OOPS

January 14, 2018


‘He feels really bad’: Civil Defense employee who sparked terror in Hawaii by accidentally triggering ballistic MISSILE warning will be ‘retrained’ say officials after thousands fled to bomb shelters.”

  • The alert was issued to residents’ phones at 8.07am on Saturday morning
  •  It told them to seek shelter and warned of an ‘inbound ballistic missile threat’   
  • It took 38 minutes for a second phone alert to be issued across the state 
  • By then, terrified residents had flocked to shelters and into their garages 
  • Civil Defense employee accidentally hit alert, was unaware until his phone got it
  •  An FCC investigation into the incident is underway, officials said.

A Civil Defense employee is set to be retrained after a shocking blunder on Saturday morning, when a mistaken alert warning of an inbound ballistic missile sent thousands fleeing for shelter. The false alarm was caused by a Hawaii Emergency Management Agency employee who ‘pushed the wrong buttons’ during an internal drill timed to coincide with a shift handover at 8.07am. The all-clear phone alert was not sent until 38 minutes later.  Incredibly, officials said the employee who made the mistake wasn’t aware of it until mobile phones in the command center began displaying the alert. ‘This guy feels bad, right. He’s not doing this on purpose – it was a mistake on his part and he feels terrible about it,’ said EMA Administrator Vern Miyagi in a press conference Saturday afternoon. Miyagi, a retired Army major general, said the employee had been with the agency for ‘a while’ and that he would be ‘counseled and drilled so this never happens again’ – but stopped short of saying whether there would be disciplinary measures.

He feels terrible about it.  Give me a break.  I do not want to be unkind here and we all make mistakes but this is a big one.   At one time in our history, we had the DEW Line or Distant Early Warning Line.  The DEW Line was a system of radar stations in the far northern Arctic region of Canada, with additional stations along the North Coast and Aleutian Islands of Alaska, in addition to the Faroe Islands,

Greenland, and Iceland.   The DEW line was replaced by The North Warning System and is presently composed of forty-seven (47) unmanned long and short-range radar stations extending across the Northern portion of the North American continent from Labrador to Alaska.  In 1985, it replaced the DEW Line.

In 2014, Raytheon won a five (5) year contract for the North Warning System.  The “system” is basically shown by the following digital:

The system now supports air surveillance under the North American Aerospace Defense Command.  The Federal government says Raytheon had the lowest bid, and provides the best economic benefits for Inuit.

If we take a look at distances and trajectory, we see from the following global map:

The Taepo Dong 3 ICBM missile has a range of approximately 13,000 miles which means the travel times from North Korea to the following sites is within a virtual “blink of an eye”. Based on this link, taking the more conservative speed estimate :

10,500 meters/sec = 23,400 mph (This may be optimistic – 23,000 mph is Mach 30, which is way above the usual ICBM top speed of around Mach 20 at reentry.)

DISTANCES FROM PYONGYANG TO:

To New York = 6,800 miles

To Los Angeles = 5,900 miles

To Houston = 7,000 miles

SO, TIME TAKEN TO REACH:

New York = 17 minutes

Los Angeles = 16 minutes

Houston = 18 minutes

Add maybe ten to fifteen (10 –15) additional minutes to the above times for the rocket to accelerate to max speed, then decelerate on reentry.  With that being the case, we are looking at thirty (30) minutes or less for impact.

What I’m saying; North American Aerospace Defense Command would detect a missile launched from North Korea, provide (hopefully) an almost immediate alert to Hawaii, Guam and the North American continent, THEN the respective individuals in each state or area would sound the alert to their citizens.  WE ABSOLUTELY MUST NOT ALLOW ONE “ALMOST TRAINED” INDIVIDUAL THIS RESPONSIBILITY.  What were we thinking?  What were we thinking.  Our level of complacency in this area is shameful.  Luckily, no one was injured or died of a heart attack as a result of this HUGE error.  The governor of Hawaii seemed to sluff this off as just an OOPS. OOPS is when I lock my keys in my car.  OOPS is when I forget to bring in the mail.  OOPS is when I miss a dental appointment.  This is not really an OOPS.  This is DUMB. We need to fix DUMB.

Advertisements

GOTTA GET IT OFF

January 6, 2018


OKAY, how many of you have said already this year?  “MAN, I have to lose some weight.”  I have a dear friend who put on a little weight over a couple of years and he commented: “Twenty or twenty-five pounds every year and pretty soon it adds up.”  It does add up.  Let’s look at several numbers from the CDC and other sources.

  • The CDC organization estimates that three-quarters (3/4of the American population will likely be overweight or obese by 2020. The latest figures, as of 2014, show that more than one-third (36.5%) of U.S. adults age twenty (20) and older and seventeen percent (17%) of children and adolescents aged two through nineteen (2–19) years were obese.
  • American ObesityRates are on the Rise, Gallup Poll Finds. Americans have become even fatter than before, with nearly twenty-eight (28%) percent saying they are clinically obese, a new survey finds. … At 180 pounds this person has a BMI of thirty (30) and is considered obese.

Now, you might say—we are in good company:  According to the World Health Organization, the following countries have the highest rates of obesity.

  • Republic of Nauru. Formerly known as Pleasant Island, this tiny island country in the South Pacific only has a population of 9,300. …
  • American Samoa. …
  • Tokelau
  • Tonga
  • French Polynesia. …
  • Republic of Kiribati. …
  • Saudi Arabia. …
  • Panama.

There is absolutely no doubt that more and more Americans are over weight even surpassing the magic BMI number of 30.  We all know what reduction in weight can do for us on an individual basis, but have you ever considered what reduction in weight can do for “other items”—namely hardware?

