Just as the F-22 line was being shut down, deliveries of the first production models of the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) began. Also classified as a Gen-5 aircraft, the F-35 is planned to replace multiple aircraft in three U.S. services – the F-35A conventional takeoff/landing variant for the Air Force, the F-35B STOVL (short takeoff/vertical landing) aircraft for the Marine Corps, and the F-35C carrier-capable version for the Navy.

The F-35 also is unique in advanced military aircraft history due to eight international partners who are providing funding, technology, and production assistance. And, unlike the F-22, the F-35 will be the first stealth aircraft offered for international sale – first to the program partners, then to select U.S. allies, including Israel and Japan.

An F-22 Raptor from the 525th Fighter Squadron takes off from Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska, Sept. 21, 2011. Even as the United States works to solve problems with its Gen-5 aircraft, efforts are underway to develop a Gen-6 fighter. U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Christopher Gross

While both Russia and China have claimed to be building Gen-5 fighters, no other nation has one in service, and the validity of the Russian and Chinese claims remains in question.

At the same time, the two U.S. aircraft have had major problems.

The entire F-22 fleet was grounded for nearly five months in 2011 due to perceived problems with the cockpit life-support system. The Raptor began returning to duty in late September.

The F-35, meanwhile, has been plagued with program delays, cost overruns, and questions about its operational capabilities. The Marine Corps F-35B, in particular, has come under considerable fire and been threatened with cancellation if major program fixes are not implemented. By the end of 2011, both the JSF Program Office and the Marine Corps were assuring Congress and the Department of Defense (DoD) that those problems had been addressed and the STOVL variant was back on schedule.

At the same time, some of the international partners, faced with growing economic problems and forced budget cuts, were raising questions about the number of international sales the F-35 might achieve. The United Kingdom, in particular, created major concerns when the Ministry of Defense canceled the bulk of its planned buy of 150 F-35Bs, replacing them with a smaller number of F-35Cs.

Even as the United States continues to work out problems with its two “world’s only” Gen-5 aircraft and Russia and China continue to talk about – but have yet to truly demonstrate – their own efforts, two questions remain: What truly defines an aircraft as Gen-5 and what, then, would define future military aircraft – whether fighters, bombers, or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) – as Gen-6?

The answer to the first varies somewhat, in part because a primary element when the F-22 was introduced was stealth, which the United States had successfully demonstrated in two previous aircraft – the F-117 Nighthawk “fighter” (more realistically, a ground attack aircraft) and the B-2 Spirit bomber, both classified as Gen-4. The importance of stealth became a question because the F-35 was said to lack all-aspect stealth.

The two ships represent two different designs for LCS.  USS Freedom is a 379-foot monohull built by a team led by Lockheed Martin at Marinette Marine on the Menomenee River in Wisconsin.  USS Independence – a 418-foot trimaran – was built by a General Dynamics-led team at Austal USA in Mobile, Ala.

LCS 1 was commissioned in 2008 and has been operating from her homeport of San Diego since 2010.  LCS 2 just arrived in San Diego.

The first of class littoral combat ships USS Freedom (LCS 1), left, and USS Independence (LCS 2), maneuver together during an exercise off the coast of Southern California. The littoral combat ship is a fast, agile, networked surface combatant designed to operate in the near-shore environment, while capable of open-ocean tasking, and planned to operate against 21st-century coastal threats such as submarines, mines, and swarming small craft. U.S. Navy photo by Lt. Jan Shultis

The future USS Fort Worth (LCS 3) successfully completed acceptance trials in Lake Michigan May 4.  LCS 3 is expected to commission at Galveston, Texas in September 2012.  Milwaukee (LCS 5) is under construction at Marinette Marine.

Coronado (LCS 4) was launched and christened at Mobile in January of this year and is expected to be commissioned in early 2013.  Austal expects to build at least ten more ships of the Independence-class variant.  Jackson (LCS 6) is also building at the Austal USA shipyard.

Sailors assigned to Pre-Commissioning Unit Coronado (LCS 4) Blue and Gold Crews embarked aboard Independence to learn about how the ship and crew operate at sea as during the transit through the Panama Canal and its new homeport of San Diego.

“Fort Worth performed extremely well during its trials,” said LCS Program Manager Capt. John Neagley. “The ship’s level of completion coupled with Marinette Marine’s excellent craftsmanship resulted in relatively few material deficiencies.”

