Thanks to several tipsters who alerted me to the public release of a test flight of the Russian 5th-generation fighter prototype: the so-called PAK-FA, or in English, “Future Air Complex for Tactical Air Forces.” Some observers also show it dubbed the T-50.

It looks as if the Russians are trying their hand at an F-22 knock off, with a v-tail, large monolithic wing surface and centerboard intakes. The thing literally looks like a Mig-29 cockpit bolted onto a hacked F-22 stern.

According to Global Security.org, the Sukhoi-built PAK-FA sports two giant AL-41F engines and has a crub weight of about 40,000 pounds — a bit less than the F-22.

Given the budgetary hassles surrounding the American F-22 program and the trajectory that tactical aviation is taking into the UAV world, it stands to reason that Russia slash Sukhoi may run into the same sticker shock LockMart is encountering with American taxpayers. I hear that India is playing some role in the development of the PAK-FA, so that may help defray the costs and justify continued development.

But wasn’t it Russia that developed the simple, reliable, cost-efficient Kalashnikov? Why are they always trying to play on the wiz-bang high-tech turf America has dominated for the last 50 years in high-end military hardware? I guess it’s more a question of what the big-money buyers want (China, India), rather than what’s worked best in the past.

– Christian

I just saw a short profile story from Navy PAO about VAQ-135, a Prowler squadron stationed aboard the USS Nimitz, and it got me thinking.

So the article is pretty vanilla…

“Our main focus of effort is to dominate the electromagnetic spectrum. That means we preserve it for coalition forces, and we deny its use to Afghan insurgents. If we can successfully do that, many times the ground commander may not need a bomb,” said Lt. Cmdr. Blake Tornga, maintenance officer from VAQ-135.

The missions Prowlers fly directly support the July 2009 tactical directive issued by Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan.

What they mean by “tactical directive” is to limit collateral damage, so the PA who wrote the story is ham-handedly trying to highlight the Prowlers’ efforts as limiting the “kinetic” side of the Naval aviation equation. That’s all well and good, but of course — as with anything in “print” involving this community — there are no specifics in here. “Dominate the electromagnetic spectrum” has a lot of meanings, but what are they specifically for Afghanistan?

It’s been a long time since I’ve been to Afghanistan, but back in 2004 the Prowlers were flying mostly communications intercept missions, though I got this second hand from ground pounders since when I asked if I could interview the Prowler drivers at Bagram the PAO said “what Prowlers,” those ones on the tarmac there, I said…“I don’t see any prowlers” he deadpanned without looking toward the runway (nuf said). Now, I wonder if that’s all they’re doing as well, or are there enough electronic detonators for IEDs that the Prowlers are jamming signals or throwing out electrons to detonate the roadside bombs before friendlies get there. From this quote, it seems like that might just be what they’re doing…

“There are very few electronic attack platforms out there,” said Tornga. “We are the only tactical electronic attack platform. Mountain valleys, small turns, staying tight with a convoy, that mission right now can only be done with the EA-6B.”

So they’re escorting convoys? And conducting electronic “attack.” Now we’ll start to see IEDs rigged with pressure plates and IR trips that are signal neutral.

And the best line by far:

“Some of the real-time feedback we get from the ground troops after a successful mission makes me realize why we need to be here, and it makes this deployment very, very meaningful.”

Like “thanks for blowing up that freaking bomb before my MRAP got to it!”

(Gouge: NC)

– Christian

The first production model F-35B arrived in the ‘hood last Sunday.  BF-1 will begin the JSF’s developmental test program in the next few weeks, including vertical takeoffs and landings.  Meanwhile DoD reports show the program is behind schedule and over budget – not a good place to be these days (just ask the F-22 or Presidential Helo guys).  And adding to the bad press is a report from the UK Register that says both the V-22 and JSF have a problem with melting flight decks at sea.  (Surprise … er, I mean, “No comment.”)

So enjoy this happy snap.  We’re trying to get over to Pax to get some more before manned flight goes away altogether, which may be sooner than planned if the acquisition professionals don’t get their acts together.

(Gouge — NC)

– Ward

As the Air National Guard grapples with an impending fighter jet shortfall that will threaten its ability to protect U.S. airspace, its supporters in Congress and the Pentagon want the Air Force to consider all possible solutions — even buying Navy F-18s to fill the gap.

Lawmakers and other National Guard boosters are becoming increasingly frustrated with the Defense Department and the Air Force, charging that officials have no workable plan to deal with the Guard’s aging fleet.

They argue that 80 percent of the Air Guard’s F-16s, which fly the majority of Air Sovereignty Alert missions, will retire years before their replacements are ready, depleting units of the aircraft they need to secure domestic airspace.

The workhorse F-15 fleet isn’t in much better shape, having been grounded for three months after one broke apart in November 2007 during a training mission over eastern Missouri.

As a result, the Air Force, the service funded to supply airplanes to the Air National Guard, is being told by Congress to explore every option, including buying F/A-18s.
The article goes on to say:

Boeing said it hasn’t had any discussions with the National Guard about the F-18s. But one defense official said it’s an area the Air Force should review.

“I think the taxpayer demands we look at this because it’s an efficient, highly capable aircraft that can sustain our force structure through this risky period,” the official said.

The Air Force is focusing its budgets on the F-35, which eventually will make its way to the Air Guard. But leaders insist they are open to other solutions, if necessary.

Of course the Air Guard has shared type/model/series with the Navy before in the form of A-1s, A-7s, and F-4s.

At the same time, if I’m a Guard pilot, fighter gap or no, I’m hoping the Air Force holds out for the JSF.

(Gouge: NC)

– Ward

Looks like the PAK-FA is just ‘paper airplane’ to me, but I’d love some reader input on this.