  • Using light-weight components, (composite materials) and high-efficiency engines enabled by advanced materials for internal-combustion engines in one-quarter of U.S. fleet trucks and automobiles could possibly save more than five (5) billion gallons of fuel annually by 2030. This is according to the US Energy Department Vehicle Technologies Office.
  • This is possible because, according to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, The Department of Energy’s Carbon Fiber Technology Facility has a capacity to produce up to twenty-five (25) tons of carbon fiber per year.
  • Replacing heavy steel with high-strength steel, aluminum, or glass fiber-reinforced polymer composites can decrease component weight by ten to sixty percent (10-60 %). Longer term, materials such as magnesium and carbon fiber-reinforced composites could reduce the weight of some components by fifty to seventy-five percent (50-75%).
  • It costs $10,000 per pound to put one pound of payload into Earth orbit. NASA’s goal is to reduce the cost of getting to space down to hundreds of dollars per pound within twenty-five (25) years and tens of dollars per pound within forty (40) years.
  • Space-X Falcon Heavy rocket will be the first ever rocket to break the $1,000 per pound per orbit barrier—less than a tenth as much as the Shuttle. ( SpaceX press release, July 13, 2017.)
  • The Solar Impulse 2 flew 40,000 Km without fuel. The 3,257-pound solar plane used sandwiched carbon fiber and honey-combed alveolate foam for the fuselage, cockpit and wing spars.

So you see, reduction in weight can have lasting affects for just about every person and some pieces of hardware.   Let’s you and I get it off.

THE BONE YARD

January 24, 2017


I entered the Air Force in 1966 and served until 1970.  I had the great fortune of working for the Air Force Logistics Command (AFLC) headquartered out of Write Patterson Air Force Base in Cleveland, Ohio.  Our biggest “customer” was the Strategic Air Force Commend or SAC.  SAC was responsible for all  ICBMs our country had in its inventory.  My job was project engineer in a section that supported the Titan II Missile, specifically the thrust chamber and turbopumps.  I interfaced with Martian, Aerojet General, Raytheon, and many other great vendors supporting the weapons system.   Weapons were located at the following sites:

  • 308 Missile Wing—Little Rock Air Force Base
  • 381 Missile Wing—McConnel Air Force Base
  • 390 Missile Wing—Davis-Monthan Air Force Base
  • 395 Strategic Missile Squadron—Vandenberg Air Force Base.

Little Rock, McConnel, and Davis-Monthan each had two squadrons or eighteen (18) per site.  There were fifty-five (55) operational Titan II missiles in the SAC inventory, each having atomic war heads.  This, by the way, was also the missile that launched the Gemini astronauts.

During my four years in AFLC, I had an opportunity to visit Little Rock AFB and Davis-Monthan AFB for brief TDY (temporary duty assignments). Each time the “mission” was to oversee re-assembly of turbopumps that had been repaired or updated. The seals between the turbopumps and the thrust chamber were absolutely critical and had to be perfectly flat to avoid leakage during liftoff.  Metrology equipment was employed to insure the flatness needed prior to installation.  It was a real process with page after page of instruction.

An underground missile silo is a remarkable piece of engineering.  A city underground—living quarters, kitchen, adequate medical facilities, communication section, elevators, etc.  You get the picture.   All of the Titan II sites were decommissioned as a result of the SALT (Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty) during the mid 1980s.

OK, with that being said, one remarkable area located at Davis-Monthan AFB is the “resting place” for many, if not most aircraft that are no longer in the operational inventory.  This is where they go to retire.  While at Davis-Monthan, I had an opportunity to visit the boneyard and it was a real “trip”.

THE BONEYARD:

Davis-Monthan AFB’s role in the storage of military aircraft began after World War II, and continues today. It has evolved into “the largest aircraft boneyard in the world”.

With the area’s low humidity– ten to twenty percent (10%-20%) range, meager rainfall of eleven inches (11″) annually, hard alkaline soil, and high altitude of 2,550 feet, Davis-Monthan is the logical choice for a major storage facility.  Aircraft are there for cannibalization of parts or storage for further use.

In 1965, the Department of Defense decided to close its Litchfield Park storage facility in Phoenix, and consolidate the Navy’s surplus air fleet into Davis-Monthan. Along with this move, the name of the 2704th Air Force Storage and Disposition Group was changed to Military Aircraft Storage and Disposition Center (MASDC) to better reflect its joint services mission.

In early 1965, aircraft from Litchfield Park began the move from Phoenix to Tucson, mostly moved by truck, a cheaper alternative than removing planes from their protective coverings, flying them, and protecting them again.

The last Air Force B-47 jet bomber was retired at the end of 1969 and the entire fleet was dismantled at D-M except for thirty (30) Stratojets, which were saved for display in air museums.  In 1085, the facilities’ name was changed again, from MASDC to the Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center (AMARC) as outdated ICBM missiles also entered storage at Davis-Monthan.  In the 1990s, 365 surplus B-52 bombers were dismantled at the facility.

AMARG:

The 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group (AMARG), or Boneyard, is a United States Air Force aircraft and missile storage and maintenance facility in Tucson, Arizona, located on Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. AMARG was previously Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center, AMARC, the Military Aircraft Storage and Disposition Center, MASDC, and was established after World War II as the 3040th Aircraft Storage Group.

AMARG takes care of more than 4,400 aircraft, which makes it the largest aircraft storage and preservation facility in the world. An Air Force Materiel Command unit, the group is under the command of the 309th Maintenance Wing at Hill Air Force BaseUtah. (NOTE:  My time in AFLC was spent at Hill Air Force Base.  I was specifically assigned to the Ogden Air Material Area or OAMA.)  AMARG was originally meant to store excess Department of Defense and Coast Guard aircraft, but has in recent years been designated the sole repository of out-of-service aircraft from all branches of the US government.

