Laman

Free Ads

We are open for free advertisement , if you want contact me on fothesky@yahoo.com .Thanks .

Regards

Administrator

Saturday, May 7, 2011

Talks Continue To End Air India Strike


A fresh round of talks Thursday between striking Air India pilots and authorities failed to resolve the impasse and end a nine-day strike.
“The talks remain inconclusive, and we hope to continue talks with the striking pilots on Friday,” says a Civil Aviation Ministry official, who was confident that the deadlock would end soon.
Union leaders also expressed hope that the issues would be resolved in a day or two.
“We met for four-and-a-half hours today. Government is making sincere efforts to resolve the issue and has taken some serious steps forward. We are hopeful that the matter will be resolved in a day or two,” says Rishabh Kapur, general secretary of the Indian Commercial Pilots Association (ICPA).
Kapur, however, declined to elaborate on the issues discussed during the meeting.
“We will meet again tomorrow ... The talks are going on in a positive direction.”
The pilots went on strike at midnight April 26 demanding equal pay for Air India and erstwhile Indian Airlines pilots in the merged entity.
Meanwhile, fresh trouble is brewing for the crippled Air India management as the All India Cabin Crew Association (AICCA) demanded immediate implementation of the merger agreements, including better pay and fixed flying hours.

USAF Eyes Overhead In EELV Cost Reviews


After months of studying reasons for the growing cost of the United Launch Alliance’s (ULA) Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles (EELV), Air Force officials are focusing on how to reduce – or at least better account for – overhead rates and indirect costs on the program, according to senior service officials.
Late last year, David Van Buren, the top procurement official in the Air Force, wrapped up a “should-cost” review for EELV. Should-cost reviews are prevalent at the Pentagon since the passage of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, which directs the department to budget to independent cost estimates. These are provided by the Cost Analysis and Program Evaluation office and are generally the highest estimates in the Pentagon, forcing the department to identify larger sums of money for various programs than planned prior to passage of the law.
“We are required to fund our programs to the independent cost estimate. That does a negative thing from a business perspective to the United States Air Force. It basically shows our hand to the contractor … The contractor knows what we have budgeted before we sit down to negotiate,” says Air Force Maj. Gen. John Hyten, who oversees space program procurement for the Air Force’s acquisition office. “The ‘should cost’ is what we want to pay and what we think that satellite or end item should cost.”
About three-quarters of the 84 recommendations in the EELV should-cost review are associated with overhead and indirect costs, Hyten says. And, this is one area in which Air Force officials hope to trim pricing.
Van Buren led the high-profile should-cost review of the Joint Strike Fighter program, which is credited with helping the Pentagon negotiate the first fixed-price contract for the stealthy fighter, built by Lockheed Martin.
'Blue ribbon' review
Van Buren is also leading a detailed “Blue Ribbon” review of the ULA’s cost structure, including the overhead rates and indirect costs. This is likely to be similar to the Blue Ribbon review conducted last year on the Global Hawk unmanned aerial system; Van Buren said in March he found at least $39 million in savings for the UAS program.
“We are going to budget to the will cost and we are going to manage to the should cost,” Air Force Under Secretary Erin Conaton tells Aviation Week.
The opportunities for savings in EELV are likely to be on a larger scale than Global Hawk, given that each booster alone costs roughly $200 million or more.
Questions have arisen about how ULA is charging various functions to the two EELV contracts, Conaton says.One contract, the EELV Launch Capabilities contract, which covers the EELV infrastructure (including personnel) is a cost-plus deal, meaning the government pays for the cost of the services no matter the price. By contrast, the EELV Services contract, which pays for the actual rockets, is fixed price. Conaton says that, “I don’t think we have a very good understanding of the cost,” and notes that there are questions about what costs should be allocated to the cost-plus contract versus those on the fixed-price structure.
“We need to make sure that we have correctly and adequately allocated the cost of building the rocket on the [launch services] side, on the rocket contract. Right now with the way the contracts are structured, it’s not clear,” Hyten adds. “We want to make sure we have the contract structure correct so that we know exactly what we’re paying for that rocket.”
He emphasizes that visibility on cost is crucial as the service proceeds with efforts to qualify new competitors in the launch market. “We want to make sure we have a level playing field across the industry so that we know what we’re paying for a rocket and that if we ask somebody else to build it we can compare apples to apples and not apples to oranges,” he says.
Industry observers suggest the cost trend for EELV is spiraling, perhaps to the extreme levels of the Titan IV heavy launcher. But Hyten disagrees, noting that EELV prices vary depending on the size of the vehicle. He acknowledges, however, that EELV costs needs to be stabilized.
Major first step
A decision to buy eight EELV cores annually, as proposed in the fiscal 2012 budget plan, is a major first step, according to Conaton. The goal is to buy a stable number of boosters – providing assurance to ULA and, in particular, its second- and third-tier suppliers that buys are on the horizon.
In the buy, so-called white tail boosters will be purchased independent of specific satellites and will be matched with the spacecraft for missions late in their production cycles. This, Air Force officials hope, will provide flexibility in planning the launch manifest even if satellites encounter schedule slips.
This recommendation came out of a massive Broad Area Review (BAR) Plus 10 study, so dubbed because it is 10 years removed from the seminal launch BAR conducted after a series of major launch mishaps. Air Force officials decline to release the study or summarize its findings, citing concerns about proprietary information.
Meanwhile, the Air Force has created a new senior post to oversee launch procurement. Previously, a single program executive officer managed the EELV contracts as well as major satellite procurements. But, with major renegotiations upcoming on key satellite efforts and new launch competitions expected, Hyten said the service opted to create a program executive officer who will now oversee launch separately.

