RFP re-issued, for May 19/08 turn-in. Up to FY 2007 Program start. JCM terminated. JCM Sept 26/07: Jane’s Missiles & Rockets reports that: “A new Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM) programme is expected to become the successor of the Lockheed Martin AGM-169 Joint Common Missile (JCM) programme. As with the JCM, the JAGM is to be a multiservice weapon able to replace all versions of the Lockheed Martin Hellfire, Raytheon Maverick and Raytheon TOW missiles that currently equip fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles in US service…” September 2007: Original JAGM RFP rescinded. June 17/07: Original draft of JAGM RFP issue. June 15/07: JCM Terminated. Official termination of the Joint Common Missile program. Feb 21/07: The Lexington Institute think-tank wades into the controversy with “Joint Common Missile: Why Argue With Success?“: “Here’s a fantasy. Imagine three military services agreed on the need for a versatile air-to-ground missile that could precisely destroy a wide range of elusive targets — everything from camouflaged armored vehicles to terrorist speedboats. Imagine they found a low-cost design that could do those things day or night, good weather or bad, even when enemies were trying to jam the missile. Imagine the services selected a company that developed the missile on time and on cost, meeting all of its performance objectives. And imagine the missile was fielded expeditiously, replacing four cold-war missiles with an easy-to-maintain round that saved military lives while minimizing unintended damage. You’d have to be pretty naive to believe the Pentagon’s dysfunctional acquisition system could deliver all that, wouldn’t you? That’s right, you would — because the military actually has a program matching that description, and senior officials have been trying to kill it for two years. Why? Well, nobody really knows why…” Jan 26/07: Inside Defense, “Pentagon OKs Funding For Hellfire Replacement Effort”: “The Pentagon comptroller has directed the Army and Navy to pony up $68.5 million to fund missile research and development in an account that could be used to revive the Joint Common Missile — or something like it — more than two years after the Office of the Secretary of Defense moved to terminate the program…” Dec 30/05: Inside Defense reports that when US House and Senate conferees reconciled the details of the FY 2006 defense appropriations bill, they restored $30 million to the Army-led JCM program to continue the missile’s development ($26 million in research, development, test and evaluation funding from the Army, and $4 million from the Navy). They have also required a report by Jan 30/06 explaining how the Pentagon plans to fill the future gaps created by the missile’s demise, and a cost analysis of continuation vs. termination and buying existing missiles. Depending on what that study says, the JCM program could rise again. Appendix A: The JAGM Missile – Original Concept Technical Desires & Challenges Lockheed’s UAV pitch click to play video The stakes have always been very big for the JCM/JAGM. Pentagon planners expected that standardization from the TOW, Hellfire, and Maverick families of missiles to 1 variant of JAGM would keep maintenance and supply costs lower. Integration with the F-35 fighter family was possible in future, and so were international contracts if the missile makes it through development to become a program of record. In industrial terms, that made JAGM the last big American missile competition for some time. So the stakes were huge, the genesis was long, and progress remains slow because of budgetary pressure. The US military was looking for a missile that’s about 110 Lbs, 70″ long, and 7″ in diameter, with a range of 0.5 – 16 km when fired from helicopters, and 2 – 28 km if fired from fixed wing aircraft. The seeker would be multi-mode: active designation via semi-active laser or millimeter wave radar will duplicate all Hellfire variants in a single variant, and a passive imaging infrared option would add additional insurance and versatility. On the seeker side, the program isn’t actually breaking a lot of new technical ground. The various seeker modes requested (laser, IIR, radar) have all been implemented on other missiles, and Raytheon’s GBU-53 Small Diameter Bomb II has already pioneered an accepted tri-mode seeker. Performance enhancements are always possible, but this will be a matter of refinement and integration, rather than groundbreaking development. Instead, the big challenges involved the missile and its propulsion system, which was envisioned as a single rocket motor solution to be used on all platforms. That meant it had to have minimum smoke, in order to avoid smoke inhalation by by helicopter engines or easy tracking of the missile’s origin. It would also need to handle a much wider temperature range than Hellfire, from the hottest desert sun beating down to nap-of-the-earth helicopters to the Antarctic-class temperatures at high fighter jet altitudes. Just to make things interesting, it also had to meet the Navy’s unique requirements for insensitive munitions, in order to be safe enough for use in naval combat. After meeting all of those requirement, it had to deliver the requested missile range, which is almost 2x the advertised range for its AGM-114 Hellfire predecessor when fired from a similar platform. The ability to fire from fast jets would extend that range even further, which is extremely important against defended targets. If the US military could get all that, it would have an extremely valuable weapon system. The Road Less Taken – JCM/JAGM’s Program History Brimstone from Tornado (click to view full) In May 2004, Lockheed Martin was picked over Raytheon and a Boeing-Northrop Grumman team to conduct the Joint Common Missile’s (JCM) 4-year system development and demonstration (SDD) phase, which was to be worth as much as $1.6 billion. The long-term U.S. production estimate of 54,000 missiles would have brought the program to $5 billion, and the United Kingdom had expressed interest in the new weapon and participated in the development process. The JCM program had made heavy use of modeling & simulation in its early phases, and was the first missile program ever to reach a Milestone B decision without conducting a live test. Subsequent live tests, including live fire tests against simulated urban targets, were also successful. The missile reported less success on the budget front, however. In 2005, the Pentagon cut the Joint Common Missile (JCM) program in order to fund operations in Iraq. Canceling the Army-led JCM was estimated to save about $2.4 billion over the next 6 years ($928 million Army, $1.5 billion Navy). This triggered a counter-campaign by Congressional representatives, and created a controversy over the future of the program that never really went away. In June 2007, JCM was formally cancelled. The UK ended up developing its own system. In November 1996, the UK had given MBDA the Brimstone contract, in order to create a fire-and-forget anti-armor missile that could be fired by fast jets as well as helicopters. Brimstone uses inertial guidance plus millimeter-wave radar, and has a terrain following mode as well. In October 2003, a successful series of test firings were carried out, and the missile entered service with the RAF in March 2005. The Lazarus Missile: JAGM JAGM schedule in 2009 (click for cutaway) The need for a capability similar to the JCM remained clear even to the Pentagon, and so the U.S. Department of Defense’s Program Budget Decision (PBD) No. 753 directed the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to commission a study for a very similar weapon system in time for the 2008 budget review. Meanwhile, the Alabama Congressional delegation and other members of Congress kept lobbying to keep something like JAGM going. It still made a great deal of sense, the program hadn’t suffered from cost overruns or major technical difficulties, and Britain’s fielding of the Brimstone missile offered external validation. The original JCM requirements were really designed for the RAH-66 Comanche scout helicopter, however, and they were written before the Army’s Future Combat Systems mega-program. The new Joint Air-Ground Missile (JAGM) competition updated those requirements, and attempted to re-start the competition in 2008 under a new competitive approach, and with the planned number of missiles lowered to around 34,500. Pentagon acquisition czar Young introduced a prototyping requirement for JAGM as part of a wider-ranging set of acquisition reforms, hence the September 2008 Technology Development contracts to 2 teams. By fall 2010, the JAGM program had wrapped up in a 27 month “risk reduction” development phase, leading up to a competitive flyoff between the 2 contractor teams. Program Management Reviews were held in Q2 of FY 2009, and a Milestone B decision that would begin full-scale System Design and Development for the winner was planned for Q1 of FY 2011 (November 2010). That deadline slipped, and for a while the next phase seemed likely to start at the end of Q4 2011 instead. Instead, the program stalled again, and became an Army-only effort in 2012. A Continued Technology Development phase will carry it to 2014, at which point JAGM technologies may begin showing up in the next generation of AGM-114 Hellfire missiles. JAGM: Original Plans & Platforms TOW 2B missile (click for cutaway) Under the original plan, JAGM would begin supplementing – and eventually replacing – Lockheed Martin’s GM-114 Hellfire family of missiles on the Army’s AH-64D Apache attack helicopters, its scout helicopters, and its MQ-1C Gray Eagle UAVs. The Navy would make the same substitution on their new MH-60R/S Seahawk helicopters, and US Navy and USMC F/A-18 Hornets and Super Hornets would carry them in place of Raytheon’s AGM-65 Maverick missile. The Marines’ AH-1Z Viper attack helicopter would carry them in place of Hellfire missiles, or Raytheon’s xGM-71 TOW family. Platform integration would occur during the 48-month Engineering & Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase, and 2016 would have marked Initial Operational Capability (IOC) on USMC AH-1Z Viper and Army AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, as well as Navy F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets. IOC on the Army’s MQ-1C Predator-family Gray Eagle UAV, and the Navy’s MH-60R helicopter, was expected in FY 2017. This second wave of platform integrations would begin during the EMD phase, but continue into Low-Rate Initial Production. The roster of platforms had a lot of expansion potential, since Hellfire missiles are already slated for a wide array of future UAVs, including the MQ-8 Fire Scout and A160 Hummingbird. Hellfires are even equipping some C-130J Hercules transport aircraft, thanks to modular quick-fit programs like Harvest Hawk. Existing foreign helicopters like the UAE’s AH-60M Battlehawks, French Tiger HAD, and Australia’s Tiger ARH helicopters would be another JAGM opportunity, alongside air force jet fighters like the F-15 Strike Eagle, F-16 Falcon, JAS-39 Gripen, etc. that have been qualified with AGM-65 Mavericks. Suitability for naval use, and extended range compared to existing Hellfires, could even make a full JAGM round a potential replacement for existing Griffin-B missiles on board patrol boats, and on the Littoral Combat Ship. JAGM’s backers hope that success as a front-end bolt-on will eventually lead to contracts that would improve the missile as well, and restore the missile’s original concept. The challenge is cost. A role as a Maverick missile replacement is fairly straightforward, but the real volume and money is found in TOW and Hellfire replacement orders. Unfortunately, that’s also where the specifications for JAGM are significantly more challenging than the missiles they’d replace. A JAGM that’s more expensive than TOW or Hellfire won’t be a bargain for the US military, and would have a harder time selling abroad into the large helicopter and UAV markets. Appendix B: JAGM’s Competing Industrial Teams Team Lockheed History repeats. After JAGM rose from the dead, previous JCM incumbent Lockheed Martin came back with a team, in order to compete against the Raytheon/ Boeing team. In Team Lockheed’s design, The JAGM’s body and tri-mode sensors built on the existing body designs and sensors from Lockheed Martin’s AGM-114 Hellfire missile family, with its options of Hellfire II semi-active laser or millimeter wave Hellfire Longbow missiles. They also build on the cooled sensors used by the Lockheed/Raytheon Javelin imaging infrared (IIR) missile to add extra fire-and-forget insurance. Lockheed Martin will also push to leverage its incumbent status for both the current Hellfire missile family, and the M299 missile launcher that equips most helicopters. Seeker improvements beyond the tri-mode features include extended range, “safing” that would allow carrier landings with live weapons instead of forcing planes to jettison their loads, and greater “fire and forget” capability. A single insensitive-munition rocket motor provides the required propulsion. Once it reaches the target, a multi-purpose warhead similar to the Hellfire II’s packs a shaped-charge designed to defeat the most advanced armored threats, along with a blast fragmentation capability to defeat ships, buildings, and bunkers with a two-phase warhead punch. Team Lockheed included: LM Missiles and Fire Control (lead integrator, tri-mode seeker) Honeywell in Minneapolis, MN (inertial measurement unit) L3 in Cincinnati, OH (focal plane array infrared detector) EMS technologies in Atlanta, GA (millimeter wave antenna) The following firms were also included, but aren’t likely to have much of a role under the new program structure: Aerojet in Camden, AK (rocket motor) Alliant Techsystems in Woodland Hills, CA (aircraft integration) General Dynamics OTS in Niceville, FL (multi-purpose warhead) Roxel in Summerfield, UK (propellant) Marvin Engineering in Inglewood, CA (JAGM launchers) Moog in Aurora, NY (control fin actuators) and Perkin Elmer in Miamisburg, OH (warhead firing module). Raytheon & Boeing Boeing JCM on F-18 (click to view full) Raytheon and Boeing are working with rocket-maker ATK on their own offering, which leverages a variety of existing technologies. Some algorithms from Raytheon’s XM1111 Medium Range Munition guided tank shell were helpful, and the tri-mode laser/radar/ uncooled imaging infrared seeker would leverage Raytheon’s existing Common Tri-Mode Seeker (CTMS) program. For the full JAGM offering, MBDA and Boeing’s Brimstone missile is already designed and tested for use on fast jets like the Harrier, Tornado, and Eurofighter. It would serve as the body. The challenging specs for a new rocket motor would be addressed by ATK. Raytheon’s uncooled infrared seeker currently offers less resolution than Lockheed’s cooled seeker, but it’s more reliable, lighter, and cheaper to maintain. The CTMS is already part of the NETFIRES NLOS-LS PAM, and helped Raytheon win the GBU-53 Small Diameter Bomb Phase II competition – against Boeing, no less – in 2010. Despite all of this re-use, component assembly wasn’t the team’s focus. Raytheon’s Senior Business Development Manager Michael Riley flew AH-64D Apache Longbow helicopters for 10 years. “What this is, is not a missile program,” he says. “It’s an integration program,” because that’s where many of the costs and challenges typically lie. To make this point, he drew a whiteboard picture of the Apache and of the F-18 during a planning session. “Who builds the helicopter? The black boxes that go in it? Who builds the fighter? Who performs missile integration for these platforms? Is there anything else I need to tell you?” The answer to these questions was “Boeing,” and discussions soon brought the firms together under a common vision. Chief Engineers Emil Davidoff and Andy Hinsdale saw the F/A-18 Hornet as the toughest integration engineering problem, because of the conditions it faces: -65C temperature at altitude, shock, vibration and impact from carrier landings, plus supersonic buffeting underwing. All for a missile that was supposed to be similar in size and weight to the Hellfire, but with 2x range, a tri-mode seeker, and a similar cost target. Even so, the most difficult challenges in these kinds of efforts are not technical, but human. “Coopetition” between firms that are competing on related projects is a difficult process at the best of times, and can feel like an arranged marriage even when it succeeds. Trust-building over time, a firewall between co-operating and competing teams, and other standard measures are always useful; but they do not guarantee success. In business, as in rocket motors, there is such a thing as chemistry. The relationship between Chief Engineers Davidoff and Hinsdale has been part of that, and so has a joint belief that this competition is ideally suited for their partnership. Win or lose, therefore, the JAGM partnership between Raytheon and Boeing is flourishing, and may have long-term effects. Before the verdict on their main effort has even been rendered, both teams have said that they are looking for synergies in other areas, and other programs. JAGM’s 2012 program shifts have changed the competition, so that integration is no longer the overriding focus it once was. Fortunately, the Raytheon/Boeing Team made a number of technical decisions that will keep them in the game. So far, the team has managed “good enough” performance that has tested successfully and met specifications. They believe their uncooled infrared technology’s cost advantage could become important, and that fixed-price GBU-53 SDB-II orders will raise seeker and guidance production volumes to a level that can meet the Army’s new cost targets. Raytheon’s head of JAGM business development, J.R. Smith, notes that by the time the JAGM CTD phase is done in 2014, their SDB-II will be 75% of the way through Engineering & Manufacturing Development, with 2 years of production underway. Raytheon remains partnered with AH-64 manufacturer Boeing, and has told DID that they still consider ATK to be a team member, even though their rocket motor isn’t currently a priority for the US military. Additional Readings & Sources DID thanks the personnel at Raytheon Missile Systems in Tucson for their time and cooperation in clarifying their JAGM bid. Background: Missiles Defence-Update.com: JCM – Joint Common Missile. GlobalSecurity.org: Joint Common Missile. Boeing All Systems Go Magazine (Vol. 1 #6, 2003) – The Next Generation Weapon: Joint Common Missile. Lockheed Martin – JAGM. 2011 snapshot. See also Feb 20/2014 media briefing [PDF]. Raytheon – Joint Air-to-Ground Missile. It’s interesting to look at this 2009 snapshot, then fast-forward to 2011 and 2013 snapshots. Boeing – Brimstone Precision Guided Missile. Britain’s answer to the JCM’s demise; development was led by MBDA. Brimstone’s missile body was initially part of the Boeing/Raytheon team’s JAGM bid, when it was an entirely new missile. MBDA – Brimstone. The current version offers dual-mode laser and millimeter-wave radar guidance, just like the forthcoming JAGM Increment 1. Unlike JAGM, it can be fired from jet fighters. News & Views DoD Buzz (Aug 6/10) – Last $5B Tac Missile Competition. AFCEA Signal (June 2009) – Multipurpose Missile Program Accelerates. Lexington Institute (Feb 21/07) – Joint Common Missile: Why Argue With Success? Huntsville Times (Mar 24/05) – Battle stepped up to save Redstone missile project. Spacewar.com (Mar 17/05) – Lockheed Martin Joint Common Missile Destroys Urban Targets. Aerospace Daily & Defense Report (Jan 05/05) – Joint Common Missile’s Demise Spurs ‘Capability Needs’ Study. Battle Command, Simulation & Experimentation Directorate (July 30/03) – SMART Lessons Learned Case Summary. View the full article

Reviewed by Jeff Schultz Ben Skipper’s Landing Craft & Amphibians: Seaborne Vessels in the 20th Century briefly delves into the interesting world of landing craft and amphibians involved in various conflicts in the 20th century from World War II to the present. While it is not authoritative, it does detail many such craft with useful sections for modelers. Skipper is an RAF veteran and freelance writer with several “Pen and Sword” titles to his credit such as The Battles of El Alamein in the “BattleCraft” series and several others in the “LandCraft” series about the Land Rover, Humvee and M113 Armored Personnel Carrier. This 64-page A4 format monograph is divided into several sections, well-supported by many photos, and a selection of color plates. Skipper focuses on a range of both vessels and amphibians which saw action in everything from small to massive amphibious landings from World War II to Vietnam and even up to the present. The work is divided into the following sections: “Introduction,” “Design & Development,” “Landing Craft Variants,” “Landing Craft in Detail,” “In Service & In Action,” “Camouflage & Markings,” “Model Showcase” and lastly, “Modelling Products.” “Design & Development” dominates as the longest section, offering sub-sections on “Allied Landing Craft,” “Axis Landing Craft,” “Amphibians,” “Post-war Developments” and finally “Post-war Amphibians.” Among those sections a wide range of craft are profiled, including a nice selection of more modern types such as the Landing Craft, Air Cushion (LCAC), the Russian “Zubr” LCAC, the Alvis Stalwart, the Landing Vehicle Tracked, Personnel 7 (LVTP-7), and the Russian BTR and BMP series.While the clear focus is on American and British craft, he provides a decent overview of Axis landing craft, including the little-known Kriegsmarine “naval ferry barge” or Marinefährprahm (MFP) which served on all fronts with the Wehrmacht along with Siebel ferries and other such craft. In the “Landing Craft Variants” section Skipper discusses important variants, such as those based on the Landing Craft Tank (LCT) such as the Landing Craft Tank (Rocket) (LCT(R)) which afforded rocket support to beach landings using over a thousand 60lb. rocket rails providing immense bombardment firepower, the Landing Craft Flak (LCF) which provided anti-aircraft support using 20mm Oerlikons and QF 2pdr “pom-poms” weapons manned by Royal Marines and finally the Landing Craft Gun (LCG) which were LCT conversions mounting either 25-pdr howitzers or 4.7cm naval guns. “Landing Craft in Detail” offers various color photographs with an eye towards helping modelers produce realistic looking miniature versions, examples include the German Schwimmwagen, a Ford GPA, Ukrainian LCU, DUKW, LVT-4 and a LARC-LX. “In Service & In Action” provides a brief glance at the progression of the landing craft and amphibians from their early WWII start all the way to the present with a sense of the growing numbers and complexity of the available craft and how their relative specializations have continued to grow. Instead of being replaced, the landing craft and amphibian have remained a vital part of the modern force structure. Although the names and craft may have changed, the missions remain. “Camouflage & Markings” provides lavish color plates, with multi-views of the following: DUKW in D-Day markings from the First US Engineer Brigade, a German Rheinmetall-Borsig Landwasserschlepper (LWS) from the Baltic Coast in 1944, a USN LCM-6 from 1960, a USN Landing Craft Personal (Large) (LCP(L)) from the 1942 Guadalcanal campaign, USN Landing Craft Vehicle Personnel (LCVP) PA 13-22 from D-Day 1944, USN Landing Craft Tank Mk 6 (LCT) from 1943, a 2d Marine Division Landing Vehicle Tracked 4 (LVT-4) from the Tinian landings in July 1944 and lastly an Italian Regia Marina Motolance from 1942. “Model Showcase” features several 1/35 scale plastic models with multiple color photos of craft Skipper already discussed, now in arresting detail from multiple angles. First, a Landing Craft, Mechanized (LCM) 3 depicted as taking part in the Rhine crossings during spring 1945, then a Landing Vehicle, Tracked (LVT) 4 used in the November 1944 Walcheren Island landings by the British 79th Armored Division, followed by a Landing Craft, Mechanized (LCM) 8 as used by the Royal Australian Corps of Transport (RACT) during the mid-Vietnam era and finally a Ford GPA “Seep” used by the US First Infantry Division in Tunisia circa March 1943. “Modelling Products,” the last section, details the range of model kits and accessories available related to landing craft and amphibians. Plastic model companies such as Italeri, Airfix, Trumpeter, Tamiya and others are listed with their particular products and in some cases accessories offered which includes figures, equipment, etc. Examples include anything from an Italeri LAV-25 to a Trumpeter BMD-3 or even an Airfix Higgins LCVP for those interested. Ben Skipper’s Landing Craft & Amphibians: Seaborne Vessels in the 20th Century provides a nice mix of supporting text and images which overview the landing craft mostly used by the Allied nations in World War II and beyond, with a brief mention of non-Allied designs. It is meant as an introductory, visual heavy work to spawn interest and in that way, it succeeds, as well as providing photographs and other information relevant to modelers who might want to build a diorama or vessel for display. Jeff Schultz is an Associate Professor of History at Luzerne County Community College. Landing Craft & Amphibians: Seaborne Vessels in the 20th Century. By Ben Skipper (Barnsley, UK: Pen and Sword Military, 2002. The post Landing Craft & Amphibians: Seaborne Vessels in the 20th Century first appeared on Naval Historical Foundation. View the full article

