Steve TouchdownI think the armed Predators that have seen any action so far have only carried a pair of Hellfires…weren’t both fired against the scrap metal dealers that were mistakenly identified as Osama Bin Laden and his entourage because one of them was over 6ft tall?!
Regards
Steve ~ Touchdown-News
Steve TouchdownOriginally posted by SOC
I still say it all looks like standard desert sand to me, and I’ve seen more than enough of it over there 😀 Besides, why have a two-way HAS where the back door opens towards the perimeter fenceline?
My vote’s with Art on this one: look at the bottom right of the pic and that’s sand again alongside the HAS.
Why have a back door exit there? Access to the track I imagine: who knows where that goes to.
Cheers
Steve ~ Touchdown-News
Steve TouchdownOriginally posted by frankvw
I wouldn’t want to be one of the 20… Do they attach seats outside the airframe? 😀 I really can’t imagine how they put 20 seats inside that…
I agree, Frank, but did you know that 23 Colombian Army troops were killed aboard a UH-60L Black Hawk last year? I was amazed as they had been “in action” so muct have had a fair amount of kit with them at the time too.
Cheers
Steve ~ Touchdown-News
Steve TouchdownNo contest: Merlin every time.
Size isn’t a problem, the Royal Navy are now operating the Merlin from Type 23 (Duke Class) frigates in place of the Lynx:
Once you’ve been on board a full ASW-equipped Merlin HM.1 the rest seem like kids’ toys.
Best regards
Steve Rush ~ Touchdown-News
Steve TouchdownIt’s a real coincidence you should have posted that, Arthur: I was looking at something earlier that, although a week or two old, was complete news to me. Like you said, it really does seem the USAF like the idea of these associate units and blended wings:
Air Guard, Air Force units may join in 2005
Would-be fighter wing at Langley
The Virginia Air National Guard fighter wing based at Richmond International Airport soon may come to Langley Air Force Base.
A plan would involve moving 985 Guard personnel – 285 full-time and 700 part-time – to Langley between 2005 and 2008, the Guard said Friday.
Air National Guard and active-duty Air Force pilots cooperate regularly during wartime, including in Iraq. But if the plan goes through, it would become the Air Force’s first total integration of an Air Guard fighter wing into an active-duty fighter wing.
“Both sides are excited about it,” said Lt. Anna Siegel, a public affairs officer at Air Combat Command headquarters at Langley. “We work together when we’re deployed and flying the mission, but this is a first because they will be living together and training together every day back home, too. It will be a challenge, but we think it’s going to make us more combat-effective.”
Under the proposal, the Air Guard personnel, including pilots, mechanics, medical staff and other support personnel from the Guard’s 192nd Fighter Wing, would be integrated into the First Fighter Wing at Langley. The Air National Guard pilots – who now fly F-16 Fighting Falcons – would eventually learn to fly F/A-22 Raptor jets, the first of which are expected to arrive at Langley late this year.
The initiative has its roots in plane technology evolution: Fighter jets coming on the scene will be able to carry more bombs, but also are much costlier, than the earlier generation of planes like the F-15 and F-16. The increased capability and cost means fewer planes will be needed. The advent of unmanned aerial vehicles that can carry bombs will lessen the need for fighter jets and pilots.
Foreseeing the need to streamline, the Air National Guard is considering shedding up to 30 of its 88 flying fighter wings around the country.
The Virginia Air National Guard, which began flying in 1947, does not want to be among the 30 to get cut. If it can coordinate its efforts with Langley – a base that is among the Air Force’s most important – the Virginia Air National Guard hopes it can avoid the chopping block and retain its mission.
“We’re not going to have enough planes to replace the ones we have now,” said Col. Stephen Hicks, the head of the 192nd Fighter Wing. “It’s like musical chairs. A lot of units want to stay in the flying business, but there won’t be enough chairs for them to sit when the music stops.”
The current Richmond Air National Guard site is unlikely to be upgraded to accommodate the F/A-22s, Guard officials say. But Hicks thinks coordinating with Langley Air Force Base, and flying the F/A-22 earlier than other Guard units, would “take us three decades into the future and allow us to manage our destiny, and retain our heritage and our lineage.”
Gen. John P. Jumper, the Air Force’s chief of staff and the former head of Air Combat Command headquarters at Langley is on the record as supporting the initiative.
The Air Force thinks its active-duty forces can benefit from the expertise of the Air Guard flyers, many of whom are older than active-duty pilots and were former Air Force flyers themselves.
And in their civilian capacity, many are pilots for commercial airlines as well. The Air Force also can use the influx of Air Guard pilots and support personnel to free up active-duty personnel to move to other bases or work elsewhere at Langley, Siegel said.
