highspeed

SACRAMENTO — Some witty person long ago gave us this immortal line: “No man’s life, liberty or property are safe while the legislature is in session.”

Humorist Will Rogers usually is credited — wrongly. Mark Twain, too, falsely.

The real author was Gideon J. Tucker, a former newspaper editor who founded the New York Daily News. He later became a state legislator and judge, and he crafted the comment in an 1866 court opinion.

Anyway, Californians are safe from further legislative harm for now. State lawmakers have gone home for the year after passing 917 bills. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed 794 (87%) and vetoed 123 (13%).

I’m not aware of any person’s life being jeopardized. Well, maybe after the lawmakers and governor cut back Medi-Cal healthcare for undocumented immigrants to save money.

One could argue — and many interests did — that what the Legislature did to increase housing availability made some existing residential neighborhoods less safe from congestion and possible declining property values.

But kudos to the lawmakers and governor for enacting major housing legislation that should have been passed years ago.

Public pressure generated by unaffordable costs — both for homebuyers and renters — spurred the politicians into significant action to remove regulatory barriers and encourage much more development. The goal is to close the gap between short supply and high demand.

But legislative passage was achieved over stiff opposition from some cities — especially Los Angeles — that objected to loss of local control.

“It’s a touchy issue that affects zoning and is always going to be controversial,” says state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who finessed through a bill that will allow construction of residential high-rises up to nine stories near transit hubs such as light-rail and bus stations. The measure overrides local zoning ordinances.

Wiener had been trying unsuccessfully for eight years to get similar legislation passed. Finally, a fire was lit under legislators by their constituents.

“The public understands we’ve screwed ourselves by making it so hard to build homes,” Wiener says.

But to win support, he had to accept tons of exceptions. For example, the bill will affect only counties with at least 15 passenger rail stations. There are eight: Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda and Sacramento.

“Over time it will have a big effect, but it’s going to be gradual,” Wiener says.

Dan Dunmoyer, who heads the California Building Industry Assn., calls it “a positive step in the right direction.”

Yes, and that direction is up rather than sideways. California could accommodate a cherished ranch-house lifestyle when the population was only a third or half the nearly 40 million people it is today. But sprawling horizontally has become impossibly pricey for too many and also resulted in long smog-spewing commutes and risky encroachment into wildfire country.

Dozens of housing bills were passed and signed this year, ranging from minutia to major.

The Legislature continued to peck away at the much-abused California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Opponents of projects have used the act to block construction for reasons other than environmental protection. Local NIMBYs — ”Not in my backyard” — have resisted neighborhood growth. Businesses have tried to avoid competition. Unions have practiced “greenmail” by threatening lawsuits unless developers signed labor agreements.

Another Wiener bill narrowed CEQA requirements for commercial housing construction. It also exempted from CEQA a bunch of nonresidental projects, including health clinics, manufacturing facilities and child-care centers.

A bill by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) exempted most urban infill housing projects from CEQA.

You can’t argue that the Legislature wasn’t productive this year. But you can spar over whether some of the production was a mistake. Some bills were both good and bad. That’s the nature of compromise in a functioning democracy.

One example: The state’s complex cap-and-trade program was extended beyond 2030 to 2045. That’s probably a good thing. It’s funded by businesses buying permits to emit greenhouse gases and pays for lots of clean energy projects.

But a questionable major piece of that legislation — demanded by Newsom — was a 20-year, $1-billion annual commitment of cap-and-trade money for California’s disappointing bullet train project.

The project was sold to voters in 2008 as a high-speed rail line connecting Los Angeles and San Francisco. It’s $100 billion over budget and far behind its promised 2020 completion. No tracks have even been laid. The new infusion of cap-and-trade money will merely pay for the initial 171-mile section between Merced and Bakersfield, which the state vows to open by 2033. Hot darn!

Newsom muscled through the bill at the last moment. The Legislature should have taken more time to study the project’s future.

One gutsy thing Democratic legislators and the governor did — given that “oil,” among the left, has become the new hated pejorative sidekick of “tobacco” — was to permit production of 2,000 more wells annually in oil-rich Kern County.

It was part of a compromise: Drilling in federal offshore waters was made more difficult by tightening pipeline regulations.

Credit the persistent Sen. Shannon Grove, a conservative Republican from Bakersfield who is adept at working across the aisle.

“Kern County knows how to produce energy,” she told colleagues during the Senate floor debate, citing not only oil but wind, solar and battery storage. “We are the experts. We are not the enemy.”

But what mostly motivated Newsom and legislators was the threat of even higher gas prices as two large California oil refineries prepare to shut down. Most Democrats agreed that the politically smart move was to allow more oil production, even as the state attempts to transcend entirely to clean energy.

Let’s not forget the most important bill the Legislature annually passes: the state budget. This year’s totaled $325 billion and allegedly covered a $15-billion deficit through borrowing, a few cuts and numerous gimmicks.