In the 1980s, the center began processing ICBMs for dismantling or reuse in satellite launches, and was renamed the Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center (AMARC) to reflect the expanded focus on all aerospace assets.  A map of the boneyard may be seen below.  The surface area is acres in size.

map

As you can see from the following digital pictures, aircraft of all types are stored in the desert at Davis-Monthan AFB.

bone-yard

The aircraft below are F-4 Phantom fighters that served in Vietnam.

f-4-phantom

The view below shows you just how many acres the boneyard requires.

bone-yard-2

 

AIRCRAFT INVENTORY USED BY AMARG:

AMARG uses the following official “Type” categories for aircraft in storage:

  • Type 1000 – aircraft at AMARG for long-term storage, to be maintained until recalled to active service. These aircraft are “inviolate” – have a high potential to return to flying status and no parts may be removed from them. These aircraft are “represerved” every four years.
  • Type 2000 – aircraft available for parts reclamation, as “aircraft storage bins” for parts, to keep other aircraft flying.
  • Type 3000 – “flying hold” aircraft kept in near flyable condition in short-term, temporary storage; waiting for transfer to another unit, sale to another country, or reclassification to the other three types.
  • Type 4000 – aircraft in excess of DoD needs – these have been gutted and every useable part has been reclaimed. They will be sold, broken down into scrap, smelted into ingots, and recycled.

STORAGE PROCEDURES:

There are four categories of storage for aircraft at AMARG:

  • Long Term – Aircraft are kept intact for future use
  • Parts Reclamation – Aircraft are kept, picked apartand used for spare parts
  • Flying Hold – Aircraft are kept intact for shorter stays than Long Term
  • Excess of DoDneeds – Aircraft are sold off whole or in parts

AMARG employs 550 people, almost all civilians. The 2,600 acres (11 km2) facility is adjacent to the base. For every one dollar ($1) the federal government spends operating the facility, it saves or produces eleven dollars ($11) from harvesting spare parts and selling off inventory. Congressional oversight determines what equipment may be sold to which customer.

An aircraft going into storage undergoes the following treatments:

  • All guns, ejection seat charges, and classified hardware are removed.
  • All Navy aircraft are carefully washed with fresh water, to remove salty water environment residue, and then completely dried.
  • The fuel system is protected by draining it, refilling it with lightweight oil, and then draining it again. This leaves a protective oil film.
  • The aircraft is sealed from dust, sunlight, and high temperatures. This is done using a variety of materials, including a high-tech vinyl plastic compound that is sprayed on the aircraft. This compound is called spraylatafter its producer the Spraylat Corporation, and is applied in two coats, a black coat that seals the aircraft and a white coat that reflects the sun and helps to keep internal temperatures low.  The plane is then towed by a tug to its designated “storage” position.

The Group annually in-processes an undisclosed number of aircraft for storage and out-processes a number of aircraft for return to the active service, either repainted and sold to friendly foreign governments, recycled as target or remotely controlled drones or rebuilt as civilian cargo, transport, and/or utility aircraft.  There is much scrutiny over who (civilians, companies, foreign governments) can buy what kinds of parts. At times, these sales are canceled. The Air Force for example reclaimed several F-16s from AMARG for the Strike Fighter Tactics Instructor Courses which were originally meant to be sold to Pakistan, but never delivered due to an early-90’s embargo.

CONCLUSIONS:

I have absolutely no idea as to how much money in inventory is located at D-M but as you might expect, it’s in the billions of USD. As always, I welcome your comments.

US CYBER COMMAND

August 4, 2016


It is absolutely amazing as to the number of “hacks” perpetrated upon Federal agencies of the United States.  This statement could also be made for non-Federal institutions such as banks, independent companies, and commercial establishments from Starbucks to Target to the DNC.  Let’s see if we can quantify the extent by looking at just a few relative to our Federal government.

  • Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), August 2014.
  • White House, October 2014.
  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA), November 2014. 
  • United States Postal Service (USPS), November 2014.
  • Department of State, November 2014.
  • Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), April 2015. 
  • Department of Defense, April 2015.
  • St. Louis Federal Reserve, May 2015.
  • Internal Revenue Service May 2015. 
  • U.S. Army Web site, June 2015.
  • Office of Personnel Management (OPM), June 2015. 
  • Census Bureau, July 2015.
  • Pentagon, August 2015. 

The list is very impressive but extremely troubling. QUESTION:  Are top U.S. government leaders serious about cyber security and cyber warfare, or not?  If the answer is a resounding YES, it’s time to prove it.  Is cyber security high enough on the list of national defense priorities to warrant its own unified command? Clearly, the answer is YES.

Two major breaches last year of U.S. government databases holding personnel records and security-clearance files exposed sensitive information about at least twenty-two point one (22.1) million people, including not only federal employees and contractors but their families and friends, U.S. officials said Thursday.

The total vastly exceeds all previous estimates, and marks the most detailed accounting by the Office of Personnel Management of how many people were affected by cyber intrusions that U.S. officials have privately said were traced to the Chinese government.

Think twenty-two (22.1) million names, Social Security numbers, telephone numbers, and addresses being held by the Chinese government.  So again, clearly the time for an independent Cyber Security Command is upon us or approaching quickly.

DoD COMMAND STRUCTURE:

At the present time, there are nine (9) unified combatant commands that exist today in the United States Department of Defense.  These are as follows:

  • U.S. Africa Command based in Stuttgart, Germany
  • U.S. Central Command based at MacDill Air Force Base, Florida
  • U.S. European Command based in Stuttgart, Germany
  • U.S. Northern Command at Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado
  • U.S. Pacific Command at Camp H.M. Smith, Hawaii
  • U.S. Southern Command in Doral, Florida
  • U.S. Special Operations Command at MacDill, Florida
  • U.S. Strategic Command at Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska
  • U.S. Transportation Command at Scott Air Force Base, Illinois

Placing Cyber Command among these organizations would take it from under the U.S. Strategic Command where it resides today as an armed forces sub-unified command.

