December 18, 2024 - No. 51 In This Issue : The U.S. Air Force’s B-21 Raider Stealth Bomber Dilemma : The SpaceX Raptor Engine: A Case Study in Innovation Over Local Maxima : The “Great Engine War:” GE F110 Engine Celebrates 40 Years of Continuous Production : Rejected By The Industry, Boom Supersonic Raises $100M To Prove Critics Wrong—But At A Cost : Boeing Plans $1 Billion Expansion of South Carolina 787 Facility : Inside T-7 Red Hawk Test Operations At Edwards AFB : Boeing is building new 737 Max planes for the first time since workers went on strike : Russia's Aeroflot starts buying up old aircraft to disassemble them for spare parts : New B-52 engine cover protects Minot’s BUFF fleet from ice buildup The U.S. Air Force’s B-21 Raider Stealth Bomber Dilemma By Brandon Weichert B-21 Raider Stealth Bomber. Image Credit: Industry Handout. Key Points: The B-21 Raider, America’s next-generation stealth bomber, is poised to revolutionize military deterrence with cutting-edge features like sixth-generation stealth, hypersonic missile compatibility, and open architecture for adaptability. -Developed to succeed the B-2 Spirit, the Raider promises global reach and integration with future technologies like autonomous refueling and drone swarms. -However, its projected $730 million unit cost and America’s budgetary constraints cast doubt on its potential scale of deployment. -While the Pentagon plans to build 100 units, experts argue 300 are needed to fully restore U.S. deterrence. -Without prioritizing the B-21 over competing programs like NGAD, its full potential may remain unrealized. B-21 Raider is the Best Bomber in the World. Here’s Why It’ll Never Take Off Just when it looked like the United States military was losing its edge in stealth capabilities, the Eggheads at Skunkworks unveiled the prototype of the B-21 Raider. This white-and-gray, next-generation stealth long-range nuclear-capable bomber is a real game-changer. Indeed, it is not just a sleek new airplane for the Air Force. It is a strategic asset designed to deter future aggression, ensuring America’s ability to project power globally. This bird, if the US can mass-produce the B-21 in a timely enough manner, will keep the United States military relevant for decades to come. The B-21 Raider is billed as the successor to the B-2 Spirit long-range stealth nuclear bomber, which itself was a revolutionary leap in technological capabilities from its predecessors. Developed by Northrup Grumman, the B-21’s development was announced in 2015 under the Long-Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B) program. Shrouded in secrecy, the program slowly developed unnoticed until it was sprung on the world in December 2022. Bursting forth onto the international stage, in a carefully choreographed announcement out of Edwards Air Force Base in California, the B-21 had some of the familiar that previous stealth planes had, but it was decked out in new technologies that will ensure this bird will be competitive for the next 50 years. B-21 Raider Image Credit: U.S. Air Force. Understanding the B-21 Raider America’s new B-21 stealth bomber is designed with sixth-generation stealth technology, which is believed to be far superior to previous generations. The aircraft’s shape, materials, and propulsion systems are all engineered to minimize radar, infrared, acoustic, and visual signatures. This makes the B-21 nearly invisible to modern radar systems, thereby ensuring that it can easily penetrate heavily defended airspace. What’s more, the B-21 is believed to be capable of deploying the Air Force’s new, though still experimental, hypersonic cruise missile from over-the-horizon. This will be a key matter for the Americans, who are struggling to compensate for the growing complexity of enemy air defense systems, such as China’s anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) systems. Each Raider is designed with what’s known as open architecture, meaning that each plane in the B-21 line can be easily upgraded and adapted to future threats or missions as those threats and needs evolve over the decades in which it is intended to serve. Of course, the details of the B-21 are closely held national secret. Nevertheless, if the B-21 is truly a successor to the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber, one can make certain assumptions about the Raider’s capabilities. For example, the Raider is expected to have global reach, capable of operating from the United States and striking targets worldwide without refueling. There is some speculation that the B-21 will be augmented by potential integration with autonomous refueling technologies, ensuring prolonged presence or rapid strike capabilities. Throughout my studies of the B-21 program, having spoken with certain colleagues on background at Edwards Air Force Base (this author has an almost yearly speaking engagement on base with elements from Plant 42), there is throughline from the B-21 to the much-ballyhooed Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program. This is particularly true when we speak about the possible fusion of the B-21 with autonomous capabilities and the fact that the Raider’s stealth is purportedly beyond the stealth features of the vaunted fifth-generation warplanes that populate the American arsenal (the F-22A Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II). B-21. Image Credit: Northrop Grumman NGAD or B-21 Raider? Choose Wisely Much controversy has been had over whether the Air Force can afford to build the NGAD (it cannot). But why would it want to if it can simply merge many of the unique features of the proposed-but-costly NGAD with the much more practical and useful B-21? Currently, there are three airworthy B-21s with the Pentagon having approved of a low-rate production of 100. The Air Force really needs 300 of these planes for the program to make the kind of impact on restoring America’s ailing deterrence that is needed. It is unlikely, however, that the Air Force will never get 300 of these units. Come to think of it, considering the budgetary woes and US spending debt at hand (because of America’s profligate spending policies for decades), it is highly unlikely that the Air Force will even get to 100 of these units. Especially when taking into account the fact that each unit of the B-21 Raider is projected to cost around $730 million. That would make the B-21 likely the most expensive line item in the Air Force’s already large budget, making the government bean counters and watchdog groups understandably nervous. But if the Air Force abandoned its quest for the NGAD program