USAF Suspects Carbon Monoxide in F-22 Grounding

The prolonged grounding of the U.S. Air Force's F-22 Raptor fleet may be due to carbon monoxide entering the cockpit via the aircraft's oxygen system, two sources said.

Investigators say carbon monoxide may have caused the grounding of the F-22 fleet. The gas generated by the planes' jet engines may have gotten into cockpits at a base in Alaska, where pilots often start the engines inside a hangar before takeoff. (U.S. Air Force)

Service leaders grounded the stealthy twin-engine fighter May 3, after 14 incidents when F-22 pilots suffered "hypoxia-like symptoms."

Air Force officials initially suspected a problem with the aircraft's On-Board Oxygen Generation System (OBOGS), but that is looking less likely, the sources said.
Instead, investigators now suspect that carbon monoxide generated by the plane's jet engines is getting into the cockpit.
Part of the problem may be the procedures used at Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska, where most of the known incidents have occurred. Because of the harsh climate, pilots often start their jet engines inside a hangar before taking off. Investigators suspect that exhaust gases are getting trapped in the building and subsequently sucked back into the engines, where they enter the bleed air intakes that supply the OBOGS, sources said.
The design and placement of the intakes, which are located within the engines' compressor sections, are fairly standard for jet aircraft.
There is no immediate fix in sight, sources said.
Asked for comment, an Air Force spokesman said he had no further information at this time.
"The safety of our aircrews is paramount, and the Air Force continues to carefully study all factors of F-22 flight safety," said Maj. Chad Steffey.
However, a July 21 press release says Air Force Secretary Michael Donley has ordered the service's Scientific Advisory Board to conduct a "quick-look study" of "aircraft using on-board oxygen generation systems."
One aviation safety expert said that if the hypoxia is being caused by carbon monoxide in the cockpit, the gas is likely being generated by the plane's engines.
"I would think that it has something to do with exhaust flow somehow getting into the oxygen generating system," said Hans Weber, who sat on the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration's Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee, and is president of Tecop International, a San Diego consulting firm.
Even a small amount of the colorless, odorless gas can have serious effects, Weber said.
"It doesn't take a large concentration of carbon monoxide to start affecting people, making them ill - and not just ill but really diminishing their ability to perceive anything."
Weber said the difficulty of the fix will depend on the problem.
If the carbon monoxide is being ingested because the engines are being started in confined spaces, a fix could be as simple as moving the jet outside, Weber said. If the engine must be started inside the hangar, the startup of the oxygen system might be delayed until the jet is out in the open, he said.
But if dangerous levels of carbon monoxide are entering the cockpit despite these changes, the Air Force might have to add bulky cartridges or scrubbers to the life-support system, he said.
The U.S. Navy has had similar problems with the OBOGS on its F/A-18 Hornet, which sucked carbon monoxide into its oxygen system during carrier operations.
Between 2002 and 2009, Hornet aviators suffered 64 reported episodes of hypoxia, including two that killed the pilots, according to the July-August 2010 issue of "Approach," a Navy Safety Center publication.
Some 77 percent of the incidents happened in single-seat Hornets, which saw 3.2 incidents per 100,000 flight hours. The two-seat version saw 1.7 incidents per 100,000 flight hours.
According to Navy documents, "Prolonged exposure to jet engine exhaust while sitting behind another aircraft waiting to take off and operating with low bleed air pressures can result in carbon monoxide (CO) breaking through … into the pilot's breathing gas."
The Navy modified the planes' OBOGS to fix the problem, has had no recent similar incidents, and is not currently investigating the systems, Naval Air Systems Command officials said.

U.S. Navy Resumes EMALS Tests

Flight tests of the U.S. Navy's new electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS) resumed in late May after a five-month hiatus, and two more aircraft types have now passed their initial launch tests.

Sailors at Lakehurst Naval Air Station, New Jersey, watch as a T-45C Goshawk of VX-23 rolls down the rail during testing of the EMALS Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System in early June. The aircraft made a dozen launches over two days.

The program's maiden launches were accomplished in mid-December when an F/A-18E Super Hornet strike fighter from Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 23 (VX-23) made four takeoffs from the Navy's catapult test center at Lakehurst, N.J. But the tests revealed the need to fine-tune the software that controls the system's motors and better control the miniscule timing gaps between when the motors are energized and turned off.

"The linear motors fire sequentially as you go down the catapult track," said Capt. James Donnelly, the Navy's program manager for EMALS. "Only three are energized at a time. They turn on, turn off. As each one energizes, a force is exerted on the aircraft, and the timing needed to be fine-tuned."
Flight tests with the F/A-18E resumed May 25, and "the launches validated the software changes," Donnelly said.
The Super Hornet made 14 launches using the revamped software, followed by 12 launches on June 1 and 2 with a T-45C Goshawk training jet from VX-23.
A C-2A Carrier Onboard Delivery aircraft from VX-20 made a further series of 12 launches on June 8 and 9.
The Super Hornet will return in July to Lakehurst for another series of launches using a variety of stores, or weapons, mounted under the wings and on the aircraft. Later in the summer, an E-2D Advanced Hawkeye airborne command-and-control aircraft will begin launch tests, Donnelly said.
The multiple launches are used to test a variety of weights on the aircraft, he said, and to validate the EMALS system and improve reliability. The aircraft are also tested at various launch speeds.
Reliability of the EMALS system is "improving," Donnelly said.
"We have more and more launches without any [warning] lights that come on, anything we annotate in launch logs," he said during a June 23 interview.
"A lot of corrections" were made during the early stages of the program's flight testing, Donnelly said.
"We're doing much less of that. We had very few issues in the May and June launches."
The EMALS, under development by prime contractor General Atomics and the Navy, is intended for installation on board the new Gerald R. Ford CVN 78-class aircraft carriers, where they will replace traditional steam catapults. The launch tests are done at Lakehurst using a mixed Navy-General Atomics team.
Despite the five-month pause in the test schedule, production and delivery of EMALS components is proceeding for the Gerald R. Ford, under construction at Huntington Ingalls Industries' Newport News, Va., shipyard.
"No impact to the ship [construction] schedule," Donnelly said. "We're meeting our required in-yard dates. We started deliveries in May, and we're delivering a lot of equipment this month, including most of the motor generators - the components that many folks were most concerned about schedule-wise."
Asked about the program's budget performance, Donnelly noted that production elements are being procured under a fixed-price contract - "no ups and extras there," he said - but he declined to provide test budget figures.
"We're constantly looking at the testing budget, so that's under discussion," he said.
"The bottom line is, we'll continue testing," he said. "Our focus is to ensure the catapult is as reliable as possible as when we deliver and the ship gets underway with sailors aboard."

Western Jetmakers Vie For Asian Contracts

TAIPEI - As Western defense budgets crash, East Asian democracies could spend $23 billion within the decade on new fighter aircraft and upgrades, providing lucrative markets for European and U.S. aerospace and defense companies.

Japan released a request for proposals (RfP) in April for 40 fighters for its F-X program. The Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) and Eurofighter Typhoon are fighting over the $4 billion deal. Bids are due in August with a contract award by the end of the year. The F-X will replace the Mitsubishi F-4EJ Kai Phantoms due for retirement in 2015.

South Korea is expected to issue an RfP in January for its F-X Phase 3 program. While 60 aircraft likely will be involved, it may come in two tranches, with the first being 40. The Boeing F-15, Typhoon and F-35 are already positioning themselves for the $9 billion deal. The FX Phase 3 will replace aging F-4 Phantom and F-5 Tiger fighters. The RfP is expected for release in January.