PRECIDENT FOR CHANGE:

Over our history there have been two major structural changes to our Federal Government certainly needed for added security and safety.

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE:

World War II had been over for two years and the Korean War lay three years ahead when the Air Force ended a 40-year association with the U.S. Army to become a separate service. The U.S. Air Force thus entered a new era in which airpower became firmly established as a major element of the nation’s defense and one of its chief hopes for deterring war. The Department of the Air Force was created when President Harry S Truman signed the National Security Act of 1947.

Lawmakers explained why they felt the U.S. needed to evolve the Army Air Corps into an independent branch in a Declaration of Policy at the beginning of the National Security Act of 1947: To provide a comprehensive program for the future security of the United States; to provide three military departments: the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; to provide for their coordination and unified direction under civilian control and to provide for the effective strategic direction and operation of the armed forces under unified control.

General Carl A. Spaatz became the first Chief of Staff of the Air Force on 26 September 1947. When General Spaatz assumed his new position, the first Secretary of the Air Force, W. Stuart Symington, was already on the job, having been sworn in on 18 September 1947.  He had been Assistant Secretary of War for Air and had already worked closely with General Spaatz.  The new Air Force was fortunate to have these two men as its first leaders. They regarded air power as an instrument of national policy and of great importance to national defense.  Both men also knew how to promote air power and win public support for the Air Force.

HOMELAND SECURITY:

Eleven days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, President George W. Bush announced that he would create an Office of Homeland Security in the White House and appoint Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge as the director. The office would oversee and coordinate a comprehensive national strategy to safeguard the country against terrorism, and respond to any future attacks.

Executive Order 13228, issued on October 8, 2001, established two entities within the White House to determine homeland security policy: the Office of Homeland Security (OHS) within the Executive Office of the President, tasked to develop and implement a national strategy to coordinate federal, state, and local counter-terrorism efforts to secure the country from and respond to terrorist threats or attacks, and the Homeland Security Council (HSC), composed of Cabinet members responsible for homeland security-related activities, was to advise the President on homeland security matters, mirroring the role the National Security Council (NSC) plays in national security.

Before the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security, homeland security activities were spread across more than forty (40) federal agencies and an estimated 2,000 separate Congressional appropriations accounts. In February 2001, the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century (Hart-Rudman Commission) issued its Phase III Report, recommending significant and comprehensive institutional and procedural changes throughout the executive and legislative branches in order to meet future national security challenges. Among these recommendations was the creation of a new National Homeland Security Agency to consolidate and refine the missions of the different departments and agencies that had a role in U.S. homeland security.

In March 2001, Representative Mac Thornberry (R-TX) proposed a bill to create a National Homeland Security Agency, following the recommendations of the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century (Hart-Rudman Commission). The bill combined FEMA, Customs, the Border Patrol, and several infrastructure offices into one agency responsible for homeland security-related activities. Hearings were held, but Congress took no further action on the bill.

CONCLUSIONS:

From the two examples above: i.e. Formation of the USAF and Homeland Security, we see there is precedent for separating Federal activities and making those activities stand-alone entities.  This is what needs to be accomplished here.  I know the arguments about increasing the size of government and these are very valid but, if done properly, the size could possibly be reduced by improving efficiency and consolidation of activities.  Now is the time for CYBER COMMAND.


The following post uses as reference material from the “Aviation Week” on-line publication.

LOS ANGELES – Boeing closed out C-17 deliveries and seven decades of aircraft production in Long Beach, California, with the departure of the last airlifter for the Qatar Emiri air force to the company’s San Antonio facility on Nov 29.

The final aircraft is one of four C-17s that will be delivered to Qatar in 2016, and together with one aircraft that remains unsold and in storage in Texas, takes the overall production tally to 279. Not including the prototype, structural test airframes and the five undelivered aircraft, Boeing has so far officially delivered 271 C-17s, including 223 to the U.S. Air Force and 48 to international operators.

The Qatar C-17 is one of 10 “white tails” for which Boeing committed to building without having a firm customer in 2013. Of the remaining aircraft, sales finalized this year include a single C-17 for Canada, which accepted its fifth in March, and the United Arab Emirates, which took two more aircraft for a total fleet of eight. Two additional aircraft from the final batch were also acquired by Australia, which formally accepted its eighth and last C-17 at Long Beach on Sept. 4. Other international operators include the U.K., Kuwait, India and the 12-nation Strategic Airlift Capability consortium of NATO.

While Boeing continues to provide support, maintenance and upgrades to the airlifter fleet under the C-17 Globemaster III Integrated Sustainment Program (GISP) Performance-Based Logistics program, the future of the production site at Long Beach remains undecided. Even though large sections of both the Boeing F/A-18 and Lockheed Martin F-35 are produced in California, the C-17 is the last series-built, fixed-wing aircraft to be completely assembled and delivered in the state. So the last delivery ends more than 70 years of full aircraft production at Long Beach and more than a century of complete fixed-wing aircraft serial manufacturing in California.

Let’s take a look at several interesting statistics of the C-17.  The following digital will indicate the basic configuration.

C-17 Digital

C-17 and Mountain

As you can see, this is one beautiful aircraft.

The cargo bay is monstrous, which is one reason for its popularity over the years.  Personnel or cargo or both are equally at home in this aircraft with generous accommodations.  In the digital below, you can see material and personnel share the cavernous internal structure, and I might add, with room to spare.

Cargo Bay

The cockpit is equally impressive with digital “everything”.  The days of analogue instrumentation are in the past.  The cabin crew is a three-person experience.

Cockpit

Now, we look at the basic design.

DESIGN:

The C-17 is 174 feet (53 m) long and has a wingspan of about 170 feet (52 m). It can airlift cargo fairly close to a battle area. The size and weight of U.S. mechanized firepower and equipment has grown in recent decades from increased air mobility requirements, particularly for large or heavy non-palletized outsize cargo.

