• This site moved from forums.flightinfo.com to flightinfo.com. Please update your bookmarks.

Legacy Bashfest II - I told you so...

GVFlyer

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2002
Posts
1,461
Total Time
18K+
Posted without comment.

GV

Aerial Common Sensor program plans to change airframes

Aerospace Daily & Defense Report

06/30/2005, page 01



Marc Selinger




The U.S. Army-led Aerial Common Sensor (ACS) program has concluded that it
will need a larger airframe than the Embraer ERJ-145 regional jet that it
selected less than a year ago, according to prime contractor Lockheed
Martin.


Responding to questions, Lockheed Martin told The DAILY in a statement
June 29 that ACS designers have found "additional integration weight" that
will prevent the program from using a modified ERJ-145.


Based on a thorough analysis, the U.S. government and Lockheed Martin
"have concluded that a larger airframe is necessary to provide the best
solution" for ACS, Lockheed Martin said. "We are assessing the
cost/schedule/technical implications of using a larger aircraft. Our goal
remains to bring this revolutionary capability to the warfighters as
quickly as possible."


An industry source told The DAILY that the program is looking at several
Embraer and non-Embraer alternatives. An Embraer spokesman referred
questions to Lockheed Martin.


Although Lockheed Martin did not elaborate on the weight problems, and the
Army had no immediate comment, the Defense Department's office of the
director of operational test and evaluation (DOT&E) warned in a recent
report that integrating multiple forms of intelligence onto a single
aircraft could be a challenge for the ACS program (DAILY, Jan. 21).


Lockheed Martin was awarded an $879 million, five-year contract in August
2004 for the program's system development and demonstration (SDD) phase.
ACS is intended to carry sensors providing signals intelligence,
measurement and signatures intelligence, electro-optical/infrared imagery,
synthetic aperture radar imagery and a ground moving target indicator.


The weight problems have led the Navy to put off its formal entry into the
ACS program. Responding to questions, Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR)
told The DAILY in a statement that its decision to officially become a
program participant is "on hold" while the Army and Lockheed Martin "work
the solution set for mitigating integration weight growth."


Despite its hesitations, NAVAIR insisted that it still intends to join the
program eventually.


"The Navy is committed to ACS and working with the Army to make the
program a success," NAVAIR said.


The Navy had been slated to finalize its involvement in the program in
late 2004, but a Navy official indicated in January that it was taking
longer than expected to prepare for a key review that was supposed to lead
to the Navy's integration into the program (DAILY, Jan. 10).


Lockheed Martin said that while the Navy "has not signed onto the program,
they are participating in the program reviews and aircraft analysis."


The Navy has been planning to buy 19 jets to replace its EP-3E Aries II
aircraft, while the Army has intended to produce 38 jets to replace its
Guardrail Common Sensor and Airborne Reconnaissance Low aircraft. Previous
announcements indicated that fielding would begin in fiscal 2010 for the
Army and FY '12 for the Navy.


- Marc Selinger (marc_selinger@AviationNow.com)
 

GVFlyer

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2002
Posts
1,461
Total Time
18K+
miles otoole said:
If they want larger, should be good news for the GLEX guys.
Why? Max payload on the Global Express XRS is only 4,500 lbs. It's 6,200 lbs on the G550, 6,500 lbs on the G500, 6,000 lbs on the G450 and 6,300 lbs on the G350. The Global cannot accomodate the weight of the required package (Legacy's alleged max payload was 5,291 lbs) and if it could, it couldn't get it to the optimum altitude for it's maximum functionality.

The Army has already approached Gulfstream for ACS, their off-line comments on the Legacy included that the aircraft had inadequate structure and would only climb to 33,000 ft with mission gear on board.

GV
 

mzaharis

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 27, 2004
Posts
541
Total Time
70
GV,

Are those weights after completion allowance?

If so, would you want to compare max payload weight + completion allowance (not that this would necessarily change things - don't the G's have a higher completion allowance than a GLEX), given that the military will install that load in a green airframe?