Taiwan is an exception. Due to Chinese pressure, the U.S. ignored a 2006 request for 66 F-16C/D Block 50/52 fighters for $5.5 billion. Taiwan also awaits a reply to a $4.5 billion request for an upgrade package for older F-16A/B Block 20 fighters in 2009.

With Western defense budgets under review and increasing pressure to pursue new market opportunities, European and U.S. combat aircraft manufacturers are "vigorously" engaging the East Asian fighter market, said Doug Barrie, senior fellow for military aerospace, U.K.-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.

"While Japan and South Korea have traditionally been U.S. combat aircraft customers, the present round of acquisition programs offers Europe an opportunity to break into the market," Barrie said.

European companies face an "uphill battle" to wrestle control of the fighter market from the U.S., which has "locked in markets" for fighter sales to the region for decades, said Richard Bitzinger, a defense industry analyst at the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Singapore.

"The big question will be if the Europeans can break into this market," Bitzinger said. If not, there is future potential for European aerospace companies to participate in indigenous fifth-generation fighter programs in Japan and South Korea, but in terms of new fighter sales, "these countries are still owned by the USA," Bitzinger said.

Barrie said the Typhoon had its best shot at winning in South Korea, despite the fact Boeing won both F-X Phase 1 and 2 with 60 F-15K Slam Eagle fighters. Boeing might propose the stealthy F-15 Silent Eagle in an attempt to edge the Typhoon out of the competition, he said.

In Japan and South Korea, there is a major effort by the competitors to provide local production opportunities.

"The fighter choice in both countries will send a political signal as to the extent to which, if any, South Korea or Japan wants to begin to build a substantial defense-industrial relationship with their respective relationships with Washington," Barrie said.

Japan's F-X program experienced delays over an intense Japanese lobbying effort begun in 2007 to force Washington to release exports of the F-22 Raptor, but the U.S. Congress blocked the effort. After the F-22 rejection, Tokyo set its sights on the F-35, only to see the JSF effort dogged by delays and cost overruns, which postponed the F-X RfP last year.

Tokyo highlighted its interest in stealth by pursuing an indigenous fifth-generation fighter program. Now, Japan is "using their own fifth-generation fighter [TFX] as a bargaining chip" in the competition, but it is still in the research-and-development stage and "hideously expensive," Barrie said.

Japan is desperate to secure local manufacturing options for the F-X, but it is prohibitively expensive for only 40 aircraft. Manufacturing costs could be driven down by the procurement of more fighters to replace F-15Js, increasing the number of F-X fighters to more than 100 and lowering manufacturing costs.

Unless the F-X fighters are produced in Japan, the local fighter manufacturing industry faces dire straits. Japan's only remaining fighter production line, the Mitsubishi F-2, will end in September.

There are also budget concerns after Japan's devastating triple disaster - earthquake, tsunami and a nuclear power plant crisis - and many wonder how the estimated $300 billion price tag for the catastrophe will affect the F-X budget.

Cost issues could push Japan to select the Super Hornet or the Typhoon. Eurofighter officials have been promoting the Typhoon as a flexible, inexpensive alternative to the F/A-18 and F-35. A European industry source in Tokyo said technical restrictions hamper F-35 exports, while Eurofighter has "no black box policy," which means wider options for Japanese industry participation.

Yet the Japan-U.S. military alliance and pressure to procure a U.S. fighter may keep Tokyo from picking a European fighter.

Taiwan's request for new F-16C/Ds is seen as a follow-on request for an earlier procurement of F-16A/Bs in the 1990s. Despite Beijing protests, the U.S. Congress recently called for the White House to release new fighters and upgrade packages, including a request for a follow-on F-16 trainer program for Taiwan's 21st Tactical Fighter Squadron based at Luke Air Force Base, Ariz. In dollar amounts alone, as the U.S. economy declines, increased pressure on the White House to release the F-16s might be too great to withstand.

"In the case of Taiwan, irrespective of posturing on the part of Beijing, the delivery of F-16 Block 52s should proceed," Barrie said.

Taiwan bought $16.5 billion worth of U.S.­built arms and equipment from 2007 to 2010. Sales included 12 P-3C Orion Maritime Patrol Aircraft, 30 AH-64D Apache Longbow attack helicopters and 60 UH-60M Black Hawk utility helicopters. Taiwan has requirements for signal intelligence aircraft, attack jet trainers, basic aircraft trainers and UAVs.

Chinese Avionics Advances Ripple Throughout Asia

ISLAMABAD - China's avionics industry is closing the gap with other avionics producers, with benefits flowing to Pakistan and new challenges emerging for the U.S.

Chinese aircraft are helping Pakistan maintain conventional deterrence toward India as New Delhi pursues cutting-edge technology to revamp its airpower. As a result, said Usman Shabbir, of the Pakistan Military Consortium think tank, the new "JF-17 Block II [combat aircraft] may see a Chinese AESA [active electronically scanned array] radar along with an IRST [infrared search and track] sensor, and an even better ECM [electronic countermeasures] suite."

Wider advances by China's aviation industry would result in "greater use of composites to reduce the overall airframe weight" for the JF-17 Block II, and also a thrust vectoring control engine; though Shabbir conceded the latter "has never been officially confirmed."

Analyst Kaiser Tufail said an AESA radar is "the way to go," and that "all future [radar] acquisitions or retrofits would be AESA, whether mechanically scanned or phased-array type."

Tufail said the current JF-17 radar, a variant of which is fitted to the Chinese Chengdu J-10 combat jet, is an interim solution "because the [Pakistan Air Force] had been unable to find a radar vendor who could sell cutting-edge technology at an affordable price."

Tufail said Pakistan's acquisition of advanced Chinese avionics should not be seen through the prism of Indian programs, such as the Medium Multirole Combat Aircraft program. Rather, he said, it should be seen as Pakistan's effort to keep pace with modern weaponry.

And China benefits from its collaboration with Pakistan.

"Traditionally, the Chinese aviation industry has found an excellent test bed in the PAF, and their products have been, and can be, proven in ways that are not possible with [China's Air Force], due to limitations of comparative analysis in truly operational scenarios and with respect to Western equipment that PAF operates," he said.

As a result, a "Chinese AESA radar would, therefore, be a synergetic success in partnership with Pakistan," he said.

However, it is unknown whether the new JF-17 Block II radars are variants of those fitted to the improved J-10B. If that is the case, analyst and Chinese specialist Andrei Chang said the new radar is unlikely to be an AESA type.

"The phased-array radar testing on the J-10B is a passive model," he said.

Chang said he does not think the Chinese have developed "a useful AESA radar for the JF-17 and J-10B," but they could in the future.

"I know they are researching AESA radars, but it takes time," he said.

China's technological advances give potential adversaries cause for concern, Tufail said.

"As in many other fields like space and information technology, China is making a mark in major ways which impacts geostrategic and security issues," he said. "Technological developments like AESA radars would, thus, certainly have a bearing on the comfort levels of countries that have an adversarial relationship with China."

The potential threat posed by Chinese advances in avionics is an issue Carlo Kopp of the Air Power Australia think tank has tried to raise.

"Chinese technology is a mix of reverse-engineered Western and Russian designs, and some often very good indigenous ideas," he said. The danger this poses is clear.

