Aviation Week. Advertising for EADS.

Ever wonder why Lockheed Martin and Raytheon and others have to have their own shops setup to advertise the latest offerings at the Paris Air Show?

Its because Aviation Week's Blog ARES is an advertising channel for EADS!  From what I can tell they started "broadcasting" from the show on the 18th.

Since then they've had 7 blog posts.  6 of them favorable to EADS.  One that had nothing to do with EADS (it was about a British company). 

That's why the boss at Aviation Week had to step in.  Looks like he has tons more work to do before he gets a fair and balanced shop over there.


UPDATE:

Aviation Week's coverage of the Paris Air Show is becoming all EADS all the time.  This is the latest post.  And you wonder why US firms are cautious when talking to Aviation Week?  Its got a slant on a jihad and its obvious to anyone watching!

New Chinese Stealth Fighter.

This country would copy the fillings in my teeth if they were online.

They can't innovate, have no imagination and would be a backwater country if it weren't for greedy capitalist.

We created our own monster.  Time to pull the plug on this Frankenstein.

Italian aircraft carrier in Libyan mission

If I were British, I'd be jealous, embarrassed, ashamed, depressed and wondering what my leadership was thinking...

Its not too late UK.

A400M...wishful thinking abounds.

Ole Bill wrote this for Aviation Week this morning...

US interest in the A400M is likely to emerge mid-decade, according to EADS North America CEO Sean O'Keefe.  At the company's pre-Paris media seminar, O'Keefe noted that the USAF is likely to retire its oldest C-5A heavy transports before 2020.

"That leaves a hole in the big airbase, heavy-payload role," O'Keefe points out, and Boeing C-17s will be pulled into that mission - opening up the need for new tactical airlifters. "At that point, we'll have a hot production line", O'Keefe says, "and there isn't going to be any new US program."

However, Airbus Military is not going to do any intensive marketing until the A400M completes testing and gains its commercial type certificate, due next year.

Damn this guy is wishing on a star.

Boeing is slow walking C-17 production with an eye toward the same future that EADS sees with the A400M.

And the A400M will face the same issues it faces today.

Smaller payload than the C-17.

Shorter ranged than the C-17.

Slower than the C-17.

Worldwide acceptance and service.

Costs just a few mill less than the C-17.

And thats looking at it today.  Looking into the future I can see the C-17 getting stretched....Uprated engines...improved avionics...increased fuel efficiency measures...better aircraft defense countermeasures...a dedicated Special Operations version...

The list is endless and this clown from EADS thinks he's going to bust into the US market with an inbetween airplane that isn't as good as the industry leader and costs about the same?

Whatever he's smoking, I recommend he stop.  And I hope this type thinking is drug induced...if he's sober then they need a new CEO.

NOTE:

The weirdest thing about the whole A400 saga is the fact that when they first designed it and brought it to market, it was suppose to be a C-130 killer.

Lockheed Martin got nervous----started designing XL C-130's....the USAF was even starting to make noise about it because it was suppose to be the perfect plane to go along with the Stryker Brigades....

And then two things happened.

1.  The Stryker gained weight.  Alot of weight.  C-17 airlift type weight.
2.  The cost point of the A400 expanded to enormous proportions.

Now I can imagine Boeing executives are sitting back watching EADS spin like tea leaves and laughing there asses off.  The standard EADS model of building 'in betweener' aircraft bit EADS.  They deserve it.

Sea Shadow off to the junk heap.

I wonder what, if anything, they learned from this ship.  Read the details at FoxNews.

Pic of the day. June 18, 2011.

Forgot where I got this pic from but this Burke Ticonderoga is having a very bad day!

When some people state that the Falklands can't be defended, you might want to listen.

'Sharkey' Ward says that the Falklands are vulnerable.  

Commander Nigel 'Sharkey' Ward DSC AFC RN commanded RNAS 801 Naval Air Squadron from HMS Invincible during the Falklands War during April to June 1982, and was senior Sea Harrier adviser to the Command on the tactics, direction and progress of the air war. Commander Ward flew over sixty war missions, achieved three air-to-air kills and took part in or witnessed a total of ten kills; he was also the leading night pilot, and was decorated with the Distinguished Service Cross for gallantry. Cdr. Ward's main Sea Harrier mount during the Falkands War was XZ451, which was built on 18 June 1979 and was the first RN Sea Harrier delivered. Cdr. Ward also shot down an Argentine Air Force IAI Mirage V "Dagger" in Sea Harrier FRS.1, ZA175.

This from the Phoenix Think Tanks...