Given that the Gulfstream G450 was the other airframe in the competition, it would be the logical candidate, presumably.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 25, 2005
Posts
103
Total Time
1000
mzaharis said:
GV,

Are those weights after completion allowance?

If so, would you want to compare max payload weight + completion allowance (not that this would necessarily change things - don't the G's have a higher completion allowance than a GLEX), given that the military will install that load in a green airframe?

Given that the Gulfstream G450 was the other airframe in the competition, it would be the logical candidate, presumably.
Not sure, defense contractors avoid competition as posssible, The GLEX/GL5000 are the logical choice (just look the british ASTOR), or maybe the 737-600, depending on the endurance rq.
 

GVFlyer

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2002
Posts
1,461
Total Time
18K+
mzaharis said:
GV,

Are those weights after completion allowance?

If so, would you want to compare max payload weight + completion allowance (not that this would necessarily change things - don't the G's have a higher completion allowance than a GLEX), given that the military will install that load in a green airframe?

Given that the Gulfstream G450 was the other airframe in the competition, it would be the logical candidate, presumably.

These weights are after the completion allowance.

You are right in pointing out that the Gulfstreams have greater interior completion allowances than the Globals. Gulfstream gave the Air Force an 8,500 lb interior completion allowance for the C-37A, thus you could have a total of 15,000 lbs for completion plus payload.

The Global Express has a 6,000 lb completion allowance. Bombardier is planning to increase this by 1800 lbs for the XRS, but all of their aircraft have come out significantly heavier than expected, 1,950 lbs in the case of the Global at it's current weight of 96,250 lbs. I'm not sure where Bombardier is planning to find the extra completion weight - XRS MGTOW is going up by 1,750 lbs of which 1,625 lbs will be additional fuel.

Keep in mind also that the G550 has 30,770 lbs of thrust pushing 91,000 lbs of airplane, while the Global XRS has 29,500 lbs of thrust pushing 98,000 lbs of Pseudo-French jet.


GV
 

GVFlyer

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2002
Posts
1,461
Total Time
18K+
Senior_Citizen said:
Not sure, defense contractors avoid competition as posssible, The GLEX/GL5000 are the logical choice (just look the british ASTOR), or maybe the 737-600, depending on the endurance rq.

The three British ASTOR aircraft have not lived up to expectations. The contract was not awarded on a basis of aircraft used, but on a basis of the mission gear in back. The aircraft carrying the mission gear has had dispatch reliability issues.

Gulfstream has built five Gulfstream V Special Electronic Mission Aircraft for the Israeli's which are clearly superior to the British aircraft for the AEW&C and ELINT mission.


GV
 

Groundpounder

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Posts
705
Total Time
Enough
GVFlyer said:
Gulfstream has built five Gulfstream V Special Electronic Mission Aircraft for the Israeli's which are clearly superior to the British aircraft for the AEW&C and ELINT mission.


GV
How are they "clearly superior"?
 

GVFlyer

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2002
Posts
1,461
Total Time
18K+
Groundpounder said:
How are they "clearly superior"?
The short answer is that they work. They have a 99.85% dispatch reliabilty record.

A more detailed answer includes the fact that the mission equipment is current state-of-the art-as opposed to the 90's technology equipment on the ASTOR.

Gulfstream has a long history of building Military Special Mission Aircraft for not only the Israeli's, but also for the US military with aircraft such as the EC-37SMA for the USAF as well as aircraft for the Dane's, Indians, Japanese and 30 other countries throughout the world.


GV







~
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 25, 2005
Posts
103
Total Time
1000
Why not to use a Turboprop, CN295 or ATR-72 are in the weight class, also burn less fuel, the main problem is the range.

Anyone know the range requeriment for ACS ?
 

cosmotheassman

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Posts
466
Total Time
4000
Forget all the number crunching, MGTOW, etc... buy the airplane that looks the coolest. The GLEX has this category hands down....
 