"As the Chinese advance and proliferate these products, they are increasingly narrowing the range of environments in which Western air forces and navies can operate," Kopp said.

CHINESE DEFENSES

"Today, only the U.S. F-22A [stealth fighter] and B-2A [stealth bomber] can penetrate Chinese airspace with impunity," he said. "All other Western designs, including the intended F-35 [Joint Strike Fighter] and existing F/A-18E, would suffer prohibitive loss rates" to surface-to-air missiles, he said.

Kopp's opinion of the F-35 is perhaps surprising, but he said he believes China's investment in more maneuverable aircraft will expose severe weaknesses.

"The notion that having a good AESA [radar] can overcome kinematic performance limitations in a design is predicated on the idea that your missiles are 100 percent effective in long-range combat," he said. "The evidence shows otherwise for the AIM-120 AMRAAM."

The approach that says "let the missiles do the turning," rather than the aircraft, "is a mantra in the F-35 and F/A-18 camps," Kopp said. "Unfortunately, it is wishful thinking by folks promoting obsolete designs. The mathematics and physics of aerial combat do not support this proposition."

Therefore, the strategic impact of China's advances will be substantial and exacerbated by poor long-term decision-making by the U.S., Kopp said.

"As China wholly recapitalizes its fleets, and exports these products, there will be an inevitable strategic impact, as the U.S. has been reluctant to export the F-22, has chopped F-22 production funds, and has no new products in the pipeline capable of robustly surviving against top-end Chinese products in combat," he said.

Kopp also blames the reluctance by Washington to share high-technology weaponry with allies that could check China's advance.

He singles out Defense Secretary Robert Gates for making decisions that will produce "a dangerous long-term strategic environment in Asia as China introduces and proliferates advanced technology, and the U.S. chooses for ideological reasons to no longer invest in advanced air power."

Joint Strike Fighter Makes First Public Appearance

The U.S. Defense Department's embattled F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) made its first public air-show appearance May 21 at Joint Base Andrews, Md., just outside of Washington.
An F-35C variant aircraft flew alongside an F/A-18 Hornet chase plane during a single pass before disappearing into the distance. Both the U.S. Navy and the Marine Corps will operate the C-model aircraft from the Navy's large deck carriers.

The jet was flying with Lt. Cmdr. Eric "Magic" Buus at the controls as part of a commemoration marking 100 years of naval aviation.
After the flyover pass, the F-35C and its Hornet chase plane continued with their planned test sortie, said Joe DellaVedova, a spokesman for the JSF program office who was in attendance alongside program manager Vice Adm. David Venlet.
Both planes were flown out of Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., which serves as the Navy's main flight test center.

DoD: Operating Costs Biggest Threat to F-35

The Pentagon estimates the total cost of operating the U.S. military's F-35s through 2065 at more than $1 trillion, and that's the program's biggest long-term challenge, a bevy of top DoD officials told the Senate Armed Services Committee on May 19.
"Over the lifetime of this program, the decade or so, the per-aircraft cost of the 2,443 aircraft has doubled in real terms," procurement Chief Ashton Carter said. "That's what it's going to cost if we keep doing what we're doing. That's unacceptable. That's unaffordable."

And although operating expenses won't really take off for some years, cost-saving efforts must begin.
"Nobody is going to pay that bill," Carter said. "It's way too high."
Still, he said, the $1 trillion number shouldn't be taken at face value because it's such a long-term sum and because various management steps will bring down the cost.
"I truly believe that we can manage out a substantial number of the production and sustainment costs," Carter said.
"Having the thing costs much more than buying the thing. Seventy cents of the cost of every program is having it, 30 cents is getting it," Carter said.
Christine Fox, who leads the Defense Department's Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) office, said that the F-35's sustainment costs are not quite as high as that of its larger fifth-generation sibling, the F-22 Raptor, but match those of the older and considerably larger F-15C Eagle. Sustainment costs exceed those of the F-16 and F/A-18, which the F-35 is supposed to replace.
"Given the significant increase in capability, it is not unreasonable that JSF costs more to operate and sustain than some legacy aircraft," Fox said. "However, the fact that it will cost about 33 percent more to operate JSF relative to the F-16 and F/A-18 aircraft it is replacing gives the department a significant bill."
The Defense Department and the F-35 program office are going to analyze sustainment costs through 2065. The current sum is mammoth, but Fox and Government Accountability Office acquisitions director Michael Sullivan warned that it is difficult to accurately estimate sustainment costs.
Vice Adm. David Venlet, who spoke to reporters after his testimony, said that scouring sustainment costs for savings would continue after Carter's formal review.
The Defense Department is scrubbing the program from top to bottom in a "should cost" analysis that will inform a new baseline for the program. The "should cost" analysis numbers are factoring into the negotiations with contractor Lockheed Martin to build the jet.

Loss of Carrier Strike Capability Top Concern of Royal Navy Chief

LONDON - The head of the Royal Navy says retaining Britain's carrier strike capability would have been top of his "wish list" if the recent strategic defense and security review were to be rewritten.

A Harrier launches from HMS Ark Royal. Withdrawing Ark Royal and the Harriers earlier this year was by far the most controversial element of British defense spending cuts. The Royal Navy chief indicated he would not oppose resurrecting the Harrier fo (U.K. Ministry of Defence)

First Sea Lord Adm. Sir Mark Stanhope told the parliamentary defense committee that if Britain still had a carrier available, it would be deployed off the coast of Libya helping to enforce U.N. Resolution 1973.

Giving evidence alongside the heads of the Army and Air Force on the impact of last year's defense review, Stanhope said that retaining HMS Ark Royal and its fleet of Harrier strike aircraft would have been his top priority if the government's strategic defense review and associated four-year defense spending plan could be revisited.
Britain's Navy was hard hit by the latest round of defense cuts with frigates, destroyers, an aircraft carrier and support ships all being pensioned off. The other two services also suffered heavy cuts, particularly the Royal Air Force.
Later in his evidence, Stanhope pointed to the impact the cuts were already having, saying the Royal Navy would find it "significantly challenging" to maintain the deployment of a frigate and a mine countermeasures vessel off the coast of Libya for much more than six months without crippling other standing commitments.
The British government axed the Royal Navy's remaining aircraft carrier and the Harrier aircraft that fly from its deck as part of a strategic defense and security review that saw surveillance aircraft, warships, tanks and other equipment eliminated to help meet swinging cuts to the defense budget over the four years ending 2014.
Withdrawing Ark Royal and the Harriers earlier this year was by far the most controversial element of the defense spending cuts. Stanhope later indicated he would not oppose resurrecting the Harrier force if possible and if money was made available to support the aircraft.
Stanhope and Air Marshal Sir Stephen Dalton, the chief of the Air Staff, were asked by a defense committee member whether returning the Harrier force to service had gone beyond the point of no return.
Dalton said it had. But Stanhope responded that while Dalton's statement was correct, he would "like to think that should a decision [be made to reassess the Harrier force, we could], look again. It all comes down to money."
Stanhope said the Royal Navy is faced with the task of regenerating the carrier force in the latter half of the decade as a new aircraft carrier and the F-35C fighter become available. Rebuilding an aircraft carrier force around 2019 could only be done with the assistance of allied carrier operators France and the U.S., he said. Such a program is now being developed, Stanhope said.
Three Fleet Air Arm pilots are already flying F/A-18s with the U.S. military to help maintain British capabilities. A fourth is due to move to the U.S. soon, he said.
Britain is building two 65,000-ton carriers, with the first entering service around 2017 and the second scheduled to be ready around 2019.
The defense cuts saw the government commit to only operating the second of the warships as an aircraft carrier.
Stanhope said Britain would have to operate two carriers unless it wanted to follow the example of France, which could only get its single carrier, the nuclear powered Charles de Gaulle, operational for five years in every eight. The remainder of the time is devoted to maintenance and workup, he said.
The Harriers were operated jointly by the Royal Navy and Air Force, and the plan is to do the same with the F-35s. In his evidence, Dalton denied the RAF had any ambitions to take over the role of the Fleet Air Arm on the Navy carriers, and said a 60-40 split in favor of the Air Force had already been agreed to between the two services.
Dalton said the carrier would start operating with a single squadron of F-35s and eventually work up to three squadrons.