Stop Press: October 10^th, 2010.
·        The Argentine navy just harassed another trawler at the limit of Falklands territorial waters, without ‘our garrison’ putting in an appearance – the Typhoons were nowhere to be seen. Is this evidence that the Argentine Navy (and hence other Argentine vessels) can come and go as they choose without detection or interception? How capable is our current surveillance of the EEZ?  Are we relying on a fighter aircraft that has little or no surface surveillance capability?
·        It is understood that the Nimrod MPA cannot operate from the Mount Pleasant runway because of the latter’s “uneven surface”.  Our principal land-based maritime surveillance aircraft, postulated by the Royal Air Force as having a worldwide capability, appears therefore to be unsuitable for and incapable of satisfying the Falkland Islands EEZ airborne surveillance need. (Perhaps there is another explanation for this serious shortfall in land-based air power operational capability. If so, it should be explained.)
·        Subject to satisfactory answers to the above questions/problems, it would appear that yet again the public and the government are being kept “in the dark” by an air force that claims better operational capability than the Royal Navy’s Fleet Air Arm but ‘when push comes to shove’ is unable to match words with deeds.[2]
·        These questions need to be answered.
Planned Argentine Military Resources
The British Government should take serious note of the major military air procurement program now underway in Argentina.
·        An order for up to 128 F-15C and F-15E Strike Eagle fighters has been made from the USA with delivery due to begin in the 2017/18 timeframe . The F-15C Eagle’s passive IRST sensor system, used alone or in concert with existing F-15 sensors, provides unprecedented on-board situational awareness while detecting, identifying and engaging enemy targets at extended ranges. The IRST system’s high-angle accuracy also provides the ability to track closely-spaced targets at maximum ranges. This information can be used alone or combined with other sensor data to further enhance the pilot’s situational awareness.
·        A further order for Landing Craft Air Cushion Vehicles (LCACs) – hovercraft – has been made. They are seagoing vehicles with the capacity to deliver stores and ammunition to the islands from the mainland at high speed – and remain invulnerable to attack by SSN torpedoes.
·        The latest version of the Mirage F1 air to air fighter aircraft has also been ordered from France and there are amphibious warfare oriented Hind gunships in the pipeline from Russia. Hinds are combat-proven against light sea surface and land vehicles.
Such a major military air resources build-up can have only one aim in mind: retaking the Falklands. (The purchase of the LCACs in particular is a very good indicator of this.)

Read the rest and get depressed.

If a warrior is telling you that you're vulnerable, you might want to check your six.

UK, one of your warriors is trying to tell you just that.  It might be wise to listen.

Note:

Interesting that hostilities (limited though they may be) have occurred as recently as late last year.  A history check would lead one to note that limited activities as are described in the article led up to hostilities back in 82.

Blast from the past...the "Original" BlackHawk...S-67.

Back in the late 60's the US Army and Marines had to opportunity to have a work horse of a helicopter...the original Black Hawk, the S-67.  Stats from Wikipedia...

Specifications (S-67 Blackhawk)

Data from Illustrated Encyclopedia of Helicopters,^[3] Attack Helicopter Evaluation^[15]

General characteristics

• Crew: 2
• Capacity: Up to 8 troops^{[citation needed]}
• Payload: 8,000 lb (3,600 kg)
• Length: 74 ft 2 in (22.6 m)
• Rotor diameter: 62 ft (18.9 m)
• Height: 15 ft (4.57 m)
• Airfoil: NACA 0012 Mod
• Empty weight: 12,525 lb (5,681 kg)
• Max takeoff weight: 24,272 lb (11,010 kg)
• Powerplant: 2× T58-GE-5 turboshaft engine, 1,500 shp (1,100 kW) each
• Rotor system: 5 blades on main rotor, 5 blades on tail rotor
• Fuselage length: 64 ft 1 in (19.5 m)
• Fuselage height: 16 ft 3 in (4.95 m)
• Stub wing span: 27 ft 4 in (8.33 m)

Performance

• Never exceed speed: 230 mph (370 km/h) in dive with ducted fan
• Maximum speed: 193 mph (311 km/h)
• Range: 220 mi (354 km)
• Service ceiling: 20,000 ft (5,180 m)

My recent "Blasts from the past" have focused on helicopter projects because as usual, we're getting fawning press about the X-3, and criticism of the US helicopter industry which has in the past (and is presently) cutting edge in every way.

The problem is that the US government in general and the US military in particular are sticking to outdated technology and attempting to wring more performance out of physics limited designs.

Currently Piaseki has cutting edge technology ready to insert into our legacy airframes and it is left to rot.

We have had ducted fan concepts, pusher concepts, compound helicopter concepts and more, yet we're sticking to models that have little performance improvements since the 70's!

Nothing is wrong with innovation in the US...the X-3 is a joke when compared to even past attempts.  The joke is the Department of Defense that complains about industry and thinking that industry is going to jump when they've been burned before.

Blast from the past....D-2022 Ducted Assault Transport.

The Bell Aero Systems D-2022 Ducted Assault Transport is another 'blast from the past' that never even made it to mock up stage.

Its a shame.

USS Bataan is still blacked out.

UPDATE:

The USS Bataan is still blacked out according to its FaceBook Page.

This is highly unusual.  Whats more mystifying is that this simple problem has been ongoing since the 13th of this month.

Something is going on with the USS Bataan.  What exactly I don't know but remember this post?

UPDATE 1:

Phil asked a very important question.  He asked if the other ships in the Expeditionary Strike Group 2 were blacked out.

From what I gather from open sources is that the Group has split up.  I'm going to burning up this computer tonight to try and nail down exact locations.  One thing though.  Bataan is waaaay ahead of the curve when it comes to social networking.  LSD 41 has updated its website since Oct 2010 and the Mesa Verde is still trying to get its act together (or so it appears online).  More info to you when I get it.