June 19, 2024 - No. 25 In This Issue : FAA investigating how titanium parts with falsified records wound up in Boeing and Airbus planes : The panic about unleaded fuels : China’s ‘high payload, low cost’ cargo drone aces maiden flight test : DRONE INDUSTRY EXPERT JOHN MCBRIDE TALKS ABOUT THE DJI BAN : Stratotanker involved in flight line incident at Air Force base on Okinawa : No 30-year-old drone wingmen: US Air Force eyes regular CCA overhauls : Osprey Won’t Return to Unrestricted Flight, Get New Clutch Until Mid-2025 : L3Harris to Upgrade US Air Force B-52 Bomber Cockpit : Missile Defense Agency has new hope for airborne lasers : Students of Edhi Institute learn aircraft maintenance in Karachi FAA investigating how titanium parts with falsified records wound up in Boeing and Airbus planes By DAVID KOENIG AP Friday, June 14, 2024 12:53PM Federal officials are investigating how parts made with titanium sold with falsified documentation wound up in Boeing and Airbus passenger jets. Federal regulators are investigating how parts made with titanium that was sold with falsified quality documentation wound up in Boeing and Airbus passenger jets that were built in recent years. Boeing and Airbus said Friday that planes containing the parts are safe to fly, but Boeing said it was removing affected parts from planes that haven't been delivered yet to airline customers. It will be up to regulators including the Federal Aviation Administration to decide whether any work needs to be done to planes that are already carrying passengers. The FAA said it is "investigating the scope and impact of the issue." The agency said Boeing reported the problem covering material from a distributor "who may have falsified or provided incorrect records." The FAA did not name the distributor. Boeing and Airbus declined to say how many planes were flying with parts made from the undocumented titanium. Spirit AeroSystems, which makes fuselages for Boeing planes and wings for Airbus jets, reported the falsified documents. "This is about titanium that has entered the supply system via documents that have been counterfeited," Spirit spokesperson Joe Buccino said. "When this was identified, all suspect parts were quarantined and removed from Spirit production." Buccino said more than 1,000 tests have been conducted on the material "to ensure continued airworthiness." The New York Times first reported the FAA investigation. The newspaper said a parts supplier found small holes in the material from corrosion. Titanium alloys have been used for decades in aircraft production because of their light weight, strength and resistance to corrosion and high temperatures. They are used in airframes, landing gear and other parts. Boeing said tests indicate that the parts were made from the correct titanium alloy, which raised questions about why the documentation was falsified. The company, based in Arlington, Virginia, said it buys most of the titanium it uses directly from other sources, and that supply is not affected by the documentation issue Boeing said it was removing affected parts on planes before delivering them to airlines. "Our analysis shows the in-service fleet can continue to fly safely," the company said. It did not say which of its aircraft models were affected. Airbus said the parts wound up on one of its models, the A220, a relatively small airliner that is used on shorter routes. "Numerous tests have been performed on parts coming from the same source of supply," said Airbus, which has its main offices and assembly plant in France. "They show that the A220's airworthiness remains intact." The panic about unleaded fuels By Ben Visser · June 12, 2024 · 21 Comments This story was updated June 18, 2024, with comments from ASTM: In early May 2024 I accepted an invitation from Shell Oil Co. to attend a seminar on aviation product updates by the Aeroshell products team at the Shell Technology Center in Houston, Texas. The presentations covered a number of subjects, including lubricants and aviation fuels. The aviation fuels presentation was very interesting, as well as very open and frank. Presented by the head of the fuels research program, his talk ended on the subject of Shell’s 100 octane unleaded fuel candidate. He expressed the idea that their unleaded fuel candidate had a few technical problems that could be corrected. But he added that the decision to get out of the FAA’s Piston Engine Aviation Fuels Initiative (PAFI) testing program was purely business and not technical in any way. That got me to thinking: A lot has been written about who is developing 100 unleaded avgas fuels, but we should look at who is NOT working on a candidate fuel. The four largest oil companies — Shell, Exxon, Chevron, and BP — control a majority of the hydrocarbon business in the United States. The fact that they are not looking into an unleaded avgas should tell us all something. Part of this may be concerns about liability, but there may also be concerns about profitability. But an important consideration here as we attempt to transition to an unleaded fuel for general aviation is that GA may need these large oil companies. That’s because they have the production capacity and the infrastructure needed to economically supply every airport in every state in the U.S. I know that some companies, like AvFuel, have an extensive network, but these networks may not cover every FBO. One solution that has been mentioned is that maybe the large oil companies will produce 100UL under a license. This brings up the old controversy of approval by ASTM or FAA STC. The advantage for an ASTM specification is that it would have the blessing of the engine