Thursday, May 5, 2011

Scaled Performs First SS2 Feather Flight Test


Scaled Composites tested the feathering re-entry mechanism of the Virgin Galactic SpaceShipTwo in flight for the first time on May 4.
The test, conducted during the seventh glide flight of the 60-ft.-long, 42-ft.-wingspan commercial spaceship, was performed shortly after release from the WhiteKnightTwo carrier aircraft at 51,500 ft. After attaining a stable glide attitude, the test crew, comprising Scaled Composites’ test pilots Pete Siebold and Clint Nichols, activated the feathering mechanism to rotate the tail section up to a 65-deg. angle relative to the fuselage. The aircraft maintained a level pitch while descending almost vertically at around 15,500 ft. per minute for 1 min. and 15 sec.
The feather mechanism was then used at around 33,500 ft. to reconfigure SS2 for landing, which was achieved with a smooth touchdown at Mojave, Calif., some 11 min. 5 sec. after initial release. The test flight was a key evaluation of the feathering system, which was also used successfully on the SpaceShipOne suborbital vehicle. The device reconfigures the vehicle while in the vacuum of space and creates very high drag as it descends through the atmosphere. As well as providing a self-stabilizing mechanism for re-entry, the high drag and low vehicle weight combination means that skin temperatures remain relatively low during re-entry, thereby eliminating the requirement for conventional thermal protection systems.
The May 4 test follows a recent ramp-up in flight test activity, marking the third glide flight of SS2 in 12 days. George Whitesides, CEO and President of Virgin Galactic, says the increase in tempo reinforces “… the fast turnaround and frequent flight-rate potential of Virgin Galactic’s new vehicles. We have also shown this morning that the unique feathering re-entry mechanism, probably the single most important safety innovation within the whole system, works perfectly. This is yet another important milestone successfully passed for Virgin Galactic, and brings us ever closer to the start of commercial operations.”
In the buildup to the feathering test, SS2 completed two glide flight tests over five days, including a 16-min., 7-sec. glide on April 27 which represents the longest flight to date. The increased tempo comes as settled weather continues to dominate the skies over southern California after weeks of unsettled conditions. The flights also evaluated stability and control and follow refinements to the vehicle’s aerodynamics and low-speed handling qualities. Building on the incremental envelope expansion approach established with SpaceShipOne (SS1), the next test phase beyond feather testing will involve higher speed subsonic flight with a short burst of thrust from a Sierra Nevada-developed RM2 rocket, which will power all vehicles.
Clay Center Observatory