It’s unclear whether the move would mean net job gains at Langley. One plan does not involve new squadrons at Langley. Instead, it involves maintaining the three squadrons, each having both active and Air Guard pilots.
In one scenario, Hicks said, two squadrons could be 60 percent active duty and 40 percent Air Guard, while the third squadron could be 60 percent Air Guard and 40 percent active duty. Such a scenario could add Air Guard forces at Langley but reduce the need for active-duty pilots and support personnel.
Siegel said the initiative was “very likely” to happen in some form. Still, it has hoops yet to jump through.
Town hall meetings soon will be announced for Richmond and Hampton Roads to talk about the proposals. Details have to be worked out between the Air Guard and Air Force personnel in Washington and the Virginia state government, which commands the Virginia Air National Guard.
Ultimately, the secretary of defense also would have to approve the plan.
Source: Dailypress.com (Hampton Roads, VA) 14th February, 2004
—
Steve Rush ~ Touchdown-News
Steve TouchdownI think the point being made was that 45% is high considering the number of USN & USMC F/A-18C through E variants in theatre and the hours/missions they flew. Not to mention F-16, F-14D, B-1, B-52 etc. etc. that must have been supporting the Marines Division at one time or another.
Best regards
Steve Rush ~ Touchdown-News
Steve TouchdownYep, a Tornado GR.4 was taken out by a Patriot but so also was an F/A-18C IIRC.
Steve Rush ~ Touchdown-News
p.s. don’t know about a “dud”: the DoD spent another $250 million on more PAC-3 kit last week.
p.p.s. here’s the Reuters article from 20th Feb
Patriot missile glitch may have downed Brit fighter
The U.S. Army deployed the Patriot missile system in Iraq before fixing problems that may have caused it to mistakenly shoot down friendly aircraft, weapons experts have told CBS news programme “60 Minutes” in a segment to be broadcast on Sunday.
Problems, including a computer “glitch”, may have caused a U.S. Patriot missile battery to shoot down a British Tornado fighter plane in March and a U.S. F-18 plane in April, killing its pilot, the programme will report.
Also in March, a U.S. F-16 pilot was forced to shoot at a Patriot battery after he received a signal that led him to believe he was about to be fired upon.
The segment cites research by weapons specialists including former Congressional investigator Joseph Cirincione and former Assistant Secretary of Defence Phillip Coyle.
“It’s clear that the failure to correct some of the problems we’ve known about for 10, 12 years led to … fliers dying needlessly,” Cirincione told 60 Minutes. Cirincione had been appointed by Congress in 1991 to investigate the Patriot’s performance in the first Gulf War.
Patriot missiles destroyed at least 10 missiles fired by Iraq during the war, according to U.S. officials, but the three “friendly fire” cases have raised worries about a missile Defence system which had disappointed many during the 1991 Gulf War.
Raytheon Co., the Waltham, Massachusetts-based prime contractor for the Patriot missile system, told Reuters it was proud that Patriot had helped save the lives of soldiers when they came under attack.
“We are aware of the fratricides and the lives lost and we are saddened by them for the men and their families,” said spokesman Steve Brecken. “We don’t have all the details of what took place and won’t have them until they are released. At that time we will certainly work with the Army if there are any equipment issues. We are not aware of any at this time.”
An Army spokeswoman referred questions to the Pentagon, where a representative was not immediately available to comment.
The Pentagon was expected to complete an investigation into three so-called “friendly fire” incidents involving the Patriot missile system during the war last year, but the report has been long delayed.
Steve TouchdownWho needs American aid?
This should have ELP choking on his tea-time pretzel 😀
Some fantastic conclusions are drawn in this piece…enjoy.
American aid, which Israel could mange without, creates a sense of dependence. More than Israel needs the United States, the United States needs Israel
In 1980, sixteen countries waited with bated breath to find out if Israel would purchase the Hawkeye early warning airplane. Israel bought four planes, which paved the way for the other countries to do likewise. Several years before, the United States and France pressed rival suits for the Israeli Air Force, which was in the process of selecting the jet fighter of its future. Would it select the American F-16A or the French Mirage F-1? Israel selected the American plane even though it did not have any outstanding advantages. The differences between the two were miniscule and not necessarily to the American craft’s advantage. In an amazingly short time, NATO air forces went the same way to replace their Phantoms. It was called “the deal of the century”.
I would not mention these things if it were not for Amir Rappaport’s correct and important observations in Maariv after Israel’s first two new F-16I “Storm” fighters arrived last week. One sentence in his article was inaccurate. He wrote: “Most of the project is financed by the American taxpayer”. The American aid to Israel does not cost the American taxpayer a single cent. Israel’s decisions to purchase the Hawkeye or the F-16 were worth large sums of money. Today, we call it “sophisticated marketing”. These are only two small examples from a myriad purchasing agreements that create thousands of jobs in the US.