manufacturers as to their warranties. An ASTM spec also has liability protection that an STC does not. This very well could be a deal breaker for the large oil companies with deep pockets. However, ASTM officials clarify that “there is no such thing as ASTM approval or any advantage thereof.” “ASTM International convenes stakeholders and experts to create voluntary standards in various topic areas, but the way those standards are used in the market is beyond our mission,” ASTM officials said. “ASTM test methods set technical limits and parameters that are used to evaluate fuels so that organizations can demonstrate conformance to the specification. It does not conduct these evaluations and does not approve or certify products in this area.” Why is ASTM approval so difficult to obtain? Let me give you an example. In the 1990s a gentleman from Cessna put forth the idea that for GA to continue — and maybe even grow — it would need to utilize fuel from the automotive pool and not depend on a boutique or specialty fuel. So he tried to get an ASTM spec for 85 octane auto fuel for general aviation aircraft. Usually, a new specification takes a couple of years to go through the approval process. He fought for more than 12 years to get it passed. At every vote there were negative ballots that claimed he should do this or that change — plus claiming he should add this test or that limit. Let me tell you that they “should” all over him. You may ask why the hassle? I believe it was monetary. The oil companies did not want to see their small but profitable business reduced by more competition from less expensive auto fuels. And the same problem exists with a spec for an unleaded 100 octane fuel. The oil companies do not want their very profitable 100LL business to give way to a less profitable and probably more expensive product with increased liability. Having worked for an oil company for more than 30 years, I can understand the logic. When the EPA released its final determination in October 2023 that emissions of lead from aircraft that operate on leaded fuel “cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare under the Clean Air Act,” it got the FAA and general aviation moving a bit quicker towards finding an unleaded solution for general aviation. A government-industry initiative, known as Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions (EAGLE), has set a 2030 deadline for the transition to be complete, but that timing is not set in stone. If the industry can cast doubt as to the safety of the move to an unleaded fuel, that may delay the transition to unleaded fuels. And just because the EPA has spoken, that doesn’t mean it will happen on that agency’s timeline. The final endangerment finding does not ban or impose restrictions on leaded fuel. In fact, it is the FAA that is tasked with developing the “standards that address the composition, chemical, or physical properties of an aircraft fuel or fuel additive to control or eliminate aircraft lead emissions,” according to EPA officials. So while the EPA has created panic over leaded avgas, that panic should not drive the GA community or the FAA. It’s imperative that there is a safe and adequate supply of fuel for the entire general aviation community — now, during the transition to unleaded fuels, and beyond. China’s ‘high payload, low cost’ cargo drone aces maiden flight test HH-100 has a max take-off weight of 4,409 lbs, a payload of 1,543 lbs, and a range of 323 miles. Updated: Jun 14, 2024 10:00 AM EST Jijo Malayil China's homegrown HH-100 unmanned cargo aircraft during the recent flight testing. X/CCTV+ China has successfully completed the maiden flight test of its homegrown commercial cargo drone in the northwest part of the country. Xi’an, the provincial capital of the Shaanxi province, saw the takeoff of the HH-100 prototype on June 12, according to the aerospace conglomerate Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC), as reported by a Chinese news agency. AVIC XAC Commercial Aircraft Co., Ltd., an AVIC subsidiary in Xi’an, was responsible for the independent development of the HH-100. Its two main components are an unmanned aerial vehicle and a ground-based command-and-control station. According to Xinhua News Agency (XNA), AVIC claimed that the prototype of the HH-100 performed as expected and completed all test requirements. The project is part of various research and development initiatives underway to develop a low-altitude economy in China. AVIC is looking at developing commercial unmanned aerial transport systems weighing two, five, and ten tonnes each. Efficient air logistics The HH-100 is touted as an economical, high-capacity aircraft. According to its developer, it has a maximum take-off weight of 4,409 pounds (2,000 kilograms), a payload capacity of 1,543 pounds (700 kilograms ), and a full-weight range of 323 miles (520 kilometers). It has a service ceiling of 5,000 meters and a maximum cruise speed of 186 miles per hour (300 kilometers per hour). It is an aerial vehicle dedicated to carrying cargo, with a capacity of about 4 cubic meters. AVIC views the drone primarily for branch-line logistics or short-range delivery. However, its potential applications could expand to include firefighting in forests and grasslands, delivering relief supplies, emergency communication relays, and weather modification. According to AVIC, HH-100s are designed to provide efficient, linked air-ground transportation. XNA reports that HH-100 is a part of AVIC’s project to offer reasonably priced and dependable commercial unmanned transportation aerial systems with an eye toward the rapidly expanding low-altitude industry. AVIC describes