Long-Range Strike Puzzle Pieces

If there is such a thing as a "bomber mafia" in US defense circles, Northrop Grumman's Robert Haffa, recently retired director of the company's Analysis Center, is one of its ruling dons. Together with NGAC colleague Michael Isherwood, Haffa has a new article in Joint Forces Quarterly talking about the "family of systems" approach to long-range strike.

It's worth reading in full, but here are some highlights.

Like every other document that refers to LRS, the Northrop Grumman piece mentions the "central" role of "enablers" such as "survivable airborne ISR assets."  It goes on to list eight principal characteristics by which the other LRS systems are assessed. 

  • promptness: reach any target worldwide within 1 hour
  • persistence: maintain on station/position for ISR and time-sensitive targeting for more than 4 hours
  • time-sensitive: possess organic as well as integrated “find, fix, and track” capabilities to engage fixed or highly mobile targets
  • multitarget: engage more than one target nearly simultaneously
  • command and control: retasking assets to meet the commander’s intent in a denied communications environment
  • standoff: achieve desired effects from a range of 1,000 nautical miles or more
  • penetration: operate, succeed, and survive within a high threat environment
  • nonkinetic: provide options such as electronic attack and cyber capabilities.
Haffa and Isherwood identify five distinct classes of LRS weapons. Interestingly, they include the Virginia-class nuclear attack submarine (SSN) as a platform for cruise and ballistic missiles -- possibly because the Block 3 will carry a wider range of missiles, and because surface ship VLS tubes will be largely filled with SM-3-class weapons for missile defense.

This is how the authors see the systems stacking up against the eight requirements:
blog post photo

The authors drive a clear distinction between the Next Generation Bomber and the smaller Unmanned Combat Air System. The UCAS is important because of its "ability to engage and defeat a time-sensitive target in a matter of minutes owing to its persistence, sensor suite ... and kinetic or nonkinetic weapons systems".

However, the bomber can carry more and heavier weapons and "perhaps more important" provide an airborne command and control capability to knit all the systems together even if communications into and out of the theater are jammed.

The essay stresses the value of supersonic speed to future cruise missiles -- and notes that although the conventional prompt global strike (CPGS) weapon scores well against only three of the eight metrics listed above, it has an advantage in that it can be fielded soon. 

Airbus Cancellations Already Outpace 2010


International Lease Finance Corp.’s cancellation of ten A380 orders and the loss of an additional A330-200 push Airbus year-to-date cancellations beyond last year’s level.
Going into the year, Airbus was projecting cancellations to be roughly at 2010 levels. The current total is 79 cancellations for the first four months; the 2010 total was 70 cancellations.
ILFC’s cancellation of the ten A380s was previously disclosed by the lessor and had long been expected by analysts. It came as the lessor firmed up its order for 100 single-aisles aircraft, 75 A320 New Engine Option aircraft and 25 A321 NEOs. ILFC also swapped six A350-800 delivery positions for six more A350-900s.
Aviation Capital Group also has restructured its single-aisle order book with the aircraft maker, shifting all its narrowbody orders to A320s having previously held also seven A319 and four A321 orders. Also, Aer Lingus shifted three A330 orders to A350-900s and Synergy Aerospace shifted ten -800s to the -900.
Airbus, last month, also booked deals with Cathay Pacific for 15 A330-300s, and 10 A321 and three A330-200Fs with Turkish Airlines, as well as a A319 business the to bring its gross order total for the year to 169 units.
Deliveries through April reached 167 units.

