Despite good news out of Farnborough, avionics suppliers still expect slow recovery

Posted by John McHale

I spent the past week all over the west coast visiting supporters of our avionics shows -- Avionics USA and Avionics Europe -- in California. Everyone was aware about the good news coming from the Farnborough International Airshow last week regarding commercial aircraft sales, but they are remaining cautious about any potential market recovery.

I spent the past week all over the west coast visiting supporters of our avionics shows -- Avionics USA and Avionics Europe -- in California. Everyone was aware about the good news coming from the Farnborough International Airshow this month regarding commercial aircraft sales, but they are remaining cautious about any potential market recovery.

At Farnborough the major airplane manufacturers announced airplane orders in the hundreds, signaling an upswing in the market, however it will be a while till this good news trickles down to the avionics level.

The commercial aviation market ramped down awfully fast, but it will not ramp up as quickly, cautioned Ben Daniel, business manager for avionics at GE Intelligent Platforms in Goleta, Calif. It will be a slow recovery but people will still be buying airplanes and designing avionics systems, he added.

Air Electro president Steve Strull in Chatsworth, Calif., told me he is excited about the airplane orders and that his aviation connector business has been steady, weathering the economic times well -- as Air Electro's connectors were designed into the aircraft manufacturing systems as well the finished aircraft systems.

Retrofits for aircraft are also a growth market, Strull added.

Designers of military avionics systems, say it's a matter of waiting and seeing where the Obama administration is going to spend dollars and if they are going to spend dollars. "We're seeing lots of activity in terms of proposals, but no one is sure how much Obama is going to cut out of the defense budget to pay for his social programs," said Doug Patterson, vice president of sales and marketing at Aitech Chatsworth, Calif.

When the Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter and the F-22 Raptor cancellations were announced many in the defense industry thought funding would go toward upgrading older aircraft platforms, but Patterson said that such retrofits may also be curtailed as well depending on what the Obama administration will do.

Democrats in Congress move to get their pound of flesh from the military while they still have time

Posted by John Keller

JULY 23, 2010. Interesting story in The New York Times on Thursday, entitled Pentagon Faces Intensifying Pressures to Trim Budget. The thrust of the story is this: the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are winding down, which leads the Democrat majority in Congress to consider reducing current and future defense budget requests for the first time since 9/11.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, meanwhile, is trying to stave off Pentagon budget cuts by convincing Democrats in Congress that he can make the military more efficient, and use money saved to pay for military procurement, operations, military research and development, and other costs.

Nevertheless, the story goes on, Democrats in Congress are trying to move more quickly than the Pentagon had expected in trimming the DOD budget request for next year. Best of all, The Times writes, "And in the longer term, with concern mounting about the government’s $13 trillion debt, a bipartisan deficit-reduction commission is warning that cuts in military spending could be needed to help the nation dig out of its financial hole."

Let's see, the Democrat majority in Congress, with backing from the Obama Administration, domestically has shoved through extremely expensive, unpopular, mostly ineffective measures concerning economic stimulus, health care, and jobs security, but it's up the nation's military "to help the nation dig out of its financial hole." This just doesn't make sense, and it's not what's really going on.

The Democrats are about to lose control of Congress in November, little more than three months away; they know it, and we know it, so if they are going to shove any more unpopular measures through, then they have to do it quickly. They have little more than three months before the November elections -- a period in which Congress won't do much because Democrats will spend that time fighting for their political lives on the campaign trail -- and the three months of a lame-duck congressional session before the new Congress is seated next January.

I rarely, if ever, trust Democrats when it comes to the military. Except for a few, most mouth platitudes about supporting the troops and the nation's defense, but at heart many of the Democrats in Congress today loathe the military on a visceral level, a phenomenon most likely left over from the '60s generation, of which many of today's serving lawmakers are members. These Democrats would like to gut the military and use the money saved for their favored domestic social programs that buy them votes. Since 9/11, however, their hands have been tied politically. Moreover, many Democrats in Congress believe that defense has gotten more than its fair share of the federal budget since George W. Bush took office in 2000, and now's their chance to get even, but the clock is ticking down.

Anything these Democrats want to do, they have to do it fast; desperation is starting to show. So now their gaze falls on the military, which has been struggling to slog through the tasks assigned it in South Asia now for nearly a decade. Desperation often results in rash action. Look for the rhetoric in Congress to become increasingly down on the military and military expenditures in the coming months, as Democrats attempt to lay the groundwork for big DOD budget cuts while they still have the time to do so.

Now obviously the military can find ways of increasing efficiencies and streamlining procurement, and Defense Secretary Gates seems to be going in the right direction in that regard. This, unfortunately, is not what many Democrats in Congress want to see, however. Instead, I believe many of them want to do the military material harm between now and next January.