Beyond the issue of job-creation, Israel serves as a testing ground for weapons systems. Without it, the US would have to spend huge sums to find a reasonable alternative. Before the Cold War ended, US senators estimated that the intelligence information about Soviet weapons, combat techniques, anti-aircraft defense systems, etc, which Israel provided to the US, was worth US$ 50 billion.
The relationship between the United States and Israel is so complicated that it is impossible to resolve the aid issue in a single article. However, the danger of addiction to American aid is inherent in a relationship that is too close. If the average citizen were asked how much aid Israel receives from the United States, as a percentage of the gross national product, his answer would be a double-digit number, in the vicinity of 30% or 40%. The real answer is much lower, somewhere between 1% and 2%. However, our mentality, including that of decision-makers, is one of dependency, bordering on infirmity. Many wise men have said that there is no free lunch. Therefore, American aid to Israel, does not require constant apologies but rather the clear knowledge that America’s own interest demands the survival of Israel as a democratic state, and since it is surrounded by dictatorships that costs money.
However, we must find a way to create a clear understanding, similar to the one held by the American’s NATO allies. Citizens of Norway (the same size as Israel) do not continuously apologize for the fact that their country’s defense budget is approximately the same size as the US aid to Israel, percentagewise. The United States pays for the rest. NATO members receive discounts when they buy weapons. Israel pays the full price. Therefore, the claim that Israel is the cheapest mercenary is worse than an insulting slur.
President Katzav’s trip to France and his visits to aerospace industries there, provided an opportunity to rethink Israel’s relationship with countries other than the United States. Everyone suddenly remembers how stubborn Clinton’s Secretary of State was. She lost her cool at the mere thought that El Al might purchase a European Airbus. She reminded Israel that it would look bad to the US taxpayer if Jerusalem didn’t compensate for the aid that had been authorized as a result of the Wye River agreement — and Israel was forced to buy American jetliners. Obviously, there is no proof that the Boeing planes are significantly better than their European competitors.
The heads of the defense establishment should be somewhat concerned about the fact that for the next thirty years, even if it doesn’t consider airplanes of the F-35 generation, the Israeli Air Force is completely dependent on US-made planes. Will there be reciprocal purchases? Does the contract allow replacement parts, or whole systems, to be made in Israel, so that the effects of this bitter pill will not last so long? One last, annoying question: Does the improved range of the F-16I provide a response to the simple fact that the immediate, strategic threat to the State of Israel, is just over the superfluous counter-terrorism barrier?
Gabi Avital (The writer is a member of Professors for a Strong Israel)
Steve Rush ~ Touchdown-News
Steve TouchdownYeah, it was amongst the contract announcements last Thursday (20th Feb) but almost nobody will pick up the fact that it’s for the IDF/AF:
McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Co., Mesa, Ariz., was awarded on Feb. 19, 2004, a $29,113,450 modification to a firm-fixed-price contract for 12 new and four remanufactured AH-64D Apache aircraft associated spares and support. Work will be performed in Mesa, Ariz., and is expected to be completed by Dec. 31, 2005. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This was a sole-source contract initiated on April 14, 2000. The U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal, Ala., is the contracting activity (DAAH23-00-C-0124).
Quite a few respected monthly aviation magazines will report this as being a US Army order, I promise you 😀
Cheers
Steve Rush ~ Touchdown-News
Steve TouchdownOriginally posted by google
See last week’s edition of AW&ST. The Israeli Air Force is considering moving into ditching their expensive $35 million/plane Longbows, and heading towards unmanned combat vehicles, noting that the Predator B can carry twice the payload of the AH-64D. Wouldn’t be surprised to see the US heading in this direction as well.
Long-term I don’t doubt that at all.
But AW&ST may be surprised to learn that Israel has just INCREASED it’s latest AH-64D order less than a week ago: it now stands at 16 Longbows, when it had been 11.
I’ve been looking at prospective platforms for the new LUH the Army want: how about the new-ish Agusta/Bell A139?
Cheers
Steve Rush ~ Touchdown-News
Steve TouchdownDirectly related to this topic?
Does this mean what I think it does?
Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is being awarded a $52,447,827 modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-award-fee contract (N00019-02-C-3002) for the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) systems development and demonstration effort._ Under this modification, the contractor is required to remove the Automatic Carrier Landing System function and incorporate the Joint Precision Approach and Landing System in the JSF._ Work will be performed in Fort Worth, Texas (80 percent), and El Segundo, Calif. (20 percent), and is expected to be completed in April 2012._ Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year._ The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity.