Lufthansa Boosting Capacity In Asia-Pacific


Lufthansa plans to see double-digit growth in capacity this year into the Asia-Pacific region, with the exception of Japan.
The German flag carrier will launch no new destinations into the region this year, but will achieve a 14-15% capacity increase by operating larger aircraft, Uwe Mueller, head of sales for home markets (Germany, Switzerland and Austria), told Aviation Week May 4 in Singapore at a press briefing to announce the appointment of Steffen Harbarth as Lufthansa VP of Asia-Pacific, based in Singapore. Mueller is based in Frankfurt, but previously had the Singapore job.
Mueller says the growth figure excludes Japan, a market that accounts for 20-25% of Lufthansa’s Asia-Pacific passenger revenues. Lufthansa cut capacity to Japan following the March 11 earthquake and tsunami. It still maintained its network there and refrained from slashing ticket prices, but it did cut capacity by switching to smaller aircraft, says Mueller.
The Japanese market has since rebounded, and on April 23, Lufthansa’s capacity to Japan returned to pre-crisis levels, says Mueller, who cites the fact that Lufthansa is now operating Airbus A380s again to some Japanese destinations. “Golden Week holidays are now on in Japan, so now every Japanese person is traveling,” says Mueller. He says Lufthansa’s passenger traffic between Europe and Japan mostly comprises Japanese business people and tourists. There is relatively little traffic in terms of Europeans traveling to Japan, he adds.
While Lufthansa’s team in Asia-Pacific is focused on increasing capacity on existing routes, next year may be a different story.
In October and November of this year, a fourth runway will open at Lufthansa’s base in Frankfurt, creating additional slots. Lufthansa’s board recently approved plans to add 155 new aircraft over the coming years at a cost of €13 billion ($20 billion), and it has earmarked another €3 billion for refurbishment of some existing aircraft and service enhancements, such as new lounges, says Frank Puettmann, head of corporate communications, Asia-Pacific.
Harbarth says much of the new capacity destined for Asia this year will be in China and India. He also says Lufthansa wants to launch flights next year to more cities in China but did not name them.

Virgin Australia Launched After Brand Deal


Virgin Blue will from now on operate its domestic services as Virgin Australia, and the group’s international carriers will also take on the new name by the end of the year after a complex branding dispute involving Singapore Airlines was ironed out.
An agreement was reached recently with Singapore Airlines over the use of the Virgin brand, a Virgin Australia spokeswoman tells AviationWeek. Before this deal, Virgin Blue could not have the Virgin brand on its international operations, due to a commitment made by major Virgin Blue stakeholder Richard Branson when Singapore Airlines bought 49% of Virgin Atlantic in 2000.
This restriction meant the Virgin Blue Group’s international carriers were labeled V Australia and Pacific Blue. But now almost all of the former Virgin Blue carriers can be brought under the Virgin Australia umbrella. The only exception, for now, will be Polynesian Blue, which is a joint venture with the Samoan government and only involves a single aircraft.
Branson was in Sydney May 4 to help launch the new name, along with the group’s CEO John Borghetti. A Boeing 737-800 and an Airbus A330-200 arrived at Sydney International Airport bearing the new livery.
Repainting the entire fleet with the new livery will take about four years, the Virgin Australia spokeswoman. This represents an acceleration of the regular repainting cycle, which would normally take eight years.
As well as the new livery, the relaunch includes new cabin interiors. Almost all of the 737 fleet will have the new interior – which will incorporate a business class – by the end of this year. Virgin Australia has previously estimated the rebranding effort will cost AU$30-$35 million ($32.6-$38 million), and the carrier remains “comfortable with that forecast,” the spokeswoman says.
Borghetti says the “consolidation of the brand into one was a pivotal point” in Virgin Blue’s broader transformation plan. The carrier is spreading its international presence through joint ventures with major international carriers, and is expanding its regional operation. It aims to capture a larger share of the corporate and business market.

Aer Lingus Weak Profit Prompts Costs Rethink


Irish airline Aer Lingus may ramp up a controversial cost-cutting programme after confirming profit this year will be significantly below 2010 due to weak demand and higher fuel prices.
Facing constant pressure from Ryanair, its bigger and leaner rival, Aer Lingus has cut routes, staff and pay to survive and another round of cuts could put it on a fresh collision course with employees.
“While we still expect that Aer Lingus will be profitable in 2011, we expect that the level of profitability will be much lower than in 2010,” Chief Executive Christoph Mueller said on Thursday.
“In light of the continued weakness of the Irish economy and pressures on non-controllable costs, we are assessing whether the cost reduction programme is sufficient to protect profitability or whether further measures are required.”
Industrial action by cabin crew over longer working hours hammered its first quarter performance with its operating loss before exceptional items up 42 percent to 53.7 million euros.
Aer Lingus has squeezed savings of an annual value of 72 million euros by the end of March but its reliance on the Irish market, still struggling to emerge from one of the industrialized world’s worst recessions, has prompted a second look at its outgoings.
“They could do with a few breaks in terms of the state of the Irish economy and where fuel is at the moment,” said Joe Gill, analyst at Bloxham Stockbrokers.
“Clearly the operating environment is very tough. It looks like now for the full-year their operating profit will be somewhere in the region of 20 to 25 million euros compared to 58 million euros in 2010.”
Shares in Aer Lingus were down 0.9 percent at 83 euro cents at 1004 GMT in a general market that was 0.3 percent weaker.
The company’s stock has risen around 19 percent since hitting a nine-month low of 70 cents at the end of March helped by a government-sponsored report published in April which recommended that the state sell its 25 percent stake in the airline.
A government minister has said Dublin is unlikely to sell any state assets this year. A sale of its Aer Lingus shares would be complicated given that Ryanair, which has had two hostile bids for the group rebuffed, holds a near 30 percent stake.
Aer Lingus said it expected to take delivery of a fourth, finance-leased A320 by the end of June with no further fleet additions planned for the remainder of this year.

Hybrid Vehicles Are In U.S. Military's Future


While the need to reduce the military’s fuel consumption has never been greater due to rising fuel prices and the budget crunch the Pentagon is facing, the path forward for acquisitions is littered with new technology slow to tempt the old guard. The mindset of the military regarding fuel efficiency is different than on the commercial side, says Mike Mekhiche, BAE Systems director of parallel drive systems. “There are cultural hurdles that need to be overcome.”
Commercial makers of hybrid vehicles, such as Oshkosh and BAE, want to persuade the services to make the switch for future acquisitions with up to 20% reduction in fuel consumption and a power-rich source of life for energy-hungry electronic warfare components. (For a story on sustainable battlefield energy initiatives, see p. 28.)
Hybrid benefits, however, carry major changes under the hood. Drive trains come in two basic versions: series and parallel. Unlike a traditional drivetrain where the engine is directly connected to a vehicle’s wheels, the engine in a series hybrid powers a generator, which supplies torque to the wheels through electric motors. In a parallel system, both the petroleum-fueled engine and battery-powered electric engine are connected to the transmission and can work at the same time to turn the wheels. Both architectures rack up fuel economy gains when leveling out changing demands on the engine, most dramatically in stop-and-go scenarios or mountainous terrain. Kinetic energy lost during braking and deceleration, which is the Achilles heel of a conventional vehicle’s fuel consumption, can be captured and stored, then reused to assist the next acceleration.
Significantly, for a ground force that increasingly relies on small electronics like night-vision equipment, handheld radios, biometric systems and metal detectors to sniff out buried roadside bombs, hybrid trucks carry their own generators and can export power. The ability to export power, makers say, creates a huge draw for hybrid technology, which is considered a force multiplier by being capable of generating enough power to run a forward operating base for 2-3 days.
Still, the image of the Army’s fleet of tactical vehicles running hybrid engines on the battlefield anytime soon might need to be put on hold, says Paul Skalny, director of the Army’s Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center’s (Tardec) National Automotive Center. “The fielding of hybrids will be in the non-tactical world” first, he says. “A fuel-cell hybrid in a tactical situation is something that may happen, but quite some time from now. You may see a fuel cell auxiliary power unit (APU) in a vehicle [but] it will be some time [before it is fielded on a battlefield], because we have issues” with exposing an APU to battlefield dirt, which “would kill an APU.”
Skalny says that from the Army’s perspective, investment in advanced propulsion systems in tactical situations is dependent first on any capability gaps that might need to be filled. It’s not only fuel efficiency that the service is looking for, but advances that bring in exportable power, such as incorporating a bank of lithium ion batteries that allows for silent watch or silent mobility, improved acceleration and extended range.
Trying to work through some of these issues, Oshkosh is testing its ProPulse series hybrid electric drivetrain design for the Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck (Hemtt A3), at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md. Its system relies on an ultracapcitor for energy storage. Likewise, BAE is submitting a series hybrid system in its prototype bid for the Army’s planned Ground Combat Vehicle competition, but would look to batteries to retain the power.
Perhaps most daunting for the technology in gaining full acceptance by the military is concern over maintenance requirements, including the safety of working on the high-voltage systems in the field, and component life.
Oshkosh contends the ProPulse system’s use of ultracapacitors for energy storage in military applications instead of batteries heads off many of these worries. “With a battery system, there’s limited life,” says Nader Nasr, chief engineer at Oshkosh’s Advanced Battery Group. “Every few years you have to replace the battery system on the vehicle, versus the ultracapacitor where the number of cycles it withstands is in the millions, versus the thousands you get with lithium ion technology.”
Ultracapacitors offer quick power storage as opposed to the slower energy release of chemical batteries, and a burst of torque during heavy-truck acceleration, Nasr explains. He points to commercial vehicles as an example. “If you want a lot of energy, as in you want to be able to drive your vehicle with the engine off for a few miles, like with a Toyota Prius, you want more energy density” such as with a battery-powered hybrid.Ultracapacitors increase maintenance safety as voltage can be zeroed out, which eliminates the risk of explosion, electrocution or damaging components. Batteries, on the other hand, cannot be fully depleted without permanent damage.
Oshkosh, which has demonstrated the ProPulse system in the commercial market, has seen significant fuel savings in garbage truck applications. “In that sort of start-stop frequency, you can get fuel-efficiency gains in excess of 70%,” says Gary Schmiedel, executive vice president of technology at Oshkosh, who quickly cautioned that true gains need a macro lens. “It’s more traditional to get a day-long, week-long, month-long kind of average in the 10-30% range,” he notes.
For the military, even a small percentage of trucks that consume less fuel on a regular basis “moves that needle quite significantly,” Schmiedel adds.
By divorcing heavy trucks from a conventional linear engine layout, space is created through hybrid design. Oshkosh’s 700-lb. ultracapacitor for a Hemtt A3, for example, would fit inside the frame of a heavy truck. And with that reconfiguration comes new uses for space. The crew cab, for example, would have room for one more person; and there would also be room on the truck for materials-handling equipment that could unload a C-130. This in turn would create space in the aircraft that would otherwise have been used for the handling equipment.
BAE’s proposed hybrid variant of the Army Ground Combat Vehicle, unveiled earlier this year, incorporates a series system based on the technology used for the past 12 years to power its public buses. Addition of the 700-lb., 12-kw/hr. battery becomes weight-neutral with removal of the transmission and reduction in engine size, says Mekhiche.
Because the hybrid system is built as a series, maintainers are able to lock out and remove individual components safely, says BAE. Maintenance is simplified through the reduction of moving parts.
In the commercial arena, BAE recently launched the HybriDrive Parallel System for Class 6, 7 and 8 trucks, which unlike the series, is actually a blending of combustible engine power and electric power to drive the transmission. Included in the HybriDrive design is an electric machine sandwiched between the engine and transmission that behaves as a generator or a motor depending on what the vehicle is doing.
“Although the primary intent is to put the parallel system (and series) in commercial trucks, there are definitely advantages and unique characteristics that would make those two systems attractive to potential military vehicles, whether tactical or combat,” Mekhiche says. Starting with commercial technology also reduces front-end engineering costs for military applications, he adds.
Hybrid systems are becoming more affordable as the cost of energy storage systems comes down, says Mark Signorelli, vice president and general manager of the Ground Combat Vehicle at BAE. “The cost in a combat vehicle of a conventional propulsion system and a hybrid electric drive system are comparable. So while there’s no penalty in the production costs, there are huge benefits in life-cycle costs from fuel efficiency and increased reliability.”
Asked to look 15 years into the future, Skalny says that on the non-tactical side, every vehicle at military installations should be an advanced-propulsion vehicle. Tactically, “if we address the issues that we have to as a full community—looking at impacts from the maintenance standpoint, reliability, how we fill capability gaps in different systems—in 15 years you’ll have some type of advanced-propulsion system” on combat vehicles. He doesn’t know what these might be, since requirements will be driven by mission profiles and the vehicles involved.
Tardec is also working on hybrid prototypes such as the Clandestine Extended Range Vehicle (CERV). Built in partnership with Quantum Technology, CERV is designed to perform reconnaissance, surveillance and target designation in the field, incorporating an all-wheel-drive diesel hybrid-electric powertrain that reaches 80 mph, maneuvers over 60% grades and has a torque rating of 5,000 ft.-lb. The 3,000‑lb. vehicle reportedly slashes fuel consumption by 25% versus comparable vehicles.
Then there is the XM1124 hybrid-electric Humvee that operates in an all-electric or hybrid mode. Running in all-electric mode, the vehicle can run quietly for 10 mi., while hybrid mode uses fuel to power the generator, which recharges the batteries. The truck is also capable of exporting enough energy to run components such as air conditioning systems, while using 28% less fuel than the standard Humvee, with similar acceleration.
At a time when roadside bombs have killed hundreds of U.S. service members in Iraq and Afghanistan—and are one of the favorite low-cost weapons for insurgent and guerilla groups to use against vehicle convoys—Skalny calculates that only a 1% increase in fuel efficiency across the fleet would mean 6,444 fewer soldiers involved in convoy operations. While this is significant, many questions have to be answered before that many soldiers are pulled off the roads.
Photo: TARDEC