and maybe started cutting back on some of its other expensive programs and focused its efforts on developing the B-21, ensuring that it is a hypersonic cruise missile carrier and capable of deploying drone swarms (the so-called “Loyal Wingman” concept from the NGAD program), the cost might become more palatable to skeptical lawmakers. One thing is clear, though, the B-21 is the most impressive bomber in the world. It just might never achieve its full potential because of the high cost and time required to build the program out. The SpaceX Raptor Engine: A Case Study in Innovation Over Local Maxima Benjamin Cupelli Note: See photo in the original article. In the world of aerospace engineering, SpaceX's Raptor engine stands as a testament to what Elon Musk meant when he said, “Prototypes are easy, production is hard and achieving positive cash flow is excruciating.” This journey from prototype to production isn't just about scaling up; it's about navigating through a landscape of local maxima—those points where improvement seems impossible because you're at the peak of your current capabilities, but not at the true optimum. Imagine you're climbing a hill, thinking you've reached the summit, only to realize there's a higher peak nearby. This is what engineers and innovators face when they settle for what's incrementally better rather than what's truly groundbreaking. SpaceX, in developing the Raptor engine, faced this dilemma head-on. Prototype Phase: Initial designs of the Raptor were about proving the concept. Methane as fuel, full reusability, and high thrust-to-weight ratio were ambitious but on paper. Here, SpaceX could tweak designs with relative ease, exploring multiple paths without the burden of mass production. Production Challenges: Moving from prototype to production, SpaceX encountered what Musk describes as the "hard" part. Scaling up meant every minor flaw in design or material choice could cascade into significant issues. The mantra became not just about making it work but making it work reliably, cost-effectively, and repeatedly. Cash Flow and Innovation: The "excruciating" part Musk refers to isn't just financial; it's about maintaining innovation momentum while the cash flow dictates survival. Here, SpaceX had to innovate not just in engine design but in manufacturing processes, supply chain logistics, and even in how they approached failure. Each failure was a lesson, not a setback, pushing them towards true innovation rather than settling for local maxima. Creativity Over Comfort: True innovation requires stepping out of the comfort zone of known solutions. SpaceX's shift to methane, a less conventional rocket fuel, was a creative leap, not just a logical step. Disruption as a Strategy: By aiming for full reusability, SpaceX didn't just improve rockets; they disrupted the entire industry's economics. This wasn't about incremental gains but about redefining what's possible. Embracing Failure: Each Raptor engine iteration that didn't meet expectations was an opportunity for learning. This culture of embracing failure as part of the innovation process is crucial. The journey of the Raptor engine from concept to the heart of Starship isn't just about engineering prowess; it's a narrative of how true innovation sidesteps local maxima. It's about seeing beyond the immediate peak to the higher summits of possibility. For those in any field looking to innovate, remember: the path to true breakthroughs often requires leaving behind what's known for what's not yet imagined. The “Great Engine War:” F110 Engine Celebrates 40 Years of Continuous Production Before what became known as the “Great Engine War” launched General Electric (GE) Aerospace F110 engine, just one manufacturer was supplying engines for the U.S. military’s F-14, F-15, and new F-16 fighter jets — and it wasn’t GE Aerospace. This war saw GE challenge Pratt & Whitney’s dominance in supplying engines. In 1984 the US Department of Defense awarded GE Aerospace a contract to power future fighter jets with its new F110 low-bypass afterburning turbofan. “The Great Engine War showed that competition is the clear way to go to optimize outcomes for the warfighter and U.S. taxpayers. The result of the competition was better engine performance at lower cost, with improved engine safety, maintainability, and durability,” says Sean Keith, executive product director for the F110, F101, and F118 engine programs at GE Aerospace in the article Rebirth of a Classic: The F110 Engine Celebrates 40 Years of Continuous Production — and a Renaissance by Dianna Delling appeared on GEAerospace.com. To power the US Air Force (USAF) then new F-15 and F-16 fleets, the service chosen the Pratt & Whitney’s F100 engines, conceived to achieve an unprecedented thrust-to-weight ratio. Nevertheless, operational restrictions were prompted because of the “stall-stagnation” (a disruption in airflow causing engine flameout) problem. This issues drove up maintenance costs. The “Great Engine War” According to Alert 5, in the meantime, drawing on its experience developing the F101 engine for the Rockwell B-1 bomber, GE, began developing a demonstrator engine for fighter aircraft, the F101X. The company wanted to use the F101X as the foundation for a future F-14 engine, but it was the USAF that became impressed with the F101X’s potential. The service saw in the F101X a chance to address the F100’s shortcomings and introduce competition into a market dominated by Pratt & Whitney. An F-16 Fighting Falcon F110 engine running at max afterburner power at a test cell facility at Shaw Air Force Base (AFB), SC. As Robert W. Drewes explained in his book The Air Force and The Great Engine War, on Mar. 5, 1979 the USAF contracted with GE for initial development of an F 101 derivative for fighter application. GE’s task was to put the engine in the F-16 and fly it successfully before 30 months had elapsed. At a lower level of effort. Pratt was funded to demonstrate, only through ground tests, a higher thrust F 100. The split of funds between GE and Pratt was about 90-10. The “Great Engine War” also fueled development of one of the most enduring engines in military history, the F110. On Feb. 3, 1984 the Air Force announced a split award. Only the fiscal year 1985 quantity of 160 engines was awarded, and of that, 120 (75 percent) were contracted with GE for F-16s and the remaining 40 (25 percent) with Pratt for F-15s. USAF Secretary George Vernon Orr, the Source Selection Authority, had decided to wait and observe contractor performance and field experience for a year. Thanks to the pricing matrix completed in the contractors’ proposals, he continued to have flexibility each year in selecting his preferred approach. After the “Great Engine War” Today, with more than 11 million flight hours under its wing and the most thrust in its class, the F110 now powers F-15s and F-16s for the US military, along with jets in 16 allied nations, and has been selected to power some of the newest advanced combat aircraft in the world. As the F110 celebrates 40 years of continuous production and improvement, the iconic engine isn’t just maintaining position; it’s enjoying a major resurgence. As Keith points out “A full 92% of the parts have undergone some type of design change — whether it’s a new material, a new coating, or an improved manufacturing or inspection process.” Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) upgrades have been provided to F110-129 and F110-132 engine variants. With proven key technology insertions from GE’s commercial engine programs, SLEP upgrades critical components, including the combustor, high pressure turbine, compressor and augmentor. These enhancements combine to extend the service life of the engine, reduce operating cost, increase reliability and improve safety. The program is designed to provide a significant time-on-wing increase, 25% improvement in cost per flight hour, and a 50% extension in engine phase inspections. Today’s F-110 Moreover, A modified version of the F110 is currently being tested at GE Aerospace’s Evendale facility. The engine is undergoing a 6,000-cycle accelerated mission test to validate additional capability and durability improvements, and results are expected in 2025. Renowned for its superior single-engine safety record, F110 engines currently power approximately 70% of latest-generation Lockheed Martin F-16C/D aircraft and have been selected for use on the Boeing F-15K, F-15SG, F-15S, F-15SA, F-15QA and F-15EX. Rejected By The Industry, Boom Supersonic Raises $100M To Prove Critics Wrong—But At A Cost by Gary Leff on December 16, 2024 No one will invest in building an engine for Boom Supersonic. So they’re going to fund the development themselves. They’ve raised money in a ‘down round’ to pay for this. Two years ago they’d supposedly come to an agreement with three companies to provide an engine. He goes on to explain, Goal is to make thrust on the first prototype core in about a year….Core is the high pressure spool, everything from high pressure compressor through the high turbine. We’re developing the high spool first then adding the low spool. And then he says “To my knowledge it’s never been done this way before. So we’ll see how it goes…” which is not encouraging! They couldn’t get any of the big engine manufacturers to bite, because no one thinks this project will succeed commercially. If everyone is wrong, and if the smaller players turn out to have the expertise, this would be a huge win all-around. But probabilities are stacked against success. United Airlines placed an order for Boom Supersonic’s promised jets. Then American Airlines followed suit. Japan Airlines is an investor in the company. And yet most people in aviation think that the plane will never be built. • It has a very limited market, relatively short flying range (for an initial plane, at least) and needs to fly overwater due to noise – likely still true even with regulatory changes • Given the limited market, no major engine manufacturer has seemed willing to step up to make an engine for the plane. Rolls Royce was supposed to build an engine. They dropped out. GE, Honeywell, and Safran all passed. Pratt & Whitney did too. An engine manufacturer has to believe that the engine is going to sell well, in order to recoup develop costs and turn a profit. In fact it has to sell better than other things they might deploy development resources against. The engineering Boom wants to accomplish should be possible. Supersonic jets aren’t a new idea, Concorde accomplished it 50 years ago. They’re just trying to engineer something that’s more fuel efficient – both for operating economics (so airlines can make money) and for environment concerns (airlines have made environmental commitments). They’re also trying to make something quieter. • No U.S. airline ever purchased a Concorde, though orders were placed by Pan Am, Continental, TWA, American Airlines, Eastern, United and Braniff. • There were also orde • rs from Qantas, Air India, Sabena, Air Canada, Lufthansa, and even Middle East Airlines and others which never came to fruition. • Only British Airways and Air France took actual deliveries of new aircraft. • The only other committed order came from Iran Air, and that was cancelled after the Iranian revolution. • Oddly Braniff did briefly own Concordes for a few hours at a time. They operated service between Dallas and Washington Dulles in conjunction with Air France and British Airways, but to do so they were required to take ownership of the plane for the flight segment in order to operate under their own certificate of airworthiness. As well as changing flight crews the US approved documentation and procedures had to be present on the flight deck, which meant that the UK/French documentation had to be stored in the forward toilet. There also had to be a change in the aircraft registration, while being flow on the Dallas – Washington – Dallas routes the “G” or “F” was covered up with white tape. On landing at Washington the ground staff would pull work ladders up to the tail and peel of the F- or G- registration numbers and changed them to an “N” with two letters and the numbers “94″ after that. This was repeated every time the Concordes landed in the US from Europe. Credit: Boom Aerospace As long as supersonic travel is more expensive than subsonic, the market will be limited. And the number of city pairs that can work with this plane is limited, too. Limited markets make it tough to recoup development and acquisition costs. Airlines have a hard time making money operating only a couple of planes of a type. The plane needs to be capable of flying long distances, fuel efficiently, and carry large numbers of passengers in order to be economical on a large scale. Otherwise the market has to be able to support fares significantly higher than for subsonic transport. The ultimate question is: how much is shaving 3.5 hours off of an East Coast transatlantic flight worth, and to how many people? When American announced their order they said they made a non-refundable deposit but didn’t specify what that means. It could have been $1. They didn’t even produce a graphical rendering of the plane in American Airlines livery. And