June 5th, 2011 By Military Videos
Boeing Super Hornet Chief Test Pilot Ricardo Traven gives Flightglobal a tour at Aero India 2011 of advanced upgrade options on a Super Hornet.
Jun 4 2011 David Pugliese Defence Watch
Jordan Press of Post Media had the article below outlining denials by Defence Minister Peter MacKay's office that there are no negotiations underway for Canadian bases overseas.
It was a strange denial to say the least. Previously DND acknowledged that it WAS in negotiations for such bases. The idea was to have equipment pre-positioned in staging area bases around the world. DND officials had mentioned Germany and Kuwait as areas they were interested in. Now, at least according to MacKay's office, no such negotiations have taken place. Who is to be believed?
Here is the article from Jordan Press:
The Department of National Defence said Thursday that Canada is not working to set up overseas military bases.
A media report Thursday said the Canadian Forces was negotiating with seven countries for military access to build bases to house soldiers and equipment overseas and respond quickly to international events.
While Canada has a base in Afghanistan at Kandahar Airfield along with forward operating bases, it is not looking to set up permanent international bases, according to a spokesman for Defence Minister Peter MacKay.
"Since January 2010, Canada's men and women in uniform have deployed on international operations in Afghanistan, Haiti, Africa, the Middle-East and . . . a NATO operation over the skies of Libya," Jay Paxton said.
"Prudent planning is necessary to ensure that future expeditionary operations are fully supported, however this government and the Canadian Forces have no intention of creating permanent large bases in overseas locations."
According to a report in French-language newspaper Le Devoir, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Department of National Defence have agreements in place with Germany and Jamaica to set up bases, and are focusing on closing a deal with Kuwait.
Le Devoir reported that Canada also is in negotiations with Senegal, Kenya, Singapore and South Korea.
Currently, if Canada wants to set up a base, such as the one in Italy to support the NATO operation over Libya, it must negotiate and pay for access. Le Devoir quoted a lieutenant-colonel at the Canadian Forces base in Spangdahlem, Germany, which it shares with the United States, as saying that overseas bases would be used as a way to respond quickly to international events without having to wait out negotiations.
Speaking to reporters following a speech at a defence contractors conference in Ottawa Thursday, MacKay reportedly said Canada was in talks with other countries about future international homes for the Canadian Forces.
"As we look out into the future, what we obviously try to do is anticipate where and when we will be needed, but it's difficult with any certainty to make those plans without talking to other countries, without doing internal examinations," MacKay was quoted as saying.
During his speech, MacKay said the Canadian Forces have been and continue to be part of a number of operations at home and abroad.
Continued demand on the military will require the government to make sure it adapts to changing circumstances, MacKay said.
"During this high operational tempo, we're dealing with a complex and evolving security environment with unpredictable threats," he said.
"We also have to adapt to technology that is evolving at a rapid pace, constantly altering how military operations are planned and conducted."
June 3, 2011 by Jenelle Tortorella wetmtv.com
Big Flats, N.Y. – According to a “90-day warn notice” filed with the New York State Department of Labor, 386 employees will be out of a job come August at the Sikorsky Military Completion Center in Big Flats.
That means these positions will be eliminated in roughly 3 months.
While this is a devastating blow to the employees, area businesses are also reeling.
“[Sikorsky employees are] huge for lunch business, and they’d come shopping here after work too. That was a lot of good paying jobs for this area; it’s tough,” said Paul Minier, the store manager at Minier Brothers, Inc.
“That quantity, to go all at once, it was kind of surprising to see that happen,” said Mark Cavaluzzi, the owner of Charley’s Grilled Subs. “On a daily basis, day and night shift workers are consistently coming in. If those numbers decrease drastically, it will make a difference. They’re a pretty good chunk of our customers on a daily basis.”
“It’s huge. That’s a big part of our clientele. It’s going to hurt, immediately,” Minier said.
Dan Porter, the Executive Director for CSS Workforce New York said 62 of the layoffs will be salaried; 324 will be union.
The number of jobs cut came as a surprise to many.
“We were aware there was a possibility of a layoff, but we didn’t know the magnitude of it. Anytime there’s a layoff it’s certainly very hard, especially in these economic times for people to be laid off,” said Chemung County Executive Tom Santulli.
Sikorsky officials are blaming the layoffs on a lack of aircraft orders. Local Sikorsky workers make several types of helicopters, such as the black hawk and unmanned fire scouts.
Although nearly 400 people are going to be given pink slips, the company maintains it will continue to invest in the local military completions center.
Sikorsky officials declined to tell us how many employees will remain at the big flats facility after the layoffs.
June 02, 2011 FOX NEWS | Associated Press
WASHINGTON – The GOP-controlled House on Thursday passed a $42.3 billion budget for the government's homeland security efforts after a debate that demonstrated resistance for some of the spending cuts required under austere budget times.
The measure passed 231-188 after lawmakers eased cuts to popular grant programs for local fire departments and after GOP conservatives tried but failed in several attempts to add millions of dollars to a variety of border security initiatives.
It's the first of the 12 annual spending bills funding the day-to-day operations of federal agencies for the budget year beginning Oct. 1. It's also the first concrete step to implement the budget blueprint approved by House Republicans in April.
The homeland security measure bears a $1.1 billion cut of almost 3 percent from the spending levels for the ongoing budget year that were enacted in April in a compromise between House Republicans and President Barack Obama.
But far more stringent spending bills — they contain cuts to health research, student aid, food aid for low-income pregnant women and energy efficiency programs — will follow this summer.
Republicans focused the homeland security cuts on port and transit security grants, awards for high-risk cities, and grants to local fire departments to help them with salaries and equipment purchases, proposing to slash them by $2.1 billion below Obama's requests — cuts of more than half.
On Wednesday a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers restored $320 million in cuts to grants for fire departments by a sweeping 333-87 vote, but only by imposing an unrealistic cut on the agency's bureaucratic operations.
Border state Republicans were successful in some but not all of their attempts to add money to favored programs. Rep. Ted Poe of Texas gained $10 million for cell phone towers along the U.S.-Mexico border but could not secure $100 million for detention beds to hold illegal aliens facing deportation. Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas unsuccessfully pressed for, among others, a $50 million amendment for drone aircraft, helicopters and boats to patrol the border.
The cuts to grant programs freed up funding for core homeland security programs like border security, immigration control, airport security and the Coast Guard. An amendment by Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., designed to boost airport screening operations undertaken by private companies instead of federal workers was adopted 219-204.
The measure adds almost $2 billion above the administration's request for Federal Emergency Management Agency disaster relief accounts, which were already facing a $3 billion or so shortfall before the recent wave of tornadoes in Missouri and Alabama and flooding along the Mississippi River.
