I tagli di Gates

paperinik · 8 Aprile 2009

Io invece dei tagli di Gates mi dispiaccio solo per il VH-71....era l'ennesima vetrina per mostrare l'eccellenza italiana, adesso non lo sarà più.

Sinceramente se ha tagliato il C-17 o l'F-22 non mi importa un granchè...gli USA oggi che mancano i soldi tagliano, domani che la situazione sarà migliorata finanzieranno il doppio, ma nel mentre qualche trabiccolo made-in-usa sarà diventato il nuovo Marine One.

paperinik · 8 Aprile 2009

Rileggendo queste pagine vorrei precisare un punto chiave che non è stato affatto toccato.

I "tagli di Gates" in realtà non sono tali....o meglio ancora non lo sono e non è detto che lo siano.

Mi spiego:

quelle di Gates sono solo raccomandazioni al Congresso, il quale è l'organo a cui è deputata la decisione finale sui finanziamenti o sui tagli da operare (salvo improbabili veti del Presidente). In passato di fronte a queste raccomandazioni si sono viste decisioni del tutto opposte da parte del Congresso...talune volte certi programmi che si voleva fortemente tagliare sono stati tenuti in vita dal Congresso.

Quindi per l'F-22 non è ancora detta l'ultima parola, così come per il C-17....

Per il VH-71 le cose stanno in modo differente: il costosissimo Incremente One è ancora da perfezionare e nonostante ciò non è conforme alle specifiche minime richieste dal bando, l' Increment Two costa quanto un Air Force One, la lobby del Made-in-USA è più forte e agguerrita che mai, la crisi galoppa e qualche progetto va tagliato. Mettete insieme questi indizi e avrete la prova che il VH-71 difficilmente sarà confermato come elicottero presidenziale dal voto del Congresso.

EDIT: riguardo all'F-35 Gates ritiene nelle sue raccomandazioni che il costo del programma non subirà rilevanti flessioni....checchè ne dica il GAO.

Modificato 8 Aprile 2009 da paperinik

Tuccio14 · 8 Aprile 2009

Conosco molto bene la situazione cinese e se la racontassero veramente in Italia chi si scandalizza per i managers sequestrati si rizzirebbero i capelli in testa, là ne hanno già linciati più d'uno e le autorità non sanno cosa fare per contenere la rabbia di chi resta senza lavoro dall'oggi all'indomani. Sì, i tempi sono cambiati, ma si tratta pur sempre di una dittatura, e la Cina, comunque, mi preoccupa sempre meno della (Nuova) URSS.

E uno che in tempi di crisi annuncia il riarmo non è poi così tranquillizzante. Senza contare che poi, al riarmo, bisognerà dargli un motivo. In molti, io compreso sostengono che sia uno dei fattori che portarono l'Italia fascista in guerra. Non lo so ma per me in quel di Mosca vorrebbero approfittare di come si affronta la crisi in Occidente.

Comunque, pap, dubito che il Congresso respinga delle raccomandazioni del genere, a meno di non volersi trovare contro tutta l'opinione pubblica americana. E mi associo al dispiacere per il VH-71, il danno di immagine è enorme, ai più sembrerà che sia colpa di Finmeccanica. Se vogliamo trovare un lato positivo, la MMI o l'AMI avranno delle bestioline quasi in pronta consegna pagate in toto da Obama!

Per quanto riguarda il sostituto dell'HumVee, invece, non credo che una collaborazione con Iveco sia del tutto improbabile. Per spendere meno credo si butteranno su qualcosa di convenzionale, magari sfruttando la base del Lince per studiarci su una piattaforma modulare, chi lo dice... Alla fine, di un fuoristrada, il sistema di trazione conta molto, e costa molto progettarne uno nuovo.

Esterrefatto per la Navy. Spero sul serio che la prevista affidabilità delle nuove PA compenserà l'enorme vuoto lasciato da un'unità in meno.

Rigiardo all'USAF, non ho capito se le linee di montaggio del Raptor e del C-17 verranno smantellate o solo tenute in naftalina. Non tento per il bestione che un suo mercato estero ce l'ha ancora, quanto l'F-22 che, a meno di qualche colpo di genio, non verrà esportato nemmeno agli alleati più fedeli. Nessun rammarico per il B-3, era nell'aria che fosse il primo a saltare, in fondo non è indispensabile come il KC-X, che comunque dovrà ripartire.

boomer · 8 Aprile 2009

chiedo scusa, non è per caso che il recente accordo, fiat chrysler fortemente voluto da obama, possa in qualche modo aprire la strada al lince?

o dico una boiata?

diavolo rosso · 8 Aprile 2009

Non credo,ma non si può mai sapere,ma con gli Americani penso sia più facile una collaborazione.