the drone as a “high payload and low cost” variant, according to a SCMP article. Booming drone industry Companies worldwide are investing in cargo drones as they have the potential to advance logistics. They provide swift, efficient, and eco-conscious goods transport solutions. Designed for heavy loads across extensive distances, they circumvent conventional transport challenges while lowering carbon footprints. In the US, Amazon and Walmart pilot drone delivery services in specific regions, showcasing their potential in modern logistics. In China, its civil drone sector reached 117.4 billion yuan (US$16.2 billion) last year, up 32 percent year over year, according to the industry and IT ministry’s research arm, the China Centre for Information Sector Development, reports South China Morning Post (SCMP). According to the research center’s assessment published in December, China will have more than 2,300 civil drone enterprises and more than 1,000 mass-produced drone products by the end of 2023, in addition to DJI, a world leader in drone technologies. SCMP reports that China’s drone industry is integral to its burgeoning low-altitude economy, encompassing businesses that operate aerial vehicles below 3,000 meters. The country has prioritized strengthening this sector since 2021, with the central government introducing successive policies and regulations. DRONE INDUSTRY EXPERT JOHN MCBRIDE TALKS ABOUT THE DJI BAN • Haye Kesteloo June 17, 2024 • Anzu Robotics, Brinc, Colorado, Countering CCP Drones Act, DJI, Drone Companies, Drone Industry, Drones For First Responders Act, First Responders, Intel, New Jersey, Police, Skydio, Teal, United States, Utah Gathering of drone industry experts not worried (yet) about a DJI Ban Hi everyone, John McBride here. I wanted to come in and give my thoughts on this whole “DJI ban is coming” and provide a perspective as a guy who has watched this industry for a very long time. I want to discuss the impact that I believe we may not be ready for if we decide to go down this path. I am not a representative of any particular manufacturer I work with. I am the Director of the Droning Company. This is just from a guy who sees the impact of drones and what they've done for the world so far, especially in the United States, including all of our government agencies and how they've been using DJI over the last decade or more. The DJI Ban Impact on Businesses and Users Drones have been used by the public to do mapping, to create a number of businesses – both those that fly for money and those that sell to make a little bit of money, as well as those that support to create their own businesses. I even had one for a number of years that is still running and operating today. I'm really worried about what shutting down and getting rid of the largest player in the market right now is going to do to us as an industry in the short term. American Innovation and Manufacturing Long-term, I'm all for American innovation, engineering, creation, making, sourcing, manufacturing – all of that. I think that's fantastic. I think we missed the boat when drones initially came out as being used in everyday applications like they are now. There were a lot of manufacturers in those early days who had no idea what they were really making. Intel comes to mind as a large company that put some money into something and really didn't know exactly what to expect out of the market called the Drone Industry. GoPro and dozens of other companies have come and gone because they weren't quite hitting the mark and were able to shift and change like DJI has. The Need for Investment We need a little bit more investment from manufacturers and VC money into American companies. They may have seen that there are some issues with return on investment. I've stated this before – I believe that the vested interests and shareholders of these American Drone Companies (Skydio) are certainly not getting the return that they expected, and if they are, it's not as big as it possibly could have been. As far as DJI is concerned, they have just grown enormously. The Importance of Supporting American Manufacturers A lot of the manufacturers that we talk about right now – Skydio, Brinc Drones, Teal, Inspire Flight and all these great companies – are great companies, and we do need to put some money into these guys. We need to try to figure out how to overcome all of the things I just said – the manufacturing, the scaling, the engineering, and so on. The Impact on Public Safety and Recreational Users There are a lot of people that have benefited from DJI, not just from selling stuff or utilizing and creating businesses, but also our public safety agencies. We already know that they have very limited budgets. They don't get a lot of money or resources without having to basically pull their own teeth out. I've been in the middle of transactions like that, and it sometimes can take upwards of a year to get approved for $1,000 or even $5,000. Right now, the market and current American manufacturers just don't make products that meet the needs of or help those agencies. They need to buy something a little bit less expensive. Recreational users are pretty much the same – they're not going to go out and buy an expensive drone like a Skydio X10 or Brinc Lemur 2 just for fun. Ocean City Police in New Jersey use DJI drones to keep people safe. The Potential Consequences of a DJI Ban If we remove all of these products out of the market or at least ban them without an action plan – a real plan to not just punish people that are trying to save a buck or two, but for the sake of security (I totally get it) – there's going to be a huge impact if