The legislation cuts off funding for new advanced airport scanners that have sparked outrage over their revealing images of travelers' bodies. The measure denies the administration's $76 million request for an additional 275 scanners.
Budgetary factors rather than protests from privacy advocates sparked the cut. The Transportation Security Administration is trying hard to modify the machines so that they won't produce revealing images, but the software isn't yet ready.
The underlying measure wouldn't affect the 500 or so machines already in place at 78 of the nation's airports or the 500 just funded in a recent spending bill.
An amendment by Reps. Justin Amash, R-Mich., and Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, to prohibit TSA from relying on the advanced screening machines as the primary means of screening passengers was defeated 300-123.
The measure would also take away collective bargaining rights from the nation's 44,000 airport screeners.
TSA head John Pistole had agreed in February to grant screeners limited union rights for the first time since the agency was formed a decade ago. But Republicans have complained that giving the workers union rights could jeopardize security. TSA workers are in the process of voting for which of two federal unions to represent them.
The House voted 218-205 in favor of an amendment that would effectively override Pistole's decision by prohibiting use of federal funds for collective bargaining for the workers. That provision is expected to face stiff resistance in the Democratic-controlled Senate.
Also Thursday, the House began debate on a $72.5 billion measure funding veterans programs and construction projects at military bases. A vote to pass the bill was expected later this month.
Associated Press writer Sam Hananel contributed to this report.
03 June 2011 by defenceWeb Reuters
The United States is warning that a cyber attack -- presumably if it is devastating enough -- could result in real-world military retaliation. Easier said than done.
In the wake of a significant new hacking attempt against Lockheed Martin Corp, experts say it could be extremely difficult to know fast enough with any certainty where an attack came from. Sophisticated hackers can mask their tracks and make it look like a cyber strike came from somewhere else.
There are also hard questions about the legality of such reprisals and the fact that other responses, like financial sanctions or cyber countermeasures, may be more appropriate than military action, analysts say. "There are a lot of challenges to retaliating to a cyber attack," said Kristin Lord, author of a new report on U.S. cyber strategy at the Center for a New American Security, a Washington-based think tank.
"It is extremely difficult to establish attribution, to link a specific attack to a specific actor, like a foreign government."
The White House stated plainly in a report last month that Washington would respond to hostile acts in cyberspace "as we would to any other threat to our country" -- a position articulated in the past by U.S. Officials. The Pentagon, which is finalizing its own report, due out in June, on the Obama administration's emerging strategy to deal with the cyber threat, acknowledged that possibility on Tuesday.
"A response to a cyber incident or attack on the U.S. would not necessarily be a cyber response ... all appropriate options would be on the table," Colonel Dave Lapan, a Pentagon spokesman, said.
The sophistication of hackers and frequency of the attacks came back into focus after a May 21 attack on Lockheed Martin, the Pentagon's top arms supplier. Lockheed said the "tenacious" cyber attack on its network was part of a pattern of attacks on it from around the world. The U.S. Defense Department estimates that over 100 foreign intelligence organizations have attempted to break into U.S. networks.
Every year, hackers steal enough data from U.S. government agencies, businesses and universities to fill the U.S. Library of Congress many times over, officials say.
BEHIND THE CURVE
Several current and former national security officials said U.S. intelligence agencies did not appear particularly concerned about the Lockheed attack. One official said that similar cyber attacks directed at defense contractors and government agencies occurred all the time.
Some critics say the Obama administration is not moving fast enough to keep up with the cyber threat or to develop a strategy that fully addresses concerns about privacy and oversight in the cyber domain. "The United States, in general, is well behind the curve," said Sami Saydjari, president of the privately held Cyber Defense Agency, pointing to "significant strategic advances" out of countries like China and Russia.
China has generally emerged as a prime suspect when it comes to keyboard-launched espionage against U.S. interests, but proving Beijing is behind any future plot would be difficult because of hackers' ability to misdirect, analysts say. China has denied any connection to cyber attacks.
The Pentagon's upcoming report is not expected to address different doomsday scenarios, or offer what Washington's response would be if, say, hackers wiped out Wall Street financial data, plunged the U.S. Northeast into darkness or hacked U.S. warships' computers.
"We're not going to necessarily lay out -- 'if this happens, we will do this.' Because again the point is if we are attacked, we reserve the right to do any number of things in response," Lapan said.
June 3rd, 2011 defensetech.org
Here’s a little clue as to one way the Pentagon is going to try — key word being try — to really drive down the cost of its big ticket weapons buys in an age of limited budgets. Just this week DoD’s top weapons buyer, Ashton Carter, tapped his former acquisitions director, Shay Assad (pictured above), as the newly created Director of Defense Pricing. In other words, Carter is putting Assad in charge of negotiating the lowest possible price on weapons.
From Defense News:
“We simply intend to be much more professional, much more capable, when it gets to sitting at the table and negotiating the price on behalf of the taxpayers,” Assad said during a June 2 briefing at the Pentagon.
The creation of the position is part of Pentagon acquisition executive Aston Carter’s Better Buying Power initiative to buy more for less money. Part of that initiative is looking beyond program cost estimates and determining what a program should cost.
In his new role, Assad will help program managers hit these should-cost targets, which will be set at levels less than official budget estimates.
In addition, he will spend more time improving the contracting and pricing work forces in “improving their skills on what it is we pay on the goods and services we buy.”
Getting as much bang for the buck is going to be critical as the five-sided crazy building is going to be facing continued budget pressure despite the need to modernize its aircraft, ground vehicles, long-range strike weapons and ship fleets for the 21st century.
Think about it; right now the Pentagon has the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program, the KC-46 tanker modernization program, the Ground Combat Vehicle, the Amphibious Combat Vehicle, the new strategic bomber, the Gerald Ford class of aircraft carriers and a host of high-end UAV programs just to name a few of its big modernization efforts. Given the current budget drawdown, the Pentagon and defense industry are going to have to put some serrious discipline into buying and fielding these weapons on cost and schedule.
One of Assad’s first endeavors will be to give the F-35 program some serious scrutiny in light of new reports that its costs are once again predicted to spike beyond previous estimates. Assad will be “intimately involved” in the negotiations for the fifth batch of production jets that are underway, according to Defense News.
source L-3 Wescam
Jun 3, 2011ASDNews Source : L-3 Wescam
OTTAWA, June 1, 2011 --[ASDWire]-- L-3 WESCAM announced today the product launch of its MX(tm)-10GS electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) imaging turret. The MX-10GS integrates L-3 WESCAM's fieldproven MX-Series technology into vehicle mast or tower-mounted turret configurations, providing force protection, border security and ground combat mission crews with a trusted solution to help identify, track and deter threats 24/7 from the ground. WESCAM's MX-10GS will be on display at the CANSEC trade show in Ottawa, Canada on June 1 and 2.
