There is a better copy here with better pictures including one on the BMACK.

video

Video clip of the news on TV, I’ll leave it there till 7 Dec due to disk space constraits.

http://www.alert5.com/images/CNA-ChangiEast.mpg

http://www.mindef.gov.sg/display.asp?number=2269
Minister for Defence, Rear-Admiral (NS) Teo Chee Hean, officially opened Changi Air Base (East) this afternoon. The opening of Changi Air Base (East) is a milestone in the development of the RSAF as it is a significant enhancement to the operational capability of the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) to defend Singapore’s airspace.

AMRAAMS
Changi East Airbase

British fighter aircraft defend Baltic skies

There is an article today about the Tornado detachment over at Lithuania.

Active Stealth was mention on AW&ST 27 September issue.
Someone posted it here

The Taiwanese are interested in the M-346.

Local aerospace group proposes new plane
Taiwan’s Aerospace Industrial Development Corporation is considering a future cooperative effort with both AerMacchi of Italy and Boeing of the U.S. to make the M-346.

hiya pirate….
do you have a link to a downloadable version of the above video ??

Hi, I have a copy for download. Anyone who wants it can download it when I publish the news tomorrow at Alert5

Commentary: The Battle over Boeing’s Radical New Plane
Boeing seems to be dragging its feet on the blended wing

Boeing Co.’s (BA ) future in commercial aviation rests on the outcome of an intense behind-the-scenes struggle over what kind of new airplane it should build next. Senior management in Boeing’s commercial airplane division seems determined to take a conservative course, gradually upgrading the same kinds of planes the company builds today.

In contrast, a cadre of Boeing engineers wants the company to gamble on a futuristic, triangular-shaped aircraft design, dubbed the Blended-Wing Body, which Boeing inherited from McDonnell Douglas Corp. researchers when the two companies merged in 1997. They say this plane, the BWB, would be cheaper to build and fly than anything rival Airbus has on its drawing boards. And it could secure Boeing’s leading position in the industry for at least another decade.

Managers who oppose the blended wing say the design has structural problems that outweigh its advantages. The argument has some merit: The radical design does not allow for windows at most passenger seats. The tailless BWB may also make for a bumpy ride compared with ordinary jetliners. And the composite materials needed to build the plane could prove more expensive than designers originally projected.

If such technical issues were really at the crux of this debate, BWB advocates within Boeing could probably address them. In fact, other forces are at work. Many critics inside and outside the company complain of a cultural shift in which engineering spirit is subordinated to financial concerns. Driven by the need to produce profits, senior management has moved its focus to defense and space businesses, away from the hotly competitive commercial-aircraft market. When it comes to the blended wing, say sources, they are simply unwilling to take risks.

In some regards, Boeing’s hesitation is understandable. Many of its customers on the commercial side are in dire financial straits. And Boeing itself is under constant pressure from Wall Street to show returns. In at least one scenario, the company might ride the current wave of defense spending, contain losses, avoid risks, and emerge in a few years bolder and ready to build for the future.

Nonetheless, Boeing’s current conservative mood is troubling because the company is at a crossroads much like the one it faced 50 years ago, when it was pondering a risky move from propellers to jet engines. Back then, the company’s legendary chief engineer, Edward C. Wells, helped settle the issue by declaring that “life is too short to spend it working on propellers.” There is no such voice at the top today. Indeed, the company may be poised to quietly quash the biggest breakthrough in airliner design in decades.

Based on computer simulations, a blended-wing plane would be 32% cheaper to fly than Airbus’ new A380 airliner–which is winning orders mainly because it offers 15% lower operating costs than a Boeing 747. The savings are mostly in fuel, which the BWB conserves thanks to its efficient design. The wing has much more aerodynamic lift than drag, and the structure weighs less than conventional jets. Indeed, Boeing’s studies show that the blended wing would be far cheaper to operate than any current or proposed airliner with 250 to 500 seats.

That’s why at least four of the world’s major carriers–Lufthansa (DLAKY ), FedEx (FDX ), Singapore Airlines, and United Airlines (UAL )–want Boeing’s commercial-airplane division to make the blended wing a priority. And some have urged Boeing to forget about another pet project, a high-speed jet known as the Sonic Cruiser. Airline execs haven’t pulled any punches at meetings with Boeing officials. At a mid-October gathering, a senior European airline exec dismissed a Boeing manager’s presentation, saying: “We do not want to talk about the higher-speed and higher-cost Sonic Cruiser aircraft anymore.” That plane would cut 45 to 90 minutes off long routes, but given its higher fuel costs, “we didn’t see any value for the amount of time it would save,” says Gordon McKinzie, director of new aircraft programs for United Airlines Inc.

Despite the fact that many execs are intrigued by the blended wing, Boeing doesn’t seem to be listening to its customers. The plane maker made little effort to provide technical briefings on the blended-wing design. Some airlines have actually paid to fly in the BWB program director for an unofficial briefing–after which they invariably rave about what they heard. One enthusiastic customer even considered offering a billion dollars to help subsidize further development of the aircraft, industry sources say.

While senior Boeing execs at the commercial airplane division declined to talk to BusinessWeek about the blended wing or the Sonic Cruiser, other executives and engineers throughout the company were willing to speak privately and publicly about the prospects for both programs. And when those in the commercial division did weigh in, it was mainly to complain. The lack of windows was one magnet for criticism: The thick wing stubs cover the sides of the passenger cabin. Critics also fret that the aircraft won’t be stable.