American didn’t spend the day promoting this on social. For some reason they made the move (claiming to have ordered more planes than United, even) but didn’t go all-out even with the P.R. Their pilots’ union even came out against the move, and they represent the people who theoretically would get to fly the thing! It’s possible to build a supersonic plane, but inefficiencies and regulation killed the Concorde. Boom can presumably develop a plane, and a top engine manufacturer can produce an engine for it. But will it sell to airlines who see themselves able to operate enough of the planes, to enough places, with enough frequency – given a market that will pay a premium for the option – in order to buy enough planes and engines where the whole thing works out as a business? Engines can run billions of dollars to design and tens of millions of dollars apiece to purchase. It’s a huge bet for a manufacturer which would need to sell large numbers of engines just to break even. If a manufacturer can’t sell several hundred engines they won’t recoup their development cost, after recouping production costs, let alone turn the project profitable. Boom has raised about $350 million in the past decade, and will now pay for engine development (which will ultimately cost more than $100 million). They can’t convince manufacturers to fund this, but they’ve convinced Silicon Valley investors to do it – albeit at a lower valuation than they’ve raised money in the recent past. Boeing Plans $1 Billion Expansion of South Carolina 787 Facility • By Len Varley • December 16, 2024 Boeing will make a $1 billion expansion of its South Carolina facility, which houses the 787 widebody production line. Photo Credit: Boeing Boeing (NYSE:BA) has unveiled an ambitious expansion plan for its Charleston County operations, signaling a robust commitment to the region’s aerospace industry. The South Carolina facility houses the 787 Dreamliner production line. The company will invest $1 billion in infrastructure upgrades and create 500 new jobs over the next five years, marking a significant milestone in its South Carolina journey. A Legacy of Innovation in the Palmetto State Since establishing operations in South Carolina in 2009, Boeing has transformed the state’s economic landscape. The Boeing South Carolina (BSC) facility has become the global center for the 787 Dreamliner, supporting the full production cycle of this widebody aircraft. From fabrication to final assembly and delivery, the facility has been instrumental in manufacturing the 787-8, 787-9, and 787-10 models that serve airlines around the world. Currently, Boeing employs more than 7,800 people across three primary campuses. The Airport and North Campuses in North Charleston serve as the primary manufacturing hubs. Meanwhile, the recently acquired West Campus in Orangeburg provides additional strategic capabilities. The Orangeburg facility, located at 174 Millennium Drive, will remain unaffected by the current expansion plans. This signals Boeing’s strategic approach to regional development. Strategic Expansion and Production Targets The expansion will focus on the North Charleston campuses at 5400 International Blvd. and 9775 Patriot Blvd. Boeing’s strategic vision includes increasing 787 Dreamliner production to 10 airplanes per month by 2026. This is a significant ramp-up that reflects growing market demand and confidence in the aircraft’s performance. The new operational capabilities are expected to be fully online by early 2027. Leadership Comments Scott Stocker, Vice President and General Manager of the 787 Program and BSC Site Leader, offered comment. He emphasized the significance of this expansion. “Since creating Boeing South Carolina in 2009, we’ve achieved remarkable milestones. This includes consolidating 787 Dreamliner production in this state,” Stocker said. “This growth reflects our commitment to our incredible teammates, our customers, and the communities we serve.” Government and Economic Development Support State leaders have warmly welcomed Boeing’s continued investment. Governor Henry McMaster highlighted the expansion’s importance, stating, “This investment further solidifies South Carolina’s position as a leader in the aerospace industry. The 500 new jobs demonstrate Boeing’s confidence in our workforce and our pro-business environment.” Secretary of Commerce Harry M. Lightsey III celebrated the investment as a testament to the state’s economic potential, while Charleston County Council Chairman Herbert Ravenel Sass III praised Boeing as a cornerstone of regional economic growth. Economic and Community Impact The $1 billion investment goes beyond job creation. It represents a long-term commitment to the region’s technological and economic development. By expanding its footprint, Boeing continues to attract top engineering and manufacturing talent to South Carolina, fostering a robust ecosystem of innovation and advanced manufacturing. Inside T-7 Red Hawk Test Operations At Edwards AFB T-7 Red Hawk Integrated Test Force director details testing progress that will enable a desperately needed production green light. Jamie Hunter Posted on Dec 11, 2024 Note: See photos in the original article. The U.S. Air Force’s new advanced jet trainer aircraft, the Boeing T-7A Red Hawk, is deeply engaged in an accelerating and expanding flight test program at Edwards Air Force Base in California. The USAF’s need for the Red Hawk is acute, with aged T-38 Talons bearing a heavy pilot training burden as Air Education And Training Command (AETC) struggles to meet pilot output targets. The T-7 is designed to improve aircraft availability and it incorporates technology meant to accelerate training. “The T-7A is a generational change over the T-38 that’s going to open up a lot of options for AETC,” says Lt. Col. Jonathan “Gremlin” Aronoff, T-7A Integrated Test Force director. A team of Air Force and Boeing pilots and engineers are working with the new trainer to generate sufficient data and confidence to endorse that the aircraft is ready for students and instructors to fly, and that the Red Hawk meets contractual requirements that would green-light Boeing to commence low-rate initial production. One of the T-7A Production Relevant Jets, known as BTX-1, lands at Edwards AFB after a test flight. Jamie Hunter Delays in the T-7 program have compounded USAF pilot training struggles, as detailed in May 2023 by Andrew Hunter, assistant secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. “Due to issues discovered in the early development and test phase of the program, the Air Force is delaying its