"Our new MX-10GS has been engineered utilizing field-proven technology and leverages an established history of high performance," said John Dehne, president of L-3 WESCAM. "This newest-generation turret incorporates advanced imaging capabilities, HD resolution and a 360-degree vantage point that enables long-range missions to unfold whether crews are stationary or on the move."
The MX-10GS can be configured with up to six leading imaging and laser sensors. Its patented stabilization, passive isolation design and high optical magnification support covert rangeperformance outside the audible range. In addition, the system's rapid zoom technology provides a wide field-of-view and pinpointed capability to identify urban and asymmetrical threats, increasing warfighter survivability in engagement areas. At 37 pounds, the MX-10GS is the lightest product offering in its class, which minimizes the impact on both armored vehicle and mast weight constraints.
June 3, 2011 defense-aerospace.com
(Source: Project On Government Oversight; issued June 1, 2011)
As the Pentagon, White House, and Congress continue to look for cuts in the defense budget, Washington lobbyists are stomping the halls of Congress to protect some of the defense industry's most troubled and vulnerable programs.
In a paywalled article entitled "Lobbyists Cling To Obama Defense Budget As Congress Looks To Cut," Roxana Tiron from Bloomberg Government reports that defense contractor lobbyists are fighting to preserve several programs that the Pentagon wants to cut, including:
-- The Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS, managed by Meads International LLC, a joint venture of Lockheed, Lfk-Lenkflugkorpersysteme Gmbh of Germany, and MBDA of Italy—which is owned by BAE Systems; European Aeronautic, Defence and Space Co (EADS); and Finmeccanica)
-- $1.4 billion worth of upgrades to M1 Abrams tanks (that would be performed by General Dynamics and would involve "at least 200 of its suppliers")
-- The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter alternate engine (currently being developed by General Electric and Rolls Royce)
Lobbyists are also seeking to change Pentagon procurement strategies.
Humvee manufacturer AM General LLC, Tiron writes, is wary of competition for underbody armor and other technology for Army Humvees from Oshkosh Corp. and BAE Systems Plc—and has hired former New Jersey Republican Congressman Jim Saxton to help. The House's version of the National Defense Authorization Act supported AM General's vehicle underbody armor technology.
Meanwhile, Tiron reports, Lockheed Martin lobbyists are focusing on making sure Congress doesn't curtail production levels of the Joint Strike Fighter—for which Lockheed is the prime contractor.
June 3, 2011 defense-aerospace.com
(Source: Politico; published June 2, 2011)
It’s the Pentagon’s largest acquisitions program — an ambitious effort to re-equip the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps with the latest stealth fighter technology designed to maintain U.S. air superiority over the next 25 years.
But the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has already become a target before it has even faced an enemy in the air, and many of its wounds are self-inflicted: The program is years behind schedule and now estimated to cost $1 trillion. And the delays have forced the military to buy upgraded versions of older aircraft to fill the gaps.
Lawmakers are questioning whether the U.S. military needs 2,400 advanced jets that cost an estimated $133 million each and are more expensive to maintain than current warplanes while the Pentagon is under intense pressure to reduce spending and recover from 10 years of combat in Afghanistan and Iraq.
They aren’t alone. A commission appointed by President Barack Obama to study ways to reduce the national debt recommended in December that $9.5 billion could be saved through fiscal year 2015 by replacing about half of planned F-35 purchases with newer models of current fighters. The commission contended the military did not need that many fighters with the capabilities of the F-35.
The commission also recommended canceling the Marine Corps short takeoff/vertical landing version of the F-35, which has been plagued by technical problems, cost overruns and schedule delays. Outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates put that part of the program on probation, threatening to cancel it if the problems aren’t quickly solved.
“The facts regarding this program are truly troubling,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said at a May 19 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the F-35 program.
Describing the $1 trillion cost of the program as “a jaw-dropping amount,” the former Navy carrier pilot said, “We need to know that the program is going to bring that number down.”
Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition Ashton Carter told lawmakers at the hearing that the Pentagon would review the program to see whether costs can be reduced, with a goal of shaving 10 percent to 30 percent off the $1 trillion figure.
“That’s what it’s going to cost if we keep doing what we’re doing. And that’s unacceptable. It’s unaffordable at that rate,” he said.
The F-35 program, which began in 2001, survived previous rounds of cost-cutting, which ended similar big-ticket weapons programs such as the F-22 fighter, because the military needs to replace current fighters, which are on average 20 to 30 years old and are approaching the end of their service lives. Pentagon officials argue that the F-35’s advanced technology is needed to counter the threat posed by China’s rapid advances in capability.
“We must field a next-generation strike fighter — the F-35 — and at a cost that permits large enough numbers to replace the current fighter inventory and maintain a healthy margin of superiority over the Russians and Chinese,” Gates said in a May 24 speech to the American Enterprise Institute.
A Chinese stealth fighter, the J-20, made its first test flight in January while Gates was visiting Beijing. Some analysts suspect the technology was at least in part stolen from the F-35 program, raising fears that China would benefit from the program’s innovations before the United States and its allies. (end of excerpt)
Click here for the full story, on the Politico website.
03/06/11 bourse.lci.fr AOF
Lockheed Martin envisagerait d'outsourcer une partie de la production du F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a indiqué un cadre du groupe cité par l'agence Reuters. Le fabricant américain pourrait ainsi déléguer une partie de la production à des sociétés nippones si le gouvernement japonais décidait de choisir ce modèle pour équiper sa prochaine flotte de chasseurs. Le groupe a précisé qu'il était confiant dans sa capacité à respecter les délais de livraison et les conditions techniques réclamées par le ministère japonais de la Défense.
DENVER, June 3 (UPI)
Skydex Technologies and the U.S. Defense Logistics Agency have signed contracts for Skydex to install blast-mitigating flooring in M-ATV vehicles.
The purchase orders will allow DLA to have prepositioned replacement decking for 1,000 vehicles in service in Afghanistan, the company said.
"Our partnership with DLA is a major step forward for our continuing mission to make sure our fighting troops have the best possible protection available for all vehicles used in theater," Skydex President and Chief Executive Officer Mike Buchen said.
"We know that IED (improvised explosive device) blasts cause the great majority of casualties in Afghanistan and our decking significantly improves survivability for vehicle occupants."
The Skydex Convoy Deck has been installed in thousands of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles in Afghanistan and Iraq, including the RG-31, Cougar and Oshkosh M-ATV. Last year, General Dynamics Land Systems – Canada ordered Skydex's blast-mitigating decking for 550 of its Stryker vehicles now in service in Afghanistan.