Joined
Apr 25, 2005
Posts
103
Total Time
1000
I revised the ACS rq data on the internet, the main limitation for an ATR-72 is the desired op. ceiling of 35k ft (the atr-72 ceiling is 25K)
 

GVFlyer

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2002
Posts
1,461
Total Time
18K+
Senior_Citizen said:
Why not to use a Turboprop, CN295 or ATR-72 are in the weight class, also burn less fuel, the main problem is the range.

Anyone know the range requeriment for ACS ?
Aerial Common Sensor replaces the RC-12Q Advanced Guardrail V, Aerial Reconnaisance Low Modernized and the EP-3C, all three of which are turbo-props.

The jet must be self-deployable 2500 nm and be self-sustaining for 14 days.

The jet must be able to attain at least 35,000 feet with the Airborne Mission Equipment installed and mission fuel.

The sensor array includes: Electro-Optical (EO), Infrared (IR), Communications Intelligence (COMINT), Electronic Intelligence (ELINT), Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR), and Moving Target Indicator (MTI). ACS will be linked the Distributed Common Ground Station - Army (DCGS-A).

Due to the failure of the EMB-145 program and Iraq/Afghanistan lessons learned, the Operational Requirments Document (ORD) for ACS is undergoing modification and further development so it is likely that these requirements will become more stringent.

The aircraft you mentioned would be more appropriate for the Army's Medium Multi-Mission Tactical Transport aircraft.

By the way, once you fly beyond 400 nm no turbo-prop is less expensive to operate than a similar sized jet. The jet will always burn more fuel, but it will get to the destination more quickly achieving it's savings in maintenance accrual costs. The military discovered this in the analysis they performed to determine if C-XX would be a turbo-prop or a jet. They made the wise business choice and the non-developmental Cessna Citation V and derivatives became the UC-35B.


GV
 

GVFlyer

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2002
Posts
1,461
Total Time
18K+
Notes from the Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder files...

cosmotheassman said:
Forget all the number crunching, MGTOW, etc... buy the airplane that looks the coolest. The GLEX has this category hands down....

[size=+2]De gustibus non est disputandum.


[/size]
 

pa56pa

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2002
Posts
234
Total Time
3400
GVFlyer said:
[size=+2]De gustibus non est disputandum.


[/size]
the thesis "De Gustibus" cannot to be disputed??? Perhaps.... GV, you're such an intellect !!
 

LegacyDriver

Moving Target
Joined
Mar 7, 2004
Posts
1,696
Total Time
Enough
Bummer... I was looking forward to seeing an Embraer in a U.S. military paint scheme.

Oh well...
 

LegacyDriver

Moving Target
Joined
Mar 7, 2004
Posts
1,696
Total Time
Enough
Forgot to mention that the article mentione "Embraer and non-Embraer alternatives.". Could that mean an ERJ-170 airframe?
 

GVFlyer

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2002
Posts
1,461
Total Time
18K+
LegacyDriver said:
Forgot to mention that the article mentione "Embraer and non-Embraer alternatives.". Could that mean an ERJ-170 airframe?

Yes...
 

mzaharis

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 27, 2004
Posts
541
Total Time
70
Senior_Citizen said:
Not sure, defense contractors avoid competition as posssible, The GLEX/GL5000 are the logical choice (just look the british ASTOR), or maybe the 737-600, depending on the endurance rq.
Sorry for the late response - on vacation.

I meant that the original competition put the G450 against the ERJ-145. The ERJ-145-based solution was originally chosen, from a total platform perspective. That's why I suspected that the G450 might be a preferred alternative, but it's sounding like the options are being thrown wide open.
 

Stearmandriver

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 9, 2003
Posts
249
Total Time
5800
Just out of curiosity, how much of my tax money did the governement spend to determine that the FREAKING ERJ HAS WEIGHT ISSUES?!?!?

:eek: Geez, did they even bother to talk to anyone who'd actually flown the airplane??

:D
 
Top