The C-17 is powered by four Pratt & Whitney F117-PW-100 turbofan engines, which are based on the commercial Pratt and Whitney PW2040 used on the Boeing 757. Each engine is rated at 40,400 foot-pounds of force or 180 kN of thrust. The engine’s thrust reversers direct engine exhaust air upwards and forward, reducing the chances of foreign object damage by ingestion of runway debris, and providing enough reverse thrust to back the aircraft up on the ground while taxiing. The thrust reversers can also be used in flight at idle-reverse for added drag in maximum-rate descents. In vortex surfing tests performed by C-17s, up to 10% fuel savings were reported. Debris being swept into the engines on less-than-acceptable runways is a real concern to the flight crew.  This problem has been solved.

For cargo operations the C-17 requires a crew of three: pilot, copilot, and loadmaster. The cargo compartment is 88 feet (26.82 m) long by 18 feet (5.49 m) wide by 12 feet 4 inches (3.76 m) high. The cargo floor has rollers for palletized cargo but it can be flipped to provide a flat floor suitable for vehicles and other rolling stock. Cargo is loaded through a large aft ramp that accommodates rolling stock, such as a 69-ton (63-metric ton) M1 Abrams main battle tank, other armored vehicles, trucks, and trailers, along with palletized cargo.

Maximum payload of the C-17 is 170,900 lb (77,500 kg), and its Maximum takeoff weight is 585,000 lb (265,350 kg). With a payload of 160,000 lb (72,600 kg) and an initial cruise altitude of 28,000 ft (8,500 m), the C-17 has an unrefueled range of about 2,400 nautical miles (4,400 km) on the first 71 aircraft, and 2,800 nautical miles (5,200 km) on all subsequent extended-range models that include a sealed center wing bay as a fuel tank. Boeing informally calls these aircraft the C-17 ER.  The C-17’s cruise speed is about 450 knots (833 km/h) (Mach 0.74). It is designed to airdrop 102 paratroopers and their equipment. The U.S. Army’s canceled Ground Combat Vehicle was to be transported by the C-17.

The C-17 is designed to operate from runways as short as 3,500 ft (1,064 m) and as narrow as 90 ft (27 m). In addition, the C-17 can operate from unpaved, unimproved runways (although with greater chance of damage to the aircraft). The thrust reversers can be used to back the aircraft and reverse direction on narrow taxiways using a three- (or more) point turn. The plane is designed for 20 man-hours of maintenance per flight hour, and a 74% mission availability rate.

NATO CAPABILITY:

The United States recognized the need to provide the C-17 to NATO forces as early as 2006.  An increasing threat potential to Western Europe resulted in the purchase of the C-17 aircraft.

At the 2006 Farnborough Airshow, a number of NATO member nations signed a letter of intent to jointly purchase and operate several C-17s within the NATO Strategic Airlift Capability.  Strategic Airlift Capability members are Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, the United States, as well as two Partnership for Peace countries Finland and Sweden as of 2010.   The purchase was for two C-17s, and a third was contributed by the U.S. On 14 July 2009, Boeing delivered the first C-17 under NATO’s Strategic Airlift Capability (SAC) program. The second and third C-17s were delivered in September and October 2009.

The SAC C-17s are based at Pápa Air Base, Hungary. The Heavy Airlift Wing is hosted by Hungary, which acts as the flag nation.  The aircraft are manned in similar fashion as the NATO E-3 AWACS aircraft.  The C-17 flight crew is multi-national, but each mission is assigned to an individual member nation based on the SAC’s annual flight hour share agreement. The NATO Airlift Management Programe Office (NAMPO) provides management and support for the Heavy Airlift Wing. NAMPO is a part of the NATO Support Agency (NSPA).   In September 2014, Boeing revealed that the three C-17s supporting NATO SAC missions had achieved a readiness rate of nearly 94 percent over the last five years and supported over 1,000 missions.

SUMMARY:

The C-17 has seen duty in the following countries:

  • India
  • Qatar
  • UAE
  • New Zealand
  • Australia
  • Canada
  • Kuwait
  • United Kingdom

Once again, the “stats” are as follows:

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS SUMMARY:

  • Crew: 3: 2 pilots, 1 loadmaster (five additional personnel required for aeromedical evacuation)
  • Capacity:
    • 102 paratroopers or
    • 134 troops with palletized and sidewall seats or
    • 54 troops with sidewall seats (allows 13 cargo pallets) only or
    • 36 litter and 54 ambulatory patients and medical attendants or
    • Cargo, such as an M1 Abrams tank, three Strykers, or six M1117 Armored Security Vehicles
  • Payload: 170,900 lb (77,519 kg) of cargo distributed at max over 18 463L master pallets or a mix of palletized cargo and vehicles
  • Length: 174 ft (53 m)
  • Wingspan: 169.8 ft (51.75 m)
  • Height: 55.1 ft (16.8 m)
  • Wing area: 3,800 ft² (353 m²)
  • Empty weight: 282,500 lb (128,100 kg)
  • Max. takeoff weight: 585,000 lb (265,350 kg)
  • Powerplant: 4 × Pratt & Whitney F117-PW-100 turbofans, 40,440 lbf (180 kN) each
  • Fuel capacity: 35,546 U.S. gal (134,556 L)

Performance

  • Cruise speed: Mach 0.74 (450 knots, 515 mph, 830 km/h)
  • Range: 2,420 nmi  (2,785 mi, 4,482 km) ; 5,610 nmi (10,390 km) with paratroopers
  • Service ceiling: 45,000 ft (13,716 m)
  • Max. wing loading: 150 lb/ft² (750 kg/m²)
  • Minimum thrust/weight: 0.277
  • Takeoff run at MTOW: 7,600 ft (2,316 m)
  • Landing distance: 3,500 ft (1,060 m)

One of the most successful designs in military history.  As always, I welcome your comments.