“During the four-day trial, the Navy conducted comprehensive tests intended to demonstrate the performance of the propulsion plant, ship handling and auxiliary systems,” said Naval Sea Systems Command spokesman Chris Johnson.  “This improved performance in comparison to the first ship of the class is a result of design stability, facility improvements and production efficiencies by the shipbuilder.”

Johnson said the ship was presented to the Navy’s Board of Inspection and Survey (INSURV) with high levels of completion.

“The Navy continues to remain committed to a 55 ship LCS program and is leveraging competition, fixed-price contracting and serial production to reduce construction duration and costs,” Johnson said.

A May 15 operation conducted by the European Union Naval Forces involved an EU NAVFOR helicopter firing upon pirate skiffs stowed away on a beach on the Somali coastline.

“The focused, precise and proportionate action was conducted from the air and all forces returned safely to EU warships on completion,” read a statement issued by EU NAVFOR headquarters in Northwood, UK. “Whilst assessment is on-going, surveillance of the area during the action indicates that no Somalis were injured ashore as a result of EU action.”

An EU NAVFOR Sea Lynx from the German navy frigate Emden conducts a boarding of a suspected pirate vessel in 2008. EU NAVFOR photo

“We believe this action by the EU Naval Force will further increase the pressure on, and disrupt pirates’ efforts to get out to sea to attack merchant shipping and dhows,” said Rear Adm. Duncan Potts, Operation Commander of the EU Naval Force.  “The local Somali people and fishermen – many of whom have suffered so much because of piracy in the region, can be reassured that our focus was on known pirate supplies and will remain so in the future.”

At no point did EU Naval Force ‘boots’ go ashore, Potts said.  “The EU Naval Force action against pirate supplies on the shoreline is merely an extension of the disruption actions carried out against pirate ships at sea.”

The operation was conducted in accordance with the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1851, and was conducted following a decision taken on March 23, 2012, by the Council of the European Union to allow the EU Naval Force to take “disruption action” against the pirates who operate from the Coast of Somali.  The operation was conducted with the knowledge and support of the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia.

EU NAVFOR’s Operation Atalanta is protecting World Food Program ships that bring humanitarian assistance to the Somali people.

It is with great pleasure that we recently introduced our UHF Manpack Antenna.  TACO’s new high-gain Manpack Antenna is designed for UHF SATCOM-on-the-move communications. The SAT-MP-320 covers the entire frequency band (240-400 MHz) with 11 dBic gain. This single piece antenna and tripod unit deploys in under one minute with no additional parts. Built to military standards, this rugged yet small antenna includes a durable nylon carrying bag, cables & tent stakes.

TACO manufactures High Quality communication ANTENNAS that are built for rugged use and reliable performance. TACO’s wide range of antenna products have been engineered and designed to meet the demanding requirements of the Military, Defense Contractors and Air Traffic Control Systems worldwide. Omni, Helical and Yagi Antennas. We engineer solutions.

With progressive leadership that emphasizes customer service, through sales, marketing, research and innovation, TACO and Wade are able to deliver unrivaled service and satisfaction alongside leading edge technology. A newly built state of the art production facility in Brantford, Ontario was developed to meet our commitment to customer service. We build partnerships one customer at a time.

CONTACT INFORMATION

Jeff Kunkle

Global Business Development

Tel: 717-975-0885

Fax: 717-763-0469

sales@tacoantenna.com

www.tacoantenna.com

Speaking to Generaloberst (Colonel General) Hans Jeschonnek, chief of staff of the Luftwaffe as part of a rambling exchange about tanks and aircraft, the Führer said:

“I have to say again and again: I consider the whole 177 model a mistake because it was demonstrated already during the Great War that the problem of installing two engines on one shaft is extremely difficult to solve, and has led to constant difficulties.”

The He 177 may not have been Hitler’s biggest mistake – there is a long roster of candidates – but it was a mistake on the part of planemaker Ernst Heinkel’s design team and the Luftwaffe. It personifies the failure of the wartime German air arm to equip itself with long-range bombers.

It was classified as a heavy bomber. Its promised performance was better than any bomber in the world, carrying two tons of bombs to targets 1,400 miles inside enemy territory at 225 miles per hour. It would have enabled the Luftwaffe to reach Allied convoys in the Atlantic and Soviet installations beyond the Ural Mountains.