we all of a sudden just say “no more DJI.” Even in some cases, maybe even no more Autel. Anzu Robotics could kind of fall into this category too – I hope they don't, but they could. Then we're talking about the industry being gone, and the VC guys with all the money invested in this stuff are going to be at each other's throats. We don't want that. It doesn't help the industry whatsoever, and we've already seen American companies be against each other as well. The Need for Alternatives We don't want to be caught in the middle of decisions made on the hill. We don't want to be the guys that are stuck here wondering what to do with the drones we currently have, or agencies that won't be able to use them, some of which are 100% DJI. Even though we've come up with some alternatives, we don't have enough to supply the big gaping hole that a DJI Ban will create in the industry, and it will be a big gaping hole. We're not talking about just public safety and government use. We're talking about agriculture, inspection, and all of these different verticals where DJI drones have been used and continue to be used even today. Some will just say “screw it, I'm just gonna keep using my stuff” because there really isn't an American alternative that can do it. Potential Solutions My proposed solution has always been that we do need intervention. I don't know where that comes from – whether the city level, the county level, the state level. I live in Utah – can they throw some money at a manufacturer that's here in Utah, like Teal Drones? Can we supply them with some cash to be able to help out? And not just for purchases, but investment. Even though this whole thing is about the government not liking each other, and us being caught in the middle, we have to help out these drone companies. VC money is only going to go so far, and they will run out of it if we don't do something about that pretty soon. These are the types of proposals that I suggest – that we have investment in the industry. We don't have investment in blocking the industry, we have investment to try to help the industry. It is very hard to get people to understand that DJI is a global manufacturer. They're global – they don't make just for one market. I've been to shows all over the world and they are everywhere. Why are we so hell-bent on hating each other? We need to try to come up with a solution that helps out our user base and our industry. Where are we at? Moving Forward in the Drone Industry It's time to move on from throwing sticks and stones and come up with a way that makes actual sense for the gaping hole this will create. We still don't know – today is June 11th. I'm going to post this up today. I'd love to hear your comments, and then maybe tomorrow I will find out a little bit more. I do have my drone airshow, my Colorado Drone Air Show shirt on. These are the things I love being involved in and trying to get people to understand why drones are so useful and why they do what they do. I'm trying to get that public perception to understand that we're not trying to scare the world with them, but there are things that are happening every day that people don't need to know about. Being able to create some level of ROI, whether it's saving a life, saving money, saving time – all of these things that drones have done. I hope I haven't wasted your time. Again, put a little comment here, let me know what your thoughts are. Remember, don't pick on the problem, let's try to figure out a solution – some proposals. Let's figure out ways to do that. The Drone Advocacy Alliance is a good start. Send out some things to show your concerns. But even if we're out of control of the decisions, what do we do next? And that's what I would like to know – what we would do next as far as the industry is concerned. Alright, thanks guys. Thank you for hanging out with me. The above article is a transcript of the video that John McBride posted on LinkedIn recently. We've added it for clarity and brevity. Please go to LinkedIn and watch the video. You can read more about the Countering CCP Drones Act as well as the Drones for First Responders Act right here on DroneXL. Stratotanker involved in flight line incident at Air Force base on Okinawa By KEISHI KOJA STARS AND STRIPES June 17, 2024 A KC-135 Stratotanker, like the one shown here in a July 24, 2020, photograph, rolled from its parking spot at Kadena Air Base, Okinawa, Japan, on June 15, 2024. (Vincent De Groot/Iowa Air National Guard) A barrier was damaged when a KC-135 Stratotanker rolled away from its parking spot last week on the flight line at Kadena Air Base, Okinawa, the Air Force said Monday. “A KC-135 assigned to the 18th Wing rolled from its parking space and struck a barrier after returning to Kadena Air Base” on Friday, according to an unsigned email Monday from the 18th Wing. “There were no injuries, and a safety investigation is underway to determine the cause of the incident,” according to the email. The wing provided no further information about the incident. The KC-135 is an aerial refueling aircraft that inflight can transfer up to 200,000 pounds of fuel, enough to fully refuel 16.5 F-16 Fighting Falcons equipped with two external fuel tanks. It is also capable of carrying litter and ambulatory patients during aeromedical evacuations. Last month, a similar event occurred when an F-22 Raptor advanced fighter also rolled away from its parking spot on Kadena’s flight line. Read more at: https://www.stripes.com/branches/air_force/2024-06-17/stratotanker%C2%A0involved-in-flight-line-incident-at-air-force-base-on-okinawa-14207402.html No 30-year-old drone wingmen: US Air Force eyes regular CCA