The only way to avoid damage to the U.S. military during that time is to find any way to stall Congress until the clock runs out.

Subscribe to Avionics Intelligence

Working the Farnborough air show, backwards and in high heels

Posted by John Keller

FARNBOROUGH, England, 19 July 2010. There are plenty of amazing here at the Farnborough International Airshow -- reportedly the largest air show in the world this year. Jet fighters, bombers, widebody jumbo jets, aircraft stunt teams. Still, nothing is more amazing to me here than the number of women wearing high heels -- and not just any high heels, but really tall ones.

Working this show one can literally walk miles in the course of a day. Those minding the booths are on their feet all day -- and these are long days -- and I can't imagine many more torturous things than to do it in high heels.

The ladies wearing those really tall heels don't look like they're in pain yet, but I should give them time; it's only 11 a.m. I'll check facial expressions again later in the day, but my bet is most of them will be looking fresh as ever.

I'm reminder of Ginger Rogers, the dancer of movie fame, who often was paired with Fred Astaire in some of the silver screen's most breathtaking dance numbers on film. Folks always seemed to wonder why Ginger Rogers always seemed to play second-fiddle to Astaire.

Rogers fans often asked why she didn't have equal billing to Astaire, since she did everything he did -- except she did it all backwards and in high heels. Seeing all these women at the Farnborough air show remind me of Ginger Rogers. They're probably working at least as hard as the guys, except they're doing it backwards in high heels.

So as I stroll the aisles and static displays this week, I'll be looking for more than just the latest avionics, the most advanced jet fighters, and the biggest commercial jetliners. I'll also be looking for women wearing sensible shoes.

Stay tuned; I'll let you know.

Ryan Reynolds as the Green Lantern: I think I have an idea what he's talking about

Posted by John Keller

15 July 2010. The movie buzz is heating up concerning actor Ryan Reynolds as the Green Lantern, starring in a superhero movie scheduled for release next summer. I'm particularly excited about this upcoming movie because it could have a connection to Military & Aerospace Electronics.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that we don't end up on the cutting room floor, but last March, at the movie producer's request, I sent off several print copies of Military & Aerospace Electronics for potential use in the upcoming Green Lantern movie, starring Ryan Reynolds.

How could this happen, you might ask? Well, story goes that the Green Lantern is a test pilot who is granted a mystical green ring bestowing him with otherworldly powers, as well as membership in an intergalactic squadron tasked with keeping peace within the universe. It just so happens that he reads Military & Aerospace Electronics. That's what the producers told me, anyway.

If we're lucky, moviegoers will see print copies of Military & Aerospace Electronics lying around the test pilot's ready room. I'm hoping, I'm hoping, I'm hoping those copies make it into the move.

The latest Green Lantern buzz revolves around an interview with Reynolds in Entertainment Weekly, in which he discusses flying at high speeds during his stunts. "The first time you do it, you're deeply considering an adult diaper," Reynolds is quoted as saying.

I think I know what he means. I might need the same attire as I have to wait another whole year to see if we make it into the move.

Subscribe

Follow me on Twitter

Join the PennWell Aerospace and Defense Media Group on Linkedin at http://bit.ly/9MXl9

Become a fan of Military & Aerospace Electronics on Facebook at http://bit.ly/1VGM0Q

Post your aerospace and defense-related material to the #milaero community on Twitter. Use the #milaero hashtag.

Is there anyone out there who isn't a world leader?

Posted by John Keller

Quick show of hands: who out there isn't a world leader at something? Anyone? I thought so.

I just love company press releases, I really do. Those safe harbor statements, always a howl, never cease to entertain. Press announcements typically begin something like this ...

... Some such corporation, the greatest company that's ever been, has just introduced something or other that is undeniably the greatest thing since sliced bread. Oh, and I forgot, and the company (the greatest company that's ever been) is the first company (and the only company) to ever do so (or ever will be).

Now I know all you good PR folks out there (the greatest PR folks that have ever been, I acknowledge) get paid more than me, and I fully realize that you deserve it. Still, I feel for you, writing that stuff. It's even more painful to know that most of you are more talented and better writers than I am.

At any rate, my favorite PR-ism lately is "a world leader," which usually in the first couple of sentences -- right there beside "the greatest company that's ever been." I swear, every company out there is a world leader in whatever it does ... not that there's anything wrong with that. In fact, I go to sleep easy every knight knowing that all the companies I cover (the greatest companies that have ever been, of course) are all world leaders in what they do.

God, is this a great country, or what?