A Heinkel He 177 V5 heavy bomber prototype in flight, ca. 1942/43. U.S. Navy photo

Instead of enhancing the offensive striking power of the Luftwaffe the He 177 became renowned for structural flaws, engine issues (including frequent engine fires) and an overall lack of reliability. The tail surfaces had to be redesigned and enlarged. There were constant problems not only with the coupled engines but with the complex, 14-foot, 8-inch, four-bladed propellers.

Strong Specifications

Developed beginning in 1939, the He 177 was designed to a German Air Ministry specification calling for a heavy bomber with an ordnance load of at least 4,400 pounds. While it was being prepared for its first flight, Generaloberst Ernst Udet, perhaps Germany’s most famous pilot, persuaded the Luftwaffe to decree that all combat aircraft should be capable of dive-bombing in the manner of the Junkers Ju 87 Stuka.  Jeschonnek continued this policy after Udet’s death in 1941. This impossible requirement for a heavy bomber dictated the twinned-engine configuration that was at the heart of the Greif’s multitude of troubles.

The He 177 looked like a twin-engined bomber. Its twinned engines were contained in each of two nacelles making it a four-engined bomber – sort of. The concept relied on the Daimler Benz DB 606 twin engine, which took two 1,350-horsepower DB 601A-1/B-1 inverted V inline engines and placed them side by side, with the inner cylinders almost vertical, producing an inverted W. The engines were prone to overheating and in-flight engine fires were common. Six of the original eight aircraft were lost, most due to engine fires, and many of the first 35 production aircraft (with Ernst Heinkel in disfavor, the planes were built mainly by Arado) also suffered the same fate.

The He 177V-1 prototype made its initial flight on Nov. 9, 1939, with Leutnant Carl Francke, chief of the Rechlin flight test center, at the controls. The flight ended abruptly after 12 minutes because of overheating engines. Francke spoke favorably about the bomber’s general handling characteristics but complained of vibration in the propeller shafts, inadequate tail surfaces, and flutter that accompanied any vigorous movement of the elevators.

Maintenance of the troublesome engines of a He 177. Bundesarchive photo

This was the beginning of a long series of fires, accidents and crashes. In June 1942, Luftwaffe air inspector Generalfeldmarschall (Field Marshal) Erhard Milch and Armaments Minister Albert Speer were visiting a base for a different purpose when they watched a new He 177 take off with a full bombload. After it flew from sight, the Greif banked steeply and sideslipped into the ground from 500 feet up, killing everyone aboard. Milch learned afterward that he had not been told of several other fatal accidents.

In The Rise and Fall of the Luftwaffe, a biography of Milch, author David Irving wrote of Luftwaffe chief Reichsmarschall (Marshal of the Realm) Hermann Göring complaining about Jeschonnek’s requirement for dive-bombing capability. “It is straightforward idiocy to ask of a four-engined bomber that it should dive,” said Göring. “Had I been told of this for one moment, I should have exclaimed at once: what kind of nonsense is that?” But the design was set in place by then or, as Göring put it, “Now we are stuck with it.”

Irving wrote that Milch carped, “What use is the best aircraft in the world if it can’t stop falling apart?”

Changing Configurations

As engineers kept redesigning the He 177, they introduced new versions of the bomber, which were then modified further in the field. Front-line armorers at Stalingrad, which was re-supplied at great cost by a half-dozen He 177As used as transports, installed a 50 mm BK-5 anti-tank gun under the nose. A separate effort to install a 75 mm cannon produced new aerodynamic problems and was cancelled after five He 177A-3/R-5s received the guns.

He 177A in a shallow dive. The He 177 was meant to have dive-bombing capabilities, a ridiculous requirement for a four-engined heavy bomber. Bundesarchiv photo

None of the changes could overcome the inherent faults in the He 177, including a tendency to swerve sharply sideways on takeoff. Troops called it the “Luftwaffe Lighter” (referring to a cigarette lighter) or the “Flying Tinderbox.”‘

Until manufacture of all aircraft other than fighters was virtually halted in October 1944, Heinkel and Arado built about 1,100 He 177s, including 565 examples of the He 177A-5 model, which was much improved over earlier versions. The usefulness of the bomber did not improve. On one occasion, Göring watched 14 aircraft taxi out for late-war attacks on London. Thirteen took off. Eight returned immediately with overheating engines, one diverted elsewhere and four actually reached London, but one was shot down.