Earlier this year, GDLS-C signed a multimillion-dollar agreement with Skydex to provide its Convoy Deck for 200 new Stryker Double V-Hull vehicles deploying to Afghanistan.
Skydex said independent testing -- done according to NATO's STANAG 4569 protection standards and thresholds -- demonstrates that Skydex blast-mitigating technology greatly reduces the threat of lower leg injuries by diminishing the force of an IED blast reaching personnel aboard an armored vehicle. The testing demonstrated that during a typical blast force without the Skydex Convoy Deck, vehicle occupants face a 100 percent chance of injury. Adding Skydex decking drastically reduces the chance of injury to about 10 percent, it said.
June 1, 2011 defense-aerospace.com
(Source: Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments; issued June 2, 2011)
In 1992, the Office of Net Assessment (ONA), Office of the Secretary of Defense, began circulating an assessment of a prospective late-twentieth-century military-technical revolution (MTR). Soviet military theorists had been discussing the possibility of a third twentieth-century revolution in military affairs (RMA) since the mid-1970s.
Written by (then Army Lieutenant Colonel) Andrew F. Krepinevich, ONA’s MTR assessment sought to explore the hypothesis that Soviet theorists were right in predicting that advances in precision munitions, wide-area sensors, and computerized command and control (C2) would bring about fundamental changes in the conduct of war.
As Marshal Nikolai Ogarkov, then chief of the Soviet General Staff, observed in 1984, these developments in nonnuclear means of destruction promise to “make it possible to sharply increase (by at least an order of magnitude) the destructive potential of conventional weapons, bringing them closer, so to speak, to weapons of mass destruction in terms of effectiveness.” The Soviets introduced the term “reconnaissance-strike complex” (or “RUK” from the Russian pекогносцировочно-yдарный комплекс) to describe the integration of missiles with precision-guided sub-munitions, area sensors such as the airborne Pave Mover SAR/MTI (synthetic-aperture radar/ moving-target-indicator) radar, and automated C2.
Click here for the full report (52 pages in PDF format) on the CSBA website.
June 1, 2011 defense-aerospace.com
(Source: U.S Department of Defense; issued June 2, 2011)
Lockheed Martin Corp., Mission Systems and Sensors, Owego, N.Y., is being awarded a $53,396,891 modification to the previously awarded cost-plus-award-fee VH-71 system development and demonstration contract (N00019-05-C-0030), which was terminated for the convenience of the government.
This modification provides funding for post-termination related expenses, including, but not limited to: the physical inventory of contractor acquired property; proposal preparation; security; disposition of contract inventory; subcontractor settlement costs; and termination management activities.
Work will be performed in Owego, N.Y. (36 percent), and at various subcontractor facilities located within the United States and in the United Kingdom and Italy (64 percent), and is expected to be completed no later than September 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.
June 03, 2011 SHEPARD GROUP Source: iRobot
iRobot Corp., a leader in delivering robotic technology-based solutions, has received a $14.1 million order from the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA).
This first order under a recently announced $230 million indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract calls for delivery of 86 Man Transportable Robotic System (MTRS) MK 1 Mod 1 robots, spare parts and accessories. MTRS MK 1 Mod 1 is modeled after the iRobot 510 PackBot. The company expects to complete delivery of these robots by the end of the second quarter.
"iRobot has seen consistent growth in the use of unmanned ground vehicles since PackBot was first deployed on the battlefield almost 10 years ago," said Robert Moses, president of iRobot's Government and Industrial Robots division. "PackBot continues to keep our troops safer on the battlefield, and we are pleased that the Navy will be providing more of these robots to our troops."
iRobot's combat-proven unmanned ground vehicles protect those in harm's way. More than 4,000 have been delivered to military and civil defense forces worldwide, successfully performing search, reconnaissance, bomb disposal and other dangerous missions.
June 1, 2011 defense-aerospace.com
(Source: U.S Department of Defense; issued June 2, 2011)
The Boeing Co., Wichita, Kan., is being awarded a $61,138,793 firm-fixed-price contract modification for the C-130 Avionic Modernization Program (AMP) low rate initial production, part two to Lot 2, including two C-130 AMP kits; engineering and program management support; initial spares and support equipment for Little Rock Air Force Base and St. Joseph’s Air National Guard Base; a functional test bed modification; a C-130 AMP part task trainer ;and a C-130 AMP Weapon System Trainer.
ASC/WLNMC, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity (FA8625-08-C-6481 PO0020).
source defenseindustrydaily.com
June 3, 2011: STRATEGY PAGE
The U.S. Navy has ordered seven more GQM-163A Coyote SSST (Supersonic Sea-Skimming Target) missiles, for $3.9 million each. This makes 89 Coyotes delivered or on order so far. There might well have been none. It was only two years ago, after nearly a decade of development effort, that the U.S. Navy put this high-speed anti-ship missile simulator/target into service. Coyote is a 10 meter (31 foot) long, 800 kg (1,700 pound) missile with a combination solid fuel rocket and ramjet propulsion. It has a range of 110 kilometers and, because of the ramjet, a top speed of over 2,600 kilometers an hour. The Coyote is meant to give U.S. warships a realistic simulation of an attack by similar Russian cruise missiles (like the Klub.) Initially, only 39 GQM-163As were to be built, at a cost of $515,000 each. But the missile proved so successful at simulating high speed anti-ship missiles, that orders more than doubled. The GQM-163A is the first U.S. missile to successfully use ramjet engines, and this technology can be now used in other missiles.
Coyote was developed in response to more countries arming themselves with high speed anti-ship missiles. In particular, there is fear that the Russian 3M54 (also known as the SS-N-27, Sizzler or Klub) anti-ship missiles used on Indian, Algerian and Vietnamese ships, are unstoppable. But maybe not. India, (a major customer for the Klub) has feuded with the Russians after repeated failures of the Klub during six test firings four years ago. The missiles were fired off the Russian coast, using an Indian Kilo class submarines, INS Sindhuvijay. That boat went to Russia in 2006 for upgrades. India refused to pay for the upgrades, or take back the sub, until Russia fixed the problems with the missiles (which it eventually did).
Weighing two tons, and fired from a 533mm (21 inch) torpedo tube on a Kilo class sub, the 3M54 has a 200 kg (440 pound) warhead. The anti-ship version has a range of 300 kilometers, but speeds up to 3,000 kilometers an hour during its last minute or so of flight. There is also an air launched and ship launched version. A land attack version does away with the high speed final approach feature, and has an 400 kg (880 pound) warhead. What makes the 3M54 particularly dangerous is its final approach, which begins when the missile is about 15 kilometers from its target. Up to that point, the missile travels at an altitude of about a hundred feet. This makes the missile more difficult to detect. The high speed approach means that it covers that last fifteen kilometers in less than twenty seconds. This makes it difficult for current anti-missile weapons to take it down.