Even though it shouldn’t be necessary, I guess I should start this out by saying I actually support think tanks. I have a whole gaggle of acquaintances and friends who are associated with this think tank or another. They can produce good work – and even though some have clear biases in either their mission or their people – there is good value to read from smart people you disagree with on issues of substance. As long as you know they may or may not be objective – that is fine. As always, a serious read of contrary opinion will either by the strength of their argument make you reassess your previously held position, or by the weakness of their argument, further reinforce your position. What you cannot do it take what they say – or even what I say – as unalloyed truth. But no, this is not a general assault on the think tanks. Heck, where else are all these over-credentialed friends and drinking buddies going to find a paying gig while they wait for a political appointment? (snark, I snark because I love). No, this is about something else – two things specifically. Let us speak as adults to adults. First, most think tanks (some call themselves “institutes” or “centers” but for shorthand we all know they are think tanks) are in whole or in part not so much about thinking – but about influence. It is the “what” that is being influenced and "why" that is in question. Some think tanks are very clear what they want to do – they want to promote this side of the political spectrum or the other. CATO is a great example of this. We all know what the libertarian take on the Jones Act will be etc. There are others who to promote the interests of this area of the world or another. They want to promote a close relationship between this nation and ours … etc. Those I am happy with too because we go in to the dance knowing the song. What becomes problematic are those who claim they are objective, who claim it does not matter who funds them are, they have no influence on their products and papers … etc. That may be true in part, but in whole? No. That is not how humans work. “Follow the money” is a great way to try to understand anything human. Money, power, and sex. Look for an explanation in those areas first, and more often than not you will get your answer. This is brain-stem simple – as often humans are. That is why full disclosure of who is funding a think tank is important. That is why knowing who their leadership has worked for is important. Money. Power. Sex. That will give you an understanding of the shape of that ship … but then you need to know who the captain of that ship is. That leads us to the second part – and the core topic of today’s post – General John Allen, USMC (Ret.), until last weekend, the head of DC’s establishment think tank, Brookings. The Brookings Institution's president, retired four-star Gen. John R. Allen announced that he is resigning from the organization amid a federal investigation into his alleged role doing illegal foreign lobbying work for Qatar. Allen was placed on administrative leave on May 10. Allen said in a resignation letter that his decision is "best for all concerned in this moment," according to the Wall Street Journal. "While I leave the institution with a heavy heart, I know it is best for all concerned in this moment," Allen said in the resignation letter. Why? The decision comes after new federal court filings spell out a potential criminal case against Allen, who joined Brookings in 2017 after leading NATO and U.S. forces in Afghanistan. Court filings allege that Allen worked to help Qatar influence U.S. policy during a period of time when there was a diplomatic crisis in the Gulf region. In a search warrant application, Federal Bureau of Investigations Agent Babak Adib wrote that there is "substantial evidence" that Allan violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). Allan has not been charged with any crime. Brookings is in full covering-fire mode ... for themselves; "Brookings seeks to maintain high ethical standards in all its operations. Brookings has strong independence policies in place to ensure financial supporters do not influence the research findings or policy recommendations of its experts," the statement reads. "Brookings is not the subject of a federal investigation into a personal trip Allen took to Qatar in 2017 before he became president of the institution. Brookings receives no funds from the government of Qatar. Brookings received funding from Qatar in the past to support operations for research and events. In early 2019, Brookings decided it would not renew funding from the country and would close its Brookings Doha Center, established in 2007. The decision to close the Brookings Doha Center was concurrent with the decision to transition all of Brookings’s foreign centers," it continued. Yes, but they did, in a fashion. I think "close" is a bit too strong of a word. From their own website: In September 2021, after 14 years of impactful partnership, Brookings and the Brookings Doha Center announced that they were ending their affiliation. The Brookings Doha Center is now the Middle East Council on Global Affairs, a separate public policy institution based in Qatar. They changed nametags. ... and they hired Allen knowing his background - and they hired him in October of 2017, the same year he made the trip in question. We should let the story work itself out in the press and the courts - and you can read a variety of things about here, here, and here. Let's go back to the question of "why" they hired Allen. He joined Brookings right after he retired in 2013 after a few tours leading the ultimately shambolic wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. After a short stint, he slotted right in with the Obama Administration. He made his famously cringe worthy appearance at the 2016 (D) convention and after his much expected role in the Hillary Clinton Administration faded in haze of orange dust, he fell back to Brookings in the fall of 2017 where he's been ever since. Why go there? First - and this was clear at the Democrat convention in 2016 and his work with Qatar as reported - Allen was not done. He still wanted to be in the game. He wanted to influence events. He wasn't done playing. Hey, I understand. As someone reminded me in a rather funny way last weekend, I left active duty almost 13 years ago, A LONG TIME AGO...and yet in my own way still can't get my head out of the game. Some people can, but others can't. That is Allen. Did he do it for money? I don't see him as a mercenary for just the money. How much did he make there? Well, if you look at Brookings' Form 990 from 2020 (BTW you can research any of your think tanks/institute/etc 990s here), you'll see on page 59 that comes to $972,714 in salary and benefits. Probably had a pay raise and though I don't know exactly what his retirement pay is - as I don't know what additional he gets from the VA on top of normal military retirement, USAToday has this baseline; Figures for 2011 show that a four-star officer retiring with 38 years' experience received a yearly pension of about $219,600, a jump of $84,000, or 63% beyond what was previously allowed. A three-star officer with 35 years' experience would get about $169,200 a year, up about $39,000, or 30%. Before the law was changed, the typical pension for a retired four-star officer was $134,400.That was over a decade ago ... so ... adjust accordingly. Not a bad gig. I will never begrudge a man a good deal or a nice payday, but even in DC, somewhere near $1.2 million+ a year isn't all that bad - and a quarter million for absorbing oxygen is livable. Why then would, if reports are correct, someone feel the need to take iffy money from some petro-pocketstate? That is something Allen needs to explain but I think it was just a way to stay in the game until another opportunity came around. He was hungry in 2016, and right when he thought Hillary would served him a heaping serving ... Trump took it all from him. Why would Brookings hire someone like Allen to take over from a more experienced Democrat political operative Strobe Talbot? Yes, he was a known quantity and a company man, but a long time ago it was explained to me that such organizations do not hire such people for their ideas (I cannot think of anything Allen wrote of significance, can you) or their record of success (IRQ and AFG did not quite work out well on his watch) but because people return their phone calls and accept their invitations. They are influencers. These organizations are buying influence. Why would Qatar pay money to Allen? Same reason. People returned his phone calls and accepted his invitations. Especially in the fraternity of retired 3 and 4-stars, you get in the short line; Allen on June 9, 2017, asked then-national security adviser H.R. McMaster to issue a statement calling on the nations to ease a blockade against Qatar. Then-secretary of state Rex Tillerson later that day issued a statement along those lines. In a meeting on June 10, 2017, Allen allegedly advised the Qataris how to influence the White House, as well as how to "own the narrative" in the United States about the blockade. According to notes Olson took in the meeting, Allen told the Qataris they could "shape" then-president Donald Trump's opinion through McMaster. Give a new meaning to "bi-partisan foreign policy consensus." Allen will fight his fight, but he is making sure he does what he can to signal to his team he's still one of them. Did you read his letter? Here it is: Did you catch that? That is just embarrassing. It reads like those poor souls whose last words were, "LONG LIVE COMRAD STALIN!" before a hail of NKVD bullets put an end to their suffering. At the end of the day, remember that institutions and people should always be questioned - including and especially your humble blogg'r here. Do not accept anything from an institution or a person just because of their CV. The larger they are and the more powerful they are - the more questioning you should be. They may be right, they may be the best - but make them prove it. More often than not, they're not. Heck, from the cheap seats, it looks like Qatar and Brookings hired Allen for the same reason - not that is made either of them better in the end. Just look at the internet archive from the first week in December 2021. As the Russians finalized their buildup plans for invasion, inflation was starting to build, China continued unabated, supply chain issues coughed, people were migrating in clear waves from blue states to red ... just look at what they focused on. Tell me why to be a "serious person" I should care about anything from Brookings unless I am using it for opposition research? Nope. Looking at who they hire and what they they think is important ... nope. Hard pass. http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/blogspot/FAFV?d=yIl2AUoC8zA http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/blogspot/FAFV?d=qj6IDK7rITs http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/blogspot/FAFV?i=B07s7sfATL0:qHfihFXBUHM:gIN9vFwOqvQ http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/blogspot/FAFV?i=B07s7sfATL0:qHfihFXBUHM:-BTjWOF_DHI http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/blogspot/FAFV?i=B07s7sfATL0:qHfihFXBUHM:V_sGLiPBpWU http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/blogspot/FAFV?i=B07s7sfATL0:qHfihFXBUHM:F7zBnMyn0Lo View the full article

Americas Lockheed Martin won a $53.1 million modification, which adds scope for non-recurring engineering, delivery and installation of F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Pilot Training and Maintainer Training technical refresh hardware. Work will take place in Florida and Texas. Estimated completion date is January 2025. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity. The aerospace firms of Korea Aerospace Industries and Lockheed Martin have inked a “Teaming Agreement” on June 9 to jointly design, produce and promote an improved model of FA-50 in order to compete in the US market. The US Air Force and the US Navy plan to introduce about 280 and 220 units of new fighter trainers, respectively, in around 2024 and 2025. Middle East & Africa Israeli company Plasan, which operates globally in the area of survivability for land, air and naval platforms for the defense market, is revealing its new vehicle, the Wilder, at the Eurosatory 2022 exhibition currently taking place in Paris. According to the company announcement, the Wilder provides Stanag 4569 Level 2 protection for 4 people in a compact package weighing just 3.7t and offering a full 800kg of payload. Europe Hungary’s 2023 budget bill reached the country’s parliament on June 7. The draft budget’s allocation to the Ministry of Defense is $1.9 billion, a 28.3% nominal and 31.7% real cut compared to this year’s budget. This is largely due to a 92% fall in the ‘accumulation budget’ for the Hungarian Defense Forces, which is linked to the Zyrinyi 2026 defence development programme. Russian troops forced Ukraine’s units out of central Severodonetsk, a strategically vital city in Ukraine’s eastern, the Ukrainian military said on Monday as Putin’s forces increasingly press forward in the Donbas region. On Sunday, Ukrainian President Zelensky said that Ukrainian troops were fighting for “every meter” of Severodonetsk and pleaded to international partners for “modern missile defense systems.” Asia-Pacific Australia’s deputy prime minister and defense minister, Richard Marles, has said on the weekend, that China’s military buildup must be accompanied by transparency and reassurances to its neighbours or risk triggering an arms race. Speaking in Singapore at the Shangri-La Dialogue on Saturday, Marles laid out a vision of economic cooperation balanced with military deterrence, but sounded a warning about militarisation in the Asia Pacific. Today’s Video WATCH: Plasan WILDER – Ultra Light Armored Vehicle View the full article

Americas L3Harris won a maximum $13 million firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for Army Chinook CH-47 helicopter spare parts production and repair. The Boeing CH-47 Chinook is a tandem rotor helicopter. This is a five-year base contract with one five-year option period. Performance completion date is June 8, 2027. Northrop Grumman Systems won a $40.7 million order, which provides Full Scale Fatigue Test (FSFT) and Effects of Defects (EoD) for the Triton MQ-4C unmanned aircraft system, to include testing, analyzing, and documenting the results of both the FSFT and EoD test, as well as identifying post-test activities in order to fully verify and validate fatigue and damage tolerance requirement of the performance based system specification. The order provides Full Scale Fatigue Test (FSFT) and Effects of Defects (EoD) for the Triton MQ-4C unmanned aircraft system, to include testing, analyzing, and documenting the results of both the FSFT and EoD test, as well as identifying post-test activities in order to fully verify and validate fatigue and damage tolerance requirement of the performance based system specification. Work will take place in California, Kansas, Canada and New York. Estimated completion will be by February 2028. Middle East & Africa Israeli company Rafael Advanced Defense Systems has disclosed the development of a sixth-generation evolution of its Spike non-line-of-sight (NLOS) multi-purpose, multiplatform man-in-the-loop precision-guided missile system. The current Mk 5 variant Spike NLOS features a gimballed dual-mode charged coupled device (CCD) TV/uncooled imaging infrared (IIR) terminal guidance sensor package, coupled with an embedded inertial navigation system/inertial measure unit (INS/IMU) mid-course navigation, and an encrypted radio frequency (RF) two-way datalink delivering real-time video imagery. Europe British aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales, an aircraft carrier functioning as NATO command ship, has arrived in Spain. According to the Royal Navy, the HMS Prince of Wales is currently the lead vessel in NATO’s Response Force – which can be deployed anywhere at short notice to react to world events – and has stopped in Rota on Spain’s west coast ahead of joint training led by Spain. The UK Ministry of Defense plans to develop a weapons demonstrator that can operate at hypersonic speed. The plan is part of a $2.5 billion in research funding for programs that provide “generation-after-next” military capabilities between 2022 and 2026. The ministry stated that the cutting-edge weapons demonstrator would help the British military deter future threats without providing specific details. Asia-Pacific The US State Department has given the green light to a proposed sale of $120 million in ship spare parts, ship system spare parts, and related equipment to Taiwan, the fourth Taipei-bound arms package approved under US President Joe Biden. According to a statement released by the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) Wednesday, the proposed sale will include unclassified spare and repair parts for ships and ship systems, logistical technical assistance, US government and contractor representative technical and logistical support, and other related elements of logistical and program support requested by Taiwan. Today’s Video WATCH: RAFAEL Unveils the 6th Generation SPIKE NLOS Missile View the full article

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9GgO7_AJaPY/Uz6Ta8stBsI/AAAAAAAAIF0/BmY1-pVg-Qo/s1600/DentonwithA6.jpgWhen you honor a great man's passing, use the time to measure yourself against the man at his best. If in his shoes, what would you have done? How would history and the man in the mirror evaluate your actions? It is a little more than eight years since one of the greats passed. Jeremiah Denton, the Vietnam War POW who has died at age 89, uttered one of the great statements of defiance in American history. In 1965, he was shot down in his A-6 during a bombing run over North Vietnam. He became a captive for more than seven years and endured an unimaginable regime of torture, humiliation, and isolation, managing to retain his dignity and spirit even as his captors went to hideous lengths to snuff them out.The next point is why many in uniform, rightly, don't take well to any representative of our nation bowing to anyone. Soon after his capture, a young North Vietnamese solider signaled to him to bow down and, when he refused, pressed a gun to his head so hard it created a welt. Denton quickly learned that this would be mild treatment. He was taken to Hoa Lo Prison, or the Hanoi Hilton, where he led the resistance to the North Vietnamese efforts to extract propaganda confessions from their prisoners. As Denton related in his book, When Hell Was in Session, they tried to starve one out of him.Take time to read all of Rich Lowry's tribute. For a man who had many highlights in life - this is the one that I think is the most powerful and sublime. http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/blogspot/FAFV?d=yIl2AUoC8zA http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/blogspot/FAFV?d=qj6IDK7rITs http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/blogspot/FAFV?i=f8SJ6IgW72M:14uOae3FrJU:gIN9vFwOqvQ http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/blogspot/FAFV?i=f8SJ6IgW72M:14uOae3FrJU:-BTjWOF_DHI http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/blogspot/FAFV?i=f8SJ6IgW72M:14uOae3FrJU:V_sGLiPBpWU http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/blogspot/FAFV?i=f8SJ6IgW72M:14uOae3FrJU:F7zBnMyn0Lo View the full article

About the only institution I hold is more contempt than the UN in so far as its inability to do anything well related to its core mission is probably the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Over at the National Interest, Ramon Marks just about gives me an aneurism. How does one start here? I don't have much whitespace in my calendar today, so let me just pull this jewel out. The West is going to have to figure out how to resolve the Russo-Ukrainian War while simultaneously bringing lasting stability to Ukraine and Europe without pushing a paranoid Russia further into China’s arms. A Congress of Vienna-type approach could be an option under the multilateral framework of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), founded in 1975. Headquartered in Vienna, over fifty-seven countries are members of the OSCE, including Russia, NATO countries, Finland, Sweden, as well as peripheral Eurasian states such as Mongolia. The OSCE might be the only realistic diplomatic framework under which all relevant parties might try to begin to address the centuries-old problem posed by Russia’s deep-seated fears of the West. What, you mean this OSCE from the third week of FEB? Staff of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which has been monitoring the situation in eastern Ukraine, began to pull out of the rebel-held city of Donetsk on Sunday as fears of a possible Russian invasion grew. A Reuters journalist saw several armoured cars being loaded suitcases and leaving the mission's headquarters. The OSCE said in a statement that "certain participating states" had told their citizens at the mission to leave within the next days. It did not name the countries but said the mission would carry on with its work. These Model UN rent seeking types are just plain useless unless to anyone but themselves. They claim expertise based on a record of failure - over-credentialed and underperforming. They craft Tiffany-clad agreements that don't survive the next dawn and then complain at the next obscure conference sponsored by some over-capitalized government bureau that they just didn't have a chance...etc...etc...but next time... This is all malformed by iffy history; Despite the suffering and destruction inflicted by these French invasions, when it came time to make peace, the victorious powers were generous. The Quadruple Alliance, the victorious coalition of Great Britain, Austria, Russia, and Prussia, did not exact punishment or revenge on France. Instead, it moved to create a better structure to maintain stability among European nation-states. France was not forced to pay crippling indemnities to the victors and its borders were reestablished as they were in 1789, not carved up by occupation forces. In 1818, a defeated France was welcomed into the Holy Alliance (the Quadruple Alliance’s successor). French king Louis XVIII, who was restored to the throne after Napoleon’s defeat, even appointed Talleyrand as his foreign minister, the same position the cold-eyed realist had held throughout the French Revolution and under Napoleon. Following agreements reached at the 1815 Congress of Vienna, the Holy Alliance engineered the longest period of peace that Europe had known, founded on balance of power principles. Except for the 1854 Crimean War, Europe enjoyed broad peace for the first forty years after the Congress. Peace then endured for another sixty years without a general war until 1914. After the huge bloodletting of the Napoleonic Wars, is was the manpower, economic, and general exhaustion that provided a few decades of peace. A couple of generations to produce more bodies for their armies, and ... (NB: these numbers are just approximations from multiple sources) - Russo-Turkish War, 1828-29: over 100,000 Russian, unknown Turkish casualties dead, wounded, captured, or missing - First Schleswig War, 1848-51: 17,000 casualties - Second Schleswig War 1864: 17,000 casualties - The Crimean War, 1853–56: 675,000 casualties - The Franco-Austrian War, 1859: 38,000+ casualties - Austro-Prussian War, 1866: 173,000 casualties Franco-Prussian War, 1870–71: 1,150,000 casualties Russo-Turkish War, 1877–78: 400,000 casualties That doesn't even include the events of 1848. We are already seeing a whole raft of bad takes resulting from the still ongoing war in Ukraine. I've held off, but I couldn't help myself. The only way you would have the conditions for a "Congress of Vienna" would be if NATO APCs were on every street corner in Moscow and the remains of the Russian government east of the Ural mountains. That isn't going to happen. As such, if you desire a long peace in the east you will need to ensure that Ukraine defeats Russia and sends her forces home to deal with their politicians. Give Russia land or create another frozen conflict and war will be back sooner. Either way, war will be back. It always is. Just pick your period of peace and your magnitude. Lawdy, we need to pray for each other. The Smartest People in the Room™will test our patience. Do not let these people claim positions of authority they have not earned by performance. They will just create condition for thousands of others to die for their hubris and vanity - again. View the full article

Americas General Dynamics won a $133.2 million deal for MK80 series general purpose tritonal bomb components. The Mark 80 series are the primary US GP bombs. Army Contracting Command, Rock Island, Illinois, is the contracting activity. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of December 31, 2023. Boeing won a $30,7 million modification, which exercises an option to procure 63 Distributed Targeting Processor – Networked (DTP-N) B-kits (32 for the Navy and 31 for the government of Australia); and 56 DTP-N A1-kits (32 for the Navy and 24 for the government of Australia), as well as DTP-N cyber security support data deliveries in support of DTP-N full rate production to implement anti-surface warfare capability in the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft. Work will take place in St Louis, Missouri, and is expected to be completed in September 2024. Middle East & Africa Israeli developer SpearUAV is unveiling the encapsulated Ninox 103 Sub-to-Air loitering UAS, which – according the company – for the first time enables launch of sub-marine drones into the air, providing immediate beyond-line-of-sight situational awareness. Designed for undetectable, underwater launch, and focusing on existing operational needs, SpearUAV notes that the Ninox 103 sub-to-air is an autonomous AI-based system. Intuitive and easy to operate, it provides the most effective way for submarines, Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs) and other underwater platforms to gain instant aerial capabilities, supporting various missions, including those of Special Forces, reconnaissance, and joint-force operations. Europe The UK Ministry of Defense has launched a Science and Technology Portfolio, supported by more than &2.5 billion worth of investment, the MoD announced on June 7. According to the MoD, the new portfolio plans to work with academia and British industry to accelerate cutting-edge research and development (R&D) of generation-after-next military capabilities. Germany will increase its buy of Boeing P-8A Poseidon maritime multimission aircraft (MMA) as part of a wider increase in the national defence budget. Kommandeur Marineflieger, Sea Captain Thorsten Bobzin, confirmed the additional purchase in early June, which will happen in the context of Germany’s recently announced $107 billion Söndervermögen (special fund) uplift in defense spending. Asia-Pacific According to Janes, Thailand has initiated MS20 configuration upgrades to its fleet of SAAB JAS 39 Gripen C/D multirole combat fighters. A spokesperson for the Royal Thai Air Force (RTAF) said to the news site that the “MS20 system improvement plan is currently in progress and the planned improvements are expected to be completed by 2025”. Today’s Video WATCH: Super Hornet: The Most Lethal Fighter Jet in the World View the full article

Americas Bath Iron Works won a $54.6 million contract modification to exercise options for accomplishment of lead yard support for the DDG 51 class guided missile destroyer program. The DDG 51 class guided missile destroyers are warships that provide multi-mission offensive and defensive capabilities. The majority of work will take place in Maine. Estimated completion will be by June 2023. Vice Adm. John B. Mustin, chief of US Navy Reserve, told the Senate Appropriations Committee’s Defense subcommittee that the Reserve’s number one equipment priority is to buy the C-130J to replace the aging C-130T. The Reserve now operates 19 C-130Ts and 11 KC-130Ts in five fleet logistics support squadrons and the average age is about 30 years. Middle East & Africa General Robotics, an Israeli developer of light and smart remote control weapon stations is set to introduce the latest version of its PITBULL Remote Control Weapons Stations (RCWS), with enhanced AI-driven capabilities, which will enable armored vehicles and unmanned platforms to gain substantial improvement in situational awareness, response rate, and firepower. The new system will be revealed at the Eurosatory 2022 Exhibition, which will take place at Paris in mid-June. Europe The Portuguese Navy is planning to design and build an offshore multi-purpose surface ship dedicated to deploying unmanned surface vessels (USVs), unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs), and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). The local development and construction of the multifunctional naval platform was formally approved by the Council of Ministers on for a maximum amount of $101 million between 2023 and 2025, with funding from the Recovery and Resilience Plan of the European Union. Asia-Pacific The Pacific Air Forces announced that Cope West 22 will take place from June 17-24 at Abdulrachman Saleh Air Force Base, Malang, Indonesia. The 374th Airlift Wing will send two C-130s from Yokota Air Base, Japan. Indonesia will be represented with two C-130s and its crew. According to Nikkei, Japan plans to work with the United States to develop an armed drone for flights along with manned aircraft. The drone will fly in front of the manned aircraft, receiving instructions from the pilot or remote command center and receiving terrain and weather estimates from its artificial intelligence. It will be equipped with early detection technology for missiles and aircraft and anti-missile weapons. Today’s Video WATCH: Nothing Can Kill the Arleigh Burke-class Destroyer View the full article