WINGS OVER NORTH GEORGIA

November 14, 2015


I don’t really know when my love for aviation began but I am sure it was very early in life.  As a kid, I built tens of plastic airplane models.  My biggest challenge was the “Spruce Goose”; eight engines, four per wing.  I discovered that painting and decal “fixing” was my biggest and most time-consuming chore.   I’ve sniffed enough Testors glue to classify as a junkie.   I would then carefully display the models in my room either hanging from the ceiling, always in attack mode for the fighters, or positioned squarely on a shelf available for all to see.

Later on, I graduated to “U” controlled balsa wood models.   I realize this takes most of you way back so I’ve included a JPEG of a “U” controlled plane.  As you can see, the planes are tethered by two wires, each controlling the vertical climb/dive motion of the aircraft.  The control is a hand-held plastic or wooden “U” device shown by the second JPEG.

U-Controlled Airplane

U- Flight

As you can see, the wires are attached to the upper and lower “U”.  The “pilot” will rock the controller to facilitate climb and descent motion.

We loved to dog fight these balsa wood planes.  You do that by tying streamers to both wings, then have at it.  Both pilots stand back to back, crank the engines and have at it.  The first one to cut the streamer of the other is obviously the winner.

Then came remote-controlled model airplanes.  This was the third phase in the development of flying models.  By that time, I was attending my university so I missed out on this fun-filled activity.  Too little time and too little money.  After graduation, I was commissioned into the United States Air Force.  You get the picture.  I’m a real fan.

Several weeks ago, I attended the “Wings Over North Georgia” air show in Rome, Georgia.  It was a miserable, rainy, cold, muddy day but we enjoyed every minute of it.  The next slides will illustrate the day and the airplanes we saw.  The “feature” event was an F-22 Raptor.  This is one beautiful machine.  Let’s take a look at several “heavier-than-air-aircraft” on display that day.

OSPREY

Ospery

I told you it was wet.  I had never seen an Osprey before and after seeing the cockpit, it’s the real deal. Let’s take a look.

The Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey is an American multi-mission, tilt-rotor military aircraft with both a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL), and short takeoff and landing (STOL) capability. It is designed to combine the functionality of a conventional helicopter with the long-range, high-speed cruise performance of a turboprop aircraft.

The V-22 originated from the United States Department of Defense Joint-service Vertical take-off/landing Experimental (JVX) aircraft program started in 1981. The team of Bell Helicopter and Boeing Helicopters was awarded a development contract in 1983 for the tilt-rotor aircraft. The Bell Boeing team jointly produced the aircraft.  The V-22 first flew in 1989, and began flight testing and design alterations; the complexity and difficulties of being the first tilt-rotor intended for military service in the world led to many years of development.

The United States Marine Corps began crew training for the Osprey in 2000, and fielded it in 2007; it supplemented and then replaced their Boeing Vertol CH-46 Sea Knights. The Osprey’s other operator, the U.S. Air Force, fielded their version of the tilt-rotor in 2009. Since entering service with the U.S. Marine Corps and Air Force, the Osprey has been deployed in transportation and medivac operations over Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Kuwait.  A better look with the aircraft going from VTOL to level flight is given as follows:

OSPREY IN FLIGHT

C-17

One other aircraft on display was the C-17 Globemaster transport.  The Boeing C-17 Globemaster III is a large military transport aircraft. It was developed for the United States Air Force (USAF) from the 1980s to the early 1990s by McDonnell Douglas. The C-17 carries forward the name of two previous piston-engine military cargo aircraft, the Douglas C-74 Globemaster and the Douglas C-124 Globemaster II. The C-17 commonly performs strategic airlift missions, transporting troops and cargo throughout the world; additional roles include tactical airlift, medical evacuation and airdrop duties.

Boeing, which merged with McDonnell Douglas in the 1990s, continued to manufacture C-17s for export customers following the end of deliveries to the U.S. Air Force. Aside from the United States, the C-17 is in service with the United KingdomAustraliaCanadaQatarUnited Arab EmiratesNATO Heavy Airlift WingIndia, and Kuwait. The final C-17 was completed in May 2015. Let’s take a look.

C-17. Todd and Bob(3)

OK, so I’m not the HULK, but this thing is huge.  I’m the one in the yellow rain jacket and you can see how “petite” my buddy Todd and I are in comparison to this monster.   The following JPEG is courtesy of the USAF and will show the internal size of the C-17.

C-17 Internal

I told you it was big.

F-22 Raptor

I don’t have any JPEGs of the Raptor I took personally.  There was a four-hour delay due to weather and the Raptor made a low-level run to demonstrate maneuvering capabilities.  The JPEGs below were obtained (again) from the USAF.  I can tell you from witnessing the flight, it has impressive sharp-turn capabilities and deserves to be called state-of-the-art.

The Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor is a single-seat, twin-engine, all-weather stealth tactical fighter aircraft developed for the United States Air Force (USAF). The result of the USAF’s Advanced Tactical Fighter program, the aircraft was designed primarily as an air superiority fighter, but has additional capabilities including ground attackelectronic warfare, and signals intelligence roles.  Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor and was responsible for the majority of the airframe, weapon systems, and final assembly of the F-22, while program partner Boeing provided the wings, aft fuselage, avionics integration, and training systems.

The aircraft was variously designated F-22 and F/A-22 prior to formally entering service in December 2005 as the F-22A. Despite a protracted development as well as operational issues, the USAF considers the F-22 a critical component of its tactical air power, and states that the aircraft is unmatched by any known or projected fighter.  The Raptor’s combination of stealth, aerodynamic performance, and situational awareness gives the aircraft unprecedented air combat capabilities

The high cost of the aircraft, a lack of clear air-to-air missions due to delays in Russian and Chinese fighter programs, a ban on exports, and development of the more versatile and lower cost F-35 led to the end of F-22 production.   A final procurement tally of 187 operational production aircraft was established in 2009 and the last F-22 was delivered to the USAF in 2012.