Milestone C decision to initiate the buy of T-7A production aircraft. This will shift the T-7A program’s initial operational capability [IOC] into the Spring of 2027. We are pursuing risk reduction activities to mitigate some of these schedule challenges,” Hunter said in 2023. However, significant progress is being made, with Red Hawks now flying with the Integrated Test Force at Edwards AFB, which is breeding confidence that the program is making good progress. “Everyone here is eager for the test work so we can get the airplane to AETC as fast as possible. They need the T-7A and we want to give it to them as quickly and as safely as we can,” adds Aronoff. “We definitely don’t have any excessive pressure on us, it’s very much about working methodically to get the Air Force something it needs, and everyone’s being incredibly respectful of how we do that.” T-7A Red Hawk origin The Boeing T-7A advanced jet trainer was selected in 2018 to replace the USAF’s geriatric T-38C Talons, but the Red Hawk is already three years behind its original schedule, and is now planned to enter service in 2027. The original timeline called for Boeing to start delivering the first T-7As to the USAF at Joint Base San Antonio-Randolph, Texas, from 2023 to commence initial instructor pilot training, ahead of IOC in 2024, which is defined as being a “fully fitted-out squadron of aircraft and training devices.” Boeing was awarded a $9.2-billion contract by the USAF in September 2018 to supply 351 T-7As and 46 associated ground-based training simulators when it won the T-X trainer competition. Initial flight-test work was conducted out of Boeing’s St. Louis, Missouri, facility using a pair of “Production Relevant Jets,” or PRJs, that Boeing built for the T-X competition phase. Following the contract award, Boeing started T-7A production at St. Louis with a static test article (STA) and the first of five engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) aircraft. Boeing said in early 2021 that the STA would be complete in “a couple of months” and that it featured a “significant amount of instrumentation” that would allow it to be compared against the digital modeling and prove out the service life goal of 8,000 flight hours for each T-7A. Flight-testing at St. Louis with the two PRJs continued and revealed some widely reported handling issues, such as wing-rock at high angles of attack. Further delays have been incurred by the need to clear a wide tolerance envelope for the aircraft’s escape system, which is based around the Collins Aerospace ACES 5 ejection seat. Specifically, this relates to safe ejection for different aircrew body weights, particularly regarding lighter-weight pilots. While the T-7A was digitally designed and manufactured from digital models using a methodology called full-size determinant assembly [FSDA], this hasn’t removed the need for rigorous flight testing and certification to verify that the modeling and simulations are accurate. The all-digital approach hasn’t removed all development risk, and test work has required additional time to be allocated for re-visiting problematic items. Although the low-rate initial production decision date has been delayed beyond February 2025, a decision is still anticipated by February 2026. Edwards testing The first of five EMD T-7As arrived at Edwards on Nov. 8, 2023. It was followed by a second EMD jet and one of Boeing’s two PRJs – taking the test fleet at Edwards to three aircraft by the time of TWZ’s visit in October 2024. “Testing will continue until we feel we can give the end user a product that they can use,” said Aronoff. “When the program office and AETC decide to declare Milestone C, that’s when they’ll start building low-rate initial production airplanes.” “We work for Air Force Materiel Command and the Air Force Test Center. Specifically, the T-7 Integrated Test Force comes under the Air Power Foundation’s Combined Test Force. We have three ITFs under this – the T-7 ITF, the F-16/T-38 ITF, and the Emerging Technologies ITF.” The first T-7A Red Hawk assigned to testing at Edwards AFB was the second engineering and manufacturing development aircraft. USAF/Todd Schannuth Todd Schannuth “Everything we are doing in T-7 flight test is based on proving the contract, proving out all the things that the aircraft is supposed to do, and that starts with safety of flight and building up the flight envelope – how fast, how far, how high. It’s about verifying that the airplane is doing the things it’s supposed to do per the letter of the contract.” The flying at Edwards typically sees T-7As being crewed with one Boeing and one Air Force pilot, with all maintenance being conducted under contract by the manufacturer. “We’re very much hand-in-hand and integrated together,” explains Aronoff. “We are the lead developmental test organization [LDTO] and Boeing is our partner, and we stay in lockstep with them. We make sure that when we’re going to test something that they agree it’s something we should be testing, that the conditions are appropriate and that we’re testing it in the correct way. It’s about making sure we are going after the right data in the right way to satisfy the contractual obligations to develop the airplane.” “Currently, we are engaged in flight envelope expansion. We have one of the PRJ T-7s fitted with a spin-recovery parachute and we’re using it to open up the high angle-of-attack envelope and fly the departure resistance type of flight testing,” Aronoff explained. “We also have two EMD jets currently, one is instrumented for loads, noise, and vibration testing – opening up the structural envelope and understanding how the structure handles different maneuvers over time. This is about monitoring fatigue. We want to make sure that the engineering models for the T-7 are correct. We do that by measuring discrete test points – altitude, airspeed, and g-force combinations to verify that the model predictions are accurate.” “The second EMD airplane at Edwards is our flutter test airplane. Think of the interaction between the structure of the airplane and the air around it. Think vibrations and the harmonics of the flight controls, and that’s needed to open up the air speed envelope. We go to different altitudes and run flutter programs in the flight control system, which automatically shakes the airplane at different frequencies and amplitudes to try to excite a response. We can target specific amplitudes and frequencies that we are interested in and we can be very precise in how we gather data.” The second engineering and manufacturing development T-7A flies over Edwards AFB. USAF