The Coyote is used to test detection and tracking sensors (especially radar) and tweaking fire control systems and anti-missile weapons, so that they can handle Klub class missiles.
The 3M54 Klub is similar to earlier, Cold War era Russian anti-ship missiles, like the 3M80 ("Sunburn"), which has a larger warhead (300 kg/660 pounds) and shorter range (120 kilometers.) The 3M80 was still in development at the end of the Cold War, and was finally put into service about a decade ago. Even older is the P700 ("Shipwreck"), with a 550 kilometers range and 750 kg (1,650 pound) warhead. This missile entered service in the 1980s.
These missiles are considered "carrier killers," but it's not known how many of them would have to hit a carrier to knock it out of action, much less sink it. Moreover, Russian missiles have little combat experience, and a reputation for erratic performance. Quality control was never a Soviet strength, but the Russians are getting better, at least in the civilian sector. The military manufacturers appear to have been slower to adapt.
It is feared that the navy has no defense against missile like Klub. Or, it may have developed defenses, but does not want to let potential enemies know how those defenses work (lest the enemy develop ways to get around those defenses.)
source designation-systems.net
June 2nd, 2011 MDAA
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and U.S. President Obama met privately before the G8 meeting in Deauville, France, and discussed the longstanding dispute between the two countries over missile defense, says CFR Russia expert Stephen Sestanovich.
Sestanovich says there were hints the Russians might be willing to make some compromises on missile defense, but he notes that they are wary of anything that sounds like the Reagan
administration’s Star Wars defense, which was intended to neutralize Russia’s nuclear deterrence.
Another agenda item at Deauville was the World Trade Organization, says Sestanovich, who notes there will be no progress on admitting Russia to the WTO until its differences with Georgia–stemming
from the 2008 conflict–are resolved. As for Russian domestic politics, Sestanovich says it is still unclear whether former president and current Prime Minister Vladimir Putin will run for the
presidency next March, or whether Medvedev will be given Putin’s backing. Sestanovich says it is up to Putin.
What happened in the meeting?
It focused on three separate topics. First the Middle East, meaning Libya and Iran. Out of that came Medvedev’s comment later in the G8 meeting that Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi has to go. They also talked about Russia’s eternal negotiating over the terms of entry into the World Trade Organization. Nothing has emerged that suggests an early resolution of the problem. An administration official said later that difficult issues remain, and the most difficult of these is Georgia.
Because Georgia has a veto?
Georgia, like every other member of the WTO, gets to pass on Russian membership. They are unhappy because the Russians are, in effect, occupying two provinces of their country, Abkhazia and South Ossetia [as a result of the brief conflict between Georgia and Russia in 2008]. The Georgians insist there have to be some adjustments of the border-control regime between Russia and those provinces, saying that there have to be Georgian officials there or international monitors. So far, the Russians haven’t given any ground on this issue. But it’s not just a question of the Georgians holding things up. The United States has suggested that it will not allow the Russian membership to go before the General Council of the WTO unless this issue is resolved.
And the third issue?
The third issue–where something may be happening, but it’s not yet clear what–was missile defense. The U.S. side says they got “a new signal” on missile defense cooperation, suggesting that the Russians are interested in finding a way to cooperate on missile defense so that this doesn’t become an issue that breaks the “reset” [the term used by Vice President Joseph Biden in 2009 to describe the U.S. desire to improve ties with Russia under the Obama administration]. The U.S. side says they’re not going to accept anything that hints at constraints on our missile defense system, but they’re eager to have the Russians join in cooperation. The line one U.S. official used was that the Russians should “get into the tent now,” because if you work with us you will be reassured that there are no plans for missile defense systems that would threaten your security.
How important is it to the U.S. missile defense plans that Russia be part of it?
The United States wants a system that does not depend on Russian agreement to work. They want the missile defense capabilities that we acquire to defend us even if the Russians decide to opt out at the last minute. The Russians want a system in which they have essentially a separate key. That, of course, is a nonstarter for all of NATO. The Russians cannot have a veto over the effectiveness of the missile defense system that NATO puts in place to defend itself. So the Russians have to join on different terms, and the question now is, “What are those terms?”What kind of parallel and complementary systems could be devised so they produce more security rather than more anxiety about whether or not the Russians can be depended on?
That was a hot issue during the Bush administration. There’s been improvement in the relations, but it’s still a tough issue to crack.
The Russian’s decision to go forward and seek cooperation apparently [began] last fall. What American officials refer to as Medvedev’s “bold and historic contribution” to the NATO summit in Lisbon last fall amounted to a declaration that Russia would find a way to be part of this instead of standing aside. But this has been an issue for twenty-five years in Russian-American relations, an issue that many Russian political figures and national security policymakers have taken strong stances on. The Russian international security establishment is wary about anything that smacks of the old Star Wars promise to neutralize Russia’s nuclear deterrence.
Even though this new U.S. missile defense is not aimed at Russia?
The U.S. line is this isn’t just a matter of our intentions and of our declarations and our pledges; it’s a matter of physics. The U.S. capabilities being discussed and contemplated do not impact the Russian deterrence. But what the Russians say is, “Yes, but what if ten years from now, you might decide to go further?”
Medvedev had some nice words to say about his relationship with Obama. What’s going to happen when the Russians have their presidential elections in March 2012? Is it clear who will be the presidential candidate backed by the ruling United Russia Party? Will it be Medvedev or former president and current Prime Minister Vladimir Putin?
It’s completely unclear. Some people believe that Putin may not have made up his mind yet. But most people agree that it’s Putin’s mind that has to be made up and nobody else’s. The administration has clearly liked the working relationship that has developed between Obama and Medvedev, and there would be some disappointment if they had to get used to a new guy–that is to say if Putin came back–but in diplomacy, one gets over these disappointments.
As the world’s attention focuses on traditional conflicts, a new form of warfare is looming, writes Con Coughlin.
02 Jun 2011 By Con Coughlin THE TELEGRAPH
It is a lot less dangerous than planting a primitive roadside bomb in Afghanistan, or driving around the outskirts of Misurata in an ageing pick-up truck that is liable to be bombed at any moment by Nato warplanes. All that is needed to launch a highly effective cyber attack against an enemy target is a key computer password or a memory stick loaded with a highly sophisticated virus.
Cyber wars are far less graphic than the highly visible conflicts being fought in Libya and Afghanistan, but they have the potential to offer a far greater threat to our security and wellbeing than any number of Taliban insurgents or Gaddafi loyalists. And, at a time when world attention is focused on more high-profile conflicts in Central Asia and North Africa, a new generation of cyber warriors are quietly honing their skills by developing the technology to attack the world’s most sophisticated computer systems.