The He 177 was the largest German aircraft operated over Britain during the war. Aviation archeologist Julian Evan-Hart is excavating the site of an He 177 that was shot down by a Royal Air Force Mosquito in 1944 near the Essex town of Saffron.

The Navy needed a platform to stage vital combat capability in the region, which included the Arabian Gulf. The concept isn’t new. There has been a long-standing requirement for an Afloat Forward Staging Base (AFSB), but no ships were available for the job. So as the Navy was moving ahead with the scheduled retirement of a large ship with a flight deck, an opportunity was created that was too good to pass up.

The amphibious transport dock ship USS Ponce (LPD 15) is lit by the early morning sun as the stern gate is raised after an amphibious craft launching evolution off the coast of Djibouti in 2010. While Ponce is an aging platform, her ample flight and well decks make her an ideal "mother ship" for various operations. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Nathanael Miller

The ship isn’t new, either. Ponce, an Austin-class amphibious transport dock, or LPD, was commissioned in 1971, and scheduled to be decommissioned this year. The 548-foot ship was built to carry Marines, landing craft and aircraft for amphibious landings as part of an expeditionary strike group. When fully loaded, she displaces more than 16,000 tons. Her new designation will be AFSB(I) 15.

When the conversion is complete, Ponce will deploy to be a part of the U.S. Fifth Fleet, which is the naval force for CENTCOM. There the ship will provide a platform to support mine warfare ships, coastal patrol ships, and aircraft operations – such as mine-sweeping MH-53 Sea Dragon helicopters – with the capability to support multiple mission packages as detachments when requested by USCENTCOM and /or U.S. Fifth Fleet, says Lt. Cmdr. Mike Kafka, a spokesman for U.S. Fleet Forces Command.

“The concept of an Afloat Forward Staging Base has been seen as a requirement with varying stages of urgency since the 1987 Tanker Wars,” Kafka says. “We have the perfect confluence of an available platform, the right amount of time before the permanent solution is available, and a pressing need in the CENTCOM AOR.”

The permanent solution Kafka refers to is the mobile landing platform (MLP). The Navy will acquire three MLPs to support expeditionary warfare requirements.

Ponce entered Norfolk Naval Shipyard, in Portsmouth, Va., in February of this year, and successfully completed all maintenance and modifications on April 15. The ship is currently in port at Naval Station Norfolk.

Work on Ponce included replacing bridge equipment with modern automated systems to support the reduced crewing by civil service mariners; overhauling Ponce’s main propulsion boilers; cleaning the ship’s main and auxiliary condensers; overhauling other existing ship’s equipment; and refurbishing the galley.

Aviation Boatswain’s Mate (Handling) Airman Michael Babers directs a UH-1Y Venom helicopter, assigned to Marine Light Attack Helicopter Squadron (HMLA) 167, as it lifts off from flight deck of the amphibious transport dock ship USS Ponce (LPD 15) during late evening flight operations. The night’s flight operations were at the time thought to have been the final flight operations Ponce would conduct after 40 years of service and more than 39,000 safe landings and launches. Ponce was given a reprieve from decommissioning to serve as an interim Afloat Forward Staging Base (AFSB). U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Nathanael Miller

Although Ponce carried a crew of 20 officers and 487 enlisted personnel (not counting embarked Marines and aviation detachments), Ponce will now be manned by a combined crew of Navy officers and sailors as well as Military Sealift Command (MSC) government civilian mariners. This approach, similar to that used with the 6th Fleet Command Ship USS Mount Whitney (LCC 20) in the Mediterranean, enables the required military functions to be handled (minimal self-defense, communications, common operational picture) while still reaping the benefits of MSC engineering and support services, Kafka says. The Navy complement will include 55 personnel (49 enlisted and 6 officers). MSC personnel will include 165 government civilian mariners when the ship is under way conducting operations.