I wouldn't call this a "secret base" or that much of a surprise. China is secretly building a naval facility in Cambodia for the exclusive use of its military, with both countries denying that is the case and taking extraordinary measures to conceal the operation, Western officials said. The military presence will be on the northern portion of Cambodia’s Ream Naval Base on the Gulf of Thailand, which is slated to be the site of a groundbreaking ceremony this week, according to the officials, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the matter’s sensitivity. The establishment of a Chinese naval base in Cambodia — only its second such overseas outpost and its first in the strategically significant Indo-Pacific region — is part of Beijing’s strategy to build a network of military facilities around the world in support of its aspirations to become a true global power, the officials said. Ummm, China is already a true global power. That official needs to read up. Anyway, dredges have been at work since January. Of course they are going to build a base there. As always, you need to go to the map room, this time WaPo's: Right in the center right of the Gulf of Thailand. Gives ready access to their sandbar bases in the South China Sea and just 450nm from the southern exit of same athwart shipping routes from and en route to the Singapore Strait. Get a handful of any competent maritime and international relations professionals together and ask them, "Where would you put bases if you were advising the Chinese?" This would be on the short list, especially if you know the long shared interests between China and Cambodia going back to <dusts off a library shelf> when they both decided they didn't like Vietnamese. Would you do anything different if you were a growing imperial power with eyes on sea control? The location seems ideal in a few other ways. This gives them a resort location in a relatively unpopulated location. You can see the Cambodian naval base on the right of the below pic - the location of the Chinese naval base under construction is center screen. It is in a well protected bay itself. Almost a cove with a 2-nm diameter. That will do nicely. As her global competitors have moved their distraction from neo-imperial policing actions in Central Asia and the Sahel to a retro European steppe meat grinder, the People's Republic of China steadily, calmly, and with shocking regularity ... progresses along one of her lines of operation, clicking off decisive points as she goes. http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/blogspot/FAFV?d=yIl2AUoC8zA http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/blogspot/FAFV?d=qj6IDK7rITs http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/blogspot/FAFV?i=HWDDwtnc1FI:RJTpwUuWv7I:gIN9vFwOqvQ http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/blogspot/FAFV?i=HWDDwtnc1FI:RJTpwUuWv7I:-BTjWOF_DHI http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/blogspot/FAFV?i=HWDDwtnc1FI:RJTpwUuWv7I:V_sGLiPBpWU http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/blogspot/FAFV?i=HWDDwtnc1FI:RJTpwUuWv7I:F7zBnMyn0Lo View the full article

Americas Raytheon won a $52 million delivery order for the improved Bradley acquisition system Commander’s Viewer Unit. The Bradley fighting vehicle system is manufactured by BAE Systems Land & Armaments (formerly United Defence) and includes the M2 infantry fighting vehicle and the M3 cavalry fighting vehicle. The new Improved Bradley Acquisition System (IBAS) Block 2 includes enhanced capabilities to improve operational efficiencies and lethality and provides life-cycle cost and reliability improvements. The most notable enhancement to IBAS is the high definition high resolution color imagery. The performance completion date is March 31, 2026. Using military service is Army. Army soldiers in Alaska were issued new unit patches Monday as the service activated the long-dormant 11th Airborne Division, part of a sweeping reorganization aimed at prioritizing operations in the Arctic Region. The new division — led by the former Army Alaska commander Maj. Gen. Brian Eifler — will focus almost solely on Arctic and cold-weather combat operations amid the Pentagon’s renewed interest in challenging Russian and Chinese ambitions in the far North. Middle East & Africa Turkey showcased its Karg? kamikaze drone for the first time during exercise EFES-2022. The drone is a product made by Lentatek. Powered by a PG50 engine from TUSA? Engine Industries (TEI), it is expected to replace the IAI Harpy. The ground systems, navigation and automatic flight control system design and production were all developed domestically, as was the system’s software. Israeli company Aeronautics Group introduced the Trojan, an Unmanned Hover Plane (UHP), which bridges the gap between the need to hover and the need to reach long ranges. According to Aeronautics, the system’s capabilities support challenging operational missions while simultaneously performing point-to-multipoint Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR), thereby creating a solution for versatile and dynamic environments, and achieving Wide-Area-Persistent-Surveillance (WAPS). The system’s multi-platform architecture utilizes multiple sensors, together with advanced analytics capabilities, to ensure accurate, reliable, real-time situational awareness. Europe The French Navy’s first Suffren Class (Barracuda) nuclear-powered attack submarine (SSN), Suffren (S 635) , was commissioned into service during a ceremony held in Brest on June 3. This was disclosed by French Minister of Defense Sébastien Lecornu has announced on his official Twitter account. Asia-Pacific The government of India has approved the procurement of military equipment and state-of-the-art platforms worth $9.8 billion from local defense firms. The country’s top procurement body issued an acceptance of necessity (AoN) for the multibillion-dollar military equipment proposal. India’s procurement rules indicate that the AoN is the first step towards buying military hardware. Today’s Video WATCH: Barracuda ClassSubmarine vs Astute Class Submarine Comparison View the full article

When you discover that you need to become a sea power in order to secure your nation and its people ... it can't happen over night. In 1520, the Danish king Kristian II mobilized his fleet and seized Stockholm, thus strengthening his position and control of commerce. In order to oust the Danes and decrease their dominance in the Baltic Sea, Sweden needed a fleet. King Gustav Vasa purchased ten ships equipped with weaponry and arms from Lübeck and they were delivered on 7 June 1522 at Slätbaken, close to Söderköping, and since then, this day has been recorded as the birth of the Swedish Navy. ...sometimes it takes two years and you have to outsource it ... but ever since then - plucky Sweden has been a Baltic seapower. Happy birthday to some great professionals with a great history. Remember, go to settings in YouTube and under closed captioning get it to auto-translate in to English. http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/blogspot/FAFV?d=yIl2AUoC8zA http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/blogspot/FAFV?d=qj6IDK7rITs http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/blogspot/FAFV?i=Kxm4TO_H-8k:yhIMwqA07z4:gIN9vFwOqvQ http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/blogspot/FAFV?i=Kxm4TO_H-8k:yhIMwqA07z4:-BTjWOF_DHI http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/blogspot/FAFV?i=Kxm4TO_H-8k:yhIMwqA07z4:V_sGLiPBpWU http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/blogspot/FAFV?i=Kxm4TO_H-8k:yhIMwqA07z4:F7zBnMyn0Lo View the full article

Americas The United States intends to test-fire the Patriot air defense missile system in Palau on June 15, the island’s ambassador to Washington D.C. has disclosed. The 1st Battalion, 1st Air Defense Artillery Regiment, from Okinawa will be deployed to Palau for this event. The firing is part of Exercise Valiant Shield which will involve Palau and Micronesia for the first time this year. The Patriot unit is to be deployed at Airai, according to Island Times. Laurel Technologies Partnership won an $12 million deal for production of Launch Control Unit (LCU) MK 235 Mod 17 and Mod 18 and associated components in support of the MK 41 Vertical Launch System (VLS). The LCUs are used to select and issue prelaunch and launch commands to selected missiles in the VLS. Work will take place in Pennsylvania. Expected completion will be by July 2023. Middle East & Africa Gürcan Okumu?, manager of Tubitak SAGE, says mass production of the company’s Bozok laser-guided munition has started. He added that a new penetrating warhead has been developed for Bozok and will undergo testing. The range of the weapon has been extended from 8 to 15km. Europe Britain said it will mirror the United States and send long-range missile systems to Ukraine, defying warnings from Russian President Vladimir Putin against supplying Kyiv with the advanced weapons. The UK Ministry of Defence said London had coordinated closely with Washington over its gift of the multiple-launch rocket systems, known as MLRS, to help Ukraine defend itself against Russian aggression. Sweden has joined Finland and Latvia in the research and development of 6×6 armored vehicles based on shared requirements of the participating countries. The participation of Sweden in the initiative will allow the country to have access to the work results. Asia-Pacific The Azerbaijani Armed Forces will adopt cutting-edge technologies developed by Turkish software company HAVELSAN. The development was announced following the TEKNOFEST Azerbaijan Aerospace and Technology Festival conducted in Baku last week. According to HAVELSAN official Mehmet Akif Nacar, the company has been doing business in Azerbaijan over the last two years, which includes providing support to the modernization efforts of the country’s military. Today’s Video WATCH: MiG 41 fighter jet | How far has it been built? View the full article

Along the spectrum from peacetime exercises to wartime combined operations, successfully integrating multinational forces is not a pick-up game. To do it right requires leaders and institutions years of practice, trust, and demonstrated ability. This is true of all military operations, but especially true when moving forces ashore during amphibious operations. In our constellation of allies, partners and friends along the shores of the Indo-Pacific theater, since 2015 the United States Marine Forces Pacific has led the multi-national Pacific Amphibious Leaders Symposium. Today we are going to dive in to not just the symposium itself to the broader topic of combined amphibious operations in the Indo-Pacific with our guest, Major Evan “Zach” Ota, USMC from the International Affairs Branch, U. S. Marine Corps Forces, Pacific. You can get the podcast here or at the player below. If you use iTunes, you can add Midrats to your podcast list simply by clicking the iTunes button at the main showpage - or you can just click here. You can find us on almost all your most popular podcast aggregators as well. http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/blogspot/FAFV?d=yIl2AUoC8zA http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/blogspot/FAFV?d=qj6IDK7rITs http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/blogspot/FAFV?i=NfJj26vi6zU:9dAAaNA9dm0:gIN9vFwOqvQ http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/blogspot/FAFV?i=NfJj26vi6zU:9dAAaNA9dm0:-BTjWOF_DHI http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/blogspot/FAFV?i=NfJj26vi6zU:9dAAaNA9dm0:V_sGLiPBpWU http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/blogspot/FAFV?i=NfJj26vi6zU:9dAAaNA9dm0:F7zBnMyn0Lo View the full article

Dear Naval Historical Foundation Board Members: Attached you will find a series of documents to be reviewed prior to our Board Meeting on Saturday, 11 June 20122. We look forward to seeing you virtually and briefing you on the latest developments. You can find information about the Annual Meeting and Leighton Lecture, and how to attend virtually, HERE. 2022 NHF Annual Meeting Agenda 2021 NHF Annual Meeting Minutes Annual Report The post 2022 NHF Annual Meeting Read-Ahead Materials first appeared on Naval Historical Foundation. View the full article

This D-day anniversary I want to bring out a FbF I've run a few times over the years as it points out one of the hidden parts of the campaign that I want new readers to have a chance to read about. Most attention, rightfully, is paid to the beach and the move inland, but to enable that success, a lot of work was done at sea to keep the beach and seas open ... As the D-Day invasion was ongoing, the German Navy sortied what they could to try to drive the allies back across the channel. The most feared were the U-boats based in France. Please read the whole thing, but here is a nice summary of one of the under-told stories of WWII, Coastal Command. On night. One crew. Two U-boats. Fullbore. “G-George” droned on through the night. Men drank coffee from thermos flasks, kept the chatter to a minimum, scanned the endless sea and began to feel the numbing weariness set in that came with these long over-water patrols. But adrenalin shot through their bloodstreams like amphetamine just after 2 a.m. when Foster announced on the intercom that he had a solid return on his radar 12 miles dead ahead in the vicinity of Ushant Island (Ouessant). It was too early to tell whether it was a French fishing smack or the conning tower of a U-boat. Moore corrected his course slightly to port to put the target in the path of the moon reflecting on the water. Three miles out the conning tower of a submarine was made out in the moonlight. Coastal Command anti-submarine crews were trained to attack the moment a U-boat was detected and without deliberation. An undamaged Type VIIC U-boat, with a well-trained crew could crash dive beneath the surface in 30 seconds. Time was of the essence, as was complete surprise. Immediately, Moore instructed Foster to switch off the radar in case the submarine had detection equipment, and then began to drop lower and lower, adjusting his course to keep the enemy up-moon until he was at 50 feet above the calm surface. McDowall, the navigator, took his position at the bomb sight. Moore ordered the four big bomb doors opened and as they slid upwards and outboard on their rollers, he could hear the hydraulic pumps working and sense the difference in the airflow note down the sides of his warhorse. Approaching the U-boat, which they calculated was making 10–12 knots in a westerly direction, they selected 6 depth charges from their quiver, attacking due south and 90 degrees to the path of the U-boat on her starboard side. Moore chose to leave the powerful 22 million-candela Leigh Light off to further keep their whereabouts secret. As they screamed in for the attack, the spare navigator, Pilot Officer Alec Gibb, DFC sprayed the conning tower with heavy machine gun fire (some 150 rounds according to the after action report) from his position in the nose. Moore and Gibb later stated they could see as many as 8 submariners scrambling from the tower to get to the deck guns. There was some anti-aircraft return fire, but it was too little and too late. They had caught them completely by surprise. As they roared over the submarine at 190 mph, six depth charges, set 55 feet apart, were falling from “G-George’s” bomb bay, having been released by McDowall whose accuracy this night would be perfect. Three fell on either side of the submarine in a textbook straddling attack just ahead of the conning tower. A flame-float, designed to ignite when it hit the water was also dropped to identify the position of the submarine at the moment of attack. The rear gunner Flight Sergeant I. Webb watched in fascination as the detonations exploded white in the moonlight and appeared to lift the 700-ton submarine out of the water. By the time they had climbed, swung around and were homing on the beacon of the flame float at the position of the attack, there was nothing left of the U-boat save for some floating wreckage and the oily slick of diesel fuel. A Type VIIC U-boat had disappeared and ceased to exist in a matter of seconds, the depth charges having done their job breaching the pressure hull and sending one of Karl Dönitz’ hunters to the bottom with all hands. One can only imagine the last minutes of terror for the more than 50 men aboard. Sadly, when this submarine sank, there was no one who could identify which U-boat it was. Postwar accounting pointed to U-629, commanded by Oberleutnant zur See Hans–Helmut Bugs on its 11th war patrol. She had just slipped out of her pen at Brest the day before. Still, other researchers disclaim the U-629 identification, pointing instead to U-441, commanded by Kapitänleutnant Klaus Hartmann on its ninth and final war patrol. It is not my goal to be definitive as to the identity of the fifty or so men killed that night, that best being left to experts in the field. Knowing would bring the story to a satisfying close, but it will not lessen the tragedy or the courage of the U-boat men who died that night. Moore settled his crew down after the last pass over the wreckage, and ordered a course correction to take them back on their patrol. At 0231, just twenty minutes after the first radar contact was made, “G-George” sent a message to command that they had sunk a U-boat. The men were charged with electricity, but they had a job to do and hours before they could return home to St Eval. Just a few minutes later at 0240 hrs, as they settled down at 700 feet ASL, Foster reported another radar contact 10 degrees off the starboard nose, this time just 6 miles ahead. Moore, with information from Foster, began to home in on the target, and at 2.5 miles range and 75 degrees to starboard, they sighted the conning tower of another U-boat on a northwesterly course running at an estimated eight knots on the surface. This time Moore needed to circle to port and come in on a course that would allow them to attack up the moon path. Bringing the big Liberator down to 50 feet once again, Moore approached the U-boat at 110 degrees to its starboard side with plenty of time to set up another perfect attack at 190 mph. The remaining six Torpex depth charges were released at 55-foot intervals as well as a flame float. Again, Gibb, the spare navigator in the nose, was firing his machine gun at the conning tower, which answered this time with flak and tracer fire. As they roared overhead, the rear gunner Webb saw four depth charges strike the water to the starboard side of the U-boat and two on the her port side—another textbook straddling attack. Massive flumes of exploding water were seen rising on either side of the submarine, ten feet aft of the conning tower and totally obscuring the target. Returning to the position of the flame float, Moore, Gibb and Ketcheson saw the U-boat in the bright moonlight, with a heavy list to starboard. As they approached, the bow rose steeply out of the water to an angle of about 80 degrees. The boat slid back into the sea “amid a large amount of confused water” according to the 224 Squadron ORB. Moore circled in fascination and, coming around again, he turned on the powerful Leigh Light slung beneath his starboard wing outboard of engine No. 4. The blinding blue-white beam illuminated three yellow dinghies crowded with men floating on an oily surface strewn with bits of wreckage. One can imagine how exposed the survivors must have felt caught in the white light of the Leigh with a heavily armed Liberator thundering down its beam toward them. They passed overhead without further molesting the surviving crew, switched off the Leigh Light and left the German sailors floating in the moonlight. The submarine was U-373, another Type VIIC boat commanded by Kapitänleutnant Detlef von Lehsten on its 11th war patrol. It had just slipped out of Brest after a six-month repair following a similar attack by a Coastal Command Wellington and Liberator in January. We know for certain that this was U-373 because all but four members of the crew survived to be picked up the next day by French fishing vessels and returned to Brest. Von Lehsten was one of the survivors. Hat tip Al. First posted Sept. 2017. http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/blogspot/FAFV?d=yIl2AUoC8zA http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/blogspot/FAFV?d=qj6IDK7rITs http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/blogspot/FAFV?i=C8b2Ny2KO3U:1J48blwczM4:gIN9vFwOqvQ http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/blogspot/FAFV?i=C8b2Ny2KO3U:1J48blwczM4:-BTjWOF_DHI http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/blogspot/FAFV?i=C8b2Ny2KO3U:1J48blwczM4:V_sGLiPBpWU http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/blogspot/FAFV?i=C8b2Ny2KO3U:1J48blwczM4:F7zBnMyn0Lo View the full article

Americas C4 Planning Solutions won a $236.7 million contract for the procurement of services to support Tactical Systems Support 3 (TSS-3). The TSS-3 contract will be used to issue task orders to provide professional engineering support services to provide US forces worldwide with continuous support of fielded tactical command, control, communications, computers and intelligence (C4I) programs of record to ensure that Marines can successfully set up and operate fielded C4I tactical systems. Work will take place in California, Japan, North Carolina, Germany, Washington DC and Louisiana. The period of performance for the base award is from June 23, 2022, through March 6, 2027. A-10s will be landing on a highway in Michigan on June 28 as part of Exercise Northern Agility 22-1. The Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) will also land an MC-12W and one U-28A aircraft during the event. An MQ-9 from the North Dakota ANG’s 119th Wing will be flying overhead to provide overwatch. Last year, A-10s from Michigan ANG landed on M-32 near Alpena as part of Exercise Northern Strike. This year, the A-10s will practice hot refueling and weapons loading while on the ground. Middle East & Africa Israeli company BIRD Aerosystems will unveil two new products at the Eurosatory 2022 exhibition, which will take place on Mid-June in Paris: Hybrid-Eye, an advanced hybrid detection system that enhances the protection of armored vehicles and µMPR, a miniature airborne radar for ground and maritime border surveillance. Europe A series of “first-ever” events took place during the recently concluded Neptune Shield 2022 exercise. The Super Hornet from USS Harry S. Truman carried out the first aerial refueling of a Spanish AV-8B and Italian F-35B. Asia-Pacific The Australian Department of Defence has released a press statement on June 5 saying that a Chinese J-16 fighter carried out a dangerous maneuver to a Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) P-8 maritime patrol aircraft in South China Sea on May 26. Media reports in Australia provided more details on the incident. The fighter first approach the side of the P-8 and release flares. It then cut across the nose of the P-8 and release chaff. Some chaff were sucked into the engines of the P-8. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said he is aware of the incident and the government is concerned about this incident. South Korea’s Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) has inked a deal with Hyundai Rotem to acquire an unspecified number of wheeled command post vehicles (CPVs). The contract worth $44.7 million – enables Hyundai Rotem to start mass-producing the CPVs, with deliveries to battalion and higher-level units within the Republic of Korea Army (RoKA) and Republic of Korea Marine Corps (RoKMC) to start from 2023. Today’s Video WATCH: China’s New J-16 Electronic Warfare Fighter Shocked The World View the full article

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-v8lmDX5bgFc/UuHSen27fhI/AAAAAAAAH04/WUIUmhEfNQw/s1600/McGinty_JJ.jpg Paul Vitello has a nicely done obit in NYT of a quiet hero from the Vietnam War. Mr. McGinty, who joined the service in 1958 directly after high school, was a drill instructor at the Marine boot camp in Parris Island, S.C., and a brig officer at the Norfolk, Va., naval base before volunteering for duty in Vietnam in 1966. “I didn’t want to be earning my pay guarding a bunch of AWOL sailors,” he told Edwin F. Murphy, author of the 1987 book “Vietnam Medal of Honor Heroes.” Mr. McGinty led one of four platoons in Company K of the Third Battalion, Third Marine Division, during a major sortie in July 1966 known as Operation Hastings. The mission was to block North Vietnamese troops from infiltrating the demilitarized zone between the Communist-led North and the American-backed South. After three days of fighting and severe casualties, American commanders ordered a withdrawal. The four platoons of Company K, led by Capt. Robert J. Modrzejewski, were assigned to provide cover for the pullback.Attention to Citation: Citation For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty. 2d Lt. McGinty's platoon, which was providing rear security to protect the withdrawal of the battalion from a position which had been under attack for 3 days, came under heavy small arms, automatic weapons and mortar fire from an estimated enemy regiment. With each successive human wave which assaulted his 32-man platoon during the 4-hour battle, 2d Lt. McGinty rallied his men to beat off the enemy. In 1 bitter assault, 2 of the squads became separated from the remainder of the platoon. With complete disregard for his safety, 2d Lt. McGinty charged through intense automatic weapons and mortar fire to their position. Finding 20 men wounded and the medical corpsman killed, he quickly reloaded ammunition magazines and weapons for the wounded men and directed their fire upon the enemy. Although he was painfully wounded as he moved to care for the disabled men, he continued to shout encouragement to his troops and to direct their fire so effectively that the attacking hordes were beaten off. When the enemy tried to out-flank his position, he killed 5 of them at point-blank range with his pistol. When they again seemed on the verge of overrunning the small force, he skillfully adjusted artillery and air strikes within 50 yards of his position. This destructive firepower routed the enemy, who left an estimated 500 bodies on the battlefield. 2d Lt. McGinty's personal heroism, indomitable leadership, selfless devotion to duty, and bold fighting spirit inspired his men to resist the repeated attacks by a fanatical enemy, reflected great credit upon himself, and upheld the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and the U.S. Naval Service.Well done Captain ... well done. ... and yes; any citation that has "attacking hordes" in it is well worthy of FbF. First posted in JAN2014. http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/blogspot/FAFV?d=yIl2AUoC8zA http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/blogspot/FAFV?d=qj6IDK7rITs http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/blogspot/FAFV?i=YiTWDzBcNdc:Ar2FaM_Z1yU:gIN9vFwOqvQ http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/blogspot/FAFV?i=YiTWDzBcNdc:Ar2FaM_Z1yU:-BTjWOF_DHI http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/blogspot/FAFV?i=YiTWDzBcNdc:Ar2FaM_Z1yU:V_sGLiPBpWU http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/blogspot/FAFV?i=YiTWDzBcNdc:Ar2FaM_Z1yU:F7zBnMyn0Lo View the full article