F-22 Raptor

The Raptor cockpit is a digital marvel.  Please note the “heads-up” display.

F-22 Raptor Cockpit

There were other aircraft on display including several that would qualify as “oldies-but-goodies”.  The most impressive was the B-25 bomber.  It was in pristine condition and flew to the air show from its “home” in Arizona.  Unfortunately, it left the show before I had time to make a picture.  We frequently had to duck for cover during several periods of driving rain.  Good day—but wet day.

Hope you enjoy this one.  As always, I welcome your comments.


If you follow my postings you know I love to fly and got my pilot’s license when I was fifteen.  Due to FAA regulations, I had to wait until I was sixteen before I could fly solo.  I logged quite a few hours during my fifteenth year but with a rated pilot in the right seat.  A digital of the type aircraft I flew is given as follows:

Piper Tri-Pacer

As you can see, most would call this a puddle-jumper.  It got me there and I had a good time doing it.

We go from fairly unsophisticated to the cutting-edge when we look at the F-35 Lightning II.  Let’s take a look.

PROGRAM:

The F-35 Lightning II Program (also known as the Joint Strike Fighter Program) is the Department of Defense’s focal point for defining affordable next generation strike aircraft weapon systems for the Navy, Air Force, Marines, and our allies. (The word affordable is now in question since there have been significant cost overruns for the entire program.)  The F-35 will bring cutting-edge technologies to the battle space of the future.  The JSFs advanced airframe, autonomic logistics, avionics, propulsion systems, stealth, and firepower will ensure that the F-35 is the most lethal, supportable and survivable aircraft ever to be used by so many war fighters across the globe.   Digital photographs of the fighter are given as follows:

F-35 Fighter

F-35 Fighter(2)

Someone once said, “ if it looks like it will fly—it will fly”.  This aircraft definitely looks like it can fly and intended for the US Navey, US Air Force and the US Marine Corps.

The JSF will fulfill stated Service needs as follows:

  • U. S. Navy First day of war, survivable strike fighter aircraft to complement F/A-18E/F
  • U.S. Air Force Multirole aircraft (primary-air-to-ground) to replace the F-16 and A-10 and complement the F/A-22
  • U.S. Marine Corps STOVL aircraft to replace the AV-8B and F/A-18 as their only strike fighter
  • United Kingdom Royal Navy & Royal Air Force STOVL aircraft to replace Sea Harriers & GR.7s as a supersonic strike fighter
  • Other Countries Potential JSF customers include current operators of F-16, F/A-18, and AV-8B

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION:

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program is an internationally oriented program consisting of partnerships with a number of countries. See below for links to the transcripts of the signing ceremonies of the official partnership of each of the programs cooperating partners: United Kingdom (signed 17 Jan 2001 for $2B)

Italy (signed 24 Jun 2002 for $1B)
Netherlands (signed 17 Jun 2002 for $800M)
Turkey (signed 11 Jun 2002 for $175M)
Canada (signed 7 Feb 2002 for $150M)
Australia* (signed 31 Oct 2002 for $150M)
Denmark (signed 28 May 2002 for $125M)
Norway* (signed 20 Jun 2002 for $125M)

A quick look at the various suppliers relative to companies and countries contributing resources may be seen as follows:

VENDORS AND MAJOR CONTRACTORS

CAPABILITIES:

Stealth. The F-35 is designed as a stealth counterpart to the F-22 Raptor air dominance fighter and one that can share “first day of the war” duties against defended targets although it can’t perform air-air or SEAD/ “Wild Weasel” missions to the same standard. The F-35 has a larger single engine instead of the Raptor’s twin thrust-vectoring F119s, removing both super-cruise (sustained flight above Mach 1) and super-maneuverability options. The F-22A is also a much “stealthier” aircraft from all angles, and independent analysis and modeling has concluded that the F-35’s stealth will be weaker from the sides and the rear. Even so, the F-35 is a big improvement over existing ‘teen series’ fighters, and a step above Generation 4+ options like the F/A-18E/F Super HornetEurofighterRafale, and JAS-39 Gripen.  This fact is considered by the DoD to be a drawback.

Engine. The F-35 was designed to offer interchangeable engine options. That has been an important feature for global F-16 and F-15 customers, improving costs and performance, while providing added readiness insurance for dual-engine fleets like the USAF, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, etc. Pratt & Whitney’s lobbying eventually forced GE & Rolls-Royce’s F136 out of the F-35 program, and made their F135-PW-100 engine the only choice for global F-35 fleets.  A special F-135-PW-600 version with Rolls Royce’s LiftFan add-on, and a nozzle that can rotate to point down, will power the vertical-landing F-35B.

The US military had better hope that an engine design problem never grounds all of their fighters. While they’re at it, they should hope that both performance and maintenance contracts remain reasonable, despite the absence of any competitive alternative.

Sensors. The Lightning II will be equipped to levels that would once have defined a high-end reconnaissance aircraft. Its advanced APG-81 AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) radar is smaller and less powerful than the F-22A’s APG-77v1; but still offers the strong AESA advantages of simultaneous air-air and air-ground capabilities, major maintenance & availability improvements, and secure, high-bandwidth communications benefits. The F-35 also shares a “sensor fusion” design advance with the F-22, based on an even more extensive sensor set embedded all around the airframe. Both planes will be able to perform as reconnaissance aircraft, though the F-35 will have superior infrared and ground-looking sensors. Both fighters will also have the potential to act as electronic warfare aircraft, though not to the same level as the Super-Hornet’s EA-18G Growler derivative.