Tech Offers Shape India's Jet Picks

Willingness to transfer technology likely helped the multinational Eurofighter Typhoon and French Dassault Rafale emerge as the short-listed rivals for India's Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) program, observers said, although at least one U.S. official said the Indian Air Force's technical requirements were the deciding factor.
The Indian government has not even formally announced the downselect, let alone explained why it ruled out the Swedish Saab JAS-39 Gripen, the Russian MiG-35, and two U.S.-built jets, the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the Lockheed Martin F-16IN Super Viper, from the $10 billion, 126-aircraft program.
Instead, the news was passed April 27 to the jet-makers' national governments, irking at least some U.S. industry players.
"The way the decision was made and announced has only made things worse: The [government of India] knew full well the importance the administration attached to this sale. A quiet intimation of the coming decision would have helped considerably. It was really unfortunate that this was not done," said Ashley Tellis, an analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.
A Indian Defence Ministry source said the decision was based on technical evaluations and flight tests, not political considerations or influence. Defence Minister A.K. Antony insisted that the selection be based on merit alone, the source said.
A senior Defence Ministry official said India will next open negotiations over technology transfer and price with the remaining bidders, a process that could last all year.
Several analysts said that while the U.S. had allowed its jet makers to offer unprecedented access to technology, European contenders probably pledged more.
"The most likely explanation is that the Europeans wanted and needed it more. They were willing to bend over backwards in terms of technology transfer, in terms of industrial work share and in terms of other regulatory issues, and they really needed this," said Richard Aboulafia, an analyst at the Teal Group, Fairfax, Va. "For the U.S. contractors, it would have been gravy, but for the Europeans, it's survival through the end of the decade."
Byron Callan, an analyst at Capital Alpha Partners in Washington, agreed about the stakes, but also said the U.S. companies' loss augurs poorly for their chances in Brazil's fighter competition.
Others disagreed about the role of tech-transfer in the Indian decision.
Tellis said the choice merely reflected the Indian Air Force's (IAF) technical preferences.
"The down-select decision clearly represents the IAF's choice, which the MoD has obviously gone along with as expected," he said.
One senior U.S. administration official agreed.
"I wouldn't see the technology release issue as the clincher," he said. "This was a judgment made on the basis of the technical qualification requirements that the Indian Air Force had established as part of the procurement."
He said the two U.S. aircraft had failed to meet certain Indian technical criteria.
"India would have been well-served to take a more comprehensive look at the transaction," he said.
But the official also conceded there were certain technologies that the U.S. simply would not share.
"We have a defense licensing system which is consistent with the law of the land, and there are certain technologies we're simply not going to hand over. That's just a fact of life," he said.
Boeing disputed the assertion that the F/A-18E/F did not meet Indian technical requirements.
"We believe we offered the Indian Air Force a fully compliant and best-value multi-role aircraft for the defined mission," the company said in a statement.
Indeed, many analysts considered the Boeing entrant to be among the most technologically capable of the rivals, as well as offering the favored twin-engine configuration.
"The F/A-18, that surprised me," said Douglas Barrie, an analyst with the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. "My side bet for the program would have been the Rafale, Typhoon and F/A-18E/F making it to the down-select."
One U.S. industry official noted that Indian officials had publicly asserted that viable contenders would have an operational active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, something only the F/A-18/E/F and F-16IN possess. The European contenders are developing AESA arrays.
"Yet, it seems that the IAF and MoD made the decision based on strategic, political grounds, not technical merits," the official said.
Several analysts said India has not forgotten that the U.S. imposed sanctions on the country after a 1990s nuclear test, nor that Washington is working to bolster ties with arch-enemy Pakistan.
For the U.S. government, which has placed an enormous stake on securing a strategic partnership with India, the short-list decision comes as a bitter pill.
"We are reviewing the documents received from the Government of India and are respectful of the procurement process," U.S. Ambassador Timothy J. Roemer said. "We are, however, deeply disappointed by this news. We look forward to continuing to grow and develop our defense partnership with India."
Roemer's comments were echoed by the senior U.S. administration official, who noted that the country's relationship was far deeper than one transaction. He noted that India had purchased U.S. weapons worth billions of dollars in recent years, including C-130J and C-17 airlifters and P-8 maritime patrol aircraft.
The official said the Indian bureaucratic system does not know the American system particularly well, which undermines its confidence in the U.S. as a reliable supplier. Over time, the official said India's faith in the U.S. would grow stronger.
"The logic of the U.S.-India relationship is as compelling today as it was on Tuesday in Asia and beyond," he said. "It's not the end of the world."
Bhim Singh, an analyst and retired IAF wing commander, predicted that the rejection of Boeing and Lockheed Martin wouldn't hurt bilateral defense ties.
But Tellis said there would be repercussions.
"I think the Obama administration will be deeply disappointed with this decision - as will the Congress. I think U.S.-India defense relations have been in trouble for a while. I suspect this will make things more difficult," he said.

The Rejected

Boeing has its Navy contracts for the Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler and other orders coming in from Saudi Arabia for the F-15, while Lockheed is shifting its focus onto the gargantuan F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter project.
But Saab needed the Gripen to win the Indian competition to remain in production; the aircraft has few other prospects beyond Brazil.
"They're dead in the water," Aboulafia said.
For the Russians, the MiG-35 loss to the Western contenders is was not entirely unexpected, Barrie said. The aircraft is based on the aging MiG-29 airframe.
Still, the Russians have a huge backlog of Indian contracts, including a deal to co-develop a new fifth-generation stealth fighter, and they acknowledge India's desire to diversify its supplier base. United Aircraft Corp.'s "cooperation with India is the widest of all countries and we understand that Indians do not want to keep all eggs in one basket and try to diversify suppliers," said an official from the Russian company.
Ruslan Pukhov, an analyst with the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies in Moscow, agreed that the rejection of the MiG-35 in the MMRCA tender will not affect other projects.
"While Russia and India had bitterly quarreled over the cost of refitting of the Admiral Gorshkov aircraft carrier, it has not upset any other project," he said.
The Russians said the MiG met all of India's technical criteria.
Lockheed Martin and Saab acknowledged the Indian decision in written statements, while Boeing said, "We are obviously disappointed with this outcome. Our next step is to request and receive a debrief from the Indian Air Force."

U.S. Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps List $1B in Unfunded Needs

While the U.S. Army has funded all of its requirements in its fiscal 2012 budget request, the Air Force, the Navy and the Marine Corps have each submitted a list of unfunded requirements to Congress.

The U.S. Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force have a combined total of more than $1 billion in unfunded needs in their fiscal 2012 budget requests. The Navy lists $367 million for maintenance of ships and submarines, such as the nuclear sub West Virginia (MC1 Kimberly Clifford / Navy)

The Navy's list totals $684 million for ship depot maintenance and aviation spares, while the Air Force lists $124 million in unfunded requirements, including money to replace munitions expended during operations in Libya. The Marine Corps' list totals $227 million for emerging requirements, including a need to upgrade equipment for its Chemical, Biological, Nuclear Incident Response Force.

In an April 15 letter to the leaders of the House Armed Services Committee, Gen. Martin Dempsey, the new chief of staff of the Army, says the service has no requirements that remain unfunded for 2012.
It is the only time the Army has not had unfunded requirements since 1995, when lawmakers first asked service chiefs to prepare lists of things they want but didn't get money for in the Pentagon's annual funding request.
The services' lists for 2012 mark a dramatic change from just a few years ago, and reflect the growing constraints being placed on the defense budget as the U.S. government tries to rein in federal spending.
In February 2008, the Air Force's wish list for the 2009 budget request totaled $18.7 billion, dwarfing the Navy's $4.6 billion list, the Army's $3.9 billion in unfunded needs, and the Marine Corps' $1.3 billion list.
"At a time of constrained resources, my primary request is that the Committee supports the President's Budget," writes Gen. Norton Schwartz, chief of staff of the Air Force, in an April 29 letter to Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash. Smith serves as the ranking member on the House Armed Services Committee.
However, if additional funds become available, Schwartz outlines how the Air Force would spend the money.
It requests $42.5 million for the A-10 Maintenance Tester, $33.7 million for the EC-130H Avionics upgrade, and $47.5 million to replace munitions used during operations in Libya.
"Both the A-10 Maintenance Tester and the EC-130H Avionics Upgrade improve our readiness posture and operational capabilities by resolving issues that could require grounding aircraft," Schwartz writes.
For the munitions used in Operation Odyssey Dawn, the Air Force is requesting $26 million for Joint Direct Attack Munitions, $11 million for Anti-Missile Countermeasure Decoy Systems, $6 million for Air to Ground Missiles and $5 million for laser-guided weapons. The funding would replenish munitions used through April 8, according to Schwartz's letter.
In addition to these items, the Air Force is working on a cost estimate for the recent storm damage done to its aircraft and installations in the southeastern United States. Schwartz says the current estimate is $60 million and that the Air Force will work with Congress to include these costs in the course of drafting the fiscal 2011 omnibus spending bill.
The Navy lists $367 million for maintenance of ships and submarines in an April 22 letter signed by Adm. Gary Roughead, chief of naval operations.
This funding would restore 44 deferred ship non-docking availabilities.
The remaining $317 million is for aircraft spares and repair parts for V-22s tilt-rotor aircraft, EA-18G and F/A-18E/F planes, and MH-60R/S helicopters.
These requirements are not of higher priority than what is already funded in the Navy's 2012 budget request, but these accounts are "stressed by increased operational tempo," Roughead tells Congress.
"Please keep in mind, the half-year Continuing Resolution for 2011 has the potential to impact requirements in [fiscal year] 2012," Roughead says.
The bulk of the Marine Corps' funding - $155 million - is for construction activities related to the Marine Corps University located in Quantico, Va., with academic facilities at other Marine Corps bases worldwide.
Gen. James Amos, commandant of the Marine Corps, identifies a handful of other unfunded requirements "that will provide substantial benefit to the Marine Corps today and in the future," in an April 26 letter to Smith.
His list includes $45 million for the Enterprise Land Mobile Radio and $17 million for fire suppression equipment for the Marine Corps' vehicles used in Afghanistan.
Based on lessons from recent operations in Japan, Amos also lists funding for equipment like protective suits, replacement respirators and unified command suites to improve the Corps' Chemical, Biological, Nuclear Incident Response Force.
"In light of the financial constraints facing our nation, we are especially grateful for the commitment by Congress to ensuring our men and women in harm's way receive the equipment and resources they need," Amos writes.

India Rejects Russia's Fighter Jet Bid: Official

MOSCOW - Russia confirmed April 29 that India had rejected its bid to supply its traditional ally with 126 multi-role combat aircraft in a deal worth about $12 billion.
A spokesman for the Rosoboronexport agency responsible for foreign military contracts said India had informed Russia of the decision earlier in the week.

The official added that no formal explanation was given for the decision and that the choice "was the exclusive right of India".
The U.S. ambassador to New Delhi on April 28 said Washington was "deeply disappointed" that Lockheed Martin's F-16 and Boeing's F/A-18 Super Hornet had also been rejected.
India has made no official announcement but the U.S. and Russian confirmations indicate that only the Dassault Rafale fighter of France and the joint Eurofighter Typhoon project are still in the running.
Russia hoped its Soviet-era ally would settle on the MiG-35 - an updated version of the MiG-29 jet that is already being purchased by India.
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) identified India as the world's biggest arms purchaser between 2006 and 2010 and Russia had remained its main supplier throughout.
The two sides agreed in December on the joint production of a fifth-generation fighter with stealth capabilities in deal potentially worth up to $30 billion.
India is Russia's second largest military client behind China.

India Shortlists Rafale, Eurofighter for Jet Deal

NEW DELHI - India has shortlisted Dassault's Rafale and the Eurofighter Typhoon for a $12 billion dollar fighter jet deal, cutting out U.S. bidders from one of the largest military contracts of recent years.

A Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft (top) and a Dassault military jet Rafale are seen. India shortlisted the Rafale and the Typhoon for a $12 billion fighter jet deal on April 28, cutting out U.S. giants Boeing and Lockheed, sources said. (AFP FILE PHOTOS / PIERRE VERDY / PAUL ELLIS)

The U.S. embassy in New Delhi confirmed April 28 that Lockheed Martin's F-16 and Boeing's F/A-18 Super Hornet had both been ruled out of the running for India's planned purchase of 126 multirole combat aircraft.

Ambassador Timothy Roemer, who announced separately April 28 that he was resigning his post for personal reasons, said the U.S. government was "deeply disappointed" by the decision.
The long-delayed fighter jet deal has seen fierce competition between Boeing and Lockheed Martin, Sweden's Saab AB, France's Dassault Aviation, a European consortium with its Eurofighter Typhoon and the Russian makers of the MiG 35.
It was also the object of intense lobbying during visits to India last year by U.S. President Barack Obama, French President Nicholas Sarkozy and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.
"It is confirmed Eurofighter and Rafale have been selected and the remaining four are off," a senior Indian defence ministry official told AFP.
"The grounds for their rejection have been individually conveyed,: said the official, who declined to be identified.
He added that the government hoped to sign the final fighter deal by March 2012.
Saab AB confirmed April 27 that it had been notified its JAS-39 Gripen fighter was no longer in contention.
The Eurofighter is made by the four-nation EADS, representing Germany and Spain, Britain's BAE Systems and Italy's Finmeccanica.
The contract includes the outright purchase of 18 combat aircraft by 2012 with another 108 to be built in India.
India, the biggest importer of military hardware among emerging nations, issued the request for proposals to the six firms in 2007 and trials of the aircraft competing for the deal began a year later.
In his statement, Roemer said he had been "personally assured" at the highest levels of the Indian government that the procurement process for the multirole fighter "has been and will be transparent and fair."
The procurement of the fighter jets is a key part of India's military modernization program, aimed at securing its borders against its traditional and emerging rivals Pakistan and China.
International consultancy firm KPMG estimates New Delhi will hand out military contracts worth $112 billion by 2016.