Americas South-east Welding & Manufacturing won a $1.2 billion deal for complex repair, maintenance and modernization requirements of non-nuclear Navy Surface Combatant (CG, DDG, and AMPHIB) class ships homeported in or visiting San Diego, California, homeport. These efforts consist of Chief of Naval Operations-scheduled docking and non-docking; continuous maintenance; and emergent maintenance availabilities of Surface Combatant class ships to be performed in the San Diego, California, port. Delivery orders will be competitively awarded under these contracts, which are to be performed in San Diego, California. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, DC, is the contracting activity. FEW Inc. won a $49.2 million contract to manufacture, produce, inspect, store, stage and ship mortar systems. Bids were solicited via the internet with four received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of May 28, 2027. Middle East & Africa Israeli company DSIT Solutions has unveiled its task force underwater security system KnightShield, at the UDT 2022 Exhibition in the Netherlands. The system supports task force underwater protection, simultaneously protecting multiple ships anchored at ports, port entrances, and designated areas of port basins from swimmers, UAVs, SDVs and sabotage attempts. According to DSIT, based on the sophisticated technology implemented in PointShield, the company’s advanced Diver Detection Sonar (DDS) Systems, KnightShield covers medium ranges in ports, delivering exceptional reliability and precision. Europe The Royal Navy’s current stock of Tomahawk cruise missiles will be upgraded to the Block V standard. The weapon will arm the Royal Navy’s Astute-Class submarines, allowing them to strike targets at a range of up to 1,000 miles. The Foreign Military Sale contract, worth $333 million, will commence in July and BAE Systems, Babcock International and Lockheed Martin will provide technical and maintenance support. The contract includes spares, operational flight testing, software, hardware and training provisions. The first Block V missile will be ready in 2024. The US and Germany pledged Wednesday to equip Ukraine with some of the advanced weapons it has long desired for shooting down aircraft and knocking out artillery, as Russian forces closed in on capturing a key city in the east. Germany said it will supply Ukraine with up-to-date anti-aircraft missiles and radar systems, while the US announced it will provide four sophisticated, medium-range rocket systems and ammunition. The Swedish Defence Materiel Administration has contracted Saab to conduct studies related to the development of future fighter aircraft technologies. The aircraft manufacturer announced the $25. million deal on June 1, saying that the study will be “preparatory in nature, and its purpose is to widen the work on how future combat air capabilities can be developed and realised” Asia-Pacific Two private-sector Indian defense firms have announced that they will co-operate in the research and development of a submarine-launched unmanned aerial system (UAS). According to an industry source, the UAS will comprise the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) plus a specialised underwater launch canister. Today’s Video WATCH: Tomahawk vs. Kalibr Cruise Missile View the full article

The greatest tragedies from war, both directly and indirectly, are those that were clearly foreseen, knowable, or otherwise clear as day to anyone who wanted to see them. They did not happen in the shadows, they were allowed to happen because people with access to levers of power did not want to expend personal, professional, or real capital to take steps to prevent something that would be too horrible to think of should they come to pass. Little pain now to avoid great pain later is a more difficult concept to accept than it seems. The world in complicated. It is a human failing to not want to expend effort NOW to prevent something that will force harder effort in the future. Now one can feel ... the future you cannot - until it arrives. I should perhaps hedge a bit on the above "clearly foreseen." No one can perfectly see the future, and you have to be careful not to unnecessarily judge those who failed to take action earlier. There can be a lot of reasons. The most charitable one would be that they were just, "wrong." For some reason - perhaps hope, ignorance, or not fully appreciated multi-vector risk weighting - a decision was made not to act early because there wasn't really a threat. That does not take away responsibility and accountability, but it does perhaps mitigate the weight of future's judgement. An uncharitable judgement would be gross incompetence, laziness, or corruption. A call that is subjective and sometimes forgivable is if a person, a nation, or an alliance simply decides, "Not my problem." At that time it becomes a moral, ethical, or perhaps even legal question from people's hearts to The Hague - pick your destination. The issue today has to do with a problem clear since February - war between Russia and Ukraine will disrupt global food supplies, especially in the poorest part of the world. All The Smartest People in the Room™ told the usual suspects that it would be a short war. These were the same people who were trying to tell the President of Ukraine that he needed to retreat to Lviv or even leave the country because all their wargames and think tank types told them Russia would defeat Ukraine in less than a week, maybe even ... their favorite self-delusional time block ... 72-hours. ...but no, as is usual from Kabul to Benghazi, The Smartest People in the Room™ are not. They are simply not good at their jobs. No short war ... but what we do have is a slow rolling train wreck that has the potential to kill millions and bring civil chaos across the planet's most fragile nations. Time is running out to get Ukrainian agricultural products to the world market already suffering spiking prices and supply problems, but to do so risks greater risks as well. Nothing happens or doesn't happen in this case, in isolation. Due to Russian threats, mines, and a general lack of security in the Black Sea, there is an effective blockade of much of Africa and the Middle East's breadbasket. From John Konrad at gCaptain and Sal Mergogliano to many others - warnings for months have been out there trying to get everyone's attention - with mixed results. It is almost as if The Smartest People in the Room™ want Ukraine to be defeated soon, or at least agree to throw chunks of their nation to the Russian aggressor, so The Smartest People in the Room™ won't have to do anything icky or - even worse - to take the blame for the disaster that is so clearly in the making. Then again, they have generally been given a pass for the horrors of Libya that they created, so maybe they can cover for each other again in this case. They do not control everyone however. There are some nations and leaders - sadly not the most powerful or influential - who are doing their best to set an example for others, or at least let the record show that they tried and by doing show, put others on report. The former Soviet Republics of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania along with the former Warsaw Pact nations of Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, and Romania - all NATO members - have from the start led from the front more than any other in what I consider the most clear headed moral stance towards Russian aggression. In pointing out the second and third order effects of the war they are also leading. Note the latest from Lithuania; FM 🇱🇹 @GLandsbergis on @CNN: The only option is still try and see how to unblock the Port of #Odessa 🇺🇦 [for grain export] <..> If 🇷🇺 don't allow [to unblock] it, we, as a global community, need to find a solution how to do it without Russian agreement. 🔗https://t.co/9ml6LaCaNK pic.twitter.com/tVuVPHXafj — Lithuania MFA | #StandWithUkraine (@LithuaniaMFA) June 2, 2022 A hard fact here is that there is not much more a nation like Lithuania can do. She only has a population of 2.8 million souls. She only has a navy of 600 personnel on the other side of Europe with a fleet of mostly old mine sweepers and patrol ships. She can help in the margins, but ... really ... besides that all she has is her voice. Let's look at his call to action, "...find a solution how to (unblock grain exports) without Russian agreement."What he is calling for is to break a blockade. OK, "we" can do that - but first you need to define, "we." Before we take that step, let me just state the obvious ... if we have a proper NATO and senior leadership all this was done months ago. I was once a NATO planner, we - once "officially" without permission - would begin planning possible operations with a few COAs ready to go on a regular basis for things we saw bubbling up. COAs for getting Ukrainian grain out of the Black Sea is clearly something NATO's Joint Forces Command Naples - led by a US Navy 4-star Admiral - should already have in the can - hopefully in the middle of Revision-1 before 87.6% of NATO goes on holiday in five weeks. If not, fire everyone. I would also offer that the USA is the indispensable nation here. No one will move without us. The UN, EU, and even NATO usual processes are simply too slow. We can throw a NATO flag over it, but if it is to happen, it has to be a USA lead. As we've covered here before, half of the Black Sea coast is NATO from Romania to Turkey, but we would be so lucky to make it that easy. 1. So, "we." First you need the Turks onboard. JFC Naples' has a Turkish Navy 2-star as their CJ4, so CJ00 has one of his Deputy COS with a direct line for unofficial help, but really this is a Department of State issue to resolve with the uniformed services in support. I know. I know. 2. Then you have to find a coalition of the willing from allied nations and all the national caveats involved there. Messy, but doable. Some I know are just waiting for the invitation. 3. Then you need the merchant ships, their owners, and their mariners willing to make the run. Bags of money can do wonders here. 4. Then you need the right people in DC and Brussels to have reasonable conversations with the Russians. Ungh. Hopefully if step 4 is taken care of, you can make 1, 2, and 3 go rather smoothly with just some minesweepers and helos. If 4 is unsuccessful, then 1-4 is varsity football. Running an opposed blockade is risky at best, an invitation to war at worst - you need to be ready. The international community needs to make a decision if getting grain to market in time to avoid a wildfire of famine and instability leading to the death of millions is worth risking a wider war in Europe that could, possibly, lead to the death of millions or - if you wanted to wargame Blue Most Dangerous COA vs Red Most Dangerous COA - hundreds of millions. That is the call. As it is already June and the war shows no end in sight, it may be too late anyway to stop the chain of events to famine and chaos, but we'll see. At least Lithuania can stand tall and say, "I did what I could." The ball is now in the court of Turkey, the United States, Great Britain, France & Italy - in that order. Those are the nations who need to make this happen, do that Bulgaria and Romania will fall in line as will others. The calendar is not on anyone's side here ... except for the Russians as they don't care - and really for the Turks too. Sad secret here is that they will use the threat of famine and chaos across the globe to extract as much gain for them as possible. The worst the CNN-effect, the greater leverage they will have. Remember that. http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/blogspot/FAFV?d=yIl2AUoC8zA http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/blogspot/FAFV?d=qj6IDK7rITs http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/blogspot/FAFV?i=R6OKwXOgbEU:5ItCSjl0hAo:gIN9vFwOqvQ http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/blogspot/FAFV?i=R6OKwXOgbEU:5ItCSjl0hAo:-BTjWOF_DHI http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/blogspot/FAFV?i=R6OKwXOgbEU:5ItCSjl0hAo:V_sGLiPBpWU http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/blogspot/FAFV?i=R6OKwXOgbEU:5ItCSjl0hAo:F7zBnMyn0Lo View the full article

Americas The Government of Canada has awarded Bell Textron Canada Limited (BTCL) of Mirabel, Quebec, a contract valued at nearly $800 million for the extension of the life of the Royal Canadian Air Force’s CH-146 Griffon helicopter fleet into the mid-2030s. The contract affects 85 helicopters. According to the contract, BTCL will modify the first 9 helicopters and then manage a competitive process to award subcontracts to suppliers to modify the remaining 76 helicopters. Lockheed Martin won a $34.7 million contract modification for the C-5 Super Galaxy Replacement Multi-Functional Control Display Program. The modification provides for engineering and technical services to produce a hardware and software prototype architecture for transition into the engineering and manufacturing development phase. Work will take place Texas. Expected completion date will be by May 31, 2025. Middle East & Africa General Dynamics Land Systems won a $38.9 million modification for Abrams Systems technical support. Work will take place in Michigan. Estimated completion date is April 30, 2023. Fiscal 2020 Foreign Military Sales (Kuwait) funds; fiscal 2022 other procurement, Army funds; and fiscal 2022 operation and maintenance, Army funds in the full amount were obligated at the time of the award. Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd. is showcasing a diverse array of defense solutions and systems at the Hemus International Defense and Services Exhibition in Bulgaria from June 1-4. At Hemus 2022, RAFAEL will exhibit a variety of its solutions, for air, land and naval applications, with a special focus on Bulgaria’s defense programs and requirements. This includes the country’s 8X8 combat vehicle program, where RAFAEL offers a complete package of systems to enable and enhance full ground combat vehicle survivability, maneuverability and lethality. Europe German government and opposition party leaders are lobbying their members to approve a constitutional change that would secure a $108 billion defense fund announced by Chancellor Olaf Scholz in late February, days after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The fund, which is meant to plug holes in equipment and ammunition, will be key to setting Germany on course for the NATO-agreed goal of spending 2% of gross domestic product on defense. Asia-Pacific The Philippine Air Force (PAF) declared that the two T129 attack helicopters that were delivered in March this year are now fully mission capable. The declaration came just after the crews had completed a gunnery competition dubbed Sanay Tudla 2 last month. Today’s Video WATCH: Just How Big is America’s C-5M Super Galaxy View the full article

I may have to add Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) to my list of navalist leaders of merit on The Hill. My first reaction was to be mad that I had not made this point first ... but I will gladly enjoy this exceptionally important point being made by a Senator to the CNO in such a public manner; Via Caitlin Kenney at Defense News; “I think this committee wants to make sure we're providing our warfighters with the necessary funding to ensure that the equipment they're using is adequately maintained. It's pretty basic,” Tester told Adm. Mike Gilday, chief of naval operations; and Gen. David Berger, Marine Corps commandant. “That means getting the necessary spare parts and safety equipment up front, not after something like this happens.” He noted that the Navy and Marine Corps’ unfunded priorities lists—items that service leaders want but not enough to devote part of this year’s budget to—include some categories of spare parts for warships, F/A-18 fighter jets, MH-60S helicopters, and more. Tester wondered why spare parts would be on the unfunded priorities lists “when this seems pretty basic, at least to my perspective, as to making sure that we're keeping folks safe and effective in the field.” Let's take a moment to go back to the summer of 2017 ... a half decade ago. We, yes we, drowned 17 of our Sailors in their berthing because our senior leadership did not man, train, or equip our Navy properly. As we discussed in detail at the time, just prior to the incident our Navy was bragging - on one of the ships nonetheless - that the already undermanned ship was in addition to doing not just its regular required maintenance, but depot level maintenance as well because ... depot level maintenance facilities wouldn't/couldn't do it. Both ships were think with missing parts, broken equipment, untrained watchstanders. Basic stuff. Equipment was CASREP'd all over the place on those ships as well as others in the fleet. Those who have been at sea also know not everything is CASREP'd that should be. More parts are always needed than the reports say. ... and yet, here we are in 2022 and the CNO has to be confronted by a Senator that - hey - shouldn't you take care of what you have first before you ask for more? Any homeowner knows that before you head on that Hawaiian vacation you need to patch the leaking roof, replace the broken water heater, unclog the girls' shower drain ... the basic stuff. You also don't but a new car because the old one is running rough because you've skipped two regular oil changes and scheduled maintenance because you wanted to buy a few boat instead. Etc ... etc ... but it isn't as sexy, is it? “So that's why in both our budget, with the secretary's help, and also in my unfunded list, we're trying to get back to where we need to be,” Gilday said. “You can't fool the fleet, you can't fool sailors, they know when they don't have the stuff that they need. And so, in our trips out to the fleet we've heard loud and clear that supply parts have been a problem. The GAO report confirmed that for us, and so we're trying to make things right with respect to spares.” Those comments, Tester said, indicates to him that the spare parts should not have been placed on the Navy’s unfunded list. “Sir, it's a valid point,” Gilday acknowledged. Yes, yes it is. It isn't a new point either. BZ to Senator Tester. May he, Senator Cotton, Representatives Gallagher, Luria, Banks, Waltz and more who show they understand the maladministration of our Navy keep the hard questions - the pointed questions - to our senior uniformed and civilian leadership. Make their actions worthy of the Navy they lead. http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/blogspot/FAFV?d=yIl2AUoC8zA http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/blogspot/FAFV?d=qj6IDK7rITs http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/blogspot/FAFV?i=-8NBoCgsVu4:ehYwNdGqdMI:gIN9vFwOqvQ http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/blogspot/FAFV?i=-8NBoCgsVu4:ehYwNdGqdMI:-BTjWOF_DHI http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/blogspot/FAFV?i=-8NBoCgsVu4:ehYwNdGqdMI:V_sGLiPBpWU http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/blogspot/FAFV?i=-8NBoCgsVu4:ehYwNdGqdMI:F7zBnMyn0Lo View the full article