These sensors are connected to a lot of computing power, in order to create single-picture view that lets the pilot see everything on one big 20″ LCD screen and just fly the plane, rather than trying to push buttons, switch views, and figure it all out at 6g. As part of that sensor fusion, the F-35 will be the first plane is several decades to fly without a heads-up display. Instead, pilots will wear Elbit/Rockwell’s JHMDS helmet or BAE’s HMSS, and have all of that information projected wherever they look. JHMDS is both a strength that adds new capabilities, like the ability to look “through” the plane’s floor, and a single point-of-failure weakness.

Maintenance. The F-35 has a large number of design features that aim to simplify maintenance and keep life cycle costs down. Since operations and maintenance are usually about 65% or more of a fighter’s lifetime cost, this is one the most important and overlooked aspects of fighter selection.

Stealth aircraft have always had much higher maintenance costs, but the F-35’s designers hope that new measures can reverse that trend. Some of the plane’s stealth coatings are being baked into composite airplane parts, for instance, in the hope that customers will need fewer “Martians” (Materials Application and Repair Specialists) around to apply stealth tapes and putties before each mission. Technical innovations like self-diagnosing aircraft wiring aim to eliminate one of the toughest problems for any mechanic, and the fleet-wide ALIS information and diagnostic system is designed to shift the fleet from scheduled maintenance to maintenance only as needed.

Despite these measures, March 2012 operations and maintenance projections have the F-35 at 142% O&M cost, relative to F-16s, and subsequent reports have risen as high as 160%. It remains to be seen if the advantages of F-35 innovations manage to fulfill their promise, or if projections that they’ll be outweighed in the end by increased internal complexity, and by the proliferation of fault-prone electronics, come true. That has certainly been the general trend over the last 50 years of fighter development, with a very few notable exceptions like America’s F-16s and A-10s, and Sweden’s JAS-39 Gripen.

SPECIFICATIONS:

The specifications for this fighter are really impressive.  As you can see, it can fly at MACH 1.6 and pull a survivable maximum of 9.0 Gs.   It also is capable of carrying a huge array of weapons.  The complete package is given below.

SPECIFICATIONS

COCKPIT:

The F-35 features a full-panel-width glass cockpit touchscreen “panoramic cockpit display” (PCD), with dimensions of 20 by 8 inches (50 by 20 centimeters). A cockpit speech-recognition system (DVI) provided by Adace I has been adopted on the F-35 and the aircraft will be the first operational U.S. fixed-wing aircraft to employ this DVI system, although similar systems have been used on the AV-8B Harrier II and trialled in previous aircraft, such as the F-16 VISTA.

helmet-mounted display system (HMDS) will be fitted to all models of the F-35. While some fighters have offered HMDS along with a head up display (HUD), this will be the first time in several decades that a front line fighter has been designed without a HUD.   The F-35 is equipped with a right-hand HOTAS side stickcontroller. The Martin-Baker US16E ejection seat is used in all F-35 variants. The US16E seat design balances major performance requirements, including safe-terrain-clearance limits, pilot-load limits, and pilot size; it uses a twin-catapult system housed in side rails. The F-35 employs an oxygen system derived from the F-22’s own system, which has been involved in multiple hypoxia incidents on that aircraft; unlike the F-22, the flight profile of the F-35 is similar to other fighters that routinely use such systems.  The cockpit is a pilot’s dream (or nightmare).

COCKPIT

COSTS OVER-RUNS:

The cost of the U.S. Defense Department’s most expensive weapons program, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, declined by 1 percent in the past year to $391 billion while lawmakers remain concerned about its software.

The estimated price tag to develop and build 2,457 F-35 Lightning II fighter jets includes $326.9 billion for air frames and $64.3 billion for engines, according to newly released figures from the Pentagon. The combined amount is $4.5 billion, or 1.1 percent, less than an estimate of $395.7 billion released in March 2012.

The decline was attributed in part to revised labor rates charged by the prime contractor — Bethesda, Md.-based Lockheed Martin Corp. — and its subcontractors, according to the Defense Department.

The F-35 is among a Pentagon portfolio of 78 weapons programs projected to cost a total of $1.66 trillion. That’s a 2.7 increase in cost from last year’s projection of $1.62 trillion for 83 systems. Despite the modest rise, none of the programs were flagged for having significant cost overruns.

The figures were released the same week a Republican-led subcommittee in the House of Representatives voted to require that Frank Kendall, the Pentagon’s top weapons buyer, create an independent panel to review the F-35’s software development and submit a report on its status to congressional defense committees by March 3, 2014.

The House Armed Services’ tactical air and land forces subcommittee, led by Rep. Michael Turner, R-Ohio, included the language in its draft of the 2014 defense authorization bill, which sets policy goals and spending targets for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1.

Kendall himself has said the amount of code still needed to be written creates “some risks” and Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, the service’s F-35 program manager, has said he’s concerned the slow pace of software development may delay the delivery of the most lethal version of the fighter jet beyond 2017.

That model of the aircraft, known as 3F, is designed to be equipped with a suite of internal and external weapons, including the GPS-guided Joint Direct Attack Munition, laser-guided Paveway II bomb, Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile and infrared Sidewinder missile.

The Pentagon in the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1 plans to spend $8.4 billion to buy 29 F-35 Lightning IIs, including 19 for the Air Force, six for the Marine Corps and four for the Navy, according to the budget request released last month. The plane is designed to replace such aircraft as the F-16, A-10, F/A-18 and AV-8B.

CONCLUSIONS:

This is a marvelous piece of technology but it is tremendously expensive.   It is obviously designed to consider “wars of the future”, where they may be fought and who just might be the enemy.  This one is too big to fail and the program, in some fashion, will go to fruition.

%d bloggers like this: