Get AFM’s X-Planes 2 special. There’s an article on it in there.

SOC – can you post more details?

What I have is that program Senior Citizen (evidence number PE0401316F) was born in second half of 80s and cancelled in 1993. It was designed as special V/STOL stealth transport plane for 12 soldiers and one vehicle in Hummer class.

It seems that Lockheed, Northrop and Boeing submitted proposals. I made some drawings of Northrop proposal based on sketch that I have from reliable source. It was derived from B-2 as other proposals from this era (for example ATA) to reduce the costs. But personally I think that four fans in fuselage produced not enough lift, so plane should be at best in ESTOL class. Other proposals are still objects of my research. I found one sketch of double delta design with eight lift and one (two ?) cruise engines with description that it is Boeing design. But two years later one my source sent me the original drawing that says, its from Lockheed. So….

PS: During Senior Citizen research I once again assured, that the best and the most complete source of information about american planes are russian archives 😉

German 37+92 @ SIAD (Slovak International Air Days) 2004 in Bratislava.

Maybe it helps – I did some pixel magic and the first word is “FUERZA”. The last four characters on the right are “ANIA”. The rest is difficult to recognize because a too intensive used compression.

I agree with Flex. It can be clearly displayed on often shown picture of Yak-130 family. Yak-130 is complex weapon and training system, not only trainer. But the logical way was to develop a trainer first to satisfy the needs of Russian air force. But after finishing the basic research they can fluently continue in developing single seat attack version and UCAS derivate. Maybe UB designation means, that Algeria is plannig to buy also this single seat version in the future, but this is only my speculation.

I`m pleased, that Spain and France are changing the HAC-Variants to HAD-Variants. Personally I would like that Germany should changed their UHT-Variant to the HAD-Variant. Helicopters need a gun.

I totaly agree. I was still wondering, why was so good helicopter bifurcated into two different versions with a lot of limitations. I recall early 60s, when some “experts” concluded, that military fighters dont need a gun.

And its not because a new 21st century strategies or something like that. Its because the lack of money!

Video: http://rapidshare.de/files/14341183/IraqFreedom.mpeg.html

Here is original DARPAs request for proposals. I hope, that it is not secret 🙂

Description
The Tactical Technology Office (TTO) of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is soliciting innovative proposals for Phase I of the Switchblade program. The Switchblade program is pursuing development and demonstration of critical enabling technologies for an operational oblique flying wing (OFW) aircraft. In addition to this BAA, and before submitting proposals, prospective Offerors must refer to the Switchblade Proposer Information Pamphlet (PIP) located at the DARPA website, http://www.darpa.mil/baa for further information. The Switchblade PIP contains additional details regarding the Program Description, Phase I Statement of Objectives, Proposal Guidance, and Evaluation Criteria for Award.

OVERALL PROGRAM GOAL AND VISION: The goals of the Switchblade program are to mature critical enabling technologies for an OFW, validate design methodologies and conduct an experimental airplane (X-Plane) flight demonstration to prove the feasibility of a supersonic, tailless, oblique flying wing aircraft. Some of the key technology challenges will be in the areas of aerodynamics, controls, propulsion integration, and aeroelasticity. For affordability reasons, the X-Plane should be designed to focus on the key technologies for the offeror?s operational concept that require flight demonstration. It is not envisioned that all critical technologies will require flight demonstration. Ground testing, modeling and simulation, and parallel, off-program risk reduction or technology maturation efforts should be leveraged to mature as many of the technology challenges associated with the operational OFW concept as possible.

PHASE I DESCRIPTION: DARPA may fund one or more contractor teams for Phase I, Risk Reduction, Testing and Preliminary Design. During Phase I, the performer(s) will refine and execute their proposed Technology Maturation Plan for reducing the risk of the critical technologies associated with their operational OFW conceptual design. The performer(s) will also develop a derivative X-Plane preliminary design and conduct detailed planning for Phase II. The performer(s) will update their operational aircraft and X-Plane designs as appropriate, based on emerging Phase I risk reduction results. The performer(s) should develop a demonstration philosophy that will result in an affordable Phase II demonstration program that maximizes risk reduction through X-Plane flight testing, as well as complementary ground demonstrations. Offerors are directed to the PIP for further information.

FUNDING: Due to the challenging suite of technologies that must be matured to support the OFW vision, as well as the expected variability in Offeror approaches, DARPA has not established a funding objective or schedule for Phase I. The Offeror is expected to provide a realistic technical and cost proposal for best achieving the program objectives within their proposed schedule. The Government reserves the right to select all, some, or none of the proposals received in response to this solicitation and fund portions of proposals if warranted. Proposal preparation costs shall not be allowable as a direct charge to any resulting contract or agreement. Final funding determination will be based on the combination of proposed approaches which will reasonably support program success. Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and Minority Institutions (MIs) are encouraged to submit proposals; however, no portion of this BAA will be set aside for HBCU and MI participation because of the impracticality of reserving discrete or severable areas of research and development in OFW technology.