In the past few days, the American defence company Lockheed Martin, the Pentagon’s biggest arms supplier, admitted that its computer networks had been subjected to a sustained attack from an unknown source whose aim was to acquire sensitive information about top-secret military projects. The company says it was able to repel the hack and that its security has not been seriously compromised.
Even a multi-billion-dollar global brand such as Google is not immune. The search giant this week revealed that it had uncovered a “spear phishing” attack, in which tailored emails that appear to come from a person known to the victim lead them unwittingly into revealing their password. This attack, which Google says has been traced to Jinan, China, was aimed at a large number of government officials and journalists, the majority of whom are based in the United States.
Nor are all the recent instances of cyber war confined to its offensive capabilities. The Washington Post has published an account of how computer experts at Britain’s GCHQ intelligence-gathering post at Cheltenham managed to disrupt an al-Qaeda attempt to publish an online magazine that contained detailed instructions on how to make a bomb. When the English-language jihadist magazine Inspire went online at the end of last year, pages four to 67 were garbled as a result of the British cyber-sabotage, including the main feature, “Make a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom”. Not a shot or missile was fired in anger, but GCHQ’s timely intervention proved highly effective at defending the nation from a plot to radicalise impressionable young Muslims.
The growing sophistication of today’s cyber warriors certainly puts paid to the notion that computer hacking is an activity undertaken by sad losers in the confines of an attic bedroom. These days, attacks are more likely to be undertaken on the orders of a hostile state, which is why so much effort is being invested on both sides of the Atlantic in figuring out how to combat the threat. General Sir David Richards, the head of Britain’s Armed Forces, has warned repeatedly of the need for Britain to develop both its offensive and defensive cyber capabilities, and this year appointed one of his most senior officers as the country’s first “Cyber Tsar”.
The US, meanwhile, has established an independent “Cyber Command”, and is giving serious consideration to classifying cyber attacks as acts of war.
The fact that the Pentagon wants to be able to launch a cruise missile at any data centre found to be spewing malicious traffic is a reflection of the potentially disastrous impact future assaults might have on basic infrastructure systems, such as water and energy supplies.
Iran’s nuclear programme is still recovering from the devastating consequences of the Stuxnet virus, which is widely believed to have been developed by American and Israeli computer scientists before being placed in the main operating system of the Bushehr nuclear reactor last year. If a similar virus struck Britain’s nuclear power stations, large swathes of the country would be plunged into darkness, with all the implications that would have for law and order, as well as our national prosperity.
For the moment, most of the work being undertaken by the MoD’s newly created Defence Cyber Operations Group is aimed at helping industrial and utility companies protect themselves against the risk of attack. But a lot of secret work is also taking place at GCHQ and elsewhere to develop offensive cyber capabilities of the type used at Bushehr.
That does not mean, however, that computer hackers will be treated differently to Islamist terror groups or rogue dictators – in certain circumstances they could still be attacked with conventional weapons in retaliation. “A well-aimed cyber attack against the City of London could have more devastating consequences than an al-Qaeda dirty nuclear bomb,” a senior advisor to the MoD’s cyber team told me. “If the nation’s financial centre was crippled, we would be required to respond with a lot more than a clever computer program.”
June 1, 2011 defense-aerospace.com
(Source: Lexington Institute; issued May 31, 2011)
It seems as if the only thing a majority in the U.S. Senate can agree on is that they do not like any of the proposed budget plans. That is, until the subject of the sale of F-16s to Taiwan came up.
In a rare demonstration of bipartisanship, and good sense, the co-chairs of the Senate Taiwan Caucus Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and James Inhofe (R-Okla) published a letter signed by forty-three of their colleagues calling on the Obama Administration to approve Taiwan’s request to buy 66 F-16 C/D fighter jets. Among the senators who signed the letter, in addition to Menendez, were Democrats Joe Lieberman, Tim Johnson, Jay Rockefeller, Ron Wyden and Sherrod Brown. Republicans Jon Kyl, John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Scott Brown joined Inhofe in signing the letter.
The “Gang of 45” is not looking to provoke a confrontation with the People’s Republic of China. Rather, they are focused on the need to maintain stability and military parity in East Asia. China is continuing a massive military buildup involving the addition of dozens of ballistic missiles and hundreds of modern jet fighters to its arsenal across the straits from Taiwan. The Senators realize that if the sale of F-16 is not concluded soon, the U.S. might have no viable options for preventing the situation across the straits from becoming unstable. Thus, the 45 Senators warned the administration that,
"We are deeply concerned that further delay of the decision to sell F-16s to Taiwan could result in closure of the F-16 production line, and urge you to expedite this export process before the line closes. Without new fighter aircraft and upgrades to its existing fleet of F-16s, Taiwan will be dangerously exposed to Chinese military threats, aggression and provocation, which pose significant national security implications for the U.S."
The Obama Administration has refused to act on Taiwan’s request out of a fear of angering China, even though it is Beijing that is destabilizing the balance of power in the region. Failure to respond to the legitimate security needs of a long-time friend and fellow democracy in the pursuit of narrow national interest is a mistake. As the President made clear in his recent speech to the Muslim world, the defense and nurturance of democratic governments around the world is in our interest and must be a core value that guides this nation’s policy decisions. What is right for the peoples of the Middle East and North Africa is also right for Taiwan.
Providing additional F-16s for Taiwan and upgrading that country’s existing fleet will only restore the military balance that has been present in the region for more than sixty years. It will also send a signal to the leaders in Beijing that the security policy of the United States will not be guided only by narrow market interests.
EAST GRAND FORKS, Minn., June 2, 2011 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Today Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE:NOC) presented a full-scale model of the RQ-4 Block 10 Global Hawk unmanned aircraft system (UAS) to the Northland Community and Technical College Foundation of East Grand Forks, Minn. The presentation was part of the Red River Valley Research Corridor Unmanned Aviation Systems Action Summit.
The model was given to Northland Community and Technical College Foundation in support of unmanned systems educational programs at Northland and the University of North Dakota (UND). UND provides
extensive UAS pilot training and Northland provides UAS aircraft maintenance training.
"We are extremely honored and excited by this generous donation from Northrop Grumman," said Dan Klug, executive director of the Northland Community and Technical College Foundation. "The cooperative spirit between Northland, UND and Northrop Grumman is a clear demonstration of the importance of unmanned aerial systems and its growth in our region."
"For 11 years we have used this full-scale model at various events around the world and we are incredibly proud to provide this gift to the students of Northland and UND," said George Guerra, vice president HALE Systems, Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems. "We are confident it will be of great use to the students and we are pleased to have it be a part of the Red River Valley community."
The full scale model arrived at Northland the last week of April. The students of Northland's Aviation Maintenance Technology and the Auto Body Program refurbished and repainted the model, which will be displayed at Northland's aviation campus in Thief River Falls, Minn.