Or is the choice of “Joint” in that context not a reference to “joint services (ie USN/USAF)?
Cheers
Steve Rush ~ Touchdown-News
Steve TouchdownThe Briefing Slides
These are the PowerPoint slides from the long briefing that I posted yesterday:
Best regards
Steve Rush ~ Touchdown-News
Steve TouchdownOriginally posted by Vortex
i have a friend working on the Firescout…no… he said UCAR is the more logical candidate…i agree. But interestingly, the ARMY said they’ll submit a RFP, does that mean they don’t know what they want yet in terms of UCAVs, or does that mean it’s just to satisfy legal issues by issuing a RFP.
Hi Vortex,
I think the RFP has only been mentioned in respect of the “new” recce/scout helo, of which they envisage 368 examples. If you go back to the long briefing in this thread they are talking about UAVs separately.
I agree with ELP about the unmanned aspect, but I think that’ll be “next time around” for the choice of platforms in the scout role. Remember they want all this in place and on-line by 2011.
I’m miles from being up-to-scratch on UAVs but they don’t seem to having a great time of it right now, and I include in that the British Army, Canadians and the Americans. I think the US Army lost 2 or 3 Shadow TUAVs within a fortnight of first deploying them.
The concept is fantastic…when it works and can be more-or-less guaranteed to!
Cheers
Steve Rush ~ Touchdown-News
p.s. the Discovery Channel sounds fantastic…I must rush out and get subscribed immediately. :rolleyes:
Steve TouchdownBeckles, maybe his reference is to the 10th, 25th and 1st Cavalry Divisions as the three “light” and the 82nd and 101st are considered Airborne.
That would only involve the 1st CAV giving-up 1-227th and 2-227th Aviation Regiments, who both have Apaches. None are assigned permanently to the 10th or 25th.
Best regards
Steve Rush ~ Touchdown-News
Steve TouchdownELP
I read something about SNIPER and the A-10A either this morning or last night: may have been a contract announcement so I’ll have a look again see what shows up.
Success:
LOCKHEED MARTIN RECEIVES CONTRACT TO INTEGRATE SNIPER XR TARGETING POD ONTO A-10 THUNDERBOLT
(PRESSI.COM 02/13/2004) ORLANDO, FL, February 12, 2004
Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] was awarded a contract to integrate the Sniper XR targeting pod on the A-10 aircraft in support of the A-10 Precision Engagement (PE) Program. The contract award follows a successful demonstration of the Sniper system during the A/OA-10 Precision Engagement upgrade program’s critical design review.
As part of the integration effort, Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control will develop the Pilot Vehicle Interface (PVI), pod Operational Flight Program (OFP) software, and pod interface adapter hardware for the A-10. The pod will be integrated as part of the PE Program at Lockheed Martin Systems Integration — Owego in New York, the prime contractor for the A-10 weapon system.
Upon completion of this effort, the Sniper XR pod will self-detect and automatically load the appropriate Operational Flight Program when installed on either the A-10, F-16 or F-15E airframes. This provides a single hardware configuration that maximizes the U.S. Air Force’s flexibility for precision attack missions.
“This system gives the pilot the ability to recognize a target at four times the range of the first generation pods,” said Ken Fuhr, Sniper XR program director, in comparing the two targeting systems. “The laser spot tracker can also use laser targeting from another aircraft to deliver a precision bomb, so two aircraft can work in tandem. They couldn’t do that with the first generation systems. The Sniper XR contract award marks a significant milestone for the A-10 Precision Engagement upgrade program. This targeting system provides the aircraft a much needed combat capability and is an important component of the A-10 weapon system upgrade.”
The A-10 is an objective platform for the U.S. Air Force Advanced Targeting Pod (Sniper XR) as identified in the ATP contract award to Lockheed Martin, and will serve as an avenue to significantly expand the Sniper XR market.
The Sniper XR is a self-contained sensor and laser designator system that allows improved target detection and identification. Among the pod’s capabilities are an infrared camera for thermal imaging and an additional camera that adjusts for daylight and low thermal contrast conditions.
Sniper XR incorporates a high-resolution, mid-wave third generation Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR), a dual-mode laser and a CCD-TV along with a laser spot tracker, and an IR marker. An affordable precision targeting system in a single, lightweight pod, Sniper XR is fully compatible with the latest J-series munitions and precision guided weaponry. The targeting pod has been successfully integrated on a variety of aircraft to include the F-15E, the F-16 Block 30/40/50, the A-10 and the F/A-18. Sniper XR’s outstanding performance exemplifies Lockheed Martin’s continuing commitment to meeting warfighter requirements.
Sign In