The ship will have civilian mariners aboard, but Ponce will remain a warship with a USN commissioned officer in command, not a civilian master. “Under the commanding officer falls all responsibilities of being in command, to include manning all weapons and weapons systems. Navy personnel will stand command and tactical watches; direct and control combat operations; operate command and control and targeting systems; and direct, supervise, manage, or otherwise serve in the chain of command over military personnel,” says Kafka. “Civilian mariners will handle deck functions and bridge watches – to include senior bridge watches; handle engineering duties about the ship and in the engine room (to include senior engineering watches); and handle supply and steward functions on the ship.”

There had been reports in the media that the ship was being converted in to a platform to launch SEAL teams on special missions. But the commander of the U.S. Fleet, Adm. John Harvey, put that rumor to rest.

The Ponce is “not going over there as an alternate command ship; it’s not going over there as a special operating force ‘Death-star Galactica’ coming through the Gulf,” Harvey says. “It’s going over there as an interim staging base until a newer vessel can be purchased.”

 – Prime Minister Winston Churchill

In the spring of 1942, the Japanese naval juggernaut appeared unstoppable. The U.S. Navy was on the strategic defensive in the Pacific, and with the ABDA (American, British, Dutch, Australian) fleet destroyed in the Battle of the Java Sea, the only remaining Allied naval force of any significance in the region that might counter Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) aggression was the Royal Navy’s 29-ship Eastern Fleet under the command of Vice Adm. James Somerville.

Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi in April 1942 during the Indian Ocean Raid as seen from an aircraft that has just taken off from her deck. The aircraft on the flight deck preparing for takeoff are Aichi D3A Type 99 dive bombers. Kure Maritime Museum photo

In late March, the IJN’s Southern Force, containing three fleets (Malayan, submarine, and First Air) under the overall command of Vice Adm. Nobutake Kondo, entered the Bay of Bengal. Its three-fold mission was to support the Japanese Army offensive in Burma, sink Allied shipping, and most important of all, eliminate the Eastern Fleet.

The Malayan Fleet, under Vice Adm. Jisaburō Ozawa struck first. After supporting the amphibious assault of the Andaman Islands (conquered in one day and without a shot being fired), Ozawa continued west, sinking any vessel he found. On April 6, he launched air strikes on two ports on India’s east coast, ultimately sinking 23 ships and damaging numerous facilities before retiring.

The Japanese submarine fleet patrolled India’s west coast, conducted reconnaissance, and sank allied shipping. One submarine, the I-10, traveled as far west as Madagascar, sank nine merchant ships, and damaged the battleship HMS Ramilles during its four-month patrol.

The task of eliminating the Eastern Fleet, code named Operation C, was given to the First Air Fleet and its carrier strike force, Kido Butai (Mobile Unit/Strike Force) under the command of the hero of Pearl Harbor, Vice Adm. Chuichi Nagumo and containing the heavy carriers Akagi, Hiryu, Soryu, Shokaku, and Zuikaku, with more than 300 aircraft and supported by four battleships, seven cruisers, and 19 destroyers.

Aircraft aboard Akagi warm up in preparation for an air strike during the Indian Ocean Raid. Nearest the cameras are A6M1 "Zero" fighters, and behind them Aichi D3A1 "Val" dive-bombers.

An RCAF Catalina patrol plane spotted Nagumo’s force on April 4. Its crew successfully transmitted the fleet’s location before being shot down. Despite this warning, the RAF was caught unprepared – with its pilots eating breakfast when Japanese aircraft arrived in the skies over the port of Colombo the next day at dawn. Incredibly, the British radar stations were unmanned that morning. Among the reasons later given were that April 5 was both a Sunday and a holiday (Easter), and that the stations were shut down for routine maintenance.

Nagumo had hoped to catch Somerville’s fleet in the same way his pilots had found the U.S. Navy fleet at Pearl Harbor. But the British had cracked the IJN naval code, so Somerville knew Nagumo’s plans. Because Somerville had been ordered to save his fleet even if it meant losing Ceylon, he had sent most of his ships south to Addu Atoll, a small refueling base in the Maldives about 600 miles southwest of Ceylon. The Japanese air raid found only two ships – an auxiliary cruiser and an old destroyer – at the harbor of Colombo. These were quickly sunk. Japanese pilots bombed facilities and airfields, and shot down at least 27 British aircraft. A second Japanese attack wave found and sank the British cruisers Cornwall and Dorsetshire.