Prior to its arrival at Grand Forks, the model traveled all over the world. Built in 2000 by Aurora Flight Sciences in West Virginia, the model made its debut at the Farnborough International Air Show in July 2000. Shortly after Farnborough, it was showcased at the National Mall in Washington, D.C., in front of the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum. Since then, the full scale model has been displayed at numerous air shows and military bases in the United States and internationally. Last year, the model was featured at the Grand Forks Air Force Base open house.
The RQ-4 Block 10 Global Hawk has a wingspan of 116.2 feet, the length is 44.4 feet, and the height is 14.6 feet. It can fly up to 65,000 feet and has a maximum endurance of 32 hours.
June 2, 2011 By Adam Rawnsley DANGER ROOM
The Air Force is sick of packing the military’s crap. So it’s starting to contract it out — to robots.
The Air Force is responsible for lugging around the rest of the military’s gear. Pallets are the workhorses that crews use to get the job done. They’re flat planks that support cargo and allow it to be tied down, pushed along and generally moved around onto transport vehicles like the C-130.
Moving, stacking, and coordinating all those pallets takes a more than a few foot-tons of back-breaking work. So, a while back, the Air Force proposed building an “intelligent robopallet” that would do let the cargo load itself. The air service recently awarded contracts to two companies — HStar Technologies and Stratom — to start making it happen.
Hstar’s attempt at a self-packing luggage system, dubbed “i-Pbot” in Apple-style, would use omnidirectional wheels and hydraulic actuators to allow the pallets to move themselves around wherever they’re needed. The system would also feature a wireless sensor network to allow it to communicate with other pallets, to ensure efficient movement.
Stratom’s roboloader is based on the standard 463L pallet and will use an automated, guided vehicle to lug around up to five tons. It’ll also have a wireless network that allows it to phone home to a central command location and coordinate with its fellow roboloaders.
Pallets aren’t the only part of the military cargo and transport worlds getting mechanized as the Pentagon tries to save manpower — and trips to the chiropractor — in its logistical tail.
Cargo-carrying drones are already a reality. In the air, there’s the K-MAX helicopter drone which can carry three tons. On the ground, there’s BigDog, the robotic pack mule able to haul up to 300 pounds.
The Air Force and Marine Corps already are working getting their own airborne cargo drones, and the Navy wants to build software that would allow the cargo-bots to ferry the wounded by voice command, without the aid of pilots. The Israelis have been working on a robotic ambulance for years.
The military has also bankrolled the development of superstrength exoskeletons that can haul giant loads. Think Sigourney Weaver in Aliens.
HULC, or the Human Universal Load Carrier, is Lockheed’s offering in the supersuit category. It allows troops to carry up to 200-pound loads on a march and run up to 7 mph. XOS 2, built by Sarcos and Raytheon and often compared to the Iron Man suit, allows users to bear enormous burdens, too, saving all kinds of back-breaking labor.
Of course, if the pallets loaded themselves, then the superhero suits would be freed up for more heroic duty.
June 02, 2011 OTTAWA, Ontario--(BUSINESS WIRE)
The Canadian Army’s Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle (TAPV) program, which will provide hundreds of next generation wheeled combat vehicles to Canadian Forces, is at the center of two teaming agreements recently entered into by BAE Systems.
Along with the leading edge RG35 Reconnaissance, Patrol and Utility solution—which was unveiled in early May—BAE Systems has leveraged its extensive automotive and defense-wide expertise to offer a comprehensive in-service support solution to provide optimal operational readiness and availability of the TAPV equipment. Through teaming with DEW Engineering and Thales Canada, Canadian-based industries will be at the heart of the delivery and in-service support of the BAE Systems’ TAPV solution. This Team will not only produce a TAPV solution that will provide Canadian Forces with superior protection and mobility in theatre, but through its close partnerships, it will create and maintain long lasting, high quality jobs in Canada.
DEW Engineering will provide design services, add-on-armour and vehicle assembly as part of this agreement. In-service support to include vehicle repair, field service support, technical publications and material support is also part of the DEW Engineering share of work on TAPV.
“We are pleased to have the opportunity to team with BAE Systems on the TAPV program, and offer Canada a superior vehicle platform with tremendous growth potential, and an Industrial participation package that will provide long term benefits for Canadian Industry in all regions of the country,” said Ian Marsh, President of DEW Engineering.
“By joining forces with DEW Engineering and Thales Canada, we’re confident we have the best strategic partnerships in place to deliver on all aspects of the TAPV program,” said Alan Garwood, Group Business Development Director at BAE Systems. " It’s a team dedicated to ensuring the soldier comes first, dedicated to producing and maintaining the safest and most reliable TAPV solution; and dedicated to continued investment in Canadian industry. The heart of the BAE Systems strategy is working in partnerships around the globe bringing jobs and technology to those markets”, added Garwood.
As the Combat Systems Integrator, Thales Canada will provide the Vehicle Electronic Architecture (VEA) including the complete combat system suite, design, production material and systems support through the life of the program.
“Thales Canada is known for its competitive systems solutions and integration skills, we look forward to providing a low-risk Canadian designed solution to BAE Systems and the Canadian Army that will meet and exceed the stated TAPV requirements,” added Paul Kahn, President and CEO of Thales Canada.
With extensive experience in the tactical wheeled vehicle and protective systems market, BAE Systems is well positioned to meet the requirements of the Canadian Army. The company has a track record of producing more than 5,000 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles for the US Forces and over 3,500 RG series vehicles globally.
The Canadian Department of National Defense (DND) expects to award a contract to the final selected bidder by early 2012.
Jun 2, 2011 By Michael Fabey aerospace daily and defense report
The enhanced Aegis system for the Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Monterey – the first U.S. Navy ship deployed in the Mediterranean as part of the nation’s Phased Adaptive Approach for ballistic missile defense (BMD) – is operating as expected, the ship’s commanding officer tells Aviation Week.
“The radar’s been working great,” Capt. Jim Kilby said in a telephone interview during a recent deployment break.
The mission-planning expectations for radar resource usage have been right on the mark, Kilby says. “That’s been pretty accurate,” he declares. “We’ve seen exactly what they predicted we’d be using.”
The enhanced BMD upgrades will lead ship and fleet commanders to rethink how those Aegis-equipped ships will be deployed, Kilby says. “Do I think tactics and procedures are going to change? I absolutely think they are. It’s like how the Tomahawk [missile] was when it first rolled out into the fleet.”
The new mission mind-set has already prompted Aegis ship sailors to operate the system with more care and diligence.
“It’s caused everyone to tighten up their game,” he says. ”The crew is more aware of [the] material condition of the radar. They’re treating the radar a little [differently].”
The new mission training has made the crew more sensitive to certain radar data points, such as the operational test systems outputs, instead of just looking to see if the system is passing or failing.
“We’re really looking at the data coming out of it,” Kilby says, “being a little more circumspect.”
For example, the Aegis BMD planning computer connected to the combat system requires an input that is an extrapolation of the radar’s “power out” performance, Kilby says. “The crew has become more sensitive to that and it drives them to try to maintain the radar at the highest condition possible. We now look at the output of those tests very carefully because we know it’s so critical to execute this mission.”
Others eyeing the enhanced Aegis equipment during the ship’s deployment are officials from NATO countries expecting to participate in the system’s BMD protective network.
“I think their takeaway was: It’s a complicated thing,” Kilby says. “We don’t all have to buy interceptors and ships; maybe we just want to buy radars, so we’ll purchase the radar. Maybe we’ll provide logistics support or maybe we’ll provide some of our surface combatants to provide air defense.”
02/06/11 By Stephen Trimble Flight International
When three nuclear protestors broke into the E-9 Minuteman launch site in rural North Dakota on 20 June 2006, alarm bells rang all over the US Air Force.
Terrorists may have tried harder to gain access to the missile silo. But these trespassers were dressed as clowns, and merely spray-painted slogans around the site. Finished with their work, they waited patiently inside the launch site with hands raised until a helicopter-borne USAF security force arrived to arrest them.
Within the air force, however, the incident underscored the need to replace an ageing, under-powered fleet of 62 Bell UH-1Ns charged with responding to such alarms across vast distances.
The USAF's unguarded, remote missile sites dotting the Great Plains have always been vulnerable to potentially catastrophic security breaches, and the trio of harmless clowns only seemed to mock that risk.
A more high-profile security lapse in 2007, when a Boeing B-52 inadvertently transported six nuclear-tipped missiles across the country, drove sweeping reforms of the USAF nuclear enterprise. But it has taken five more years and a controversy over acquisition strategy to address the UH-1N replacement issue.
On 27 May, the USAF finally launched a competitive bidding process for 93 helicopters, releasing a draft request for proposals under the common vertical lift support platform (CVLSP) programme.
Recognising the scale of the need if not the urgency, the USAF's draft requirements call for a very different kind of helicopter than the 4,700kg (10,400lb)-class UH-1N.
For the most challenging profile - responding to a security breach at a missile launch site - the aircraft with four crew members must transport a nine-member security force with all of their weapons and other equipment a minimum of 210km (115nm) and back, with multiple stops en route.
The five most likely helicopters competing for the CVLSP contract are at least 50% larger than the UH-1N, ranging from the 6,800kg AgustaWestland AW139 to the 22,700kg Boeing HH-47. Falling in between are the Bell UH-1Y, Sikorsky UH-60M and the Eurocopter EC725 offered by EADS North America.
The USAF's demands for increased performance may yet force some competitors to switch to an even larger aircraft.
"We don't see any requirement that we don't meet with a government off-the-shelf UH-60M aircraft," said Tim Healy, Sikorsky's director of air force business development. But he added: "It isn't a cakewalk, but we do meet all the requirements we see so far."
Until now, the USAF has released only the aircraft requirements, but not the acquisition strategy. Until it divulges how the requirements will be scored in an evaluation, most competitors are keeping their options open.
AgustaWestland, Boeing and EADS confirmed interest in competing for the contract, but declined to specify which aircraft could be proposed. AgustaWestland has the option of choosing between the AW139 and larger AW101, while EADS is balancing potential bids based on Eurocopter's EC725 Cougar or AS532 Puma.
Boeing's only option appears to be the HH-47 Chinook, unless it teams with Bell to offer the V-22 tiltrotor. However, the USAF has not expressed any interest in a high-speed aircraft, with its draft requirement documents calling for a minimum speed of 135kt (250km/h). While 30% faster than the UH-1N, this is less than half the top speed of the V-22.
In addition, Bell seems concentrated on offering the UH-1Y for the CVLSP contract, describing the far more powerful and updated version of the Huey airframe as the "best value" in the competition.
The competitors' strategies are likely to take shape after 10 June, when the USAF is expected to reveal the acquisition strategy for CVLSP during a closed-door "industry day" meeting.
The competitive strategy has already survived an attempt within the USAF to at least consider awarding a sole-source deal to the UH-60M. In late March, USAF acquisition officials rejected the sole-source option in favour of a competitive bidding process.
June 2nd, 2011 By AFP Defence Talk
The United States has 30 percent more deployed long-range ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads than former Cold War foe Russia, according to new data released Wednesday by the State Department.
Both countries are required to report key figures from their nuclear weapons arsenals as part of the landmark new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) adopted by Moscow and Washington on February 5.
The United States has 882 deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) and heavy bombers, compared with 521 for Russia, according to the State Department, which published the new START aggregate numbers.
The United States also has 1,800 deployed warheads and 1,124 launchers, as well as deployed and non-deployed heavy bombers, compared with Russia's 1,537 deployed warheads and 865 launchers and heavy bombers, according to the figures.
The figures are current as of February 5, 2011, "as drawn from the initial exchange of data by the parties" that was required within 45 days of the treaty coming into force.
The new START limits each side to 1,550 deployed warheads and 700 deployed ICBMs and SLBMs and heavy bombers, meaning the United States would still need to reduce its arsenal under the terms of the treaty.
The first nuclear pact in two decades has been feted as vital to global security because it reduces old warhead ceilings by 30 percent from a limit set in 2002, and establishes a streamlined new inspection procedure designed to eliminate cheating.
In October 2009, two months before the end of the original START treaty, the State Department issued strategic offensive arms figures that showed the United States possessed 5,916 "attributed" warheads, compared to Russia's 3,897.
A person familiar with START described it as a "totally different counting system" than the new START, which uses a more accurate counting in listing 1,800 actually deployed US warheads on ICBMs, SLBMs or heavy bombers.
A more realistic comparison, the person told AFP, would be with the approximately 2,150 operationally deployed strategic US nuclear warheads listed as of last December.
In May 2010, after extensive debate within President Barack Obama's administration, the Pentagon revealed the extent of its nuclear arsenal for the first time.
It said the US stockpile of nuclear weapons consisted of 5,113 warheads, including active warheads ready for deployment at short notice, as well as "inactive" warheads maintained at a depot in a non-operational status.
The new START accord limits still allow for enough weaponry to blow up the world many times over.
Obama has described the treaty as a modest step toward "a world without nuclear weapons," but stressed he knew the goal would not be reached quickly and would take "patience and persistence."
/fdata%2F4220908%2Favatar-blog-1207340840-tmpphpbvDubc.jpeg){kind=avatar}