(Gouge: CF)

– Christian

This from Epicos.com:

In a world first for an Air Force and an infra-red guided missile, Air Combat Group (ACG) of the Royal Australian Air Force has successfully carried out the first in-service ‘Lock After Launch’ firing of an ASRAAM (Advanced short-range air-to-air missile) at a target located behind the wing-line of the “shooter” aircraft. The firing was conducted from an F/A-18 fighter aircraft, at low level and typical fighter speed, at a target located behind the fighter at a range in excess of 5km. The result was a direct hit on the target.

The engagement simulated a “chase down” situation by an enemy fighter and successfully demonstrated the potential for an all-round self protection capability with the ASRAAM. This capability is inherent on all platforms that provide pre-launch ‘over the shoulder’ designation information such as F/A-18, Eurofighter Typhoon and F-35 JSF.

So this settles it once and for all. We no longer care about Ps curves and air-to-air performance of the airplane. I don’t want to debate who would win a 1-v-1 between a MiG-37 and a JSF. It just doesn’t matter.

Here’s a new bumper sticker idea (this year’s “My other car is an F-18″): “My ASRAAM missile hides the fact that I’m a grape.”

(Gouge: NC)

– Ward

[From the front page of Military.com]

A pilot struggling to control a crippled Marine Corps jet bypassed a chance to land at a coastal Navy base and instead flew toward an inland base, where minutes later the fighter crashed into a San Diego neighborhood and killed four people, recordings released Tuesday revealed.

Meanwhile, military officials say that four officers at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar have been relieved of duty in connection with the fatal crash and nine other military personnel received lesser reprimands. Officials said the 13 were disciplined for a series of avoidable mechanical and human errors that led to the crash, which killed four members of the same family, including two children.

“It was collectively bad decision-making,” said Col. John Rupp, operations officer for the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar.

LISTEN TO THE AUDIO HERE

Recordings of conversations between federal air controllers and the pilot of the F/A-18D Hornet show the pilot repeatedly was offered a chance to land the plane at the Naval Air Station North Island in Coronado. The base sits at the tip of a peninsula with a flight path over water.

Instead, the Federal Aviation Administration tapes disclose, the pilot decided to fly the jet, which had lost one engine and was showing signs of trouble with the second, to the inland Miramar base, which is about 10 miles north of Coronado.

That route took him over the University City neighborhood, where the Dec. 8 crash incinerated two homes and damaged three others.

“This was a tragic incident that could have been prevented,” Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., who was among the lawmakers who received a closed-door briefing Tuesday on the results of the Marine Corps’ investigation into the crash, said in a statement.

The pilot and senior officers “did not consult their checklists and follow appropriate procedure,” Hunter said. Had those rules been followed, “the crash would not have occurred.”

Four officers at Miramar have been relieved of duty for failing to follow safety procedures and allowing the Hornet to fly over the residential area, while nine other military personnel received lesser reprimands.

According to the military, the jet’s right engine went out due to an oil leak shortly after the fighter left the deck of the Navy aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln on a training flight. The aircraft can fly on one engine, so losing power in one of the General Electric turbofan engines was not cause for extreme concern.

At the same time, the plane was having trouble moving fuel from its tanks to the engines. Marine Corps aviation rules dictate that a plane with such a combination of mechanical failures should land immediately. The investigation determined the best and safest option was to bring the aircraft down at Coronado, not Miramar.

As the jet approached Miramar, the left engine failed because it was getting too little fuel, leaving the plane without power. Seventeen seconds later, the pilot ejected.

Read the rest of the story at Military.com.

– Christian

Moreover, these are bad times PERIOD. Now I understand that the JSF and F-22 are designed to meet separate Air Force requirements. The JSF meets the LOW requirement and replaces the F-16; the F-22 meets the HIGH requirement and replaces the F-15. But the fiscal situtation now and in the FYDP might not support both.

We had a similar situation back in the day when carrier aviation, due to budget concerns primarily, was forced to choose between the A-6 and the F-14. Long story short, the Intruder went away and the Navy enhanced the Tomcat’s resident bombing capability. (The rest is OEF and OIF history, of course.)

So with Christian on the road for the next few days and me minding the store, I wanted to open up the discussion to you guys, the awesome and erudite in defense matters DT readers. What do you think? If the USAF decison-makers are made to choose one or the other, which should they pick?

Wikipedia (the source of all modern knowledge) “apples-to-apples” unit flyaway price comparison: F-22 - $137.5 million; JSF - $83 million. And I know the Raptor does things the JSF doesn’t, but does that capability validate the additional cost considering the current (and projected) threat and budgetary situation?

The comments board is now open.

– Ward

[Ripped from the front page of Military.com]

AF Reaches Out to Flight-rated Officers

Faced with a shortfall of about 1,600 flight-rated officers, the Air Force is reaching out to pilots, air battle managers and navigators who have left active duty, service officials said Wednesday.

Under a program authorized for this calendar year, retirees and reservists — most from the Inactive Ready Reserve — can come back to active duty for up to four years, officials said. The program is also open to current or former members of all services.

“We are not soliciting O-6s; we are primarily expecting majors and lieutenant colonels to come back,” said Lt. Col. Dewey Duhadway, chief of rated force policy.

The Air Force has received interest from about 1,000 retirees and reservists about the program, Duhadway said on Wednesday.

Those interested in returning to active duty would have go before an aeronautical review board to determine their ratings qualifications, and returnees from the IRR will have to undergo a physical examination, he said.

I think we should all encourage Ward to get back in the cockpit! (that’s him, second from the left)…

Read the rest of the story HERE.

– Christian