On April 9, Nagumo launched a raid against British air and naval installations in and around Trincomalee harbor on Ceylon’s northeast coast, sinking the light carrier HMS Hermes, the Australian destroyer HMAS Vampire, and the corvette HMS Hollyhock, shooting down a number of aircraft and damaging harbor facilities. On April 12, Nagumo’s fleet, having been at sea since late November 1941, retired to rest and refit, having lost less than 30 aircraft.

British forces braced themselves for an invasion of Ceylon. But that was never a part of the IJN’s plan. Its ultimate objective was the Vichy-ruled island of Madagascar, where the IJN wanted to establish a long-range submarine base and cut the Allied shipping lanes to Egypt, the Soviet Union (through the Persian Gulf), and India. But that didn’t happen, either.

On April 18, the Doolittle Raid struck the Japanese home islands, shocking the nation and forcing the IJN high command to recall Nagumo’s fleet for a showdown with the U.S. Navy at Midway.

According to the announcement, “Certain ground combat capabilities are an Airman’s responsibility and require unique surface operations that are integral to the application of air and space power. To meet this responsibility, the Air Force recognized the need to organize, train, and equip a force of Battlefield Airmen (BA) capable of delivering distinctive expertise in a ground combat environment with unequaled firepower, accuracy, responsiveness, flexibility and persistence. These BA include Combat Control, Pararescue, Tactical Air Control and Battlefield Weather professionals. BA provide skill sets not commonly found across the Air Force and typically operate in combat zones outside the perimeter of Air Force bases, often in the deep battle space.”

A U.S. Air Force combat controller uses a rangefinder for a drop zone survey outside Port-au-Prince, Haiti, Jan. 24, 2010, during Operation Unified Response. U.S. Air Force photo Master Sgt. Jeremy Lock

Air Force Combat Controllers, for example, are defined in the document as “Special Tactics ground operators who work as members of Air Force Special Tactics Teams and as members of Army Special Forces, Navy SEAL, and Joint Special Operations teams. Combat Controllers are certified to act as air traffic controllers and Joint Terminal Attack Controllers in hostile and dangerous environments. They can be deployed by sea, air, and land to take over or construct an airstrip, set up navigational equipment, and direct airplanes and helicopters to a safe landing without the use of a tower or elaborate communications system. They also establish drop zones and control parachute drops of personnel and equipment, and control airstrikes and air attacks from fixed and rotary-wing aircraft from all military services.”

Pararescue Airmen [also known as Pararescue Jumpers (PJs)] conduct conventional or unconventional rescue operations. They deploy in any available manner, to include air-land-sea tactics, into restricted environments to authenticate, extract, treat, stabilize and evacuate injured personnel, while acting in an enemy-evading recovery role.

Another Air Force ground element includes Battlefield and Special Operations Weathermen, who are meteorologists with advanced tactical training to operate in hostile or denied territory. They gather and interpret weather data, and provide intelligence from deployed locations while working primarily with Army (Battlefield Weather) and Special Operations (Special Operations Weather) forces.

Finally, Tactical Air Control Party (TACP) personnel advise U.S. Army conventional and special operations ground maneuver commanders on the integration and execution of air and space power.

“Each of these career fields has unique missions in support of both Special Operations Forces and conventional forces,” the announcement adds. “However, many core disciplines are common to the majority of BA. These commonalities include areas such as methods of employment, mobility, force protection methods, communication, and advances in mission planning and rehearsal. Advancements are sought to support specific mission areas as they pertain to each individual career field.”

The AFRL Munitions Directorate BAA seeks to address capability gaps, limitations, or deficiencies to improve the effectiveness of these Battlefield Airmen.

The gaps are divided into 10 specific research areas:

1. Force protection enhancements;
2. Personal equipment;
3. C4 systems and related software;
4. Optics and displays;
5. Sensors and navigational Aids;
6. Tactical energy;
7. Clandestine mobility;
8. Medical;
9. Tactical meteorological systems, and;
10. Alternate means of insertion and extraction.

In the case of force protection enhancements, for example, the objective is “to conduct research which could eventually lead to the development of improved shelters, materials, armor and related items for the deployed Battlefield Airmen. Research to effectively detect, deceive, avoid and prevent contamination and/or injury or exposure to chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosives (CBRNE) and other threats will greatly enhance BA effectiveness. Research in areas that will allow the Battlefield Airmen to engage threats from greater standoff distances is also desired.”