C-5 Galaxy (click to view full) When it was introduced, back in 1970, the C-5 Galaxy was the largest plane in the world. It also has the highest operating cost of any US Air Force weapon system, owing to extremely high maintenance demands as well as poor fuel economy. Worse, availability rates routinely hover near 50%. To add insult to injury, the Russians not only built a bigger plane (the AN-124), they sold it off at the end of the Cold War to semi-private operators, turning it into a commercial success whose customer list now includes… NATO. Meanwhile, the USA still needs long-range, heavy load airlift. The AN-124’s commercial success may get its production line restarted, but the C-5 has no such hope. Boeing’s smaller C-17s cost more than $200 million per plane. That’s about the cost of a 747-8 freighter, for much higher availability rates than the C-5, and a longer lifespan. Sunrise? Sunset? (click to view full) What’s the right balance between new C-17s and existing C-5s? The US Air Force believes that the right balance involves keeping some of the larger C-5s, and thought they could save money by upgrading and renewing their avionics (AMP) and engines (RERP). Their hope was that this would eliminate the problems that keep so many C-5s in the hangar, cut down on future maintenance costs, and grow airlift capacity, without adding new planes. Unfortunately, the program experienced major cost growth. In response, the C-5M program wound up being both cut in size, and cut in 2. The C-5A and C-5B/C fleets are now slated for different treatment, which will deliver fewer of the hoped-for benefits, in exchange for lower costs and lower risk. The C-5’s AMP-RERP The Problem: Less Than Reliable C-5 Refuels from KC-135 KC-135 = 707 airliner! (click to view full) From Air Force Magazine: “The Galaxy also has major problems, as was glaringly apparent during one particular C-5’s trip from Dover to Europe. As it readied for takeoff, an engine warning light appeared in the cockpit. The flight crew taxied the airplane back to the apron, the passengers got off, and maintenance crews investigated. After the problem was fixed and the passengers had reboarded, the aircraft headed out again, but another warning light came one – this time during the takeoff run. Five more times, the C-5 attempted to leave, and each time there was a glitch. Airborne at last, the heavily laden giant lumbered up to cruising altitude, but, some 100 miles out over the Atlantic, yet another warning light came on – this time, a landing gear door seemed ajar. The airplane returned to Dover for yet another repair. The C-5 finally reached its destination in Europe – but more than 18 hours late.” Stories like this also help to explain why the C-5 has the highest operating cost of any Air Force weapon system. The programs designed to address these cost & reliability problems are called AMP (Avionic Modernization Program) and RERP (Reliability Enhancement & Re-Engining Program). To keep them straight in your head, think of AMP as amping up the Galaxy’s electronics for the modern era, and RERP as putting a bit more roar in its engines. C-5s are currently assigned to: Dover Air Force Base, Delaware (USAF, C-5B) Travis AFB, California (USAF) Lackland AFB, Texas (USAF) Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio (USAF) Martinsburg Air National Guard Base, West Virginia Memphis ANGB, Tennessee Stewart ANGB, New York; and Westover Air Reserve Base, Massachusetts Changing the C-5: AMP Before: C-5 cockpit (click to view full) AMP is the first step. Its main purpose is to equip the aircraft to fly in civil airspace by the most direct routes, at the most advantageous altitudes, with the most efficient fuel usage and cargo loads. The new avionics systems will allow the aircraft to comply with reduced vertical separation mandates, and also provides an architecture flexible enough to meet future communications, navigation, surveillance (CNS) and air traffic management (ATM) requirements. AMP is also trying to reduce the number of devices and wires in the planes, to reduce costs and improve reliability. All told, 12,000 wires are removed, and 4,000 are installed, during a C-5 AMP. The program has displayed a philosophy of making its additions using as much commercial equipment as possible, rather than insisting on all-militarized systems. Riding on the development work spurred by changing commercial requirements, rather than funding development on its own, is a change for USAF procurement, but they get a very modern system that way. In addition to the substitution of digital “glass cockpit” computer screen displays, key Global Air Traffic Management avionics include: Future Air Navigation System (FANS) data link Aeronautical operational communications (AOC) data link VHF com, 8.33-KHz spacing Multimode receiver (MMR) with protected ILS, VOR, microwave landing system (MLS) and marker beacon Dual, embedded inertial navigation system (INS)/GPS Identification, friend or foe (IFF)/Mode S transponder Traffic alert collision avoidance system II (TCAS II), Version 7, (added earlier) Enhanced ground proximity warning system (EGPWS) Backup air traffic control (ATC) data link printer, and Versatile Integrated Avionics (VIA) software system, with six primary “partitions” or applications, such as: flight management, com/nav/surveillance/identification (CNSI), com management, display services and all-weather flight control. Even after all these efforts, however, the AMP’s digital avionics offer only minor reliability improvements to the aircraft as a whole. What they will do, is allow the aircraft to operate with fewer restrictions in civil airspace. They also lay the required foundation for the major improvements expected in the follow-on Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining Program (RERP). Many of the RERP phase’s improvements, which will make a much bigger difference to the C-5’s reliability rates, require the rewiring and improvements made during the AMP phase, in order to work properly. As USAF Mobility Division Chief for Global Reach Programs Colonel Brunderman notes: “AMP puts a digital backbone into the aircraft. It replaces a lot of legacy analog dial systems that are no longer supportable and are getting unreliable and puts them into a digital format. AMP also allows the aircraft to interface with the digital controls on the new engines that come in the RERP phase.” Changing the C-5: RERP TF39 on C-5 (click to view full) RERP’s core improvement is the addition of modern F138-GE-100 jet engines, derived from General Electric’s CF6-80C2s that power many Boeing 747s (including the President’s Air Force One), 767s, Airbus 300 and 310s, and other commercial aircraft. The full 2-part upgrade aims to lift the C-5’s mission capability rate from the present level of 55-60% to better than 75%. Lead contractor Lockheed Martin also claims the combined AMP and RERP upgrades will reduce the Air Force’s total ownership cost fleet-wide by 34% over the C-5M’s remaining life span. These new CF6 engines deliver more than 50,000 pounds of thrust each, allowing the C-5Ms to carry more than 270,000 pounds, and to take off and land in distances as short as 5,000 feet. In comparative terms, they deliver 22% more takeoff thrust, achieve 30% shorter takeoff distances, enable 58% faster time-to-climb to cruising altitude (an important metric in dangerous environments, where getting above 15,000 feet makes you a lot safer), and have a 99.98% departure reliability rate in commercial service, providing a 10-fold improvement in reliability and maintainability over the C-5 fleet’s existing TF39 engines. In 2002, Lockheed Martin awarded GE a $126 million contract to provide CF6-80C2 engines for the C-5M SDD phase. Following a successful SDD phase, the production phase could have called for upwards of 500 F-138 engines, plus service support, at a potential value of $2.6 billion to GE over the life of the multi-year program. In practice, the narrowing of the RERP program to just 42 aircraft means orders for about 170-190 F138 engines. The C-5s’ RERP phase will also install full-authority digital engine controls (FADECs) that improve their performance and fuel efficiency, updated fault monitoring and recording systems, and much else. Work will cover hydraulic, fuel, fire suppression and pressurization subsystems as well as auxiliary power units, air conditioning systems, landing gear and the airframe. After: C-5M cockpit (click to view full) After completing the entire modernization program, the C-5s will be renamed the C-5M Galaxy aircraft. The 2 new configurations (C-5 AMP, C-5M) will also create follow-on contracts to modify training devices, etc. to the new standards. The first test C-5M flew on June 19/06, and the first production C-5M flew in September 2010. The production rate goal for C-5Ms is an 8-month turnaround on the modernization, which translates into 11 converted aircraft per year at peak production. The Air Force planned to “RERP” 2 C-5Bs and 1 C-5A to verify the hoped-for performance and reliability boost. A production decision on the re-engining program was expected in FY 2007, but did not take place until February 2008. In the end, the C-5A fleet was excluded from the RERP phase altogether. Some were even excluded from the AMP phase, which means the overall C-5 fleet will shrink. The C-5 AMP/RERP Program Note that figures after 2015 involve fleet sustainment and modernization, which won’t really stop until the planes are retired from service. C-5 Upgrade Programs: Budgets Decisions, Decisions: The C-5 Gamble C-5 over Atlantic City (click to view full) The initial C-5 program delivered 80 aircraft. A 2nd construction program in 1981-1986 delivered 50 more; 4 have been lost in crashes, for a total fleet of 126. Each C-5 aircraft can carry 265,000 pounds of cargo for 4,000 miles (roughly double that of the newer C-17A), or 125,000 pounds for 8,000 miles. Its hinged nose can even be raised to make loading or unloading easier, and the Galaxy’s ability to lift even the heaviest main battle tanks into theater made it a critical part of the trans-oceanic air bridge that would reinforce Europe or Korea in the event of an enemy attack. During the 2003 run-up to Operation Iraqi Freedom I, C-5s proved their worth again as they removed logistics bottlenecks in Europe. If results and cost projections had been more positive, up to 112 total C-5A, C-5B and C-5C aircraft would have gone through the 2-phase AMP/RERP upgrade, which is currently scheduled to begin in 2008 and continue through to 2014. The C-5Ms would then be expected to serve until 2040. The key is that word “if”. As the US Air Force Association explains: “The C-5 Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining Program, or RERP, has been the catch-22 of mobility for several years. If the upgrade works, USAF won’t need more new C-17s. If it waits and then the RERP doesn’t work, the C-17 line will be closed, leaving no strategic lift option.” The twin questions facing the program remain cost, and effectiveness. USAF acquisition executive Sue Payton told a Senate committee in late 2007 that per-aircraft costs for C-5 AMP/RERP had ballooned to $146.7 million. In contrast, Lockheed Martin business ventures vice president Larry McQuien stood by the company’s $83 million price commitment, and said that even if additional Air Force costs like training, spare parts, support equipment, and unanticipated repairs were thrown in, the per-aircraft price would not exceed $118 million. Officially, the Air Force won that argument. Per USAF estimates, Secretary of the Air Force Michael Wynne declared the C-5 program to be in breach of Nunn-McCurdy notification provisions. That law requires the US military to notify Congress if a program is more than 15% over its baseline budget, and rejustify it if the increase is over 25%. The USAF estimate was significantly more than a 25% increase, and some senior officials began to have second thoughts. If RERP’s stated objective is to boost the overall reliability of about 100 C-5s by 10 percentage points, goes the thinking, that equates to adding 10 aircraft to the fleet. If the cost to complete the program is $16-17 billion, that’s over $1.6 billion per extra plane. Of course, one reply may add, the 10% readiness increase happens now – but what if the real difference is that without AMP/RERP, readiness rates continue to get worse, or sudden structural issues surface? What if half-way through their remaining airframe life, worsening issues with engines, wires, maintenance etc. mean that only 20% of the unmodified C-5s can fly? That would create a much higher future readiness gain for the modernization program, but those cost-benefit scenarios become more complex to calculate, involving probability estimates, the value of having certainty, plus capacity tradeoffs and load pattern analysis. How many replacement aircraft would be required to replace lost C-5s, and what would that cost? Heavy Metal In the end, the USAF and Department of Defense separated the C-5s into 62 C-5 AMP-only aircraft, and 49 C-5M AMP/RERP aircraft. Further cuts appear to have reduced the C-5A+ AMP buy to just 79 planes total, leaving 27 C-5 AMPs and 52 C-5Ms. The estimated cost of the new program drops to just $7.5 billion, but C-5A+ aircraft would be expected to show only minor readiness improvements, and maintenance of their engines will be a growing issue as the fleet ages. Lean Six Sigma initiatives and performance-based maintenance contracts will be used to try to address the readiness gap. Whether they will be successful remains an open question. If not, studies were undertaken to see if the C-5 has a future as a civilian cargo aircraft, after all. With that low readiness rate, however, it’s unlikely. Contracts & Key Events Swiftly flow the years… (click to view full) Unless otherwise noted, all contracts are issued to Lockheed Martin in Marietta, GA by the USAF’s Headquarters Aeronautical Systems Center at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH. Note that the collection of entries becomes less complete before 2006. FY 2014-2020 IOC achieved. C-5M (click to view full) June 2/22: Control Display Lockheed Martin won a $34.7 million contract modification for the C-5 Super Galaxy Replacement Multi-Functional Control Display Program. The modification provides for engineering and technical services to produce a hardware and software prototype architecture for transition into the engineering and manufacturing development phase. Work will take place Texas. Expected completion date will be by May 31, 2025. December 11/20: Common Source Database McCallie Associates won a $27.6 million contract for C-5M sustainment. This contract is for the delivery of technical data for organizational maintenance of the C-5M using a common source database. The C-5M Super Galaxy strategic transport aircraft, a modernized version of the legacy C-5, was designed and manufactured by Lockheed Martin to extend the capability of the C-5 Galaxy fleet to remain in service at least until 2040. The C-5M Super Galaxy transport aircraft achieved initial operational capability (IOC) in February 2014. Work will take place in Nebraska. Expected completion date is June 9, 2025. July 16/20: Visor Door Actuator Thomas Instrument won a $7.1 million deal for the depot-level overhaul of the C-5 visor door actuator. The Lockheed C-5 Galaxy is a large military transport aircraft originally designed and built by Lockheed and now maintained and upgraded by its successor, Lockheed Martin. It provides the USAF with a heavy intercontinental-range strategic airlift capability, one that can carry outsized and oversized loads, including all air-certifiable cargo. The C-5 Galaxy’s development was complicated, including significant cost overruns, and Lockheed suffered significant financial difficulties. Shortly after entering service, cracks in the wings of many aircraft were discovered and the C-5 fleet was restricted in capability until corrective work was completed. The C-5M Super Galaxy is an upgraded version with new engines and modernized avionics designed to extend its service life beyond 2040. Work will take place in Brookshire Texas. Expected completion date is July 13, 2025. February 14/20: F-138 Repair Canadian Commercial Corp. won a $225 million contract for F-138 and component repair. F138 is the U.S. military designation of the General Electric CF6-80C2 high-bypass turbofan engine produced by GE Aviation. It powers the US Air Force’s Lockheed C-5M Super Galaxy heavy strategic transport aircraft, the largest aircraft in the US military inventory. The aircraft has four F138 engines and each delivers a thrust of 51,000 lbf. The Canadian Commercial Corporation is a Canadian federal Crown corporation mandated to facilitate international trade on behalf of Canadian industry, particularly with governments of foreign countries. Canadian Crown corporations are state-owned enterprises owned by the Sovereign of Canada. This contract provides the Air Force with the depot repair support required for the F-138 engine and components. Work will take lace in Richmond, British Columbia and is expected to be finished by February 11, 2030. June 19/19: Super Galaxy Production The US Air Force awarded the federal Canadian Commercial Corporation a $10.4 million firm-fixed-price contract for C5M Super Galaxy Communication, Navigation, and Surveillance/Air Traffic Management Production. The C5M strategic transport aircraft is a modernized version of the C5 Galaxy. Lockheed Martin manufactured the aircraft to extend the capability of the C-5 fleet to remain in service at least until 2040. The C-5M Super Galaxy transport aircraft achieved initial operational capability in February 2014. The aircraft set 89 world aeronautical records to date. Work will take place in Ottawa, Canada and is scheduled to be complete by the end of October this year. January 31/19: Engineering Support The Air Force contracted Honeywell International Aerospace $85.7 million for C-5 Honeywell software and engineering support services. The C-5 Galaxy is the primary lift aircraft in the US military for moving outsized cargo to global theaters of operation. It is distinct for having both front and rear cargo ramps allowing for much faster load and offload operations. The US Air Force operates the Lockheed C-5 since 1969. The C-5M Super Galaxy is an upgraded version with new engines and modernized avionics designed to extend its service life beyond 2040. Honeywell’s Versatile Integrated Avionics for C-5M Super Galaxy uses line replaceable units with shared functions to lower weight, reduce wiring and decrease spares inventory. New board Honeywell’s solution is based on key advances that were made by the company in the development and implementation of the advanced avionics architecture. Work for the new deal will take place in Arizona, Puerto Rico, Washington, and New Mexico and is scheduled to be completed by the end of January 2025. January 14/19: Sustainment services Lockheed Martin won a deal worth $131.6 million for sustainment engineering services for the C-5 military transport aircraft. The C-5 is the Air Force’s largest plain and features a nose cargo door and a kneeling nose gear, which allow for drive-on capability. The aircraft can haul twice as much cargo as any other airlifter. It has been in service for the US Air Force since 1969 and supported military operations in all major conflicts. The Air Force currently owns 52 Super Galaxy aircraft, which are only assigned to four units worldwide. Contracting activity is the Air Force Life Cycle Management. Work is scheduled to be finished by January 25, 2019. October 23/18: Upgrades Honeywell International is being tapped to support the Air Force’s fleet of C-5M Super Galaxy transport aircraft. Under this $7.8 million firm-fixed-priced order the company will be responsible to upgrade 85 Versatile Integrated Avionics/Avionics Integrated Units (VIA/AIU) to the 905 configuration. The upgrades are part of the Galaxy’s Global Air Traffic Management (GATM) avionics program. The VIA software system has six primary “partitions” or applications that include flight management, com/nav/surveillance/identification (CNSI), communication management, display services and all-weather flight control. The C-5M VIA/AIU repair and upgrade effort is a key component to the overall Core Mission Computer/Weather Radar aircraft modification/installation kit that replaces the current mission computer, and replaces the weather radar with a commercial off-the-shelf color weather radar. Work will be perfumed at Honeywell’s location in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and is expected to be completed by June 14, 2020. August 7/18: Ready to Lift The Air Force is now in possession of a completely refurbished fleet of C-5M Super Galaxy transport planes. The US Air Force Air Mobility Command began a program to modernize the C-5s in 1998 after a study concluded the decades-old aircraft had 80% of their service life remaining. AMP is the first step. Its main purpose is to equip the aircraft to fly in civil airspace by the most direct routes, at the most advantageous altitudes, with the most efficient fuel usage and cargo loads. AMP is also trying to reduce the number of devices and wires in the planes, to reduce costs and improve reliability. RERP’s core improvement is the addition of modern F138-GE-100 jet engines, derived from General Electric’s CF6-80C2s that power many commercial airliners. The C-5 is capable of carrying two 78-ton M1A1 main battle tanks or helicopters and other large equipment intercontinental distances. Over the years Lockheed Martin upgraded a total of 52 C-5s with new engines, avionics and diagnostic systems, which will keep the airlifters flying until the 2040s. October 25/17: Lockheed Martin has been awarded a $14.7 million US Air Force (USAF) contract to enhance the automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast out system, among other parts of the communications system on the C-5. Work to be undertaken include C-5 communications, navigation, surveillance/air traffic management engineering and manufacturing development program and incorporates the automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast out technology. Work will be completed at Marietta, Ga., and is expected to be completed by September 25, 2019. Lockheed’s C-4 Galaxy has been in service since 1970 and is one of the world’s largest transport aircraft. July 16/14: #21 delivered. C-5M Super Galaxy #87-0044 leaves Marietta, GA as the 3rd C-5M destined for Travis AFB, CA. Sources: Lockheed Martin Code One Magazine, “Travis No. 3”. June 30/14: #20 delivered. A C-5M Super Galaxy leaves Marietta, GA for Travis AFB, CA. Aircraft 85-0010 was delivered 28 days ahead of the contracted schedule. Sources: Lockheed Martin, “Another C-5M Goes West”. June 18/14: RERP-6: Convert 11. A $222.9 million fixed-price C-5M RERP contract modification pays to modify a total of 11 C-5 aircraft, using the appropriate kits. This brings the Lot 6 total to $882.3 million for materials and installation (q.v. Oct 31/12, Oct 21/11) All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2013 and FY 2014 USAF aircraft budgets. Work will be performed at Marietta, GA and is expected to be complete by Jan 10/17. USAF Life Cycle Management Center/WLSK at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH manages the contract (FA8625-07-C-6471, PO 0200). May 8/14: RERP-7 kits. Lockheed Martin in Marietta, GA receives a $508.9 million fixed-price modification for C-5 RERP Lot 7 kits. All funds are completed immediately, using USAF FY 2014 aircraft procurement funds. Work will be performed at Marietta, GA, and is expected to be complete by May 2018. The USAF Life Cycle Management Center/WLSK at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH manages the contract (FA8625-07-C-6471 P00201). May 8/14: #19. C-5M Super Galaxy #87-0042 leaves Marietta, GA as the 1st C-5M destined for Travis AFB, CA. The C-5Ms will be flown by active duty crews from the 60th Air Mobility Wing, as well as crews from Air Force Reserve Command’s 349th AMW Associate unit at Travis AFB. Sources: Lockheed Martin Code One Magazine, “First Super Galaxy For Travis”. April 26/14: Basing. The USAF announces that half of the 439th Airlift Wing’s C-5 fleet at Westover ARB, MA will be cut, with 8 of their C-5Bs transferred fto JB San Antonio-Lackland, TX beginning in 2015. Westover will receive 8 upgraded C-5M Super Galaxys, but they’ll still lose 59 full-time enlisted personnel and 275 drilling Reservists. Sources: Lockheed Martin Code One Magazine, “Westover Basing Decision”. April 2/14: #18. USAF Lt. Gen. Brooks L. Bash, the vice commander of Air Mobility Command, personally flies C-5M #87-0040 from the Lockheed Martin facility in Marietta, GA, to Dover AFB, DE. It’s the last C-5M delivered to the base, which has been the type’s sole destination so far. Sources: Lockheed Martin Code One Magazine, “Last Super Galaxy To Dover”. March 25/14: #17. C-5M Super Galaxy #87-0020 leaves Marietta, GA for Stewart ANGB, NY for internal paint and insulation blanket restoration. After getting the touch-up, the aircraft will be flown to Dover AFB, DE. Sources: Lockheed Martin Code One Magazine, “Super Galaxy Number 17”. March 25/14: Avionics. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. in Marietta, GA receives a sole-source $84.3 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract. It funds the EMD development program for the C-5 fleet’s Core Mission Computer/Color Weather Radar program. These upgrades are envisaged as retrofits to the entire AMP/ RERP fleet. $11.2 million in FY 2013 USAF aircraft budgets are committed immediately. Work will be performed at Marietta, GA, and is expected to be complete by March 31/17. The USAF Life Cycle Management Center/WLSK at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH manages the contract (FA8625-14-C-6596). March 4-11/14: Budgets. The US military slowly files its budget documents, detailing planned spending from FY 2014 – 2019. The C-5 program gets the main C-5M budget zeroed out from FY 2016 – 2019. It’s not quite as big a change as it seemed, because some of the upgrades are being broken out as their own programs, but it’s still a total reduction of about $194.5 million from FY 2016 – 2019. See the charts above. The C-5’s mission computer has to be replaced. It has reached capacity, and can’t even handle basic additions like the flight management system (FMS); weather radar; and basic requirements for using civil airspace past 2020: ADS-B Out, and identification, friend or foe (IFF) mode 5. The new mission computer will handle these and other upgrades. A new color weather radar replaces the current AN/APS-133s, which have such serious problems with obsolete parts that they threaten to become unserviceable. They also want to fix the bathrooms, but that isn’t just convenience. Not only is the current system unreliable, it leaks liquid sodium hypochlorite, causing severe corrosion and burnt wires in the landing gear control panels. Not a great outcome, so they’re going to replace them a commercial product using FY15 funding. Feb 21/14: IOC. USAF AMC declares Initial Operational Capability for the C-5M. Lockheed Martin has delivered 16 planes, and the aircraft has passed its Qualification Test, Operational Test and Evaluation, stand-up of required spares and maintenance facilities at Dover AFB and other locations, and stand-up of enough trained aircrew and maintenance personnel. The program is far enough along that the Pentagon’s DOT&E no longer features them in testing reports. C-5M IOC Dec 23/13: #16 delivered. Tail number 87-0036 is ferried to Dover Air Force Base, DE. It’s the 16th C-5M delivered, and the 6th delivered in 2013. Is it us, or did that recent set of rapid-fire deliveries seem a bit compressed? Sources: Lockheed Martin, “Sweet Sixteen”. Dec 12/13: #15 delivered. The latest C-5M is off to Dover Air Force Base, DE. Lockheed Martin is still touting that the plane “exceeds a mission capable rate of 80 percent,” which is a big improvement if it’s true. Sources: Lockheed Martin, “Home for the Holidays”. Dec 5/13: #14 delivered. Lockheed Martin flies its latest delivery to Stewart Air National Guard Base, NY for internal paint restoration, before C-5M #86-0017 heads to its permanent home at Dover AFB, DE. Sources: Lockheed Martin, “Another Super Galaxy Delivered” | Lockheed Martin Code One Magazine, “Super Galaxy Delivered”. Nov 21/13: #13 delivered. Lockheed Martin delivers tail number 85-0004 to the 436th Airlift Wing at Dover Air Force Base, DE. Sources: Lockheed Martin, “Baker’s Dozen!”. FY 2013 Lt. Col. Mike Semo, C-5M Pilot click to play video Sept 19/13: #12 delivered. Lockheed Martin delivers C-5M #85-0003 to the USAF at its Marietta, GA plant. Maj. Gen. Wayne Schatz Jr., Director of Strategic Plans, Requirements, and Programs at Air Mobility Command headquarters, flies the aircraft to Stewart ANGB, New York, where it will undergo internal paint restoration before returning to its permanent home at Dover AFB, DE. This aircraft has recorded more than 19,000 flight hours. Lockheed Martin says that they’re on track to deliver 52 C-5Ms by 2017. Sources: Lockheed Martin, “Make it a Dozen!” | Lockheed Martin Code One Magazine, “Super Galaxy No. 12”. Sept 5/13: Training. A $21.3 million contract modification for a C-5M RERP aircraft maintenance system trainer and a flight control system trainer at Travis AFB, CA, plus associated spares. All funds are committed immediately, using FY 2012 procurement funds. The buy seems minor, but the 2012 report from the Pentagon’s testing department (q.v. Jan 17/13) cited a lack of dedicated training systems as a problem for the fleet. Work will be performed in Marietta, GA, with an expected completion date of Aug 31/16. Fiscal 2012 aircraft procurement funds in the amount of $21,318,495 are being obligated at time of award. The Air Force Life Cycle Management Center at Wright Patterson AFB, OH manages the contract (FA8625-07-C-6471, PO 0224). June 21/13: #11 delivered. The eleventh C-5M Super Galaxy leave Lockheed Martin’s Marietta, GA facility for Dover AFB, DE. Sources: Lockheed Martin, June 21/13 release. June 18/13: Software. A $27.9 million indefinite-delivery /indefinite-quantity contract with cost-plus-fixed-fee, firm-fixed-price, and cost-reimbursement-no-fee portions. Lockheed Martin will support C-5 software and the software integration laboratory, offer engineering support, and provide an emergency operational flight plan. $21 million in FY 2013-2016 Operations and Maintenance DPEM Software funds in the amount are committed for Task Orders 0001 and 0002. Work will be performed at Marietta, GA, and is expected to be complete by by June 20/16. This award is a result of an electronic solicitation with 1 bidder, from the USAF Life Cycle Management Center/C-5 Galaxy Center at Robins AFB, GA (FA8525-13-D-0004). April 28/13: Waste. Congressionally-mandated waste continues. USAF training hours are cut and squadrons stop flying, in order to maintain aircraft that cannot fly and pay people in Congressional districts to do meaningless work. The USAF isn’t the only service with this problem, but it’s a sharp one for the C-5 fleet. From the New Hampshire Foster’s Daily Democrat: “Parked around the airstrip at Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland are more than a dozen massive C-5A Galaxy transport planes. There is no money to fly them, repair them or put pilots in the cockpits, but Congress rejected the Air Force’s bid to retire them…. crews will tow the planes around the Texas tarmac a bit to make sure the tires don’t rot, then send them back into exile until they can finally get permission to commit the aging aircraft to the boneyard…. Fifteen of the C-5A Galaxy aircraft are at Lackland, where crews are getting in some flights now preparing for the retirement, while 11 are at Martinsburg, W.Va., and are flown [sic] by the Air National Guard there.” April 25/13: Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Marietta, Ga., was awarded a modification on contract for C-5M Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining Program (RERP). The value of this contract modification is $45.7 million, increasing the total contract value from $3.647 billion to $3.693 billion. The contract modification is for C-5M RERP Lots 3, 4, and 5 Rapid Repair and Response legacy repair efforts. Work will be performed in Marietta, GA, and is expected to be complete by Oct 29/14. $14.8 million in FY 2011 through 2013 Aircraft Procurement funds are committed immediately by the USAF Life Cycle Management Center/WLSK at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH (FA8625-07-C-6471, PO 0182). April 10/13: FY 2014 Budget. The President releases a proposed budget at last, the latest in modern memory. The Senate and House were already working on budgets in his absence, but the Pentagon’s submission is actually important to proceedings going forward. See ongoing DID coverage. FY 2014 is the last major year of funding at $1.217 billion. That will drop to $334.7 million in FY 2015, when C-5M budgets will almost end completely. The last aircraft scheduled for delivery in Q1 FY 2017. Jan 31/13: Support. A $16 million firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee and cost reimbursement contract for replenishment spares and repairs in support of the C-5’s AMP and RERP programs. Work will be performed in Marietta, GA, and expected to be complete by Jan 31/14. The AFLCMC/WLKB at Robins AFB, GA manages this sole source acquisition, using FY 2013 dollars (FA8525-13-D-0001). Jan 17/13: DOT&E report. The Pentagon releases the FY 2012 Annual Report from its Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E). The C-5M is included, and it still isn’t “operationally suitable”. In fact, the office had recommended last year that C-5M wasn’t ready to proceed to IOT&E testing. It went anyway, and: “The aircraft’s ability to conduct the strategic airlift mission is hindered by deficiencies in the Automatic Flight Control System, by problems with the Embedded Diagnostics System (EDS) and built-in test (BIT) functionality, by inadequate support equipment, and by a lack of dedicated training systems. Deficiencies in several aspects of C-5M support functions, identified before the 2010 OT&E began, had a significant effect on suitability, specifically the maintainability of the aircraft.” As one might imagine, the USAF has an “extensive” correction action plan. Diagnostic false alarm rates remain “very high,” which risks sabotaging the entire mission availability rationale for the entire C-5M program. There’s also a problem with training, since C-5M specific aircrew and maintainer training devices are just becoming available, forcing the USAF to use 1 simulator, plus on-aircraft training when possible. That doesn’t help readiness, either, and the USAF plans to buy more training devices in FY 2013. OFP 3.5 basic flight & operating software helped with some of the airspeed control issues, but the plane still isn’t reliable in critical situations like final approach, or “gusty or turbulent” conditions. The Air Force plans to begin operational testing of OFP 3.5.2 in August 2013. At least the thrust reversers got their heating blankets to prevent ice-up, then got strengthened gears to make sure they stayed retracted. It works, but they need to be inspected more often. Nov 30/12: RERP. A $9 million contract modification for the C-5 RERP. Work will be performed in Marietta, GA until July 31/15 (FA8625-07-C-6471, PO 0184). Nov 29/12: C-5A-M Support. A $56.7 million cost-plus-fixed-fee, cost-reimbursement- no-fee, firm-fixed-price, time and materials contract for the C-5 sustaining engineering and technical support services. It covers all C-5s in service, including the C-5Ms, which are becoming a significant enough presence to matter. Work will be performed in Marietta, GA until Nov 30/12 (FA8525-13-D-0003). Nov 21/12: A $38.5 million contract modification for procurement of 2 optional C-5 RERP plus-up spare engines, and the engine kits effort. Work will be performed in Marietta, GA, and is expected to be complete by Dec 15/14 (FA8625-07-C-6471, PO 0161). Note the purchase order number, this is similar to but distinct from the Nov 19/12 order. Nov 19/12: RERP. A $38.3 million contract modification to buy 2 spare C-5 RERP RFI engines and RFI engine kits. Work will be performed in Marietta, GA, and is expected to be complete by May 30/14. The AFLCMC/WLSK at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH manages the contract (FA8625-07-C-6471, PO 0160). Oct 31/12: RERP Lot 6. A $489.4 million contract modification for C-5 RERP Lot 6 kits. It’s added to the $160 million advance procurement (vid. Oct 21/11) for these 11 aircraft kits, and the installation and spares contracts are still pending beyond the current $659.4 million. Work will be performed in Marietta, GA, and the contract will run until July 17/15 (FA8625-07-C-6471, PO 0140). Oct 19/12: RERP Lot 5. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics in Marietta, GA receives a $221.8 million contract modification for the C-5 RERP Lot 5 Installation effort, involving 11 aircraft. That boosts the total cost of publicly-reported RERP-5 contracts to $1,000.5 million, or about $91 million per plane, including spares. Work will be performed in Marietta, GA, and is expected to be complete by Oct 29/15 (FA8625-07-C-6471, PO 0166). FY 2012 79th & last C-5 AMP delivered; All-C-5M fleet?; Cracks sapping fleet capacity; C-5M testing issues. #5 departs (click to view full) July 20/12: #5 delivered. Lockheed Martin delivers the 5th production C-5M, and 8th overall, to Robins AFB, GA. June 29/12: Un-cracked. Cracks at the C-5 cargo floor’s bulkhead end fittings had restricted its cargo carrying capabilities to a maximum of 80%, lowering its advantage over platforms like the C-17. In response, the US Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) developed a more stress and corrosion-resistant aluminum alloy, and a new die forging process, under the Durable C-5 Structural Improvements Program. Some C-5s are already being refitted at the Warner Robins Air Logistics Center, GA. US AFRL: “The reshaped end fittings provide an optimised design that is less prone to cracks, and also offers multiple benefits for the revamped C-5 aircraft, which includes a 25% overall cost savings, an 80% reduction in fabrication time, and a 60% increase in service life of the fittings… methods employed earlier… insufficient, as the replacement fittings provided to the aircraft often cracked during the machining process, and also had a shorter lifespan than the original parts.” April 30/12: Last C-5 AMP. Lockheed Martin announces that it has delivered the 79th and final C-5 AMP plane to the USAF. The planned program total had been cut from 111 to 80, but a C-5 crash dropped the number by one. Last C-5 AMP delivered. April 15/12: Link for savings. The USAF discusses its Mobility Mission Linking, or MML, program, which aims to make up for the inconvenient positioning of current C-5 wings in Texas and the USA’s east coast. When most missions are in Southwest Asia, it can mean up to 11 flight hours per mission with no cargo on-board. By linking multiple stops and eliminating the transit from Texas, MML expects to save 3.5 million gallons of fuel and $12 million between FY 2012- 2016. USAF. April 12/12: All C-5Ms? A USAF story makes an interesting statement: “The C-5 has long been known as the “Air Force’s largest airlifter.” In the future, Air Mobility Command officials say the goal is to have all C-5s become C-5Ms that would further strengthen the airframe’s worldwide airlift capabilities.” There are 2 ways to do that. One way is to modernize the remaining 27 C-5 AMP aircraft at a later date, bringing the C-5M fleet to 59. the other way is to retire the lower-readiness, lower-capability, more expensive to operate C-5 AMPs early, leaving the USAF with just 52 C-5Ms as the entire fleet. In a coming era of budget cuts, which seems more likely? April 7/12: Gannett’s Air Force times reports that Dover AFB will be the 1st base to convert to an all-C-5M fleet, after its last C-5B leaves for conversion in June 2012. Feb 1/12: RERP #11 begins. Lockheed Martin inducts the 11th C-5 RERP aircraft to the Super Galaxy production line. Aircraft 86-0017 has accumulated more than 18,000 flight hours and more than 4,300 full-stop landings. Jan 17/12: DOT&E test report. The Pentagon releases the FY 2011 Annual Report from its Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E). The C-5M RERP is listed as 1 of just 3 USAF programs that met their reliability targets, though a subsequent March 2012 DoD DT&E and SE Annual Report lists C-5M reliability at just 66%, instead of the 75% target that must be met in FY 2016. In the interim, the C-5M is proceeding fairly well, but still has some issues to work on. The 2010 operational test identified problems with engine thrust reversers (restricted use in flight makes emergency descents and some tactical patterns very difficult), autopilot (too aggressive in cruise operations & turbulence, doesn’t always maintain commanded airspeed), and the Environmental Control System (autopilot problems killing bleed air supply and dropping cabin temperature under 50F/ 10C). Operational testing of the fixes was scheduled to begin in January 2012, in conjunction with operational testing of the plane’s new Block 3.5 software set. While the C-5M was deemed operationally effective, it wasn’t given an “operationally suitable” rating. That will require testing to eliminate a very high false alarm rate and poor fault diagnosis in the plane’s built-in-test equipment, and the delivery of C-5M aircrew and maintainer training devices. The C-5M is also susceptible to unspecified “information assurance” (data security) problems, but the risk was deemed to be low. Nov 18/11: RERP Lot 5. Lockheed Martin Corp. in Marietta, GA receives a $13.4 million firm-fixed-fee contract modification for C-5 RERP FRP-5 items required to meet the field needs of its 11 C-5M aircraft. That’s on top of the $602.4 million in Oct 21/11 FRP-5 orders. One firm was solicited and one firm submitted a proposal to the ASC/WLSK at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH (FA8625-07-C-6471). Oct 21/11: RERP Lots 4-6. Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems in Marietta, GA receives 4 C-5 RERP program contract modifications, worth around $890 million total. All are firm-fixed-price, with economic price adjustments if the cost of key metals etc. rises. They are: For C-5 RERP Full Rate Production, Lot 4 (FRP-4, FY 2011), $126.7 million to finish C-5M conversion and install the 28 enhanced engines on FRP-4’s 7 aircraft (FA8625-07-C-6471, PO 0102). They’re Production Lot 4 RERP kits, but they’re installed in the same fiscal year that produces FRP-5. For C-5 RERP FRP-5 (FY 2012), $518.9 million to build the FRP-5 RERP kits for 11 C-5s (FA8625-07-C-6471, PO 0107), and $83.5 million to buy initial spares for those planes (FA8625-07-C-6471, PO 0104). For C-5 RERP FRP-6 (FY 2013), $160 million for advance procurement of items whose production lead time is more than 12 months, so they’ll be ready when the FRP-6 build contract for another 11 C-5 RERP kits is issued next year (FA8625-07-C-6471, PO 0103). FY 2011 Civilian C-5s? C-5 in RERP (click to view full) Sept 29/11: RERP #9P in. Lockheed Martin inducts the 9th C-5 for full C-5M conversion. Tail 0045 was the last C-5B produced for the USAF. It has accumulated nearly 18,000 flight hours, and more than 4,200 full-stop landings. Sept 25-26/11: Non-stop. A C-5M Super Galaxy from the 436th Airlift Wing at Dover AFB, DE, flies direct to Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan, passing over the Atlantic and Europe en route. Traditionally, C-5s stop in Germany to refuel the plane and rest the crew, then finish the rest of the flight the next day. For this flight, a KC-135R aerial tanker based in Britain refueled the plane. There’s a balance between proving out new routes, for use if needed, and using routes that don’t place a routine strain on resources. While the C-5M is capable of these missions, it remains to be seen whether they will become the norm. Another pathfinding example took place on June 5-6/11, as a C-5M crew flew an arctic route to Afghanistan over Canada, Russian, and Kazakhstan, with a KC-135R refueling over northern Canada. USAF AMC. Aug 17/11: Training. Lockheed Martin announces a $5.8 million base contract from FlightSafety Services Corp. The scope of work includes managing hardware, software and courseware, maintaining simulator certifications to Air Force specifications, and overseeing the operations of the C-5 Aircrew Training System (ATS) program. C-5 ATS helps train C-5 pilots, flight engineers, loadmasters and maintenance engine run personnel, and the contract will apply to all C-5 variants. Lockheed Martin will manage the Lackland AFB, TX C-5 Training Systems Support Center and formal training unit, and provide support for the other 6 training locations: Dover AFB, DE; Travis AFB, CA; Martinsburg ANG Base, WVA; Memphis ANG Base, TN; Stewart ANG Base, NY; and Westover Air Reserve Base, MA. The contract includes 4 more 1-year options, which could bring this contract up to 5 years and $30 million. Aug 4/11: RERP #8P in. C-5B tail number 85-0003 becomes the 8th aircraft inducted into modernization production. That number is expected to rise to 10 by the end of 2011. Lockheed Martin. July 18/11: RERP #3P flies. The 3rd production C-5M Super Galaxy takes its first flight at the Lockheed Martin facility in Marietta. Aircraft 0005 is assigned to Dover AFB, DE, and will be flown by both active duty and reserve airlift wings. Lockheed Martin. April 27/11: Sub-contractors. Small business qualifier Thomas Instrument in Brookshire, TX receives a maximum $9 million firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract for C-5 aircraft gearbox assemblies. The contract runs to March 2015 and is managed by the US Defense Logistics Agency Aviation at Robins Air Force Base, GA (SPRWA1-11-D-0009). April 12/11: RERP #2P delivered. Lockheed Martin completes delivery of the 2nd production C-5M at Dobbins Air Reserve Base, Marietta, GA. The plane will undergo internal paint restoration at Stewart Air National Guard Base, NY, before traveling to its home base at Dover. Lockheed Martin. Feb 15/11: An $8.9 million contract modification for the C-5 RERP Lot 4 readiness spares package, part 2, for Dover and Travis Air Force Bases. At this time, all funds have been committed (FA8625-07-C-6471; P00076). This contract and modification number was also announced on March 7/11, where it did not say that all funds had been committed. Feb 14/11: FY 2012 Budget. The Pentagon releases its FY 2012 budget request, and the USAF details its major programs [PDF]. FY 2011 was the last year for C-5 AMP funding, at $627.7 million requested. In FY 2012, the C-5M RERP program would receive $851.9 million to convert 7 aircraft (up from 5 in FY 2011; note that conversions are done using the previous year’s production) and buy 11 equipment sets for installation in FY 2013, as well as $9.4 million to get USAF maintenance depots ready for C-5Ms, and $500,000 for an AMP/RERP compliant Aircrew Training System (ATS) and a Maintenance Training Device (MTD). Other USAF budget documents [PDF] add that: “In FY 2012, the F-35, RQ-4 Global Hawk, and Light Cargo Aircraft have large initial spare requirements in preparation for fielding. Other initial spares programs with large requirements include MQ-9 Reaper, C-5 Airlift Squadrons, Light Cargo Aircraft, CV-22, and EC-130H COMPASS CALL aircraft. In FY2012 some programs, including Global Hawk, MQ-9, and C-5 began budgeting for initial spares in Budget Activity 06 instead of Budget Activities 01 through 05.” The C-5 RERP is the largest of them all, with $116.175 million in spares. That’s not entirely surprising, given the number of new engines involved. The Pentagon doesn’t include the C-5 in its handout of costs by weapon system, but the C-5 AMP/RERP seems to add up to around $978 million in FY 2012. Jan 28/11: A $20.6 million contract modification to provide interim contract support for the C-5 RERP Program. At this time, the entire amount has been committed (FA8625-09-D-6485 0008). Jan 19/11: RERP #5P in. Lockheed Martin announces that the 5th C-5 aircraft has been inducted into the RERP process, to be transformed into a C-5M by the end of 2011. Nov 30/10: An $8 million contract for C-5 fleet sustaining engineering efforts required to resolve technical, supportability, or efficiency issues. Money will be committed as needed by the WR-ALC/GRSKA at Robins Air Force Base, GA (FA8525-11-D-0003). Nov 18/10: Training. A $23 million contract modification for Phase 3 of the C-5M RERP’s AMS (aircraft maintenance systems) trainer and flight trainer program. At this time, $14.3 million has been obligated (F33657-02-C-2000; P00227). Nov 15/10: RERP #1P delivered. The 1st production C-5M leaves Stewart Air National Guard base in Newburgh, NY and arrives at its duty station of Dover AFB, DE. The C-5M planes flying to date have all been pre-production planes from the system development stage. defpro | Mid-Hudson News | NY State. Nov 8/10: A maximum $29.2 million contract for C-5M AMP program sustainment support. Delivery orders will be issued as needs arise by the Warner-Robins Air Logistics Center at Robins Air Force Base, GA (FA8525-11-D-0001). Oct 22/10: RERP Lot 4 k+s. A pair of C-5M RERP awards from the USAF, for current production, worth $387.9 million. See also Jan 11/10 entry. A $326.9 million contract modification for C-5M RERP full-rate production Lot 4 materials and fabrication of material required to modify the 7 seven Lot 4 aircraft. At this time, all funds have been committed (FA8625-07-C-6471; P00041). A $61 million contract modification for spare parts to cover the 7 C-5M aircraft from FRP Lot 4 production. At this time, all funds have been committed (FA8625-07-C-6471; P00058). Oct 19/10: RERP Lot 3i/5a. A pair of C-5M RERP awards from the USAF, worth $278.6 million. The first is a a $115.7 million contract modification for C-5M RERP low rate initial production Lot 3 installations. At this time, the entire amount has been committed (FA8625-07-C-6471). The second is a $162.9 million contract which covers C-5M RERP full-rate production Lot 5 advance procurement of critical materials and equipment, such as aircraft engines. At this time, the entire amount has been committed (FA8625-07-C-6471). Oct 4/10: Civil C-5s? Aviation Week reports that both Lockheed Martin and elements in the USAF are re-thinking the decision to terminate RERP for the C-5A fleet, if money allows – and even looking at placing some C-5s in the civilian market: “Lockheed Martin says it needs long-lead funding in Fiscal 2014 to avoid a gap in the modification line after the last C-5B is upgraded, and to keep prices agreed upon with major suppliers… [including] General Electric for the new CF6-80C engines. “As the aircraft proves itself, we are talking to the Air Force about the benefits of a single fleet,” says Lorraine Martin, Lockheed Martin vice president for C-5 programs… The Air Force also operates 59 C-5As, but plans to retire 22 in 2011-12 because of excess strategic airlift capacity. Congress directed the Air Force to study the potential for placing the retired aircraft with the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) or international coalition partners. A report will be submitted soon… A Defense Acquisition Board decision on full-rate production [of C-5M RERP planes] is set for Oct. 7.” Barring some sort of government financing agreement that would tip the scales, C-5As and their $82+ million RERP upgrade costs would have to compete against new-build civilian BC-17s at about $225 million, in order to become a preferred option for would-be civilian carriers who wanted to compete with Antonov’s partners in the outsize cargo market. Sept 20/10: Infrastructure. Soltek Pacific Construction Co. in San Diego, CA wins a $6.4 million firm-fixed-price task order under a multiple award construction contract (N62473-08-D-8615, #0014) to build a C-5 Squadron Aircraft Operations and Maintenance Facility at Travis Air Force Base, CA. The task order also contains one planned modification which if issued, would increase the cumulative task order value to $7.5 million. Travis AFB is home to the 60th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron, which services and supports AMC C-5s. Work will be performed in Fairfield, CA, and is expected to be complete by October 2011. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest in San Diego, CA received 4 proposals for this task order. FY 2010 C-5 AMP cut from 112 – 92; C-5M RERP operational; RERP gets low-rate production approval DSRV-1 loading (click to view full) Sept 19/10: RERP #1P flies. The first production C-5M takes off from Lockheed Martin’s Marietta, GA facility. It is slated for formal delivery on Sept 30/10, and will arrive at its new home Dover AFB, DE in November 2010. Note that this is not the 1st C-5M, as there were 3 initial planes built in the system development phase, and they are already operational. July 29/10: Training. CAE USA, Inc. in Tampa, FL receives $10.6 million contract to purchase 7 C-5 AMP training devices and 5 C-5M RERP program training devices for the C-5 aircrew training system. The simulators will be used by USAF Air Material Command, US Air National Guard, and USAF Reserve Command. CAE will begin by upgrading a C-5 WST(Weapon System Trainer) currently located at Stewart Air National Guard Base (ANGB) to the new C-5 AMP configuration. The other C-5 WST, located at Dover AFB, DE and already upgraded by CAE to the AMP configuration several years ago, will now be upgraded to the RERP configuration using new engine performance simulation software and a new aerodynamics model. A month later, a CAE release says that the contract includes options to upgrade additional C-5 and C-5 cockpit procedures trainers, which could bring total value to more than $50 million. At this time, $10.6 million has been committed by the GHMKA at Hill Air Force Base, UT (F8223-10-R-3000/2). June 8/10: RERP #3P in. Lockheed Martin inducts its 3rd C-5 Galaxy strategic airlifter into the RERP production line at Marietta, GA. The company has already delivered 3 initial C-5M aircraft, which Lockheed Martin says passed testing with “the highest rating possible.” The 1st production C-5M is scheduled for delivery to Dover AFB, DE later in 2010, and this 3rd production C-5M is expected to be ready in about a year (mid-2011). Current Air Force plans call for Lockheed Martin to deliver 52 total C-5Ms (modification of 49 C-5Bs, 1 C-5Cs, and 1 C-5A) by 2016. Lockheed Martin. June 7/10: A $5.7 million contract for C-5M RERP low rate initial production, and related expenses. At this time, the entire amount has been committed by the 716th AESG at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH (FA8625-07-C-6471). April 2/10: Training. FlightSafety Services Corporation of Centennial, CO received a $34.8 million contract for C-5 aircrew training system operation, maintenance, and support. At this time the entire amount has been obligated by the 508th ACSS/PK at Hill Air Force Base, UT (FA8223-10-C-0007). April 1/10: SAR – C-5 AMP cut. The Pentagon releases its April 2010 Selected Acquisitions Report, covering major program changes up to December 2009. The first-stage C-5 AMP program is mentioned, confirming a cut from 112 aircraft to 92 aircraft: “Program costs decreased $200.2 million (-14.3%) from $1,405.3 million to $1,205.1 million, due primarily to a quantity decrease of 20 aircraft from 112 to 92 aircraft (-$112.9 million), and decreases in other support costs and initial spares associated with the quantity decrease (-$73.3 million). There was also a decrease for prior year actuals for kit buys and installations (-$12.6 million).” SAR change The force mix would then become 20 unmodified C-5As, 42 C-5A+ AMP aircraft, and 59 C-5M AMP/RERP aircraft. Future disposition of the unmodified C-5As is not clear, but they could easily slip into the neverland of sitting in hangars at all times, eating maintenance dollars the whole time but not flying, while Congress refuses to allow the USAF to retire them. They would not be alone in this status. March 30/10: GAO ASP. The US GAO audit office delivers its 8th annual “Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs report. It covers only the full C-5M RERP program, which it describes as mature, stable, and in production, albeit at 66% higher per-unit costs than the original baseline. The remaining program is not completely free of risk, however: “While the Air Force is expected to spend $3.4 billion less under the restructured program, ultimately, less than one-half of the aircraft will be modernized at a much higher unit cost. Further changes to the program are possible based on whether the program exercises future contract options and the mobility capability study. Program officials have indicated that if options for lots [4] through [7] of the C-5 RERP production contract are not exercised by the dates required in the contract, the remaining lot four through seven negotiated not to exceed prices become invalid for all future options. Consequently, officials indicated that future work may need to be renegotiated and if so, it would lead to a substantial increase in the negotiated prices. In addition, DOD is currently studying its future mobility capabilities requirements with the results expected in December 2009. The study may or may not affect the number of C-5s that require the RERP modification.” March 16/10: Infrastructure. Lockheed Martin Corp. in Marietta, GA receives a $6.2 million contract. Lockheed Representatives clarify that it will fund the data, support equipment, and spares needed to stand up 5 different Air Logistics Center C-5 AMP maintenance depots, for components manufactured and repaired by GE aviation. At this time, the entire amount has been obligated. 716 AESG/PK, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity (F33657-98-C-0006, P00231). Feb 19/10: An $86.2 million contract which will provide for the C-5M RERP. At this time, $23.2 million has been committed by the 716th AESG/SYK at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH (FA8625-09-D-6485). Feb 9/10: C-5M operational. USAF Air Mobility Command announces that the C-5M Super Galaxy has completed 4 months and 1,300 hours of operational test and evaluation, releasing the aircraft for use in worldwide operations. OT&E began on Oct 1/09, and required the cooperation of USAF Air Mobility command, Air Materiel Command, and the Air Reserve Command. Aircrews from the 436th and 512th Airlift Wings flew a mission that included cold weather operation testing at Eielson AFB, Alaska. They also flew nonstop flights from Dover AFB, DE, USA to Incirlik Air Base, Turkey, without refueling, bypassing traditional C-5B fuel stops at Rota Naval Air Station, Spain. USAF AMC announcement | Lockheed Martin release. The USAF estimates that these direct flights saved more than 365 hours vs. the same mission with a C-5B (N.B. 289 of those are on the ground), and approximately 186,000 gallons of fuel. Jan 11/10: RERP LRIP-1. Lockheed Martin announces $343.3 million in ongoing funding through a recently issued Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM), authorizing Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) associated with the C-5 RERP program. That funding supports LRIP RERP production support for 15 aircraft, including installation on 3 aircraft, material and fabrication for 5 aircraft, and long-lead funding for 7 aircraft. Production of the C-5M Super Galaxy began on Aug 18/09, and that first aircraft is slated for delivery to the USAF in September 2010. Three test C-5Ms have already been delivered to the USAF, and current USAF plans call for 52 fully-modernized C-5Ms by 2016. Jan 5/10: Training. A $6.3 million contract to fund C-5 RERP engine maintenance training devices, integration efforts, and a contract change proposal. At this time, $3.9 million has been committed (33657-02-C-2000, P00207). Nov 6/09: A $143.2 million contract that will provide C-5 AMP sustainment support. The 330 SW at Robins Air Force Base in Georgia manages the contract (FA8525-06-D-0001, P00013). FY 2009 1st RERP begins; C-5A+ #50 delivered; GAO cites C-5 AMP shortfalls, risks. C-5M takeoff (click to view full) Aug 18/09: RERP Production begins. Lockheed Martin has produced 3 C-5M test aircraft, but today the 1st C-5 Galaxy (USAF serial number 83-1285) flies into Marietta, GA from Dover AB, DE, for induction into the C-5M RERP production line. This aircraft was also the first C-5B to come off the original production line in 1985. RERP modernization is expected to take 13 months, eventually declining to 8 months for subsequent aircraft as production ramps up. The 3 C-5Ms produced for the test program are already being put to work. Lockheed Martin cites a recent mission from Dover AFB, DE that flew non-stop and unrefueled from Dover to Incirlik, Turkey, while carrying 90,000 pounds of cargo on 36 standard military cargo pallets. The crew was able to complete the round trip in 2 days versus the normal 3, and saved 30,000 pounds of fuel by eliminating an en-route stop. Lockheed Martin release. May 28/09: +6 AMP. A $7.3 million modification will install AMP kits and the consolidated load panel in 6 aircraft, under firm-fixed-price terms. Time-and-material charges will apply to rapid response and repair for potential aircraft issues that are discovered during kit installation. At this time, the entire amount has been committed (F33657-98-C-0006, P00223). April 29/09: C-5A+ #50. Lockheed Martin announces the 50th C-5 AMP delivery, to Air Force Reserve Command’s 433rd Airlift Wing at Lackland AFB, TX, completing AMP modifications to the C-5B fleet. The AMP installations are taking place at Dover AFB, DE and at Travis AFB, CA, and the fleet-wide AMP modifications are scheduled to be complete in the second quarter of 2014. Modification of the C-5A fleet continues at Travis AFB and at Dover AFB, DE. Current plans call for the entire 111-aircraft C-5 fleet to receive the AMP modifications. A majority of those aircraft will be C-5As, but they are not receiving the additional C-5M RERP modification, which is dependent on the AMP work being done first. April 22/09: Loading practice. The US Air Force discusses cooperative efforts with the Marine Corps to figure out exactly how to load the newest UH-1Y Hueys and AH-1Z Viper attack helicopters into the C-5: “…the Marines have been working with Air Force representatives for three months to find the best method of transporting their helicopters to the fight. According to John Buchanan, 60th APS cargo operations manager, they tried to use a C-17 Globemaster III first but found they had to strip too many parts off the helicopter. So the next logical step was to test the C-5 capability.” The UH-1Y/AH-1Z’s 4-bladed rotor doesn’t fully fold, which makes even the C-5 has been a challenge. At one point in the loading process, clearance for the UH-1Y helicopter is down to 3 inches. March 31/09: A $13.3 million modification to the indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity RERP contract, to cover an undisclosed contract change. The entire amount has been committed (F33657-02-C-2000, #P00175). March 30/09: GAO ASP. The US government’s GAO audit office issues GAO-09-326SP: “Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs.” The C-5 AMP and RERP sections describe the technologies as mature, but note that: “The AMP was fielded with waivers to 14 specification requirements [that affect operational requirements]. The C-5 RERP will address 4… Other deficiencies and waivers may be addressed in a new modernization program slated for fiscal year 2010. The AMP is addressing some diminishing manufacturing source problems with the navigation system and backup integrated processor. According to the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, the AMP is partially mission capable, however, not operationally suitable. About 250 deficiencies, including software issues related to autopilot disconnects, were found during testing… A total of 37 deficiencies will be corrected in C-5 RERP and an additional 6 deficiencies will be fixed if the RERP Operational Flight Plan 3.4 software build is fielded. In addition, 73 more deficiency reports have been corrected or are being corrected as part of a sustainment contract software build that will be released in March 2009… [RERP] Operational testing is expected to begin in August 2009. However, the Air Force does not plan to provide a low-rate initial production aircraft for operational testing… because one will not be available until September 2010… [There is a risk of] design changes, revised production processes, and rework…” March 2/09: LAST SDD C-5M. Lockheed Martin delivers the 3rd fully modernized C-5M aircraft to the U.S. Air Force. Feb 27/09: An $8.4 million contract modification for “the C-5 Reliability Enhancement and Re-engineering Program estimate at completion growth and cost overrun.” At this time $6.4 million has been obligated (F33657-02-C-2000, P00172). Feb 9/09: SDD C-5M #2. Lockheed Martin delivers the 2nd of 3 fully modernized developmental test C-5M AMP-RERP aircraft to the U.S. Air Force. Following a brief ceremony at the company’s Marietta, GA facility, the C-5M flew to Dover AFB, DE. To date, the company’s release says that it has also completed 40 out of 111 C-5A AMP aircraft. Feb 6/09: RERP Lot 3. A $299.8 million fixed-price economic price adjustment contract, exercising options for Lot 3 of the C-5M RERP program. At this time $25.3 million has been committed. (FA8625-07-C-6471, #P00011). See also: Lockheed Martin release. Feb 6/09: A maximum $86.2 million indefinite-delivery /indefinite-quantity contract for interim contractor support activities around the C-5 RERP program. This contract supports the Super Galaxy during familiarization and Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E). At this time $25.3 million has been committed (FA8625-09-C-6485). Dec 9/08: 1st SDD C-5M. Lockheed Martin delivers the first fully modernized C-5M to the U.S. Air Force at Warner Robins Air Logistics Center, Robins AFB, GA. The aircraft is the first of 3 developmental test C-5Ms to be delivered, with the other 2 to be delivered to Dover AFB, Delaware, in February 2009. All three aircraft successfully completed developmental testing in August 2008. Current Air Force plans call for Lockheed Martin to deliver 52 modernized C-5Ms. Lockheed Martin. 1st C-5M Nov 3/08: A firm fixed price contract modification for $6.1 million, exercising a USAF option for installation of 5 C-5 Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) Kits in its Aircraft. At this time all funds have been obligated (F33657-98-C-0006, Modification P00215). FY 2008 RERP program cut from 112 to 49. C-5 & CH-53E Heli (click to view full) Sept 24/08: Infrastructure. Kinsley Construction Company Inc in York, PA won a $26.8 million firm-fixed-price contract for a follow-on project, involving the 167th Airlift Wing’s Base conversion from C-130 to C-5 Aircraft. Work will be performed in Martinsburg, WVA, with an estimated completion date of April 2010. Proposals solicited were two-phase design build source selections, and 3 proposals were received by the National Guard Bureau in Buckhannon, WVA (W912L8-08-C-0016). Sept 17/08: 1st C-5A into AMP. Lockheed Martin announces the induction of the first U.S. Air Force C-5A into the AMP program, adding that: “There are 111 C-5s to be modified through AMP with 42 production airplanes completed to date. The AMP installations are taking place at Dover AFB and Travis AFB and are scheduled to be completed in second quarter 2014. The C-5 AMP fleet has flown more than 9,400 sorties and 40,000 operational flight hours.” Some C-5Bs have already begun AMP work. The C-5A fleet was re-winged in the 1980s, extending its structural service life. Mission reliability rates, on the other hand, have remained low. AMP is expected to make only a partial dent in the C-5A’s readiness rates, but the new technologies will make a large difference to C-5A+ fleet’s ability to fly in civil airspace when they are operational. Aug 18/08: C-5M testing done. Lockheed Martin announces that its team has successfully completed developmental testing of all 3 C-5M RERP test aircraft. Preparations now get underway to deliver the 3 test aircraft to the US Air Force in support of Operational Test and Evaluation scheduled to begin in the 3rd quarter of 2009. < strong>Aug 18/08: SAR. The US military releases its latest round of Selected Acquisition Reports. The C-5 RERP is included, because its costs have reportedly decreased again. The C-5As will now be abandoned completely, and only the C-5B/C aircraft will be upgraded all the way to C-5Ms: “The SAR was submitted to rebaseline from a Development to a Production estimate following approval of Low Rate Initial Production (Milestone C) and to reflect the Nunn-McCurdy certified restructured program. Since the last report, costs decreased -$3,436.8 million (-30.9 percent) from $11,130.9 to $7,694.1 million due primarily to a reduction in quantity of 59 aircraft from 108 to 49 (-$3.271.0 million) and associated schedule and estimating allocations (-$163.9 million) . In addition, there were reductions in support associated with the quantity decrease (-$401.0 million).” The move would also have a significant effect on C-17 production, as it will change the number of new airlifters required by the US military. SAR change July 7/08: Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems in Marietta, GA received a maximum $17.4 million, unfinalized contract modification. It covers work under CCP 553 for Readiness Spares Package for the C-5M Reliability Enhancements and Re-engining Program (RERP). At this time $8.7 million has been committed (FA8625-07-C-6471, P00005). June 19/08: Infrastructure. Kern Steel Fabrication, Inc of Bakersfield, CA received a firm fixed price contract for $13.6 million for the design and production of an Isochronal (ISO) Maintenance Stand for the C-5 aircraft. The award amount in item #3 above involves the design and one first production unit (albeit not exercised yet, Option I involves quantities of 1 to 3 maintenance stands). At this time $13.6 million has been obligated (FA8533-08-C-0004). April 18/08: RERP Lot 1-2. A firm-fixed-price contract for $127.2 million. This contract modification is an Undefinitized Contract Action (UCA) for Lot 1 material/fabrication and initial spares, and Lot 2 advance procurement items, for the C-5M Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining Program (RERP). At this time the full amount has been obligated (FA8625-07-C-6471, P00003). April 7/08: SAR – fewer RERP planes. The C-5 RERP program’s changes lead to a detailed cost change breakdown in the Pentagon’s Selected Acquisition Reports release: “Program costs decreased $6,375.3 million (-36.4 percent) from $17,506.2 million to $11,130.9 million, due primarily to net reductions in the Air Force cost estimate for equipment (-$3,332.0 million), installation (-$1,602.2 million), engineering change order estimates (-$505.5 million), and Government Furnished Equipment (-$210.2 million). Additionally, program costs decreased due to the application of revised escalation indices (-$41.0 million), a decrease in advance procurement costs (-$192.1 million), and decreases in initial spares (-$414.2 million) and other support and training costs (-$417.6 million).” Feb 15/08: Only 49 C-5Ms. In a confusingly-written release, the USAF states that: “Air Force officials announced today that officials in the office of the under secretary of Defense for acquisition, technology and logistics have certified the C-5 Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining Program for 49 additional aircraft.” Here’s what that actually means. The 62 C-5As that are still flying will all go through the AMP program, and will receive new avionics by 2014. These C-5A+ Galaxys will be flown by the US Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve. Only the 47 flying C-5B transports and 2 C-5Cs used by NASA will receive the full AMP/RERP upgrade, and become C-5Ms by 2014. According to Defense News, US Undersecretary of Defense for acquisition, technology and logistics John Young believes that program costs will drop to $7.7 billion, down from the September 2007 estimate of $17.5 billion. See also: Sen. Carper release [D-DE]. SAR change February 2008: The US Air Force Association’s Washington Watch feature notes developments on the C-5/ C-17 fronts: “Congress ordered an “objectivity/sufficiency” review of the RERP by the Institute for Defense Analyses, due March 1. A RAND review is also being done at the Air Force’s request…” “Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, head of US Transportation Command, said he “cannot support” terminating C-17 production at this time, given the problems facing the C-5 upgrade program. He declared his belief that the minimum fleet now is 205 C-17s… at a briefing on Capitol Hill.” At present, total American C-17 orders sit at just over 190 aircraft. Nov 19/07: SAR – RERP critical cost breach.The Pentagon releases their latest Selected Acquisition Report, and offers their official view re: program costs. “C-5 RERP (Reliability Enhancement and Reengining Program) – The SAR was submitted to report a unit cost increase of more than 25% to the current baseline estimate and more than 50% to the original baseline, which resulted in a “critical” Nunn-McCurdy breach. Program costs increased $6,168.3 million (+54.4%) from $11,337.9 million to $17,506.2 million, due primarily to a revised program estimate based on an analysis of prime contractor production proposal data, System Development and Demonstration (SDD) actuals, and commercial pricing data.” A critical cost estimate breach forces re-justification of the entire program under the USA’s Nunn-McCurdy legislation, which covers weapons acquisition. SAR change Oct 17/07: Flight International reports that the USAF has asked Airbus for information about the A380F freighter version of its super-jumbo jet, and speculates that it may be connected with the C-5AMP/RERP’s rising costs. DID looks at the A380F, whose 150t (33,000 pound) capacity surpasses even the C-5. There may be a connection, but it may or may not be the connection Flight International thinks. Are you pondering what we’re pondering? See: “USAF Talking to Airbus About A380 Air Force 1, C-5 Replacement?” for the full story and analysis. FY 2007 RERP blows cost breach; Infrastructure build-out. C-5 Galaxy (click to view full) Sept 27/07: US Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne declares Lockheed Martin’s C-5 Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining (RERP) program in violation of Nunn-McCurdy cost inflation triggers, which require the Pentagon to notify Congress when cost growth on a major acquisition program reaches 15%. If increases reach 25%, the Defense Department must re-justify the program. Lockheed and its supporters are contesting the Air Force’s cost estimates, arguing that the RERP’s costs will grow at rates below the Nunn-McCurdy threshold notification requirement. The notification comes amidst Congressional fights over spending to modernize Lockheed C-5s versus new Boeing C-17s. See the “Additional Readings” section below, and also Aviation Week: “According to Congressional Research Service defense analyst Christopher Bolkcom, in “then-year” dollars, the Air Force believes the total RERP program will cost $16.1 billion, versus Lockheed’s projection of $11.7 billion and the most recent Selected Acquisition Report’s estimate of $11.3 billion. Another Capitol Hill source has said Air Force forecasts reach $17.8 billion.” Sept 27/07: RERP Re-baselined. A contract modification for $133.3 million for C-5 Reliability Enhancement and Re-engineering Program (RERP) System Development Re-baseline Engineering Change Proposal. This contract is a modification to an existing contract. At this time, $16.3 million has been obligated (F33657-02-C-2000, P00139). April 30/07: RERP Lot 1a. A $23 million fixed-price-incentive-firm contract for advance procurement of long lead/ advance buy items for Lot 1 of the Low Rate Initial Production for the C-5M Reliability Enhancements and Re-engining program (RERP). At this time, total funds have been obligated. Solicitations and negotiations were complete April 2007 (FA8625-07-C-6471). March 26/07: Infrastructure. A DID reader writes: “I enjoy your articles covering various military spending. I have been checking your aircraft transport listings and haven’t seen much about the C5A. My reason for asking here in Martinsburg, WVA the Air Guard (167th) is spending between 300 million and 400 million to completely rebuild the base that was used for C130H to C5A. The work they’re doing on the other side of the field is absolutely amazing, huge new hangars, new runways and taxiways, construction crews working day and night. I find the amount of money being spent to be simply unbelievable with all of the spare capacity at BRAC’ed air bases. I guess Sen Byrd is spending house ways and means money instead of DoD to get it through, but I was wondering what are you folks hearing? You really got to see it to believe it, and you hear next to nothing in the media. Can your organization tell me anything about the Air Forces plan for the C5A and whats up at the 167th — Big money being spent.” April 9/07: SAR – more C-5 AMPs. The Pentagon releases its Selected Acquisition Reports for the December 2006 reporting period, and the C-5 AMP program is listed due to cost increases: C-5 AMP (Avionics Modernization Program) costs increased $551.2 million (+64.1%), from $859.3 million to $1,410.5 million. The primary reason is a quantity increase from 59 to 110 kits (+51 kits, +$291.4 million), and associated increases in initial spares, peculiar support equipment, and other weapon system costs (+229.1 million). SAR change March 22/07: AMP Lot 5k. A $23.4 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for C-5 AMP production Lot V kits and spares. At this time, total funds have been obligated and work will be complete May 2009 (F33657-98-C-0006/P00167). Dec 22/06: a $16.7 million cost-plus-award fee contract modification. This is a modification to the C-5 Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining Program (RERP). This undefinitized contract action will correct 4 of the 14 Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) waivers, incorporate functionally from the AMP Block Cycle Change (BCC) Cycle Change 2006 software build, and address specific high priority issues. At this time, $8 million have been obligated, and work will be complete June 2007 (F33657-02-C-2000/P00119). March 7/07: C-5 justification. In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee Air & Land Forces Subcommittee, Congressional Research Service defense specialist Christopher Bolkcom says [PDF]: “Current estimates of the per-aircraft cost of AMP and RERP are expected to be approximately one-third that of a new C-17, and the C-5 will carry twice the C-17’s payload. The C-5 also has superior load/off load capabilities. The upgraded aircraft (called the C-5M), is also expected to have greatly improved mission capable rates. It may be noteworthy that during Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, DoD leased Russian An-124 aircraft to carry outsize and oversize cargo because not enough C-5 aircraft were available. The An-124 Condor is a strategic lift aircraft larger than, but comparable to the C-5. As Figure 1 below illustrates, the Air Force has spent $170 million since FY2002 for An- 124 missions. It also appears that the number of An-124 missions is accelerating. FY07 figures already are on par with FY05 figures, and the fiscal year is not yet half over. While the C-5 may not be as modern as the C-17, or able to operate from as many runways, the fact that DOD has to outsource missions to Russian aircraft indicates that the C-5 still offers important capabilities that other U.S. aircraft may not be able to satisfy.” DID will simply note the assumption that AN-124s were leased due to a shortage of C-5s, rather than a shortage of C-5s and C-17s. The testimony also includes program and operating cost data for both the C-5 and C-17 aircraft. Dec 8/06: Process improvement. USAF Air Mobility Command officials announced Dover Air Force Base, DE as one of 3 central sites selected for future C-5 Galaxy isochronal inspections of the entire aircraft. Two additional C-5 ISO inspection sites, one at an Air National Guard base and another at an Air Force Reserve base, will be announced at a later date. During these ISO inspections, aircraft maintainers look for and repair problems in every system. The US Air Force is reducing C-5 ISO inspection sites from 8 to 3 in order to centrally schedule the inspection from a fleet-wide perspective. Meanwhile, process improvements will aim to reduce “flow days” required to complete a C-5 ISO to a consistent number across the fleet, and reduce waiting time. If the system works, it would add an estimated average of 2.5 availability-days to every C-5 in the fleet, which equates to about 300 more sorties per year, or 10,000 pallets. USAF release. Nov 30/06: Training. Flight Safety Services Corp. in Centennial, CO received an $18.1 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for C-5 Aircrew Training Systems Contract-Fund option 8. It covers students throughout and fixed operations, maintenance and support from Oct 1/06 through Sept 30/07. This work will be complete by September 2007. The Headquarters Ogden Air Logistics Center at Hill Air Force Base, UT issued the contract (F42630-99-C-0170/P00163). Nov 17/06: C-5M #2 flies. The 2nd of 3 C-5M AMP/RERP aircraft that will comprise the new test set takes flight for the first time from Dobbins Air Reserve Base, GA. The first test aircraft first flew June 19/06 and has logged more than 51 flight hours to this point. C-5s that have completed only the AMP program, however, have logged more than 4,000 flight hours, many of which were flown in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The first C-5M completed dynamic taxi testing at the Air Force Flight Test Center at Edwards Air Force Base, CA in August 2006. This latest aircraft will be used mostly for utilities and subsystem tests, airfield performance, and diagnostics testing. Both of these aircraft were originally C-5B models. A 3rd test aircraft to be brought up to C-5M standards, a C-5A, is currently in the final stages of modernization and is scheduled to fly later in 2006. Nov 3/06: Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center commander Maj. Gen. Robin E. Scott signs the C-5 AMP Qualification Operational Test & Evaluation (QOT&E) report, which provided a progress update on the C-5M program for the low rate initial production decision. The test team recognized that the C-5 AMP “enhances existing strategic airlift,” but still has limitations. Source. FY 2006 1st C-5M (RERP) done, flies. C-5M test flight (click to view full) USAF story. Aug 8/06: A $6.3 million cost-plus-award fee contract modification. This action provides for an expansion of supply support and development for C-5 RERP. At this time $411,000 has been obligated. This work will be completed by August 2008(F33657-02-C-2000/P00092). July 26/06: C-5M OpEval. The C-5 RERP re-engining program’s Operational Assessment begins. Source. July 11/06: The C-5 AMP AFOTEC QOT&E test team completes the last test event. Source. June 28/06: Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center (AFOTEC) commander Maj. Gen. Robin E. Scott signs the C-5 RERP operational assessment test plan. Source. June 19/06: 1st C-5M flight. The first flight of the C-5M, the new designation given to the C-5 aircraft upgraded under RERP, occurs. Source. C-5M 1st flights. May 26/06: Sub-contractors. Eagle Tool and Machine Co., Inc. in Springfield, OH received a $7.5 million fixed price with economic price adjustment contract for 104 (each) landing gear cylinder and piston assemblies applicable to the C-5 aircraft. At this time, total funds have been obligated. Solicitations began March 2006 and negotiations were complete May 2006 (FA8203-06-C-0165). May 16/06: 1st re-engining. The first C-5 RERP modification to re-engine the planes is complete. Source. April 21/06: AMP’s Eval resumed. Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center (AFOTEC) leadership resumes the C-5 AMP’s Qualification Operational Test & Evaluation (QOT&E). Source”. March 28/06: Flight Safety Services Corp. in Centennial, CO received a $7 million firm-fixed-price contract modification for C-5 Aircrew Training Systems Contract-Fund Option, CLIN installation, integration and testing of the AMP Production Kits. At this time, total funds have been obligated. The scheduled completion date is March 2008. The Headquarters Ogden Air Logistics Center at Hill Air Force Base, UT issued the contract (F42630-99-C-0170/P00144). March 21/06: Infrastructure. Burns & McDonnell in Kansas City, MO received a $20.8 million firm-fixed-price contract for construction of a C-5 corrosion control hangar. Work will be performed in Martinsburg, WVA and is expected to be complete by Oct. 31, 2007. Bids were solicited via the World Wide Web on Oct. 24, 2005, and 9 bids were received by the U.S. Property and Fiscal Office for West Virginia, Buckhannon, WVA (W912L8-06-C-0002). Feb 2/06: Training. Flight Safety Services Corp. in Centennial, CO received a $5 million firm fixed price contract modification for C-5 Aircrew Training Systems Contract-Fund Option, CLINs for Dover Modernization Program (AMP) Kits. At this time, total funds have been obligated, and work will be complete by November 2006. The Headquarters Ogden Air Logistics Center at Hill Air Force Base, UT issued the contract (F42630-99-C-0170/P00142) Jan 19/06: AMP Lot 4. A $33.3 million firm fixed price contract modification for C-5 AMP Production Lot IV Kits, Support, Spares and Maintenance Training Device Spares. This work will be complete in June 2008, and total funds have been obligated. Negotiations were complete in December 2005 (F33657-98-C-0006/P00161). Nov 10/05: A $98 million firm-fixed-price, time-and-material and cost reimbursable contract. It will provide supply support, engineering and technical support, and software maintenance services to C-5 Galaxys modified under the Avionics Modernization Program (AMP), plus replenishment spares and non-warranty repair. Solicitations began July 2005, and 1 proposal was received. Negotiations were complete November 2005, and work will be complete by November 2010. The Headquarters Warner Robins Air Logistics Center in Robins Air Force Base, GA issued the contract (FA8525-06-D-0001). Oct 12/05: AMP Eval Paused. Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center (AFOTEC) leadership pauses the C-5 AMP’s QUOT&E evaluation. Source. FY 2005 1st C-5 AMP delivered; C-5 AMP OpEval; C-5 RERP begins. C-5, Truckin’ (click to view full) Sept 13/05: Lockheed Martin reaches a critical milestone as technicians install the first engine pylon on a Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining Program (RERP) test aircraft. Installation of the new pylons, designed and built by Goodrich Aerospace, prepares the aircraft for the new General Electric CF6-80C2 engines which will be installed later in 2005. The new General Electric CF6-80C2 engines are very widely used on passenger jets, and currently power the President’s Boeing 747, Air Force One. The engine delivers more than 50,000 pounds of thrust per engine, allowing the C-5Ms to carry more than 270,000 pounds and take off and land in distances as short as 5,000 feet. The new C-5 engines deliver 22% more thrust, achieve 30% shorter takeoff distances, enable 58% faster climb, and have a 99.98% departure reliability rate in commercial service, providing a ten-fold improvement in reliability and maintainability over the current TF39 engines. Lockheed Martin release. Sept 7/05: AMP eval begins. AFOTEC testers began the C-5 AMP’s Qualification Operational Test & Evaluation (QOT&E). Source. Jan 24/05: AMP Lot 3. A $59.3 million firm-fixed-price contract modification to provide for C-5 AMP Production Lot III Kits, Installation Option, Spares and Support. Total funds have been obligated. This work will be complete by December 2007. Negotiations were completed December 2004 (F33657-98-C-0006, P00126). October 2004: 1st C-5 AMP delivered. The first upgraded C-5 AMP aircraft with modern avionics, wiring, etc. is delivered to the Air Force. Source. 1st C-5A+ October 2004: C-5 RERP begins. The first C-5 RERP modification to re-engine the planes begins. Source. May 5/04: Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center commander Maj. Gen. Felix Dupre signs the C-5 AMP qualification operational test and evaluation plan. Source. Dec 29/03: A $42.8 million firm-fixed-price contract modification, exercising an option for 18 C-5 AMP kits. Total funds have been obligated, and work will be complete by March 2005. Solicitation began August 2002, and negotiations were completed March 2003 (F33657-98-C-0006, P00110). FY 2003 and Earlier Avionics bought; AMP work begins. C-5, Antarctica (click to view full) June 6/03: A $16.7 million contract modification for a C-5 AMP engineering change proposal – the addition of the Integrated Standby Instrument System. At this time, $6.3 million of the funds has been obligated, and work will be complete by August 2004 (F33657-98-C-0006, P00093). April 3/03: A $20.3 million firm-fixed-price/cost-plus-award-fee contract modification to provide for support of the C-5 AMP. At this time, all funds have been obligated. Solicitation began in August 2002; negotiations were completed in March 2003, and work will be complete by July 2004 (F33657-98-C-0006, P00080). June 12/02: AMP begins. The first aircraft to be modified under C-5 AMP is brought into Lockheed Martin’s Marietta, GA facility. Source. AMP Begins March 25/02: A $5.3 million cost-plus-award fee contract modification to provide for 1 Lot global air traffic management and airworthiness certification support, in support of the C-5 Avionics Modernization Program. At this time, $2.1 million of the funds has been obligated. This work will be complete December 2003 (F33657-98-C-0006, P00048). Feb 11/02: A $10 million cost-plus-award-fee and firm-fixed price with economic price adjustment contract modification to provide for FY 2002 engineering manufacturing development effort for the C-5 Avionics Modernization program. At this time, the total amount of funds has been obligated. This work will be completed February 2002 (F33657-98-C-0006, P00053). Dec 21/99: a $28.8 million modification to a cost-plus-award-fee contract, F33657-98-C-0006-P00011, to provide for FY2000 engineering and manufacturing development in support of the Avionics Modernization Program for the C-5 aircraft. Expected contract completion date is September 2001. Jan 22/99: a $120.5 million cost-plus-award-fee contract to provide for engineering and manufacturing development through FY 2002 for Avionics Modernization Program kits to be applicable to 126 C-5 aircraft. These kits will include Global Air Traffic Management and All Weather Flight Control systems. There were 17 firms solicited and 2 proposals received. Solicitation issue date was May 15/98. Negotiations were completed Nov 16/98, and the expected contract completion date is October 2005 (F33657-98-C-0006). Base AMP contract. Additional Readings Background: C-5M Lockheed Martin – C-5 Modernization Program GlobalSecurity.org – C-5 Galaxy The Aviation Zone, ‘Home of the Heavies’ – C-5 Galaxy. We especially love the C-5 flyby sound file [.WAV]. GE Aircraft Engines – Model CF680C2: High Reliability, Long Life, Low Fuel Burn Background: C-5M Program Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center (Aug 1/07) – Another Galaxy, Another Test: Operational Test and Evaluation of the C-5M. AFOTEC’s historian offers a detailed chronicle of the entire C-5 Galaxy program, from the cost overruns and wing problems that plagued its early years to the present C-5 AMP/RERP program. USAF, Wright-Patterson AFB – C-5 Avionics Modernization Program. Solicitation. The University of Texas at Austin: Studies in Ethics, Safety, and Liability for Engineers – The C-5 Galaxy: A Question of Need? US Joint Aircraft Survivability Program Office – Innovation in the C-5 LFT&E Program. Unfortunately, the old link no longer works and the fragments reproduced on this page are all that’s left. If any readers can give us pointers to the full document, or send us a copy, it was interesting. Lockheed Martin Code One Magazine (March 7/12) – Tweak My Ride. Lexington Institute (Oct 4/10) – Upgrades To Giant C-5 Galaxy Airlifter Greatly Increase Performance & Reliability. Quantifies some of the C-5M’s advantages over the C-17 in terms of cargo and range. USAF (Sept 16/10) – New facility supports C-5 Galaxy software testing. “The building itself cost $658,000, but another $15 million investment was needed for the set up of the lab, including the cockpit wiring and engineering the lab capability, writing the simulation software and validating everything works as intended.” News & Views Aviation Week’s Defense Technology International (Jun 13/07) – A400M could Dominate Strategic Lift. With no C-5 production, and no C-17 production, it would be the only Western choice remaining, competing with Russia’s AN-124s. Also covers the C-17 program, and C-5 AMP/RERP upgrades. There is some question as to whether the upgrades can produce the required readiness rates. USAF (Nov 23/07) – AMC commander discusses modernization, recapitalization issues. Among other topics discussed, Gen. Lichte favors re-engining only the C-5Bs, and acquiring more C-17s. Congressional priorities eventually gave him exactly that, in a very roundabout way. Defense News (Oct 29/07) – Airplanes on Life Support. Moseley, Wynne Plead: Let USAF Pull the Plug. They’re talking about aircraft that can’t fly but must be kept per Congressional directives, which includes a number of C-130E Hercules and KC-135E Stratotankers. It also talks about the C-5 programs, and thoughts of discarding the C-5As. Gannett’s Air Force Times (Oct 29/07) – MRAPs going to Iraq on Russian cargo planes. “The Air Force has been forced to use Russian commercial cargo jets to rush Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles from the U.S. to Iraq because it does not have enough C-5 and C-17 planes to do the job, the service’s top civilian official said recently…” Ever consider sealift? Vacaville Reporter (Oct 29/07) – C-5, C-17 topic of planned study. DID (Oct 21/07) – USAF Talking to Airbus About A380 Air Force 1, C-5 Replacement? But how serious are they on either score? Gannett’s Air force Times (Oct 19/07) – Bill wants a study on airlift capabilities. Macon Telegraph (Oct 7/07) – C-5 future hangs on Air Force, Lockheed price differences. “The Galaxy fleet – sixty 1960s-vintage C-5As, forty-nine 1980s-era C-5Bs and two C-5Cs for use by NASA – has been plagued by nagging deficiencies. The C-5Bs were mission ready 66.6 percent of the time last year. The C-5As were much worse at 49.1 percent. The C-5’s counterpart, the much newer C-17 strategic airlifter, registered reliability of almost 85 percent.” Flight International (Oct 1/07) – USAF rounds on Congressional C-5 protection Defense News (Oct 1/07) – C-5 Upgrade Effort Imperiled by Cost Confusion. Stars & Stripes (Oct 1/07) – ‘Winglets’ could save Air Force millions on fuel. The C-5 fleet might be a candidate. Flight International (March 20/07) – Latest C-5 flies into budget storm. Government Executive (March 8/07) – Lawmakers divided over cargo plane options. House Armed Services Committee Air & Land Forces Subcommittee Hearing (March 7/07) – Statement Of Christopher Bolkcom, Specialist In National Defense, Congressional Research Service, On Air Force And Army Airlift And Aerial Re-Fueling Fixed-Wing Aircraft Programs [PDF]. Air Force Link (Sept 25/06) – Dover AFB receives new maintenance trainer. A training simulator for maintenance? Yes, and it’s working well for the C-5M AMP program. Air Force Link (Feb 8/06) – C-5 Galaxy aircraft engine test successful. DID (Nov 14/05) – Delayed Pentagon Mobility Study Finally Offers a Preview. GE (Sept 16/04) – GE Engine Certified for U.S. Air Force C-5 Galaxy Program. Aviation Today (Feb 1/04) – GATM-izing Galaxy: New C-5 Avionics. USAF Agile Acquisition magazine (February 2004) – Teamwork, Innovation Eliminate Travis’ C-5 ‘Cannibalization’ Jet. Air Force Magazine (January 2004) – Saving the Galaxy. Aviation Today (Aug 1/2000) – C-5 Modernization, Step By Step. AFA Air Force Magazine (December 1998) – Nickel Grass: The airlift that saved Israel. View the full article