Operation Odyssey Dawn

Libya “has not been a very big war. If [the Europeans] would run out of these munitions this early in such a small operation, you have to wonder what kind of war they were planning on fighting,” said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a defense think tank. “Maybe they were just planning on using their air force for air shows.”
Operating under the authority provided by U.N. Security Council resolution 1973, coalition forces, composed of military assets from the United States, France, United Kingdom, Italy and Canada, launched on March 19, 2011 Operation Odyssey Dawn against targets inside Libya and aimed at protecting civilians from attacks perpetrated by pro-Muammar Al-Qadhafi forces.
Acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which provides for the use of force if needed, UNSC Resolution 1973 was adopted on March 17, 2011, by 10 votes to zero, with five abstentions. UNSC Resolution 1973 specifically:

Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi(...)

The operation began with the dispatch of French air assets from France to Libya, composed of 8 Rafale, 2 Mirage 2000-5, 2 Mirage 2000D, 6 C-135FR air refueling tanker aicraft and one E-3F AWACS. As a result of the odenamed "Opération Harmattan", the French component of Operation Odyssey Dawn, the French began setting up an exclusion zone around Benghazi, reportedly destroying in the process four Lybian government tanks. Also taking part were to anti-air and air-defense frigates, the Jean Bart and the Forbin, stationned off the coast of Libya.
Subsequent to the French airstrikes, 124 Tomahawk Land Attack Cruise Missiles (TLAM) were launched from U.S. ships and submarines, in addition to one British Trafalgar-class submarine, with 20 out of 22 Libyan air defense facilities reported to have been targeted by the strikes. The first missile impact took place at 15:00 Eastern Standard Time. This included integrated air and missile defense system radars and anti-aircraft sites(surface-to-air missile sites, early warning sites, key communication nodes) around the capital of Tripoli as well as other facilities located along the Mediterranean coast. The Tomahawk arsenal used consisted of a mixture of older Tomahawks and newer tactical Tomahawks. No U.S. aircraft were used as part of these strikes

Slides from 03/19/11 Op. Odyssey Dawn News Briefing The last map in this briefing incorrectly identified the Italian ship Etna as a destroyer (DD), when it was in fact a logistics support vessel. Also, the Italian ship Andrea Doria was incorrectly identified as a cruiser (CG). The cruiser Andera Doria was decommissioned in the 1980s. Its name was subsequently reused for a new frigate.

According to the U.S. Department of Defense, the goals of these strikes were twofold:

- Prevent further attacks by regime forces on Libyan citizens and opposition groups, especially in and around Benghazi; - Degrade the regime’s capability to resist the no-fly zone we are implementing under that United Nations resolution.

Joint Task Force Odyssey Dawn is being led from USS Mount Whitney, operating in the Mediterranean Sea. 24 other ships from Italy, Canada, the United Kingdom and France took part in the initial phase of the operation.
In remarks made that day, U.S. President Barack Obama declared that he had "authorized the Armed Forces of the United States to begin a limited military action in Libya in support of an international effort to protect Libyan civilians". President Obama stressed, however, that he would "not deploy any U.S. troops on the ground"
Denmark was reported to have dispatched F-16 fighter jets to Sicily. Four of the aircraft would take part in the military operation with the remaining two to act as backups. Some media reports claimed that British special forces, comprised of Special Air Service (SAS) and Special Boat Service (SBS), had been deployed to Libya prior to the initial strikes to prepare for lay the ground for military strikes.
As of 19 March 2011, it was expected that additional countries, notably Arab countries, would be joining the coalition. Denmark contributed 4 F-16 aircraft to the initial strikes in Libya. The USS Stout (DDG 55), which had a ballistic missile defense mission in the Mediterranean Sea, also fired BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles at targets in Libya on 19 March 2001. Other ships, including the USS Florida (SSGN 728), also conducted missile strikes during the initial attacks. Operation Odyssey Dawn marked the first time a modified Ohio class guided missile submarine had launched a TLAM in combat.
Results of the strikes were scheduled to be analyzed following collection of data using Global Hawk unmanned aerial aircraft and national technical means providing the information needed.

Slides from 03/20/11 Op. Odyssey Dawn News Briefing

On 20 March 2011, U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) announced that three B-2 stealth bombers had attacked Libyan airfields using reportedly 40 JDAMs (later reports said 45 GBU-31/B weapons were used) to destroy hardened shelters used by Libyan fighter-bombers. The mission, flown from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri, lasted 25 hours in total. The aircraft refueled in mid-air 4 times during the sortie.
Also, sometime before dawn on 20 March 2011, a total of 15 US, French and British aircraft were used in a series of airstrikes on pro-Gadhafi forces, near Benghazi, destroying dozens of military vehicles. Among the aircraft were F-15s and F-16s. Air assets from the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit consisting of four AV-8B Harriers also took part in operations against Qadhafi's ground forces and air defenses while U.S. Navy EA-18G Growlers provided electronic warfare support. This marked the first combat mission for the EA-18G Growler aircraft. Other airstrikes were also performed against targets outside Tripoli.
According to U.S. DoD officials, the airstrikes had resulted in the destruction of Libya’s fixed surface-to-air missile capability and early warning radars; though mobile surface-to-air missiles, in the form of SA-6 and SA-8 systems as well thousands of shoulder-fired SA-7 missile launchers, remained.
Operation Odyssey Dawn was led by AFRICOM, with Joint Task Force Odyssey Dawn established to provide operational and tactical control of the US portion of enforcement of UNSCR 1973. The Task Force's Joint Force Maritime Component Commander was also the Commander, 6th Fleet, while the Joint Force Air Component Commander was also the commander of Seventeenth Air Force, US Air Forces Africa.
Qatar announced on 20 March 2011, that it would dispatch four fighter jets to help enforce the no-fly zone. France's Ministry of Defense said it expected the Qatari aircraft to be made up of four Mirage 2000 jets which would fly jointly with French aircraft, but nonetheless have their own automous command and support. Canada also deployed six CF-18 aircraft. Belgium, Greece and Norway were also reported to have each deployed half a dozen F-16 fighter jets to the island of Sicily.
On 20 March 2011, France announced that its Charles de Gaulle Groupe aéronaval (GAN), made up of the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier, the Meuse fleet oiler and the Aconite and Dupleix frigates had departed its homeport of Toulon that day and were en route towards the coast off Libya. The task force is equipped with 10 helicopters, including two Caracal and one Puma from the French Air Force. The Charles de Gaulle also carries onboard eight Rafale Marine, six 6 Super-Etendard and 2 E-2C Hawkeye. Also on 20 March 2011, AV-8B aircraft of the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit, operating from the USS Kearsarge conducted strike in the vicinity of Ajdabiyah, Libya. Six Italian Tornados from Trapani Birgi Air Base also participated in operations for the first time on 20 March 2011.
On 20 March 2011, the Arab League's Secretary General criticized Operation Odyssey Dawn, saying that the scope of the operation exceeded the intent of the League's original call for a no-fly zone the week prior.
On 21 March 2011, the Spanish announced that 3 F-18 aircraft had particiapted in the UN sanctioned no-fly zone operation over Libya. A total of 4 F-18s, along with a single Boeing 707 refueling aircraft were to be deployed to Decimomannu Air Base on the island of Sardinia for operations over Libya. F-16s of the Belgian Air Component also conducted strikes, flying out of Araxos Air Base in Greece, where the aircraft had been deployed initially for training purposes. On 21 March 2011, Norway announced that it would be sending 4 F-16 aircraft to an unspecified NATO air base in the region to participate in the no-fly zone operations.
The UK Ministry of Defense announced on 21 March 2011, that the HMS Cumberland (F85) and the HMS Westminster (F237) had been deployed off the coast of Libya to assist in a planned arms embargo. In addition to the aircraft deployed to assist with the no-fly zone, Spain also announced that it would also deploy the frigate Méndez Núñez and the submarine Tramontana to patrol the waters off Libya as part of the enforcement of the NATO arms embargo, in concert with CN-235 maritime patrol aircraft. The Bataaan Amphibous Ready Group, made up of the USS Bataan (LHD 5), USS Mesa Verde (LPD 19), and USS Whidbey Island (LSD 41), along with their embarked 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit and Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron 28, was also en route to relieve the Kearsarge Amphibous Ready Group.
Though, originally reported to be contributing fighter aircraft to the enforcement of the no-fly zone, the United Arab Emirates stated on 21 March 2011, that their involvement in Libya would be limited to humanitarian aid. Two planes from the UAE had delivered medical supplies and foodstuffs the previous week, and the UAE was at the time coordinating with Turkey to send an aid ship to Libya.
Late on 21 March 2011, a USAF F-15E Strike Eagle based at RAF Lakenheath, but flying out of Aviano Air Base, crashed in Libya following an equipment malfunction while flying in support of Operation Odyssey Dawn. Both crew members successfully ejected and were reported to be safe, though their recovery was ongoing as of 22 March 2011. The crew, who suffered minor injuries, were recovered safely from northern Libya later on 22 March 2011. One of the crew was recovered from the crash site by a CSAR task force from the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit using 2 AV-8B Harriers, 2 MV-22A Osprey, and 2 CH-53E Super Stallions. The CH-53E Super Stallions carried a quick reaction force. During the operation, the AV-8Bs dropped 2 500-pound laser guided bombs in support of the rescue. The other crew member was rescued by Libyan rebels and then recovered.
On 22 March, 2011, the leaders of China, Russia, and South Africa all called for an immediate cease-fire in Libya between both the government and rebels and government forces and those of the UN sanctioned coalition enforcing a no-fly zone and arms embargo. The chairman of the Southern African Development Community, Namibia’s President Hifikepunye Pohamba, along with the presidents of Zimbabwe and Uganda criticized the actions of the coalition forces, suggesting it was tantamount to inference in the internal affairs of Africa. US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said he expected the intensity of the fighting to drop in a matter of days.
Also on 22 March 2011, President Obama said that he hoped the United States would be able to transfer leadership of the operation to another entity (country, group of countries, or multi-national organization) "within days." The strongest contender for this new leadership was seen as NATO, but members such as Germany and Turkey made clear their opposition to such plans. The United States, United Kingdom, and Italy were those most in favor of NATO assuming control of the operation. Turkey favored transforming the operation into a purely humanitarian mission. Later on 22 March 2011, NATO reported that it had agreed as a bloc to full support of the NATO arms embargo, but that it was still debating the organizations role in the air campaign. US President Barak Obama and French President Nicolas Sarkozy said later that the bloc had agree to a more unified effort in support of the air campaign.
Coalition aircraft continued strikes on 22 March 2011, attacking military facilities eastern Libya. The coalition was also looking to expand the scope of the no-fly zone to encompass the area between Benghazi and Tripoli. The suppression of air defense facilities in the west was intended to make it possible to enforce the full no-fly zone originally planned. As of 22 March 2011, it was reported that 159 Tomahawk cruise missiles had been fired at targets in Libya.
On 22 March 2011, 2 Qatari Mirage 2000-5EDA fighters and a C-17 transport arrived at the Souda Air Base on the island of Crete in Greece, after making an unscheduled stop to refuel Larnaca airport in Cyprus. Two Rafale F3 of French Flotille 12F also launched from the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier, positioned near Crete in international waters. Their reconnaissance mission was the first to be launcehd from the Charles de Gaulle and the first to be conduct by its task force, TF473, in support of coalition operations over Libya.
On 23 March 2011, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Catherine Ashton indicated that it was likely that NATO would take over the leadership of the coalition participating in UN sanctioned operations over Libya and off its coasts. A compromise was reached in which policy oversight for the operation would be in the hands of all the coalition partners, while NATO would be in charge of directing the military component. British Prime Minister David Cameron also said on 23 March 2011 that Kuwait and Jordan would contribute to the effort logistically. The NATO Operation to patrol the approaches to Libyan territorial waters to reduce the flow of arms, related material and mercenaries to Libya was named Operation Unified Protector. NATO was working closely with the International Maritime Organization to ensure that the flow of legitimate commercial and private shipping to Libya continues unimpeded.
Under Operation Unified Protector, NATO's Task Force of ships and aircraft would remain in international waters and would not enter Libyan territorial waters. NATO admitted it could not block all routes into the country, but had cut off the quickest, easiest and straightest route to Libya. NATO ships would use surveillance to verify the activity of shipping in the region, separating out legitimate commercial and private traffic from suspicious vessels. Suspicious traffic would be hailed by radio, and if they could not give satisfactory information about their cargoes, the NATO ships were authorized to intercept them. As a last resort, the Task Force was empowered to use force. If weapons or mercenaries were found, the vessel and its crew would be escorted to a secure port where international and national authorities would take charge. Suspected aircraft could be intercepted and escorted to an airport designated by NATO.
As of 23 March 2011, NATO had recieved offers for 16 ships to help enforce the UN arms embargo against Libya, though not all of those ships had been deployed. The Greek frigate Limnos had been conducting operations between Crete and Libya since 20 March 2011, with another, the Themistoklis, on stand by. Turkey offered another 4 frigates, a submarine, and a support ship to help in the naval operation. On 22 March 2011, Germany had pulled out of NATO operations in the Mediterranean entirely, while also deploying air force elements to Afghanistan to free up NATO elements there to participate in the no-fly zone over Libya. Germany had previously had 4 ships operating in the region. The frigate FGS Lübeck and the fleet service vessel FGS Oker had been part of Standing NATO Response Force Maritime Group 1 (SNMG1), in addition to the Italian logistics support vessel Etna and the Canadian frigate HMCS Charlottetown.
As of 23 March 2011, the US Department of Defense reported that the coalition had flown a total of 336 sorties over Libya, with 212 of those being flown by the United States, and the other 124 being flown by other coalition partners. Of the total sorties, 108 were strike missions. A total of 162 Tomahawk cruise missiles had been launched up to that point. US officials reported on 23 March 2011, that the Libya Air Force had effectively been destroyed, either by destroying the aircraft on the ground or rendering the aircraft and facilities otherwise inoperable.

Slides used during 03/24/2001 DoD news briefing

On 24 March 2011, the French reported that they had shot down a Libyan Soko G-2 Galeb jet that had violated the no-fly zone over Misrata. French warplanes also attacked a Libyan air base. The French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe also said that strikes would continue "continue as long as necessary" in the face of continued calls for an immediate all around cease fire from Russia and other nations. The fighting on the ground appeared to have ground into a stalemate between the government and the rebels by 24 March 2011.
On 24 March 2011, the Turkish Navy said that 2 vessels of its planned contribution to the naval operations enforcing the NATO arms embargo of Libya were already in the Mediterranean, while 4 others had left their home ports for the zone of operation. The frigates TCG Giresun (F-491) and TCG Gemlik (F-492) were already operating off Libya, while the frigate TCG Yildirim (F-243) and the tanker TCG Akar (A-580) were in transit. Another frigate and the submarine TCG Yildiray (S-350) were also deploying as part of the task force. Turkey also reiterated its opposition to NATO control over the no-fly zone, saying it did not want NATO control over operations that could further endanger civilians. Independent verification of civilian casualties caused by coalition air strikes in government controlled areas of Libya was reported to be difficult.
As of 24 March 2011, US Vice Adm. Gortney noted that the coalition had a total of 38 ships available in the Region, 12 of which were US Navy vessels. This inluded the guided-missile cruiser USS Monterey in port in Denmark. The USS Stout, which had participated in the initial strikes, was also noted to have returned to August Bay Port Facility in Italy. This number also included both the French carrier Charles de Gaulle and the Italian carrier Giuseppe Garibaldi.
By 24 March 2011, the mission of the US Joint Task Force Odyssey Dawn had been reduced to protecting civilians. The enforcement of the arms embargo and the no-fly zone were under the operational control of NATO, though the transition with regards to the no-fly zone was no immediate. JTF-OD was no longer providing aircraft and its naval precense had been seriously reduced. Logistical support (including mid-air refueling) and surveillance were still major aspects of the JTF-OD participation. Coordination between the new NATO effort was also high. It was expected that in the near future JTF-OD would be reduced to mainly logistical and surveillance missions, with NATO assuming responsibility for the other functions to enforce UN Resolutions 1970 and 1973.
On 25 March 2011, it was announced that the United Arab Emirates had agreed to contribute 12 fighter aircraft to the UN backed coalition enforcing the no-fly zone over Libya. Reports indicated that these would be combination of F-16E and Mirage 2000-9 aircraft. This deployment was a shift from earlier statements by the UAE that its role would be limited to purely humanitarian efforts.
On 25 March 2011, the remaining Canadian forces deployed to the region as part of Operation Mobile transfered from the control of Operation Odyssey Dawn to Operation Unified Protector.
On 27 March 2011, B-1B Lancer bombers from the 28th Bomb Wing at Ellsworth, South Dakota were launched to strike targets in Libya in support of Operation Odyssey Dawn. The mission marked the first time B-1B Lancers had been launched from the continental United States to strike targets overseas.

Slides from 03/28/11 Op. Odyssey Dawn News Briefing

On 28 March 2011, Vice Admiral Bill Gortney stated at a press briefing that the United States had deployed A-10 Thunderbolt II and AC-130U Spooky aicraft to participate in Operation Odyssey Dawn over Libya. Admiral Gortney described the aircraft not as combat support aircraft, but as "combat aircraft" that delivered a "precision effect." This response was given when asked about whether the United States and other coalition partners were more actively coordinating with Libyan rebel forces that had made major advances against Gadhafi's forces since the beginning of the enforcement of the no-fly zone and other related operations.
On 28 March 2011, US President Barak Obama made a speech to the people of the United States from the National Defense University. During the speech, President Obama outlined his priorities in Libya and cleary stated that the US mission did not inolve regime change in Libya. He went on to say that it would be up to the Libyan people to decide their future.
On the night of 28-29 March 2011, a US Navy P-3C patrol aircraft, a US Air Force A-10 attack aircraft, and the US Navy guided-missile destroyer USS Barry (DDG 52) coordinated an attack against the Libyan Coast Guard vessel Vittoria and two smaller crafts. The craft were reported to be firing indiscriminately at merchant vessels in the port of Misratah. The P-3C fired an AGM-65F Maverick missile at the Vittoria, causing significant damage and forcing the crew to beach the vessel and abandon it. The A-10 fired its 30mm GAU-8/A cannon at the 2 smaller vessels, destroying one and causing the crew of the other to abandon it and flee. USS Barry coordinated the operation, which marked the first time a P-3C aircraft had fired an AGM-65 series missile in combat.
On 30 March 2011, the 6 Norwegian F-16 aircraft that had been operating as part of the Odyssey Dawn coalition transferred to the control of NATO's Operation Unified Protector.
On 31 March 2011, NATO formally integrated all remaining air operations pertaining to air operations over Libya under its command and control, with all of these operations becoming part of Operation Unified Protector. The air operations included enforcement of both the no-fly zone and operations to protect civilians. The United States involvement in operations relating to Libya remained termed Operation Odyssey Dawn. 31 March 2011, also marked the deployment of personnel from US Army Africa (USARAF) to the Joint Task Force Odyssey Dawn headquarters aboard USS Mount Whitney. This marked the first time USARAF personnel had deployed to participate combat mission. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on 31 March 2011, however, that the United States would not be involved in any ground operation in Libya. Spokespersons for various US agencies refused to comment on whether or not members of the Central Intelligence Agency or other covert operatives were on the ground in Libya assisting rebel forces, which had been reported.
On 21 April 2011, Defence Secretary Robert Gates announced that President Obama had approved the use of armed unmanned aerial vehicles over Libya as part of the US contribution to enforcing the UN mandated no-fly zone and arms embargo. The first missions had been scheduled for 21 April 2011, but had been scratched due to bad weather.

The Operation Odyssey Dawn Coalition

When operations relating to the enforcement of UN Resolution 1973 began on 19 March 2011, a number of operational nicknames were already in use. The United States referred to its participation as Operation Odyssey Dawn. Other nations used their own names to refer to forces deployed to the region. These included Canada (Operation Mobile), France (Opération Harmattan), and the United Kingdom (Operation Ellamy). Other coalition partners either referenced no name, or deployed forces stated to be operating as part of the Operation Odyssey Dawn coalition, effectively taking on that name.
On 23 March 2011, NATO agreed to take over the enforcement of the arms embargo from what had up until that point been a US-led coalition. NATO gave this mission the name Operation Unified Protector. On 24 March 2011, NATO also agreed to take over responsibility for the no-fly operations. As forces began transitioning from the US-led coalition to NATO operational control changes in operation nicknames also occured. Many nations that had previously used the Operation Odyssey Dawn moniker simply replaced it with the NATO name, Operation Unified Protector. Canada, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States all continued to refer to their contributions to the ongoing operations by their own individual names. Some nations also created new names for their contributions, based on the new leadership. Belgium, which had been using the Operation Odyssey Dawn name, began conducting operations under the title Operation Freedom Falcon after the switch to NATO control.

Command overview of the Norwegian component under Operation Odyssey Dawn (Left) and Operation Unified Protector (Right)

The above organizational charts provide an example of the relative differences in the coalition chains of command under Operation Odyssey Dawn, and subsequently under Operation Unified Protector. They also provide a general example of the complexities of combined operations. The dotted line in both cases separates the Norwegian national chain of command for the operational command. In the Operation Odyssey Dawn Chart, the national chain of command is displayed on the right of the dotted, while on the Operation Unified Protector chart it is on the left. Command elements are organized horizontally with the highest being at the top and the lowest (the Norwegian operational component) being at the bottom. National and combined commands of a similar level of authority are aligned next to each other. Interaction between national and combined command elements is denoted by a solid line across the dotted line.