9 Aprile 2009

U.S. Defense Department officials are providing more details to new guidance Secretary Robert Gates has unveiled over the Ground-based Midcourse Defense ballistic interceptor program.

Earlier plans called for 40 three-stage Orbital Boost Vehicle interceptors - also called ground-based interceptors - in Ft. Greely, Alaska, and four at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif.

Now, however, the plan is to cap the interceptors at the 26 already in place at Ft. Greely and keep the four in Vandenberg. It is unclear whether spares will be pursued as replacements if any are launched or otherwise removed.

Part of the George W. Bush administration's plan for GMD also entailed the so-called Third Site in Eastern Europe, comprising a radar station in the Czech Republic and 10 two-stage GBIs in Poland. That effort, which envisioned U.S. silos there being loaded around 2013, has at least slowed rhetorically while President Barack Obama's administration mulls new diplomacy with Russia.

Gates' plans -- together with dropping the Multiple Kill Vehicle, culling the Airborne Laser and underpinning Terminal High Altitude Area Defense and Aegis Ballistic Missile systems -- signals a shift for the Missile Defense Agency. Less focus is being placed in expanding the scope of capabilities in midcourse defense and more attention is to be put on firming up the ever elusive boost phase defense.

www.aviationweek.com

freenick · 9 Aprile 2009

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-...-decisions.html

AFA Urges Congress to Reverse Cuts to Vital Air Force Systems

(Source: Air Force Association; issued April 6, 2009)

ARLINGTON, VA --- The Air Force Association (AFA) today urged Congress to reconsider massive defense cuts announced today by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

While pleased with some of the decisions, AFA is deeply concerned that the cuts announced today will significantly impact core capabilities the nation needs...despite the fact that many systems are well underway in research and development, including the F-22 Raptor, already in production; the Transformational Satellite Communications program (TSAT); Airborne Laser (ABL), a key component of missile defense; the Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) helicopter and a planned long range strike platform.

With the aging Air Force fleet now on average a quarter-century old, the oldest it has ever been, and some key aircraft twice that age and dating back to the Eisenhower administration, AFA strongly believes the U.S. must recapitalize older air and space systems.

Air Supremacy: AFA urges preservation of the F-22 Raptor production line, continued US production and backs sales of the F-22 to proven allies. Sales of a few squadrons of these to a handful of our closest allies will serve to robustly augment our combined forces and build important coalitions, drive overall production costs down, and preserve economic activity in the U.S.

The F-22 is much too important to allow this line to close prematurely, said Mike Dunn, President/CEO of AFA. We need more of these important aircraft. Production is now at its most affordable point GEN (RET) Barry McCaffrey has stated: The F-22 is the most important acquisition program in the Department of Defense. We should buy 750 of them.

AFA believes we should:

--Preserve the production line

--Strengthen our defense capability

--Build coalition capability with strategic partners

--Protect vital U.S. jobs and economic activity

--Drive costs down per aircraft

--Position the U.S. to preserve air dominance for another generation.

Combat Search & Rescue: AFA supports a dedicated CSAR force to extract downed pilots, military personnel in danger of capture and other endangered U.S. citizens a capability used from high mountains to deserts to over water, and in response to natural disasters as well as military scenarios.

Combat search and rescue capability is a commitment we make with our troops a moral obligation , said Joe Sutter, AFAs Chairman of the Board. We owe them a rapidly deployed, ready, trained, professional force that can bring them to safety.

Missile Defense: Already progressing in testing and development, airborne laser technology shows promise of being able to destroy an advancing missile with precision at the peak of its trajectory, where the debris will do the least harm.

North Koreas test of missile technology displays the need for continued investment in airborne laser, Dunn said. This technology could revolutionize our defenses. Its time to commit to being able to protect ourselves and our allies from errant missiles and hostile launches.

Communications: The Transformational Satellite Communications System will provide survivable, worldwide, secure satellite communications to U.S. strategic and tactical forces during all levels of conflict.

This system would deliver secure, jam-resistant, connectivity for stationary or mobile warfighters, Dunn said. It will allow military forces anywhere in the world to gain immediate access to vital intelligence. We owe the warfighter quick access to information without the fear of jamming or eavesdropping.