Bryce Bennett Aronoff says the T-7 work is the most precise flying he’s ever done. “You have a control room of about 30 people watching your every move, and sometimes they tell you that what you flew wasn’t good enough. You are trying something multiple times and they tell you that they need a cleaner set of data, but they can’t feel the turbulence, can’t feel the heat of the mission, and they ask you to go do it again. That’s my job, to gather data for the engineers to verify the airplane is doing what it’s supposed to do.” “Right now, we’re still very much building that safe envelope to operate in and flying with kid gloves. I need to be very precise in how I fly the aircraft. We’re talking plus or minus a couple of knots, plus or minus 50 feet, executing a certain amount of g, plus or minus 0.2g normally. Very tight tolerances, because we need as clean of a data set as possible. We’re streaming that data in real-time to the control room so they can look at the squiggles and make sure it’s the right amplitude, the right frequency, and do real-time analysis. If it’s a good data point, we can move on to the next event.” “With our high angle-of-attack campaign, when we do a maneuver, and see if the aircraft responds the way we thought it was going to respond? As long as it’s matching our model, we keep marching along. It’s when there’s a slight deviation from the model we have to look at why it deviated to check that it’s within acceptable bounds. Our loads tests are conducted in the same way. When I pull 6g, is the g-distribution around the airplane matching the model? In flight testing we predict, test, validate. We predict results, we then go out and test, and then we validate the model that we use to predict.” The third EMD T-7 completed a month-long trial of extreme weather inside the McKinley Climatic Laboratory in Florida earlier this year and it’s now back in St. Louis for technical order validation and verification. “They’re verifying that the manuals for maintenance are written properly and accurately. EMD four is being used right now to do some ground testing for a new flight control law that’s coming out, and the fifth jet is still in production,” says Aronoff. A T-7A Red Hawk seen frozen in the McKinley Climatic Laboratory chamber at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, in early 2024. USAF/Samuel King Jr. Samuel King Jr. “I really want to stress the partnership. We are together on this every step of the way, and drawing on Boeing’s experience and expertise that they have already built with the T-7. While the two PRJ aircraft did do a lot of really great stuff for the program, ultimately, there are changes between the PRJs and EMD jets, so we have to be very deliberate in our engineering mindset on how we develop the airplane.” Boeing implemented a number of modifications to the EMD T-7s to address lessons learned from the PRJs, and Aronoff is keen to stress that the current test effort at Edwards has earned a lot of credit for the work that Boeing did with the PRJs early on. “The outer mold line of the airplane is essentially the same, but things like the onboard computers have changed, the software we’re running is a little bit different and there are small changes throughout the airplane that are different enough that we need to verify them.” “Manufacturing design is a very difficult time in flight testing, especially in developmental work because if you find anything wrong, you’re generally going to have to stop, investigate, then come up with a fix before you continue,” Aronoff explained. “So by nature of where we are in testing, we expect a slower schedule than anyone would really want.” “No program has ever gone through testing on its original software. We’re going to find things that need attention, and that’s our job. If I’m not finding things, I’m not looking hard enough. In general, there’s always things in the operational flight program software that we can do better. The contract and the requirements are spelled out for us, and so we continue to iterate on things until it meets the contract requirement – that’s the measure of performance.” “Our duty is to get the airplane fielded as quickly as it makes sense to, so that it’s safe. If you think, for example, of the worst instructor pilot and the worst student pilot combination ever, we have to make it safe enough for them. Yet we also have to make the airplane able to challenge the next Chuck Yeager, so it’s really finely tuned to suit the best of the best as well as those that need a little more help.” The changing world of military pilot training Military pilot training is evolving. Fighter aircraft have become easier to fly in some respects, but they feature increasingly complex mission systems and information flow. Holding airspeed, altitude, and heading is still important for young aviators, but the emphasis in training has evolved to include employing the weapon system effectively to help streamline the path to advanced front-line fighters. “The T-7 is a very high-performance airplane. It’s very powerful with a lot of thrust, and it will be a great challenge for student pilots. I wouldn’t say that stick and rudder skills aren’t important – they’re extremely important – but they aren’t the most important thing that we need to emphasize in modern pilot training. One of the big elements that separates the T-7A from the T-38 is the ability to download mission system tasks into the cockpit,” Aronoff explains. “Theoretically on day one of pilot training, a student could be logging onto a data link, could be setting up different screens and fighting that information overload. Ultimately, the end user [Air Education and Training Command] will tailor a syllabus to build the product, in this case the student pilot that they need. We are providing a tool that enables that.” BTX-1 and the first engineering and manufacturing development T-7A fly together over Edwards AFB. USAF Christian Turner The T-7A cockpit features a side-stick control column and a customizable large area display, or LAD. “You can have up to four different portals up, including mini portals, and you can have a different format for each portal,” Aronoff explains. “It’s extremely customizable, which is going to challenge the students in terms of managing all of the information. They will need to decide what’s important, and what isn’t. What size screen do they want, how will they use the HOTAS [hands-on throttle-and-stick] controls, or are they going to use their fingers, because it’s a touchscreen display. How do they find the information they’re looking for, and what