Dubai Projects Huge Growth


Airport operator Dubai Airports projects that Dubai International Airport (DXB) will become the world’s busiest airport for international passengers as early as 2015.
Now ranked fourth for international traffic and cargo, DXB is forecast to grow at an average annual rate of 7.2% in the next decade. Dubai International expects 75.3 million total passengers in 2015.
Dubai World Central-Al Maktoum International (DWC), which opened for cargo operations last June, is scheduled to begin passenger flights in 2012. The 10-year forecast projects DWC as a candidate to evolve into the world’s largest airport, with its capacity of handling 160 million passengers and 12 million metric tons of cargo a year. The airport's growth rate for passengers and cargo is forecast at 6.7% a year.
Dubai Airports issued the forecast Tuesday. The positive outlook is rooted in trends toward increased liberalization, growth of gross domestic product and increasingly affluent and mobile populations in emerging markets, says Paul Griffiths, Dubai Airports CEO. Dubai is well-positioned to capitalize on the growth, he says, because of its location 8 hr. from two-thirds of the world’s population and situated “at the doorstep of two of the most dynamic markets in the world—India and China.”
Dubai-based Emirates and Flydubai are preparing for growth with orders for 200 and 34 aircraft, respectively. Dubai will build a dedicated Airbus A380 facility at Dubai International scheduled for opening at the end of 2012.
Total cargo for both airports is expected to nearly double from 2.27 million metric tons in 2010 to 4.1 million tons in 2020.

Membering

Membering