Long Range Strike: Continued planning and investment in a future long range strike platform is essential to complement the Air Forces 20 B-2 bombers and older fleet of B-52s and B-1Bs. In the 1990s, the B-2 program was cut short prematurely on the theory that the nuclear mission was being reduced. Now those 20 aircraft are the only U.S. strike platform capable of going anywhere with the stealth capability that the older platforms do not possess.

Long range strike is a core competency of the Air Force and arguably the most important part of its mission, Dunn said. Our bomber fleet is the smallest it has been since before World War II and certainly the oldest it has ever been. Long range strike is vital to ensuring there is truly no sanctuary for an enemy behind anti-aircraft defenses.

The AFA is a 501©(3), nonprofit organization promoting public understanding of aerospace power and the pivotal role it plays in the security of the nation. AFA has more than 200 chapters nationally and internationally representing 125,000 members. (ends)

Note from AFA President Budget

(Source: Air Force Association; issued April 7, 2009)

AFA members, Congressional staffers, civic leaders, and DOCA members: yesterday, Secretary Gates briefed the press corps on his budget proposal for 2010.

In sum, for the Air Force, the following was recommended:

--Continued production of ISR systems

--Increased production of the F-35

--Continue the process to select tanker replacement

--Purchase of more SOF lift, mobility, and refueling aircraft

However, the following programs were terminated/delayed:

-- F-22 production terminated

-- Follow-on Bomber terminated ("until we have a better understanding of the need, requirement, and the technology")

-- C-17 production terminated

-- Combat Search and Rescue Helicopter X terminated

-- Transformational Satellite (TSAT) terminated and instead purchase of two more AEHF satellites

-- Missile Defense radically cut:

*No increase of ground-based interceptors

*Airborne Laser (ABL) terminated

*Multiple Kill Vehicle (MKV) terminated

*Missile Defense Agency budget reduced by $1.4B/year

One cut which has but one line in the release retires 250 aircraft. This means:

*We will have a de facto Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) since 250 aircraft is the equivalent of 3.5 wings (and over 5 CVBGs) of fighter aircraft,

**F-15s, F-16s, and A-10s will all leave the force with no replacements

Let me make a few observations about this budget.

1. This budget guarantees that the oldest Air Force in the history of our nation will get even older.

2. B-52s (built in the 1950s) will have to be kept on duty for a minimum of another 15-20 years

3. At a time when the nation is spending literally trillions of dollars, we seem to not have enough money to fund an adequate defense

4. We are using tomorrow's dollars to solve today's problems.

5. The acquisition decisions recommended will lock in the range of national security options for decades into the future.

6. The decisions are not just programic nuance but will impact core Air Force functions, to include Air Force ability to deter, to conduct an air campaign, and to rescue our downed Airmen.

7. The launch of an intercontinental missile by North Korea this weekend (and a similar launch by Iran 5 weeks ago) argues for a robust missile defense, not a reduced one to include the ABL. The technology of ABL has the potential to revolutionize warfare in the future.

8. It is difficult to determine the strategy which this budget supports. This is especially important since a Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) is mandated by law and will be conducted in the upcoming several months. It seems the budget (and hence the strategy) precedes the QDR.

9. This budget increases risk in my view beyond so-called "moderate."

AFA believes there are major impacts and consequences for the full-up joint team. These budget recommendations may cost us lives and will reduce our strategic options in a very dangerous world.

(Signed)

Michael M. Dunn President/CEO

paperinik · 9 Aprile 2009

Beh insomma.....questi dell'AF Association si stanno allargando un pelo. Un conto è auspicare che il Congresso non operi tutti i tagli raccomandati da Gates, altro conto è ritenere necessari 750 Raptor.

9 Aprile 2009

Beh insomma.....questi dell'AF Association si stanno allargando un pelo. Un conto è auspicare che il Congresso non operi tutti i tagli raccomandati da Gates, altro conto è ritenere necessari 750 Raptor.

Credo sia un'esagerazione voluta, ne chiediamo tanti per averne qualcuno in più di quelli che, ormai, sembrano essere gli unici previsti.

diavolo rosso · 9 Aprile 2009

Chiaro,ne chiedono 100 per averne 20 per esempio.

paperinik · 9 Aprile 2009

Chiaro,ne chiedono 100 per averne 20 per esempio.

D'accordo, ma il saggio dice: "chi troppo vuole, nulla stringe"!

Avanzare richieste così disancorate dalla realtà rischia solo di far perdere di credibilità all'ente che le propugna.

diavolo rosso · 9 Aprile 2009

Non credo che l'USAF perderà la sua credibilità per questa richiesta.