Americas According to sources and an Army document viewed by Defense News, the Brazilian Army has written out requirements for its next eight-wheel drive armoured reconnaissance vehicle, after authorization for the service to buy up to 221 of the platforms, each armed with a 105mm or 120mm gun. The VBC Cav-MSR procurement attempt will take the role of the VBR-MR programme. The Army’s General Staff is currently waiting for permission to publish the rules and schedule for industry bids. According to Jane’s, Information and network technology specialists at the US Department of Defense (DoD) want to evaluate potential solutions to meet multi-input, multi-output (MIMO) requirements for on-the-move tactical communication networks. Industry submissions for the distributed MIMO (D-MIMO) development effort are due to the department’s Research and Engineering directorate by the end of June, according to the request for sources (RFS) solicitation issued in April. The D-MIMO programme is part of a larger DoD-led advanced mobile communications development effort known as the Innovate Beyond 5G (IB5G) programme. Middle East & Africa NNS Kada, the Nigerian Navy’s new landing ship tank (LST 1314) has arrived Nigeria, on May 27 and is currently berth at its new home port in Apapa, Lagos. Kada was ordered from Damen Group in 2019 and built at Albwardy Damen shipyard in Sharjah, the United Arab Emirates (UAE). It was laid down in December 2019, launched in June 2021, and handed over to the NN in Sharjah on 30 March. The vessel departed for Nigeria on 1 April and prior to its arrival in Lagos, made stopovers in five countries: Angola (Luanda), Gabon (Port Gentil), Kenya (Mombasa), Oman (Port of Duqm), and South Africa (Cape Town). Two previously unseen types of air-breathing missile were displayed during an event intended to showcase Iran’s unmanned aircraft capabilities on May 28. The missiles were seen in media coverage of a visit by Major General Mohammad Bagheri, chief of the general staff of the armed forces, to an underground facility identified as Strategic Base 313, which is operated by Iran’s regular military rather than the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), where he inspected dozens of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Europe Finland will initially bed down its F-35As at Rovaniemi airport in 2026, the country declared on May 26. It is Finland’s most northern air base and lies within the Arctic Circle. The country ordered 64 F-35As and will be operational with the aircraft by 2030. Asia-Pacific South Korea’s Defense Project Promotion Committee has approved a $605 million project to buy PAC-3 missile interceptors and upgrade its existing PAC-2 launchers so that it can launch the PAC-3 missiles. Seoul will also spend $783 million to develop a mine-sweeping helicopter. Today’s Video WATCH: Patriot Missile Defense System Overview View the full article