AWARD INSTRUMENT AND EVALUATION APPROACH: In addition to a conventional procurement contract, the Offeror has the opportunity to propose an Other Transactions (OT) for Prototypes Agreement. The Government may elect to award either a procurement contract or an OT Agreement. Offerors are asked to submit two proposal responses: one for a procurement contract that does not include cost share, and the second for an OT agreement, that may include cost share. The Government will evaluate all Offerors? no-cost-share proposals in accordance with the established evaluation criteria (see Section 4 of the PIP, Evaluation Criteria for Award), other applicable published procedures (FAR Part 35) and the source selection plan. Interim negotiations may be conducted during this evaluation process. After award selection based on the no-cost-share proposals, the Government will evaluate the selected awardees? OT proposals with the intent of selecting a Phase I procurement instrument that offers the more beneficial program approach to the Government. Historically, DARPA has solicited the use of OTs exclusively for programs such as this where performance is conducted over multiple phases and it is likely that revolutionary technology accomplishment will benefit both government and industry. An OT agreement may offer significant advantages for the Performer and/or the Government if the conditions for an OT can be met by the Offeror. OTs are discussed in more detail in Section 3 of the PIP. The intent of this evaluation approach is to prevent contractors with greater financial flexibility from reducing the proposed cost to the Government by providing a large cost share or extra effort beyond that of a contractor with less financial capability. In this approach all proposals are evaluated based upon their technical merits and ability to realistically price their proposed technical scope. This approach also affords the Offerors and the Government the opportunity to assess, propose and implement the most beneficial approach to program accomplishment. This approach may also be used in later phases.

PROPOSAL PROCEDURES: The Offeror’s proposal shall consist of three volumes: Volume 1, No-Cost-Share Technical Proposal; Volume 2, No-Cost-Share Based Cost Proposal; and Volume 3, OTA Based Delta Proposal. Volume 3 should represent any difference in technical work and associated cost proposed based on a no-cost-share contract versus the technical work and cost proposed based on an OT agreement. If there are no differences, the Offeror should state this in Volume 3 of its proposal. Volume 3 should also discuss how an OTA would potentially be a better contracting mechanism for both Industry and Government to utilize in Phase I of the Switchblade program. The Offeror should refer to Section 3 of the PIP for guidance on how to structure and organize its proposal. All Offerors must be registered with Central Contractor Registration (CCR) and must provide their CAGE, DUNS and TIN numbers on the cover sheet of the proposal. Twelve printed copies of each volume are required for submission. The Offeror is also required to submit their proposal in electronic format, on CD-ROM, in Microsoft Office 2000 compatible format. Four CD-ROMs with a copy of Volumes 1 and 2 (only) are required. For Volume 3, four electronic copies are also required; this CD-ROM should contain only Volume 3. The deadline for receipt of proposals is October 3, 2005, 4:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time. All proposals should be mailed or hand-carried to the delivery address as follows: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency; Attention: Mr. Mark Bennington, CMO; Switchblade BAA 05-40; 3701 N. Fairfax Drive; Arlington, VA 22203-1714. Each volume of the proposal shall be packed and sealed separately and clearly marked to identify the volume number. Responses not received at the address and time specified above will not be considered. An Offeror intending to include classified information or data as part of its proposal submission should refer to Section 3 of the PIP for instructions.

ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Awards made under this BAA are subject to the provisions of the FAR Subpart 9.5, Organizational Conflict of Interest. All Offerors and proposed subcontractors must affirmatively state whether they are supporting any DARPA technical office(s) through an active contract or subcontract. All affirmations must state which office(s) the Offeror supports and identify the prime contract number. Affirmations shall be furnished at the time of proposed submission, and the existence or potential existence of organizational conflicts of interest, as that term is defined in FAR 9.501, must be disclosed. This disclosure shall include a description of the action the Offeror has taken, or proposes to take, to avoid, neutralize or mitigate such conflict. If the Offeror believes that no such conflict exists, then the Offeror shall so state in the affirmation.

NON-GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL: The Government intends to use support contractors, plus other independent experts to assist in processing and administering proposals during the Source Selection, and to provide advice relative to selected technical areas. These personnel are restricted by their contract from disclosing information contained in any proposal for any purpose to anyone outside of the Source Selection for this effort. Moreover, all personnel used in this capacity are required to enter into separate Organizational Conflict of Interest/Non Disclosure Agreements to this effect. By submission of its proposal, a team agrees that proposals may be disclosed to these personnel for the purpose of providing this assistance.

PECEDENCE OF THE BAA: In the event of discrepancies between the BAA and the PIP in the stated requirements, proposal submission instructions, or other items, the instruction in the BAA shall take precedence.