Però potrebbe essere anche come dici tu.

paperinik · 9 Aprile 2009

Non credo che l'USAF perderà la sua credibilità per questa richiesta.
Però potrebbe essere anche come dici tu.

Attenzione DiavoloRosso!!! L'ente che ha avanzato la richiesta al Congresso di non tagliare la produzione di F-22 non è affatto l'USAF: è l'AFA, Air Force Association! Cosa ben distinta!

Dal loro sito ufficiale (www.afa.org):

The Air Force Association (AFA) is an independent, nonprofit, civilian education organization promoting public understanding of aerospace power and the pivotal role it plays in the security of the nation

13 Aprile 2009

The Obama administration’s first off-book supplemental appropriations request includes $11.6 billion to refurbish or replace war-torn equipment, as well as $600 million to buy four F-22 Raptors to replace four legacy fighters lost due to combat operations.

Another $9.8 billion is requested “to improve the protection of our forces with lightweight body armor, armored vehicles, safe and secure operating bases, identity management for access control, and persistent surveillance capabilities,” according to the White House. Likewise, $1.5 billion is sought for counter-improvised explosive device efforts.

President Barack Obama’s Office of Management and Budget outlined the combined $83.4 billion government-wide request late April 9. Reaction from Capitol Hill appeared universally equivocal as lawmakers received news of a necessary but denounced vestige of the Bush administration. Obama’s request appears to follow his efforts to draw down in Iraq and shift military resources to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

“Timely consideration of the supplemental is especially important to our men and women in uniform, who depend on it for the resources they need to do their jobs,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said. His party had railed against the use of supplementals under President Bush.

“Republicans want to work with the President to pass a clean troop funding bill, and it’s my hope that both parties can work together to pass a bill without any strings attached that would tie the hands of our commanders on the ground as well as any unnecessary or extraneous spending,” said John Boehner (R-Ohio), leader of the House’s minority party.

“The President’s decision to continue Gen. Petraeus’ successful strategy in Iraq and implement a surge strategy in Afghanistan is a good one, but it will require a significant commitment from this Congress,” said Boehner’s Senate counterpart, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). “In the consideration of this year’s security supplemental bill, it is imperative that this Democrat-led Congress resist the temptation to use this must-pass bill to leverage additional and extraneous spending and focus instead on committing resources strictly for the defense of our nation.”

OMB declared its intention to do just that — in the future. “This is the last planned war supplemental,” the White House office asserted. “Moving forward, the president is committed to honest budgeting and fiscal discipline in which these costs are accounted for in the budget — and are clear for all to see. After seven years of war, the American people deserve an honest accounting of the cost of our involvement in our ongoing military operations.”

Other national security spending for the rest of this fiscal year would include:

• $3.6 billion for Afghan security forces;

• $1.4 billion for coalition partners who have backed U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq;

• $400 million to build Pakistani counterinsurgency capabilities.

Also, Obama seeks $3.1 billion for classified “counterterrorism” activities in support of ongoing operations. “These activities include support to military operations, intelligence collection and analysis, and overseas law enforcement efforts,” OMB said.

The White House also said it wanted $350 million for “other defense activities,” which it described as “defense costs for other security related defense activities.” A total $3.7 billion in requests there supposedly would be offset by $2.9 billion in fuel savings and $500 million in procurement reductions.

www.aviationweek.com

14 Aprile 2009

Gates Cuts U.S. Military Helo Programs

The newest competition in Washington is for biggest loser. Both industry and the military will suffer substantially if the Apr. 6 budget recommendations of U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates are implemented. Gates wants to ax the Pentagon’s two most high-profile rotorcraft projects—the Combat Search-and-Rescue (CSAR-X) and VH-71 presidential helicopters—essentially wiping clean the drawing board for new starts in military helicopters for the foreseeable future.

Gates prefaced his announcement by saying, “enough rhetoric, now is the time for action.” The $15-billion CSAR-X program has endured years of delays, interservice rivalries, an Inspector General investigation and two bidder protests. Gates’s recommendation was more than a cancellation notice—it was a repudiation of the U.S. Air Force’s stated priorities and acquisition methods: The service has made clear that CSAR-X was its No. 2 acquisition priority, after the KC-X refueling tanker replacement. But analysts say there is little chance this program will be resurrected.