information do they want displayed at any one time?” “The student can fly, for example, with a moving map on the right screen, a weapons display in the middle screen, and maybe a simulated targeting pod on the left screen. Will the display look like a Raptor display, an F-35, an F-16? No, but all the relevant data is there. That’s not to say the jet isn’t capable of doing that in the future. It just wasn’t a requirement for the T-7A to mirror any specific aircraft’s displays.” The T-7 ITF is primarily evaluating the T-7A from an Undergraduate Pilot Training, or UPT, perspective. The first step in jet training. However, it also has a keen eye on the future application of the T-7 in the follow-on introduction-to-fighter fundamentals, or IFF, which is being taken into consideration. “Every time we fly the airplane, even now, we’re looking at how an instructor would employ it. Every time I’m in the back seat of the T-7A I’m thinking like a UPT instructor. We have a diverse team here with T-38, F-15, F-16, and F-35 guys, and as we test the T-7A we evaluate it for future profiles that we will tackle later on in the program, such as an introduction-to-fighter fundamentals profile, where a student and instructor will go and fly a BFM [basic fighter maneuvres] sortie, for example.” The T-7A is not equipped with a radar or targeting pod, and sensor data is synthetically generated in the avionics for training purposes, and can be shared via data link. The aircraft cannot carry any training weapons such as practice bombs and weapons employment in training will all be simulated. In fact, the only external store the T-7A is mandated to carry is a travel cargo pod. AETC is concurrently working closely with Boeing on development of the T-7A simulator, which will be an important part of the overall syllabus. Aronoff says that right now for every hour of live flying the team undertakes, it spends two or three hours in the simulator honing the different mission profiles. “For all of the data-gathering maneuvers we need to fly on a sortie, we rehearse them in the simulator. At Edwards we currently just have the one simulator and we also make a lot of use of the Boeing simulator that they have in St. Louis.” USAF and Boeing test pilots are jointly undertaking test flights at Edwards AFB. Jamie Hunter “One of the big things I always get asked about as a T-38 instructor is landing from the back seat of the T-7A. In the T-38 this is somewhat of a traumatic experience, with very limited forward visibility. I’m pleased to say that the T-7 tandem cockpit has much better forward visibility thanks to that stadium seating.” Breaking new ground Unlike the 1950s and 60s, when new military aircraft types were emerging with regularity, the T-7A program is one of the rare times in modern military aviation where a brand new aircraft type is being flight-tested. “Almost every time we fly the T-7 here at Edwards we’re doing something that’s never been done in the airplane before. That’s exciting because I can say I’m the first person to go this fast or this high in the airplane. Some people look at me strangely when I tell them I’m really excited about putting this airplane out of control and doing departure suitability testing. We’re doing brand new developmental testing on a brand new airplane.” “I like to emphasize that it can be a straight pilot training aircraft, where you fly and learn how to do aerobatics, learn how to land a jet, things like that. You can also tailor it in a live virtual constructive [LVC] environment where you have three or four actual wingmen with you fighting your classmates who are down on the ground in the simulator. The instructor can ramp up or down the scenarios, whatever the student or the training desires.” “Fundamentally, the way we’re going to produce pilots will change. They can learn how to turn on the radar on their first flight in the T-7 if they want that. Students that are doing well and flourishing are going to be able to move forward a lot quicker with the T-7.” “Ultimately, it’s up to AETC to decide how they want to unlock all of these features, but with the T-7 we have all the right tools in place to dramatically advance military pilot training in the USAF.” Boeing is building new 737 Max planes for the first time since workers went on strike BY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Updated 4:36 PM CST, December 10, 2024 Boeing is resuming production of its bestselling plane, the 737 Max, for the first time since 33,000 workers began a seven-week strike that ended in early November. The company said Tuesday that plane-building resumed at its plant in Renton, Washington, after going through a process of training workers and identifying and fixing potential problems. Boeing shares rose 4.5%, their best single-day percentage gain in nearly four months. Production and deliveries of Max jets and another airline plane, the 787 Dreamliner, have been stopped several times in recent years to fix manufacturing flaws. “Our team has worked methodically to restart factory operations in the Pacific Northwest. We have now resumed 737 production in our Renton factory, with our Everett (Washington) programs on plan to follow in the days ahead,” the company said in a statement. Boeing builds its 777 and 767 jets in Everett, north of Seattle. Separately, the company said it took orders for 49 planes in November but lost an order by U.K. carrier TUI for 14 Max jets. It delivered 13 planes, down from 56 a year earlier. Ever since a panel called a door plug blew off a Max operated by Alaska Airlines in January, the Federal Aviation Administration has capped Boeing’s production of Max jets to 38 per month. Boeing hopes to convince regulators that it has corrected quality and safety issues and can raise that number to 56 planes per month. Boeing layoffs so far total nearly 2,200 workers in Washington state Boeing has been losing money since 2019, after two Max jets crashed, killing 346 people. It needs the cash it earns from delivering new planes to begin digging out of a deep financial hole. New CEO Kelly Ortberg has announced plans to lay off about 17,000 workers and sell new stock to raise cash and prevent the company’s credit rating from sliding into junk status. Russia's Aeroflot starts buying up old aircraft to disassemble them for spare parts Artur Kryzhnyi — Friday, 6 December 2024, 14:47 Stock photo: Getty Images Russia's largest air company, Aeroflot, is going to receive five Boeing 737 cargo jets from Volga-Dnepr Group, a Russian cargo airline, to use them for spare parts. Source: Kommersant, a Russian news outlet; The Moscow