Soldier systems focus on infantry technology to achieve the mission and get the fighters home alive

Posted by John Keller

Soldier systems -- wearable computers, networked sensors, pocket-sized navigation and guidance systems, and other soldier electronics -- have been on my mind lately. I often wonder what the American infantryman about the storm the beaches at Normandy would think of the wearable electronics on today's soldiers on patrol in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On the Normandy beaches, the average infantry technology consisted of a rifle, ammunition, water, food, rudimentary first-aid gear, helmet, extra socks, and really not a lot else besides the soldier's uniform and boots. some carried radios, but not many. Don't get me wrong, he had a back-breaking load to carry, but fundamentally not a lot different from the soldier in the ranks during the Civil War, the Revolutionary War, and before.

Today's soldier technology is a whole lot different. There is amazing capability, ranging from night-vision goggles and rifle sights, networked radios not much larger than a deck of cards, global positioning system (GPS) receivers and computers the sizes of cell phones, and more. The choices today's soldier faces also are much more complex than the fighting man of decades past.

All that new capability means extra weight to carry, not only in terms of the electronic and electro-optic devices available, but also for the batteries to power these devices. Depending on the mission, the soldier today and his commanders must decide if they want to carry sensors or a second canteen of water, radios or more food, handheld computers or extra ammunition.

The point is, today's soldier must strike the right balance between capability, firepower, and survival equipment that will enable him to perform his mission and then get back home alive.

One of the primary goals of those specifying and designing soldier systems technology is to keep these critical choices to a minimum, or more to the point, help soldiers make choices of ammunition, water, food, AND sensors, communications, and computers, rather than the other way around.

Soldier systems today, however, are not just about piling on capability to the warfighter in the field. Soldier technology also is about helping infantrymen fight smarter, and to give them new ways not only to help them fight, but also to survive and thrive long after returning home to their homes and families.

Soldiers in the field take a beating, from the elements, from stress and fatigue, and of course from bullets and explosives during battle. Explosions -- especially those from improvised explosive devices (IEDs) planted along roadsides, have the potential to create far more serious injuries than meets the eye.

A soldier might get caught in an IED explosion, and simply get up and dust himself off after waiting for the stars and spider webs to clear from his head. Yet head injuries from concussive forces like roadside bombs can cause lingering injuries that might take days or weeks to make themselves known.

Now picture this. What if a soldier had a motion sensor embedded in his helmet able to measure the concussive force of an explosion on the soldier wearing it? What if a little red LED in this helmet sensor started flashing if the force of the explosion were more than a human being should be able to withstand safely over the long term?

No need to speculate anymore; that technology's here, and is being deployed in the field. It's just one of the aspects of soldier systems that are making the modern soldier ever-more effective, deadly, and survivable.

F-15 Silent Eagle stealth fighter could be considered as alternative to F-35 joint strike fighter amid tight budgets

Posted by John Keller

The Boeing Co. may be stealing a march on rival defense contractor Lockheed Martin Corp. with the radar-evading F-15 Silent Eagle stealth fighter, designs for which made a demonstrator flight last week in St. Louis. As a stealth aircraft, the 1970s-vintage F-15 jet fighter may be a viable near-term alternative to the Lockheed Martin F-35 joint strike fighter in some applications.

The stealthy version of the F-15 uses special surface coatings, conformal internal weapons bays, and other advanced technologies that enable the F-15 Silent Eagle to evade some kinds of air-to-air radar systems, although experts say the stealth version of the F-15 may not be able to avoid sophisticated ground-based air-defense radars. Conformal weapons bays also may enable the aircraft to function as a stealth bomber.

Israel is watching the F-15 Silent Eagle closely, and may consider the Boeing aircraft to be a more affordable and more available combat aircraft than the F-35. Some in the Israeli defense ministry favor buying the F-15 Silent Eagle in the face of expected additional delays in the F-35 development. The Silent Eagle also reportedly is one-third less expensive than the F-35.

Israeli purchases of the F-15 Silent Eagle would enhance the aircraft's credibility in the international market, which is precisely Boeing's target for the new aircraft. Boeing developed the Silent Eagle in response to international user requirements for a cost-effective, high-performance fighter aircraft to defend against future threats.

The F-15 Silent Eagle offers unique aerodynamic, avionics, and radar cross section reduction features that provide the user with maximum flexibility to dominate the ever-changing advanced threat environment. The aircraft's Conformal Weapons Bays can carry a variety of air-to-air missiles and air-to-ground weapons.

With the U.S. defense budget under increasing pressure to downsize, who knows? If the Silent Eagle catches on internationally, perhaps it could find a home in U.S. fighter squadrons.

Subscribe to Avionics Intelligence