The Lockheed Martin-led VH-71 has had its share of troubles as well, with cost overruns and schedule delays. The price tag for 23 helicopters has doubled, to $13 billion, and Gates is concerned that Increment 1 pilot-production aircraft are not equipped with the required capabilities. Eight of nine Increment 1 VH-71s have been delivered for flight-testing, and one industry analyst questions the financial wisdom of canceling a contract so close to completion of delivery.

Although industry has been largely silent on Gates’s decisions, Lockheed Martin allows it is “assessing the impact” the cuts would have on its program and workforce. Despite its size, the VH-71 program accounts for only about 1% of Lockheed Martin’s bottom line. Though Gates declined to address termination costs associated with any of its proposals, Finmeccanica, parent company of Lockheed Martin’s VH-71 partner, AgustaWestland, says cutting the platform will have “no financial impact on the group.” The company has other buyers for the helicopter, but the order book is thin.

The Army’s hopes still rest on two projects Gates did not mention, the Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter (ARH) and the Joint Future Theater Lift (JFTL), both of which have their own issues. Bell Helicopter’s ARH came in enough over budget and past schedule that outgoing Pentagon acquisitions chief John Young canceled it in October. Now the Army has to wait until the detailed Fiscal 2010 budget is released to determine whether a list of refined requirements will make its way through the Pentagon’s Joint Requirements Oversight Council or if it will have to pour whatever ARH money is left into upgrading its aging Kiowa Warrior fleet instead.

The JFTL is locked in a turf war between the Air Force and the Army. Just when it looked as though the Air Force was going to give ground on vertical-lift requirements, Brig. Gen. Walter Davis, director of Army Aviation, said the two services are still “trying to resolve some differences.”

That leaves the military with Sikorsky’s workhorse CH-53K. Although based on an old model, it is entirely new, boasting a gross weight of 84,700 lb., versus 73,000 lb. for the CH-53E. The plan is to procure 200 aircraft, increased from an original request for 156, under the Grow the Force initiative, says Program Manager Capt. Rick Muldoon.

The Navy and Marine Corps have been very protective of the CH-53K and V-22 tiltrotor, which may account for their lack of interest in (or support of) the JFTL. The Marines did something right—the CH-53K is essentially a single-service platform that is succeeding at a time when Gates is favoring multirole, joint-service assets.

Helicopters are in urgent demand in Afghanistan, Gates noted, but the more than $500 million he announced for Fiscal 2010 will go to people, not platforms. “What became clear in the analysis was that the principal shortfall wasn’t in airframes, but in crews,” Gates said. While the Army has made no comment yet, it would probably disagree. Loss rates on the Kiowa have been higher than anticipated, resulting in the need to overhaul the oldest OH-58A and –C models into D-models to make up for the lack of airframes available for planned upgrades.

Last year, Congress took note of the problems. Included in the Fiscal 2009 defense authorization bill was a provision for a Future Vertical Lift Capabilities Based Assessment outlining a joint approach to future vertical lift aircraft. But the most recent cuts to rotorcraft programs may be an indication that for now, time and money have run out on those priorities.

www.aviationweek.com

Modificato 14 Aprile 2009 da intruder

17 Aprile 2009

If there was any confusion about U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates’s position on the possibility of a split buy of Boeing and Northrop Grumman/EADS refueling tankers for the U.S. Air Force, he is taking pains to fix it. “I am laying my body down across the tracks” in opposition to it, he told an audience of officers at the Air War College at Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala., on April 15. The response was vigorous applause. During a press conference a day earlier en route to Fort Rucker, Ala., he said he opposes the introduction of two separate training, maintenance and logistics requirements simultaneously into the fleet. He also said that developing two tankers at once could cost $14 billion over five years, double the price of one. Some lawmakers have seized on the idea of a dual buy as the only politically palatable way to move forward with a KC-X program after repeated false starts and protests. Northrop, which partnered with EADS’ Airbus against Boeing in the last round, has also sounded support for such a compromise.

www.aviationweek.com

22 Aprile 2009

USAF Bomber Grounded by More than Budget

www.aviationweek.com

The now delayed 2018-version of the Next Generation Bomber was derailed by more than the budget. In fact, Lt. Gen. Robert Elder, commander of the 8th Air Force with responsibility for nuclear deterrence and global strike, says it is not dead, just the victim of a postponement.

“What we were looking for in the 2018 bomber was something that would take the B-2 capabilities to a new level, like the F-22 improved on the F-117,” Elder says. “It was stealthier and easier to maintain and from an operational standpoint that’s what you’re looking for.”