Times Details: Kommersant’s sources said that the aircraft were 21-22 years old and cost between RUB 1.4 billion (about US$13.6 million) and RUB 1.9 billion (US$18.5 million) each. The rights to use them belong to the Atran structure, which is part of the Volga-Dnepr Group. Aeroflot intends to agree on the assignment of the leasing rights and enter into an insurance settlement agreement with the aircraft's owner, Irish company AerCap. Nevertheless, Aeroflot wants to transfer the aircraft to its subsidiary, the low-cost airline Pobeda. However, Kommersant's sources said that converting cargo planes into passenger planes under sanctions would be too difficult and "unreasonably expensive". Therefore, Aeroflot intends to remove the engines, landing gear, avionics, and other components from the aircraft. New B-52 engine cover protects Minot’s BUFF fleet from ice buildup By Dario Leone Dec 2 2024 In this article: • New B-52 engine cover for Minot’s BUFF fleet • The need for a new B-52 engine cover • Cyber Innovation Center • The Pratt & Whitney TF33 • The Rolls-Royce F130 • New B-52 engine cover for Minot’s BUFF fleet Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC) pilots and maintainers have secured new engine covers that prevent icing in extreme cold thanks to support from STRIKEWERX and the AFGSC Office of the Chief Scientist (AFGSC/ST). Air Force Operational Energy Savings Account provided Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota, with $1.2 million for B-52 Stratofortress engine pod covers to prevent ice buildup. As told by Sean Green, STRIKEWERX, Air Force Global Strike Command Public Affairs, in the article New B-52 engine cover prototype testing protects Minot’s bomber fleet, this solution will assist in preventing damage to engines, delays in takeoff, and reduce time Airmen spend de-icing aircraft engines. “We found 10 engines were damaged across 2021-2023 due to ice debris, which resulted in $17 million in damages and 160-plus manhours lost,” said Master Sgt. Adam Vasas, AFGSC project champion. STRIKEWERX, the innovation arm of AFGSC/ST, purchased and facilitated testing of 12 Transhield Pod Covers. These rugged, weatherproof covers wrap around the engines to ensure all ducts, inlets, and exhausts are sealed. It can be quickly deployed and removed on the aircraft and provides a method to manually heat engines if necessary. Air Force Global Strike Command Office of the Chief Scientist supported tests of engine cover for a B-52 Stratofortress at Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota, Jul. 11, 2023. “Maintainers will now have the ability to operate more efficiently in arctic weather environments, while people and equipment previously dedicated to keeping the engines warm can be utilized elsewhere or saved in reserve,” Vasas added. The need for a new B-52 engine cover The funding will equip the entire fleet at Minot AFB. This new cover is anticipated to save approximately 7,500 manhours and offer a high return on investment. The need to protect engines from icing was originally explored via a Design Sprint hosted by STRIKEWERX, at the Cyber Innovation Center located in Bossier City, Louisiana, back in July 2022. In October 2022, a prototype modified from a previous design was built to allow for heating of the engine cowling on B-52 aircraft. However, after testing at Minot AFB, the results did not meet the maintainers’ success criteria. This led to Vasas and other subject matter experts researching potential solutions and selecting the Transhield Pod Cover for further testing. This print is available in multiple sizes from AircraftProfilePrints.com – CLICK HERE TO GET YOURS. B-52H Stratofortress 2nd BW, 20th BS, LA/60-0008 “Lucky Lady IV”. Cyber Innovation Center Cyber Innovation Center (CIC), located in Bossier City, Louisiana, is the anchor of the 3,000-acre National Cyber Research Park and serves as the catalyst for the development and expansion of a knowledge-based workforce throughout the region. As a 501c3 not-for-profit corporation, CIC fosters collaboration among its partners and accelerates technology, research, and development. One of its primary missions is to develop a sustainable knowledge-based workforce that can support the growing needs of government, industry, and academic partners. The Pratt & Whitney TF33 Eight Pratt & Whitney TF33 engines power the U.S. Air Force’s B-52 Stratofortress long-range, heavy bomber that is capable of flying at high subsonic speeds at altitudes up to 50,000 feet. It can carry nuclear or precision guided conventional ordnance with worldwide precision navigation capability. The B-52 can perform strategic attack, close-air support, air interdiction, offensive counter-air and maritime operations. The use of aerial refueling gives the B-52 a range limited only by crew endurance. It has an unrefueled combat range in excess of 8,800 miles. Currently powering the U.S. Air Force’s B-52 bombers and E-3 AWACS aircraft, Pratt & Whitney’s TF33 engines have flown more than 72 million flight hours over the last six decades. Air Force Global Strike Command Office of the Chief Scientist supported tests of engine cover for a B-52 Stratofortress at Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota, Jul. 11, 2023. The TF33 is the United States Air Force designation for the Pratt & Whitney JT3 commercial engine which boasts decades of proven performance in both military and civilian service. First flown 60 years ago, more than 1,000 engines are still in service today with the U.S. Air Force and other customers around the world. Since its first flight, the TF33 engine has accumulated more than 72 million flight hours, most while powering the B-52 bomber. The Rolls-Royce F130 Rolls-Royce F130 engines were selected in 2021 to replace existing TF33 engines as part of the B-52 modernization program, with over 600 engine deliveries expected. Rolls-Royce North America has been selected to provide the powerplant for the B-52 Stratofortress under the Commercial Engine Replacement Program (CERP), further extending a long history of powering the United States Air Force. The decision means the American-made Rolls-Royce F-130 engine will power the B-52 for the next 30 years. The F130 and its commercial family of engines have accumulated more than 27 million engine flight hours. The F130 is the perfect fit for the B-52 with proven reliability, superb life cycle cost, and low integration risk. A variant of the Rolls-Royce engine selected to power the iconic B-52 is already in service with the USAF around the world, powering both the C-37 and E-11 BACN aircraft. Curt Lewis