Some of a Joint Terminal Attack Controller's equipment shown during Exercise Allied Strike 10 at the U.S. Army’s training area in Grafenwoehr, Germany. U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Caleb Pierce

At the other end of the capability gap listing, alternate means of insertion and extraction (AIE) seeks “methods to improve, augment, or replace current systems and methods. Current capabilities include but are not limited to rope ladder, fast rope, hoist, SCUBA, HALO (high altitude low opening), HAHO (high altitude high opening), and static line parachute operations. The objective is to conduct research which could lead to development of new and enhanced capabilities and equipment that aid in mounted, dismounted, and airborne ingress/egress operations on land, sea, and air. Research to enhance survivability for the dismounted surface, sub-surface, and airborne operator that would reduce visual, thermal, and electromagnetic signature of the operator moving in both permissive and non-permissive environments is desired. Innovative research in improved systems for rapid, safe, and clandestine insertion and extraction may also be proposed.”

The Air Force BAA is expected to remain open through Oct.30, 2012, or until amended or superseded.

Welsh’s inside-track selection as America’s top airman has been a “done deal” for so long that no one in the nation’s capital was surprised by Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta’s May 10 announcement that President Barack Obama is nominating Welsh to succeed Gen. Norton Schwartz, the nation’s air boss since August 2008.

“I’m tremendously honored and deeply humbled,” said Welsh, who is the current commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe (USAFE). His appointment will require the advice and consent of the Senate.

Welsh, whose callsign is “Boomer,”  is an Air Force Academy graduate (class of 1976) and a former commandant at the academy (from 1999 to 2001). He has 3,400 flight hours in his logbook, mostly in the F-16 Fighting Falcon and A-10 Thunderbolt II. He flew combat missions in Operation Desert Storm (1991) and performed military liaison duties for Panetta (from 2008 to 2010) when Panetta was head of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Welsh will become the Air Force’s service chief and its voice on the Joint Chiefs of Staff at a time when Congress is angry over the administration’s fiscal year 2013 defense budget proposal and especially over the proposal’s cuts to the Air National Guard.

Prompted by Republican objections to the proposal, the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee on the day of the Welsh announcement passed an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would require the Air Force to maintain 2012 funding levels for the Guard. At issue is the proposal to reduce and transfer about 200 C-130 Hercules tactical airlifters, retire 102 A-10s, and cancel acquisition of 38 C-27J Spartans, which are also tactical airlift planes. Republicans in the House and several state governors including Texas’ Rick Perry – a former C-130 pilot – reject not only the administration proposal but also a compromise that came close to being sealed in recent weeks.

Change of Plan?

Some observers wonder if the administration will use the Welsh appointment to back away from its announced budget plan and agree to keep the C-130s, A-10s and C-27Js in place. At least one Capitol Hill staffer has implied that, unless there is a retreat from the budget proposal, hard-liners in the Senate could hold up the Welsh appointment. None of this has anything to do with the personality of the general, who is regarded as low-key and affable, and is well liked.

Schwartz acknowledged that Welsh will come to the job “at a different time” than Schwartz’s own ascendancy in August 2008, when then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates fired Air Force Secretary Michael W. Wynne and Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael “Buzz” Moseley. The nominal reason for the firing was a series of mistakes in the handling of nuclear materials. The Air Force had inadvertently flown AGM-129 advanced cruise missiles with live atomic warheads aboard a B-52 Stratofortress bomber and mistakenly shipped to Taiwan nuclear missile components that were labeled as helicopter parts.

Many in Washington thought there was another reason for the pink slips: Gates was displeased with Wynne and Moseley for their activist roles as advocates for the F-22 Raptor superfighter. Because Schwartz is a C-130 pilot with experience in the special operations world, the change was seen as an end to decades of dominance by fighter pilots in top air leadership slots. Although Welsh is a fighter pilot, he is also viewed as a generalist with broad management and acquisitions experience.

“Gen. Welsh’s proven performance, deep experience and leadership ability make him the ideal candidate to be the next chief of staff,” said Air Force Secretary Michael B. Donley, who is expected to remain in his post. “Pending his confirmation, I look forward to working with Mark to continue building on the outstanding accomplishments achieved by Gen. Schwartz.”