In fact, there were two key, inter-related issues that created the bomber reassessment: adding a nuclear weapons carrying capability and renewed Start arms control treaty negotiations with the Russians.

The delay provides breathing space while “we understand the Start negotiations and some of the other [new weapons,] applications,” Elder says. “With Start, you don’t want to lock yourself into an airplane [design] before you know what the accounting rules are.” And the U.S. military may want to change its approach to standoff weaponry.

“The Russians are looking at bombers, and the counting rules for bombers are pretty onerous,” Elder says. “One of the issues is that they count the number of warheads that a bomber is capable of carrying, not its operational load-out. For example, the B-52 is counted as carrying more weapons than it does operationally. That [bomber design] is inefficient for negotiations.”

Meantime, not only is the Next-Generation Bomber delayed, the electronic warfare and attack capabilities that would help it penetrate enemy air defenses – by disrupting radar and communications -- are also in disarray.

“The legacy platforms we have, we’re going to have to find another way to provide that same electronic attack capability” once provided by the EF-11 and EA-6B, says Elder, who spoke to defense reporters in Washington this week. “The AF is looking at some different approaches that take advantage of stealth in F-22 and F-35 by packaging [all stealthy platforms together]. The capabilities on these platforms is part of the reason the Air Force has been less concerned.”

If a target is protected by Russian-made SA-20s, that means you have to use standoff weapons or a packaged stealth force, the general explained. The U.S. Air Force is looking at a number of ways of doing electronic attack without dedicated platforms.

For F-22 and F-35, the requirements for electronic attack aren’t nearly as high. But when you talk about B-1 and B-52, they are going to have trouble operating in an SA-20 environment. Unmanned jammers could be part of that, he said.

8 Maggio 2009

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates was not in the room when the Pentagon unveiled its first budget request under the Obama administration on May 7, but he did not need to be, as his fingerprints are all over its themes of reform and unconventional warfare, as well as its omissions.

Those omissions include the absence of budget projections for the next five years. This is a budget for fiscal 2010 only, designed to start the Pentagon on its new path and carry it through to completion of the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), which will shape spending from FY ’11 onward.

“We do not have a plan beyond 2010,” said Robert Hale, the Pentagon comptroller, in unveiling the proposed $663.8 billion budget. “We will await the results of the QDR.”

Also missing were the new program starts that might have been expected in the 2010 budget cycle. The biggest is a restart: $439 million to begin another competition to replace the U.S. Air Force’s KC-135 tankers.

Procurement programs getting under way or accelerating in 2010 include the Boeing P-8A maritime-patrol aircraft, with six for the Navy; Boeing AH-64D Block III, with eight for the Army; and General Atomics MQ-1C Warrior unmanned aircraft, with 36 for the Army.

The Air Force gets its first eight L-3/Alenia C-27J Joint Combat Aircraft, and takes over the program from the Army, but planned procurement is cut to 38 aircraft from 78. “We expect to get synergy with the C-130J in the Air Force, because of their commonality,” said Vice Adm. Steve Stanley, director of force structure and resources for the joint staff.

The Army is to procure six additional Hawker Beechcraft C-12 manned surveillance aircraft in 2010, and the possibility of transferring the Air Force’s 37 MC-12W Project Liberty aircraft to the Army is under examination, according to Lt. Gen. Edgar Stanton, military deputy for budget.

Most of the terminations were already known, thanks to Gates’ unveiling of his overaching budget plans in April (Aerospace DAILY, April 7). Additions to the list are the Missile Defense Agency’s Kinetic Energy Interceptor, terminated because of “technical problems,” Hale said.

He defended the Pentagon’s decision to defy Congress and attempt to cancel the General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136 alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter for a third time. “We don’t see a business case [for a second engine]. We think [cancellation] is the right thing for us to do.”

Some of the terminations announced by Gates could lead to new programs after 2010, including a new presidential helicopter to replace the overbudget VH-71A. “We have restarted the requirements process to develop a proposal for a new competition,” Stanley said. “We will work with the White House to better define the requirement and be more fiscally informed.”

Air Force special operations is to get a new gunship based on existing MC-130W airframes, which are to be replaced with new Lockheed Martin MC-130Js to be acquired under the HC/MC-130 recapitalization program started in FY ’09. With the CSAR-X helicopter competition canceled, the concept of operations is being re-examined as a joint-service mission, Stanley said.

www.aviationweek.com

13 Maggio 2009

Obama Request Includes Four Raptors

By Michael Bruno aviationweek.com