overhauls By Stephen Losey Friday, Jun 14, 2024 A conceptual design of low-cost, attritable drones serving as wingmen for a crewed fighter jet. (U.S. Air Force) The Air Force’s aircraft fleet is replete with fighters, bombers, tankers and other aircraft that are still flying after decades or even generations. But the service’s planned collaborative combat aircraft — drones that will fly alongside crewed fighters — probably won’t last even a single generation before they need to be replaced or heavily overhauled, Chief of Staff Gen. David Allvin said Thursday. Allvin, speaking at the Air and Space Forces Association in Arlington, Virginia, said planning from the start to regularly replace CCAs is the best way to keep their missions simple and costs down, so the service can field them in significant numbers. “I don’t want a set of collaborative combat aircraft that’s going to last for 25 to 30 years,” Allvin said. “If it’s going to last 25 or 30 years, then it’s gotta do everything but make you toast in the morning.” Making CCAs into complex, multi-mission aircraft will inevitably drive up the cost, Allvin said, meaning the Air Force could only buy a limited number of them. ' Air Force officials have regularly talked about the need for CCAs to augment its crewed fighters and provide what they call “affordable mass.” A smaller fleet of more expensive drone wingmen, as Allvin is trying to avoid, would make achieving that affordable mass goal harder to reach. Allvin instead envisions technology advancing quickly enough that after a decade, a class of CCAs might be outdated and ready to be replaced – or heavily updated with new technologies. “That CCA won’t be as relevant — but it might be adaptable, and that’s why we’re building in the modularity,” Allvin said. Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall has told the service to plan for a CCA fleet of about 1,000 drones to fly alongside the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter and the service’s planned Next Generation Air Dominance fighter. The missions CCAs would carry out will likely vary and include strike operations, gathering intelligence and reconnaissance, conducting electronic warfare, and serving as decoys. Kendall also made affordability a requirement for the CCA program, and has said each drone must cost a fraction of an F-35′s price tag. In April, the Air Force announced it had selected Anduril and General Atomics to further develop designs for their CCA concepts, and then build production-representative test aircraft. At Thursday’s event, Allvin noted the financial stresses the Air Force is facing, including inflation and limited budgets. “All of those pressures are coming to bear against us, and we do have to ask the fundamental question: What does an effective Air Force look like in the future and how much of that is dependent on external resources?” Allvin said. But when asked if the service will be able to produce NGAD as it has planned, Allvin did not explicitly commit to the sixth-generation fighter. “We’re going to have to make those choices, make those decisions across the landscape,” Allvin said. “That’s going to probably play out in the next couple of years.” Osprey Won’t Return to Unrestricted Flight, Get New Clutch Until Mid-2025 June 12, 2024 | By Greg Hadley The V-22 Osprey fleet will not return to full, unrestricted flight operations until mid-2025, a Pentagon official said, as part of a slow buildup following a deadly crash in November that killed eight Airmen and led to a three-month grounding. Also around that time the V-22 Joint Program Office plans to start fielding a newly designed clutch for the Osprey, which is flown by the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy. Issues with the clutch have been cited in previous mishaps. Defense Department officials shared the details during a charged hearing before the House Oversight Committee on June 12. Lawmakers sharply criticized the V-22 program and DOD’s lack of transparency regarding the aircraft’s safety data, while families of service members who died flying the Osprey sat in the front row, holding photos of their loved ones. Scrutiny of the V-22 reached new heights after an Air Force CV-22 went down in November 2023 off the coast of Japan—the fourth deadly Osprey crash in just over two years. All three services grounded their fleets from December 2023 to March 2024 while the Joint Program Office opened a comprehensive review of the program and the House Oversight Committee launched its own investigation. Air Force Special Operations Command said in February that a part failure, not pilot error, caused the November 2023 crash, though it has declined to identify the part. Vice Adm. Carl Chebi, head of Naval Air Systems Command, also did not identify the part in his testimony, but he did describe it as a “catastrophic materiel failure that we have never seen before in the V-22 program.” That would rule out the possibility of a hard clutch engagement—a situation in which the clutch slips, causing a fail-safe system to transfer power from one engine to the other, then re-engages, generating enormous spikes in torque. The Air Force previously grounded its fleet of CV-22s after multiple instances of hard clutch engagement, and the issue was blamed for causing one of three deadly Marine Corps crashes since 2022. Slow Return When the Pentagon announced it was lifting the grounding order on all V-22s in March, NAVAIR said senior Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps leaders coordinated to craft “risk mitigation controls to assist with safely returning the V-22 to flight operations.” It later emerged that one such restriction was limiting the Osprey from flying more than 30 minutes away from a suitable airfield to which it could divert if something went wrong. By May, the Air Force had cleared only some of its CV-22s to resume flight, part of what officials said would be a phased, “deliberate” approach to include more thorough and frequent maintenance checks and new procedures for air crews to respond to emergency situations. All those restrictions and new procedures won’t be going away anytime soon, Chebi told lawmakers. “Today, we are methodically looking at materiel and non-materiel changes that we can make to allow for a full mission set without controls in place,” Chebi said. “I will not certify the V-22 to return to unrestricted flight operations until I’m satisfied that we have sufficiently addressed the issues that may affect the safety of the aircraft. Based on the data that I have today, I’m expecting that this will not occur before mid-2025.” An AFSOC official told Air & Space Forces Magazine that the command is tracking the same timeline. Chebi later added that he personally briefed Air Force and Navy air crews on the new safety controls and on what went wrong in the November 2023 crash so that they have trust in the aircraft. “I’m confident that the controls that are put in place based on the data I have today allow for return to a flight in a restricted flight envelope only,” Chebi said. Hard Clutch Engagements The Air Force will eventually release an Accident Investigation Board report detailing what went wrong in the November 2023 crash. Chebi’s statement that a new kind of failure caused the crash indicates that a hard clutch engagement was not the issue, but they remain a concern for the V-22 fleet. Former AFSOC commander and current Air Force Vice Chief Gen. James C. “Jim” Slife previously said such incidents result in a “kind of a Christmas tree of lights, caution lights, in the cockpit, and some pretty squirrely flight control inputs.” Over the life of the program, there have been 19 instances of hard clutch engagement, Chebi said. There was a notable rise in such problems starting around 2022, which prompted AFSOC to stand down its fleet and led the Marine Corps and Navy to implement mitigation measures. Eventually, the services imposed a flight-hour limit on the aircraft’s input quill assemblies. Chebi said the program office determined that the clutch would wear out over time and had a higher susceptibility to slipping after 800 flight hours. “We have never been able to repeat the failure in test,” Chebi said, but after the flight-hour limit was instituted, the program office has not seen any instances of hard clutch engagement. “I want to make this point clear though—that has not eliminated the risk,” he added. “We are currently in testing of a follow-on design for the clutch, not only to minimize exposure, but to eliminate this from occurring again.” Like the return to full flight operations, that new clutch will take time, said Gary Kurtz, program executive officer for the V-22 JPO. “That clutch testing is expected to start in the next couple of months,” Kurtz said. “And we anticipate that we will have a new design clutch fielding in the mid-2025 timeframe.” Scrutiny Since 1991, the Osprey has suffered 10 fatal crashes, killing 57 service members and giving the V-22 an accident-prone reputation. Proponents argue the reputation is unfounded, noting that its safety data is comparable to other aircraft. Still, the recent rash of mishaps and crashes has put the program under the microscope, to the point that Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) urged DOD officials during the hearing to ground the Osprey until the new clutch is ready, rather than risk another fatal accident. “If another Osprey goes down, we’re done,” said Lynch. “This program is done.” Other lawmakers were more supportive of keeping the Osprey flying but expressed frustration with the Pentagon for not sharing more safety investigation data with the Oversight Committee. Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) also pressed officials to explain why the Air Force has a higher mishap rate in the V-22 than the Marines do. The scrutiny is not likely to fade soon. “I want to thank the families for being here today. You being here is very important,” said Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-Wisc.). “Because I don’t want to drop this thing today. There were a surprising number of questions that I felt [the witnesses] didn’t have answers to.” L3Harris to Upgrade US Air Force B-52 Bomber Cockpit INDER SINGH BISHT JUNE 11, 2024 L3Harris Technologies has secured a $34-million contract to upgrade the US Air Force B-52H bomber cockpit. It is part of the force’s Global Strike Command B-52 Quad Crew Program to consolidate the functions of the electronic warfare officer and navigator. The aircraft’s five-person crew comprises two pilots, two navigators, and an electronic warfare officer. Cockpit Consolidation The consolidation includes relocating the control and display unit panels to the navigator station. Additionally, an analysis will be performed to assess the impact on the B-52 airframe to inform the modification kit design. The assessment includes “aircraft weight and balance, structural and electrical load analysis and thermal cooling,” L3Harris stated. B-52 Upgrade The six-decade old long-range bomber is capable of carrying both nuclear and precision-guided conventional weapons. An upgrade is underway to keep the B-52 fleet operational for another three decades, including engine, radar, and communication and navigation equipment. “Transforming the iconic B-52 bomber into a more capable platform that operates through 2050 is a priority for our company,” L3Harris President of Space and Airborne Systems Ed Zoiss said. “This contract is an important step forward for the nation’s strategic bomber operators and their global strike mission.” L3Harris to Upgrade US Air Force B-52 Bomber Cockpit Missile Defense Agency has new hope for airborne lasers Mark Lewis, formerly the Pentagon's senior scientist now CEO of the Purdue Applied Research Institute (PARI), gave MDA a thumbs up for taking a new look at the concept, noting that the technology has come a long way since 2014. By THERESA HITCHENS on June 17, 2024 at 1:10 PM The Airborne Laser Testbed, mothballed in 2012. The Missile Defense Agency is relooking the concept, based on new technology. (MDA photo) WASHINGTON — Airborne lasers are back in the sights of the Missile Defense Agency — a decade after the first attempt to build a system collapsed, having swallowed 16 years and $5 billion in research and development. This time, however, MDA is taking things slow. Rather than jumping straight to shooting down missiles in space, the agency is first focusing on using low-powered lasers for tracking and working its way toward higher-powered systems for intercept. “Tracking characterization work will grow MDA’s capabilities for the use of low-power tracking lasers. The systems associated with this risk reduction work are also directly applicable to more advanced systems, including non-kinetic intercept systems,” an agency spokesperson told Breaking Defense. “MDA’s approach is to progress technology development and demonstrations for near term missions like tracking while higher power lasers required for the future are in development by [the Pentagon’s Office of Research and Engineering]. MDA and the Department are working toward future directed energy systems which have lower size, weight, and power, to support mobility and maximum proliferation across the battlespace,’ the spokesperson added. One of the reasons that MDA is focusing on airborne systems, the spokesperson explained, is that such a system could provide advantages for research and development activities over both ground-based and space-based missile defense approaches. “An airborne directed energy technology demonstrator provides favorable environments and ranges over ground based systems; it provides iterative directed energy technology development flexibility not offered by space based systems,” they said. MDA Director Lt. Gen. Heath Collins told the Center for Strategic and International Studies on June 6 that the agency asked for $11 million in research and development money to explore airborne laser technology, starting with tracking. The effort builds off of recommendations from an independent team of government, industry and academic experts, he said. Asked for details about the make up of the study group and the report, the MDA spokesperson said only that the report has been designated Controlled Unclassified Information and will not be released. New Lasers Open Up New Possibilities Mark Lewis, who served as the Pentagon’s senior scientist in 2020 and now is CEO of the Purdue Applied Research Institute (PARI), gave MDA a thumbs up for taking a new look at the concept, noting that the technology has come a long way since 2014. Not only are there new power sources for lasers, but also improvements have been made to technologies for beam stabilization and cutting through the Earth’s atmosphere, he explained. “I would argue that … even though airborne laser was, how do I say this diplomatically, not a success, there’s actually value in going back and revisiting, and asking, ‘Well, have things changed?’ So good on MDA,” he said. “I draw parallels between lasers and hypersonics. And the reason I draw that parallel is they’re both technologies that were promising, promising, promising. It’s just around the corner. People would make fun of it and say, “Yeah, well, you know, it’s the future, and it always will be.’ And [now] finally, it’s like, ‘Oh, wait, we flew something, and it worked’,” he said. Lewis explained that while the original airborne laser system, based on a Boeing 747, was powered by a plane-full of dangerous chemicals, the lasers currently under evaluation by MDA and the military services for missions such as shooting down drone swarms are solid-state lasers. “The thing that has changed is we’ve actually realized that that solid-state lasers are the way to go, and not chemical lasers… . That’s number one. Number two is we’ve gotten power levels of those solid-state lasers up to the point where they can actually do some real harm,” he said. “We’re at the power levels now where we can actually blast a hole in something. We can blind something, we can take something out. And we can do it in a package that’s practical.” Lewis also noted that another change is how the Pentagon is thinking about using lasers — taking a more targeted approach to potential missions. “If you look at the early thinking about how we would use lasers, it was pretty stupid,” he said, based on trying to “replace the gun with a laser light, [like] Star Wars. … If the gun works, why would you do that? If we’re going to invest in laser, it [ought to be] to do things that the gun doesn’t do, to open up the possibilities. And I think that, that kind of sea change, it seems almost obvious, but it seems to take us a while to get there.” All that said, Lewis stressed that there is still a way to go to get to the point where laser systems can be used routinely to shoot ballistic missiles, hypersonic missiles or drone swarms. “As we’ve seen with hypersonics, we we still haven’t kind of cracked the nut, the engineering nut, to make it feasible,” he said. Students of Edhi Institute learn aircraft maintenance in Karachi Shazia Hasan Published June 13, 2024 Chief Engineer Iftikhar Ahmed teaches trainees about the aircraft as Faisal Edhi listens to the conversation.— Fahim Siddiqi / White Star KARACHI: There is a famous proverb about teaching a man to fish being far better than giving a man a fish and feeding him for a day as then you feed him for a lifetime. Enabling people to earn a decent livelihood has led Faisal Edhi of Edhi Foundation to set up a technical training institution, the Edhi Institute of Science and Technology, which offers free vocational training to whoever is interested in bettering their lives through hard work. On Wednesday, just behind Terminal 1 of the Jinnah International Airport, one could find some seven to 10 young men in dark blue overalls with the Edhi logo bent over aeroplane engines of Edhi air ambulances. Jamil Ahmed from Lyari likes to play football but said that it is only his hobby as he is more serious about becoming a professional technician than a footballer. “I want to be realistic about my future,” he told Dawn, adding that with a skill in hand, he could earn a regular income. The charity has started free technical training courses for those who want to become self-sufficient Ameer Hussain from Punjab Chowrangi was a Suzuki pickup driver, who heard about the course from his big brother, a male nurse with the Bilquis Edhi Foundation. “My brother informed me as soon as he heard about this course. In fact, he came home with the forms, which I filled right away and now here I am one month away from earning my diploma,” he beamed. Mohammad Amir grew up at Edhi Centre. “He even overhauls our trucks and generator engines,” said Faisal Edhi, while introducing the young man. “Amir is smart and very hardworking. Equipped with professional training, I see him going far,” he said with pride. Edhi also introduced another auto mechanic working with the Edhi ambulances for some 13 years now, Mohammad Imran Junejo, who also hails from Lyari. “We only just started work at the institute six months ago. This here is our first batch,” he said gesturing at the group of trainees, now entering their final month of training. “It is also new for the Edhi Foundation to enter the education field. And we are happy to see our first batch enter its final month of training now,” he said. “Like here we have linked technical education with aviation. Like automobiles, aeroplanes also have a piston engine that burns fuel. If any of our students want to move towards aviation, we will also support them,” he said. Edhi Ambulance Chief Engineer Iftikhar Ahmed was available for guidance on the occasion. “We will impart basic education first before looking at the aptitude of the trainees,” he said. Masood Sayeed, former training head at various vocational institutes such as Aman Foundation, Allied Engineering & Services, Orient Energy Systems, Proton Training Solutions, etc, who is now with the Edhi Institute, said that he also shared Edhi’s vision. “I also want to help young people stand on their own two feet and financially support their families,” he said. Currently, the six-month technical training certification and diploma courses being offered by the Edhi Institute include auto mechanics (petrol or diesel), generator mechanics, motorcycle mechanics and the auto electrician’s course while there is also a year-long Diploma Information Technology course. Photo of the Day Photo: Wikipedia Commons How do swing-wing aircraft such as the F-14 handle center-of-gravity when the wing geometry is changed? Rebecca Williams .Apr 17 Swing-wing aircraft, such as the iconic F-14 Tomcat, have a unique feature that allows them to change their wing geometry in flight. This adaptability is crucial for balancing high-speed performance with low-speed control. But, it also presents a challenge: maintaining the center-of-gravity (CG) as the wings move. The CG is vital for an aircraft’s stability. In the F-14, as the wings sweep back to enhance high-speed aerodynamics, the aerodynamic center shifts. This could potentially unbalance the aircraft. To prevent this, the design of the wing pivot points is critical. They are positioned to ensure that the aerodynamic changes do not destabilize the plane. Also, the distribution of weight within the aircraft is meticulously planned to keep the CG within safe limits. Another aspect of managing the CG is the internal transfer of fuel and other fluids. This helps adjust the aircraft’s balance in response to the changing wing positions. The F-14’s flight control systems play a significant role here. They automatically adjust the wings based on various flight parameters, maintaining stability across the flight envelope. These systems are backed by computers that calculate the best wing positions in real-time. The wings can slide along rails within the fuselage, allowing for precise CG adjustments. For instance, the Bell X-5 had to move its wings forward significantly when the wings were swept to extreme angles. In essence, the combination of mechanical engineering, aerodynamics, and computer technology ensures that swing-wing aircraft like the F-14 can perform diverse missions. From slow-speed agility to high-speed pursuits, these aircraft manage to maintain control without sacrificing performance. It’s an impressive feat of engineering that allows these planes to adapt their flight characteristics on the fly, much like a bird adjusting its feathers for different flight modes. The result is a versatile and capable aircraft, ready to tackle a variety of aerial challenges. Curt Lewis