Posts Tagged 'USAF'

CFP – Air Power and Global Operations: 9/11 and Beyond

United States Air Force Historical Foundation


United States Air Force Historical Studies Office

Call for Papers

The Air Force Historical Foundation and the U.S. Air Force Historical Studies Office invite scholars, analysts, observers, and participants to submit proposals for papers to be presented at the 2011 symposium, “Air Power and Global Operations: 9/11 and Beyond,” which will be held November 17–18, 2011, in the Washington, D.C. area.

In recognition of the tenth anniversary of the events of September 11, 2001, this 1-1/2 day symposium will feature prominent U.S. military and civilian leaders, national security experts, and Air Force historians. Papers will consider topics of leadership, technology, doctrine, planning, operations, and roles and missions within the general theme of air power in the post-9/11 world:

9/11 and Operation Noble Eagle, including leadership and information management, interagency communication and coordination, evolution and expansion of the air defense mission, and budgetary impact on day-to-day operations.

The Global War on Terror and Operation Enduring Freedom, including increased heightened operational tempo, coalition interoperability, air mobility, special operations, and provincial reconstruction teams.

Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation New Dawn, including counterinsurgency, joint aspects of major combat operations, nation-building, and air mobility.

New Operational Paradigms and Innovations, including the impact of precision weapons, ISR, command and control systems, satellite and communications systems, cyber warfare, and global humanitarian missions.

Time constraints may limit the opportunity to present some papers in person at the symposium. The Air Force History and Museums Program plans to publish an edited volume based on the proceedings. Thus, contributors unable to present papers will be able to share their work in the published symposium proceedings.

The conference sponsors are unable to provide transportation, food, or lodging for this symposium.

To be considered for the symposium, submit an abstract of approximately 250 words and a one-page curriculum vitae or résumé to by May 1, 2011.

Please type “2011 Symposium” as the subject of the email. We plan to respond to proposals by mid-June. The final papers will be due by October 2, 2011.

N.B. This has been posted on behalf of the organisers.


I’d like to be in America

Despite last week’s news that EADS was withdrawing their Airbus KC-30 aircraft from the US Air Force’s KCX future tanker competition, the company remains in a bullish mood regarding its military prospects in the United States. Domingo Urena, boss of Airbus Military which produces the company’s tankers, told the press on Monday 15th March that the firm could sell up to 500 Airbus A400M turboprop airlifters; 210 of which could be sold to US military customers.

Breathless optimism? Perhaps. The troubles of the A400M, which has now begun flight testing at Airbus’s manufacturing centre at Blagnac Airport in Toulouse, France, are well documented. Talk of customers beyond the airlifters’ partner nations (Germany, France, Spain, the United Kingdom, Turkey and Belgium) may seem a tad premature, particularly given South Africa’s cancellation last year of the eight aircraft it had originally intended to buy.

That said, the A400M could fill a niche for countries wanting a large airlifter but lacking the circa US$200 million cash for a Boeing C-17 Globemaster freighter. While the A400M has a Maximum Take-Off Weight (MTOW) of 141,000 kg (310,852 lb) compared to the 265,352 kg (585,001 lbs) MTOW of the C-17, the Airbus’s unit cost is predicted to be in the region of US$80 million. Although to paraphrase the financial world’s favourite disclaimer, ‘values can go up as well as down’.

Another factor may also play in Airbus’s favour. Boeing’s C-17 production line in Long Beach California is slated to close in around 2012, according to a February report in the Los Angeles Times; exactly the time when Airbus hopes to be looking towards full-scale production of the A400M. However, additional C-17 orders may extend the life of the plant, although by how much is unknown.

Should C-17 production end by 2014/15 at the latest, the A400M could become the only game in town as far as large airlifters are concerned. True, Russian and Ukrainian suppliers offer huge Antonov An-124 freighters, but these are a generation behind the A400M in terms of technological sophistication. Moreover, production of new An-124s is sporadic.

The demise of the C-17 could mean that the US Air Force has little choice but to look at the A400M as a candidate aircraft if, in the future, it finds a requirement for a larger airlifter than its existing Lockheed Martin C-130 Hercules, to supplement its C-17 fleet. Mr. Urena’s comments show EADS’s self-imposed exile from the KCX competition may not preclude the firm from selling Airbus’s other military flagship product to the Pentagon in the future. We live in interesting times!

By Thomas Whithington

EADS Withdraws from United States Air Force KCX Tanker Competition

The news that EADS has decided to withdraw from the United States Air Force‘s ‘KCX’ replacement inflight refueler competition seems to underline the closed nature of the American defence market vis-a-vis European suppliers, particularly of ‘big ticket’ contracts such as these.

In some ways, the whole programme distills the trans-Atlantic spat between the European Union and the United States over the issues of subsidies for aircraft production. The World Trade Organisation has been hearing a dispute between the two aircraft builders regarding the subsidies Airbus receives from European governments to develop new airliners and, last September, issued an interim ruling in favour of Boeing. However, a countersuit is proceeding through the WTO alleging that Boeing recevies unfair subsidies from at the state level from Washington and Illinois.

The support that the Democrat Party receives in Washington State, where Boeing’s KC-767 production line is located arguably means that, with a Democrat President, EADS and Airbus were always going to have a hard sell with their KC-30 design. This whole issue of pork barrel politics is amplified by the fact that buying the 767 would retain around 2,700 jobs at Boeing’s 767 production line, whereas establishing a KC-30 line in Mobile, Alabama (where the KC-30 was intended to be assembled) would have created around 300.

In these times of economic belt-tightening, President Obama could be forgiven for not wanting to threaten the workers at Seattle who would face redundancy when the 767 production line is scheduled to close in the next few years, should the KC-767 not be selected.

However, one of the ignored questions surroudning the KCX competition is what will happen to the KC-30 design, now that it has been withdrawn from the US Air Force competition? This aircraft has been selected by France, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Australia as these countries’ respective new in-flight refuelers. With the KCX competition ‘in the bag’ just where are the future orders for the KC-30?

Airbus might be able to grab the odd purchase of five-to-ten tankers here and there from countries around the world, such as Brazil, which need that capability, but the biggest order has eluded them. Moreover, the fact that the US Air Force operates a particular aircraft is a fantastic selling point, and will likely win Boeing KC-767 orders from nations wanting to fly a similar type of aircraft, particularly those countries closely allied to the United States such as Turkey. With the A400M‘s test flight schedule still far from complete, and the KC-30 thrown out of the KCX competition, what is the future for Airbus’s military aircraft business?

By Thomas Withington


Welcome to The Aerodrome, the unofficial blog of the Air Power Studies students at the University of Birmingham.

Please note all opinions expressed are those of the contributors and should not be taken to be those of the University of Birmingham, the Ministry of Defence or any other organisation or body.

Non-students will from time to time contribute to this blog.

Contact Us

If you have any questions about either this blog or about studying Air Power at the University of Birmingham please email us at The Aerodrome

The Aerodrome Forum

As an adjunct to this blog we have set up an Air Power Forum for students and academics working in the field of Air Power Studies.

You can find the forum here.

If you have any questions please Email us.

You can also find an Air Power Studies networking group on LinkedIn

Blog Stats

  • 28,356 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 22 other followers