Reviewed by Charles C. Kolb, Ph.D. Vincent P. O’Hara is an independent naval historian and the author of thirteen works, including Six Victories: North Africa, Malta, and the Mediterranean Convoy War, November 1941-March 1942 (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 2019) and with Leonard R. Heinz, Clash of Fleets: Naval Battles of the Great War, 1914-18 (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 2017). He holds a history degree from the University of California, Berkeley. Leonard R. Heinz worked for many years as a financial services lawyer while maintaining an active interest in military and naval history. He has written articles and designed wargames on naval topics and earned a history degree from the University of Pennsylvania. O’Hara and Heinz have now collaborated in writing Innovating Victory: Naval Technology in Three Wars, an innovative comparison of the world’s major combatant navies through three significant major conflicts (Spanish-American War, World War I, and World War II – the Russo-Japanese War has an occasional appearance) illustrating how nations incorporated – or failed to incorporate — new technologies into their ships, their practices, and their doctrines. The authors examine six core technologies fundamental to twentieth-century naval warfare including new weapons (mines and torpedoes), new tools (radio and radar), and particularly new platforms (submarines and aircraft). They demonstrate how technology influences naval warfare, and vice versa. An “Introduction” and “Chapter 1: Use, Doctrine, and Innovation” provide appropriate context to the six chapters in which they examine the technological advances. The authors’ stated goals for this volume is (pp. 3-4): 1) briefly consider the nature and history of each of the six technologies; 2) consider the state of the technology when it was first used in war and how different navies expected to use it; 3) explore how major navies subsequently improved or modified their use of the technology; 4) examine the development of countermeasures; 5) discuss how navies developed doctrine and incorporated ancillary technologies to improve the core technology’s effectiveness. O’Hara and Heinz do point out that their book is “not intended to be a complete history of naval technology in the period covered” (p. 4). The initial chapter provides information on the book’s context of use, doctrine, and innovation beginning in 1805, with references to Trafalgar, Jutland, Tsushima, the Falklands, and Persian Gulf. Primary topics include the roles of innovation and doctrine, failures (“the lights that failed), and choices and constraints. Each of the content chapters (2 through 7) is organized in a standardized matter covering nine topics: The Technology Described, Early Use, and Expectations; Discovery (use in initial conflicts); Countermeasures; Revised Expectations; Evolution: World War I; Exploitation: World War II; Case Study; The Technology Postwar and Today; and What This Tells Us (lessons learned). The volume also provides an integrated “Conclusion,” as well as a “Bibliography” with 414 entries, 450 scholarly “Notes,” and a useful 13-page “Index,” augmented by 27 illustrations, 11, figures, and 12 tables. The illustrations are black-and-white images from the Naval Historical and Heritage Command collections; readers may desire more than these images. I next summarize key points from each of the six chapters. In “Mines: The Neglected Weapon,” the technology is traced from 1776 and the development of the spar torpedo and contact mines into the Russo-Japanese War 1904-1905 (battles in the Yellow Sea and Sea of Japan). By World War I, Russia was the leading practitioner of mine warfare, Germany emphasized mine warfare, Britain was “cautious,” and France faltered in development. German versus British conflicts took place in the mouth of the Thames, Heligoland Bight, Zeebrugge, the Dardanelles, and Gulf of Riga. Countermeasures included limpet mines and degaussing, while the Normandy Invasion serves as a case study and illustrates a German failure. Mines had been a core weapon for twelve centuries and a highly effective weapon in the right circumstances. “Torpedoes: The Long Arc” commences in 1866 and the gradual development of the “automotive torpedo.” The Russo-Japanese War and War of the Pacific saw innovations in the use of gyroscopes, while longer-range weapons were developed by World War I. Austria, Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Russia, and the Ottoman Empire quickly adopted the weapon but the United States balked at the cost and, hence, would lag behind in development into World War II. Air-dropped torpedoes were employed by Britain, Japan, the United States, Italy, and Germany; the British were productive at Taranto with these weapons in 1940, and the Japanese were successful with Type 93 devices at Pearl Harbor in 1941. America had initially discounted Japanese technology and had imagined that submarines or unseen ships rather than aircraft-dropped weapons were responsible for early losses at Guadalcanal. The Germans led in the development of homing torpedoes (T4 and T5) but the United States moved forward with acoustic homing torpedoes. The submarines became the best weapons platform for torpedoes; examples from the Indo-Pakistani War in 1971 and the Falkland Islands in 1982 are cited. “Radio: The Mixed Blessing” details its invention by Marconi in 1896 and use by the Italian Navy in the following year. The Americans, Germans, and Russians selected Slaby-Arco equipment, the British selected Marconi, Austria-Hungary opted for Siemens-Braun, and others purchased Russo-French equipment. There were many shortcomings in all the early radios. The Russo-Japanese War witnessed the use of radio in the Far East and caused Russian disillusionment with the Slaby-Arco sets. Navies developed long-wave transmission stations and codes and cyphers during World War I. The British cut German undersea cables and attacked radio stations planning to isolate the German East Asiatic Squadron under von Spee in China. The British benefitted at the Battle of Jutland because German radio reports included only position while the British radio system included location, range, and bearing; Russia shared captured German SIGINT codes with the British in 1914. Radio-direction finding was pioneered by the Italians and between the World Wars; the use and development of radio communications “exploded” with better vacuum tubes, traffic analysis, voice telephony, radio-controlled weapons, and HF/DF. German confidence in the use of Enigma and the subsequent communications downfall is well-documented. Radio became a universal core need of all navies and would lead to cellphones, digitization, and enhanced encryption. In “Radar: Magic Goes to Sea,” the authors’ comment that radar languished for three decades after German development in 1904 before navies took a serious interest. The discussion focuses on initial German (1933), British (1935), and American (1937) development but mentions “home grown” efforts by Japan (post-1942), Italy (1942), and France (1941) and the two major types of radar: fire control and search radar. The technology remained new and secret but the British benefitted during the Battle of Britain in the ability to quickly scramble fighters, in the Graf Spee chase and sinking, and the sinking of Hipper and Scharnhorst, but not in the loss of Ark Royal. The United States had overestimated radar’s abilities in the Battle of Savo Island (the Japanese sunk four American cruisers near Guadalcanal), but had success at the Battle of Casablanca, and in the Marshall Islands. Changes in fighter direction capabilities during the battles of the Philippine Sea, Cape Esperance, and Second Battle of Guadalcanal benefitted the Americans. A case study is the invasion of Normandy on D-Day when American command practice and doctrine differed but no German surface vessels were able to penetrate the U.S. destroyer screen; German search radar for aircraft was slow to develop. German countermeasures included jamming with “snow” (also called chaff or window) but the Allies were able to develop highly effective anti-aircraft artillery. The Japanese were also slow in developing search radar prior to the Battle of Midway and ultimately employed “brute force” in the Pacific theater, namely kamikaze aircraft. In the postwar era, radar was used to guide more precise weapons such as anti-ship missiles, including Harpoon and Exocet, as seen in the Arab-Israeli War (1973), and in the Falklands, and Gulf Wars. “Submarine: The Mission Matters” commences with brief mentions of blockade running during the American Revolutionary War (1775-1783) and American Civil War (1861-1865), especially the latter, when the Confederate States developed the ram bow and spar torpedo for the CSA Hunley in 1864. During the Crimean War, Russia also utilized similar devices against British blockade. By 1880, there were at least 42 separate designs for submarines, among them the USS Holland in 1887, so that by 1900 six navies had ten vessels in service and eleven under construction. The Russo-Japanese War witnessed the first real combat, while in the First Balkan War (1912) the Greek Delphin just missed sinking an Ottoman cruiser. By 1914 all major and most minor navies had submarines tasked with finding and destroying enemy warships rather than merchant vessels. The authors present data on nations and their submarines as of August 1, 1914: Britain 76, France 50, America 32, Germany 27, Russia 22, Italy 18, Japan 13, and Austria-Hungary 5. The earliest offensive actions involved submarines working with surface warships such as at Heligoland Bight when the German U-21 torpedoed the British cruiser Pathfinder on September 5, 1914; other actions also took place that month, and commercial traffic was initially attacked on October 8, 1914; the sinking of Lusitania on May 7, 1915, is also recounted. While land armies were “stalemated” during World War I, naval actions were not. In addition to Jutland, actions took place in the Baltic and Mediterranean. Countermeasures included the convoy system, Q ships, aircraft, anti-submarine patrols (ASW), echo detectors, ASDIC, and depth charges; Germany also developed sonar. At the beginning of World War II in 1939, the numbers of modern submarines in national navies had changed: Britain 71, France 80, Soviet Union 212, United States, 111, Germany 57, Italy 115, and Japan 58. Commercial warfare, mine warfare, coastal defenses, and anti-warship patrols, are reviewed and the Washington Conference (1930) and London Naval Conference (1935) are only mentioned. Japan was especially vulnerable because of reliance on tankers for oil and gasoline transport. A case study features U-247 (a Type VIIIC submarine), and discussions of V80 tests boats, Type 93 torpedoes, the speedy U-794 (22 knots submerged), and oceanic boat Type XVIIB, and Type XXI (U-2511). During World War II, statistically, the causes of enemy submarine sinking’s were first by aircraft, followed by warships, mines, and other submarines. The postwar era saw AWS helicopters and nuclear-powered submarines, one of which, the British Conqueror, sank the Argentinian General Belgrano using World War II-era Mark VIII torpedoes during the Falklands War. In the final chapter, “Aircraft: Vision and Competition,” the authors contend that aircraft is the most transformative technology considered in their book because it elevated naval warfare into a third dimension. The technologies began with eighteen century hot air balloon, the Zeppelin (1900), and launching aircraft from naval vessels (the cruiser USS Birmingham). Radios were added to aircraft in 1910 and machine guns in 1915. France was the preeminent pre-war innovator in aviation and airships; airplanes and flying boats were also quickly designed. Aircraft initially had six general missions: scouting and patrol, gunnery spotting, attacking ships / shipping, striking land targets, anti-submarine warfare, and air defense. Aircraft infrastructure needs included fuel, ordnance, hangars, and newly created instruments, while there were no real defensive countermeasures against aircraft. By 1918, the major powers had built more than 9,000 naval aircraft. However, there was a great deal of innovation between the two major wars which included: fuel, bombs, guns, engines, and special training for aviators. Notably, British aircraft carrier development was rated as “outstanding” and had also amalgamated army and navy air services; however, by 1939, the British carriers were small and accommodated Swordfish as the primary naval aircraft. Both the Italian and French navies received little support for naval aviation. Although the Versailles Treaty banned Germany from creating an airforce including float planes, they did anyway by 1935, but both Germany and Italy lacked aircraft carriers during World War II. The United States and Japan built carriers beginning in 1922, but generally followed different paths to World War II, with the latter having experience gained in the Russo-Japanese War and Sino-Japanese War. The discussion of World War II focuses on the successes and failures of aircraft reconnaissance and naval shipping; the former including the Battle of the River Platte, Taranto, Pearl Harbor, and the sinking of Tirpitz. A table on aircraft carrier losses by the major powers lists: Japan 6, Britain 7, and the United States 4 (not counting kamikaze damage/losses). The postwar period included steam catapult aircraft launching on carriers and mentions of conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf plus the “deadly threat” of unmanned drones. In their “Conclusion” the authors point out that the six different technologies had mixed military and scientific antecedents, hence, varied roots and evolution in different ways. Time and financial resources were critical ingredients in the genesis of technologies, which were mostly national secrets. One major exception was the Allied cooperation on the development of radar, while the competition for resources between air forces and navies played a significant role in both German and Japanese naval technological developments. Other summaries conclude that combat is the “acid test” for new technologies and the authors note important countermeasures such as the development of German guided weapons, how Enigma was compromised, and needs and uses such as radar in offense versus defense, as well as how aircraft limited the effectiveness of submarines. The book focuses on technological successes and the authors state four broad principles: 1) expectations do not determine best use; 2) users have valuable input; 3) needs influence use; and 4) new technologist bring new vulnerabilities. New technologies also affect tactics and new uses provoke countermeasures. In our current era of artificial intelligence/machine learning, unmanned vehicles, and drones these histories of past significant technologies present lessons to be learned. This thoughtfully innovative, well-written and well-researched synthesis of key technologies – tools, weapons, and platforms – is fact-filled and a wonderful primer useful for understanding the history of the individual technologies and their interrelationships with others, even beyond the six detailed in this unusual and welcome book for navy bookshelves. Charles C. Kolb, Ph.D. is U.S. Naval Institute Golden Life Member. Innovating Victory: Naval Technology in Three Wars. By Vincent P. O’Hara and Leonard R. Heinz (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 2022). The post Innovating Victory: Naval Technology in Three Wars first appeared on Naval Historical Foundation. View the full article