Commercial Airplane CEO Alan R. Mulally repeated some of these complaints to Boeing managers at the company’s St. Louis training center in October. According to sources who were present but decline to be named, when the BWB was raised during a question-and-answer session, Mulally made it clear that the blended wing has absolutely no future under his watch.

He won’t even give the plane a full hearing. Boeing insiders say that neither he nor his influential second-in-command, James M. Jamieson, senior vice-president for airplane programs, will sit down for a face-to-face program review with Robert H. Liebeck, a senior technical fellow and chief designer of the blended wing, and a part-time teacher at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Nor has Liebeck been allowed to brief CEO Philip M. Condit. On the other hand, sources say, former president and now board member Harry C. Stonecipher, CFO Michael M. Sears, and Chief Technology Officer David Swain are fans of the blended wing and seek regular updates on its progress.

Mulally and Jamieson declined to speak to BusinessWeek, and Boeing would not make Liebeck available for an interview. But other senior Boeing officials acknowledge a house divided. “The one challenge is overcoming the inherent resistance of people who build tube-and-wing airplanes,” says George Muellner, Boeing’s senior vice-president for Air Force Systems and former head of its research-and-development arm, the so-called Phantom Works. Still, Muellner is optimistic. He figures the BWB offers too many advantages to ignore. “It’s going to earn its way into the marketplace,” he predicts.

Meanwhile, independent simulations provide ammunition for BWB’s advocates. “There are no technical or economic reasons for this airplane not to be built,” says Robert E. McKinley, manager of NASA’s blended-wing project, which helped fund the Boeing BWB program. “The plane has incredible potential. I can’t see any big holes in it.”

All this is creating confusion and consternation among the airlines. They are beginning to wonder if Boeing has a coherent long-term strategy. “The blended-wing concept provides great promise, and Boeing should officially present the program as soon as possible,” says one senior foreign airline exec. “However, I and many of my colleagues in the airline industry do not understand what is going on at Boeing anymore.” They’re particularly scratching their heads over the attitude toward cost advantages of the blended wing. The plane “has all the panache of the Sonic Cruiser but is focused on cost rather than speed–and that’s a much more intelligent way to go right now,” says Richard Aboulafia, aerospace analyst for Teal Group Corp. consultants

Pursuing a new fleet of blended-wing passenger jets may be risky, but it could be Boeing’s best hope of regaining leadership in commercial aviation. Sticking with familiar, conventional designs won’t solve Boeing’s long-term challenge. It doesn’t need just one new plane–it needs a whole fleet of more modern aircraft. And they must be clearly superior to Airbus jetliners. For the first time ever, Airbus is expected to surpass Boeing in airplane deliveries next year, about 300 planes. Only three years ago, Airbus was delivering fewer than half as many jets as its U.S. rival.

Such competition highlights the opportunity staring Boeing in the face. Management should grab it–and let its customers, the airlines, evaluate the blended-wing concept thoroughly. Liebeck and his team have spent 12 years refining their design–10 years longer than the amount of research devoted to the Boeing-developed Sonic Cruiser. Says FedEx Vice-President James Parker, who’s in charge of aircraft acquisitions: “If Boeing were to offer a blended wing, we would certainly take a serious look at it.”

The BWB concept also has huge potential as a military tanker, transport, and commercial freighter. Its wide fuselage means that as a tanker, the BWB could refuel three fighter jets at the same time. True, the plane’s launch cost is estimated to exceed $10 billion. But with Pentagon backing, Boeing could probably get the government to help pay some of the costs.

Boeing has legitimate questions about whether some airlines might feel uncomfortable with a plane design that’s untested in commercial-aviation circles. Yet the basic idea has been around for 50 years. A flying wing was built in the 1940s by Jack Northrop, founder of Northrop Corp., and the concept is still flying–as the B2 Stealth Bomber.

Another common objection is that because the passenger compartment is so wide, the people sitting in the outside seats could feel like they were riding a roller coaster as the plane banks and turns. But a motion simulator at NASA indicates that the ride would be similar to that of a Boeing 747. “As long as the pilot flies it like an airliner and not like a fighter jet, you won’t sense it,” says Boeing’s Muellner.

The recent waffling at Boeing trains a spotlight on the cultural shift within the company. In the past, old-timers recall, the saying was: “We hire engineers–and other people.” Boeing was a place where management encouraged open, intense debates over designs, where a team led by chief engineer Wells could completely revise the design of the B-52 bomber over a weekend after the Air Force said it wasn’t impressed with the first offering.

In the wake of the merger with McDonnell Douglas, profits not debate seem to be driving decisions. Wall Street initially hailed the deal as providing a better balance between Boeing’s defense and commercial businesses. But perhaps that balance has tipped too far in favor of defense. The company has yet to launch a new aircraft to counter the recent market-share gains by archrival Airbus.

Many outsiders believe that Boeing’s turmoil over the blended wing stems in part from the injured egos of managers. Emotionally, they may not feel comfortable backing a project that was hatched at McDonnell Douglas. If the not-invented-here syndrome is playing even a small role in Boeing’s decision-making, Mulally and his senior execs need to reevaluate their position.

For now, Boeing is hanging back from what could be a quantum leap in technology, one that could yield significant benefits for the plane maker and its customers. The company owes it to its proud heritage–and shareholders–to investigate the blended-wing design comprehensively. At least then the final decision, gutsy or not, would be based on sound analysis. And it’s a good bet that Boeing would see that boldness is better.