Nonpartisan Legislative Analyst Gabriel Petek last week projected deficit spending of up to $25 billion annually for the next three years.

In California, no state bank account is safe when the Legislature is in session.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Sen. Scott Wiener to run for congressional seat held by Rep. Nancy Pelosi
California vs. Trump: Federal troops in San Francisco? Locals, leaders scoff at Trump’s plan
The L.A. Times Special: One of O.C.’s loudest pro-immigrant politicians is one of the unlikeliest

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Just three days after imagery surfaced of China’s first known crewed tiltrotor aircraft to take to the air, we have gotten our first sight of a previously unknown compound coaxial helicopter. The aircraft, the designation of which remains unknown, is also now undergoing test flights and is a direct clone of the U.S.-made Sikorsky S-97 Raider. The development confirms that China, too, is looking at harnessing the benefits of this kind of aircraft, which offers much higher speeds than a conventional helicopter, as well as increased maneuverability.

The images showing the new compound coaxial helicopter emerged today, apparently first being posted to China’s Weibo microblogging site. They show the rotorcraft in flight and immediately betray its close connection to the S-97. Most fundamentally, the Chinese design adopts the same propulsion configuration, with four-blade coaxial main rotors — which looks like a rigid design — and a pusher propeller. The Chinese aircraft appears to be of almost identical size and also has the same ‘tadpole’-like fuselage shape and landing gear configuration. Like the S-97, the Chinese helicopter also has a relatively large, plank-like horizontal tail with endplate tailfins. However, the tailfin design is different, with the larger part of the fin projecting above the tailplane, rather than below it.

At this point, it’s worth recalling that this is far from the first Chinese design to share a significant superficial resemblance to a Western aircraft. In the rotary field, the Harbin Z-20 helicopter is widely regarded as a Chinese clone of the H-60/S-70 Black Hawk/Seahawk, while the Chinese FH-97 drone looks like a carbon copy of the XQ-58A Valkyrie. These are just two examples, and while accusations of simply aping existing Western designs are an oversimplification, China has been accused on multiple occasions of hacking detailed design information from U.S. aerospace defense contractors.

Regardless of what kinds of Western technologies may have been exploited for its new compound coaxial helicopter, it’s interesting that China is now making a foray into this field and that it’s following the established S-97 design so closely.

Sikorsky’s S-97 prototype, which is a descendant of the same company’s X-2 and X-49 demonstrators, was developed as an 80-percent surrogate for the larger Raider X and weighed around 14,000 pounds. In tests, the helicopter has achieved speeds in excess of 200 knots, well beyond the top speeds of conventional rotorcraft. While the Raider X has a more pointed nose and a reversed landing gear arrangement, the aircraft were otherwise essentially very similar in form.

The Raider X was Sikorsky’s pitch for the U.S. Army’s Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA) program, in which it went up against Bell’s 360 Invictus, a conventional single-main-rotor helicopter with a canted tail rotor. FARA was conceived as filling the armed scout role vacated by the retirement of the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior. That mission was then performed by RQ-7 Shadow and MQ-1C Gray Eagle drones teamed with AH-64 Apache attack helicopters. While it was expected that FARA could replace a significant number of AH-64s currently in the Army’s inventory, the program was axed in early 2024, as you can read about here.

Central to the compound coaxial configuration of the S-97/Raider X (and now the analogous Chinese rotorcraft) is the pusher prop in the tail and the rigid, contrarotating rotors that eliminate the need for a tail rotor. The pusher prop allows for bursts of speed and rapid deceleration, increased maneuverability, and a higher sustained cruise speed. Range will also be increased compared to a standard helicopter, although not to such an extent as a tiltrotor. Unlike a conventional helicopter, a compound coaxial like this can fly forward with its nose up or backward with its nose pointed at the ground, while the Raider has routinely demonstrated an ability to ‘pirouette’ nose-down around a single point.

These compound coaxial helicopters can also fly at top speed while maintaining a level attitude, compared to a regular helicopter that has to point its nose down to accelerate forward. In forward flight, the pusher prop can be activated, and the spinning rotors are slowed to act more like wings than rotors, reducing drag and boosting speed and efficiency. Essentially, unlike a standard helicopter where the blades create lift during only part of their rotation, the rotor blades generate lift on both sides of the aircraft as they spin.

Speed is very far from a promise of immunity to battlefield threats, but it is certainly a valuable enhancement. It translates to reduced exposure to threats, including traditional ground fire, with less reaction time for the enemy to make a successful engagement. Other advantages of speed include reduced transit times to combat areas and the possibility of escaping certain threats with a high-speed dash.

FARA was a flop, while Sikorsky’s Defiant X — on which Sikorsky is teamed with Boeing — was a contender for the U.S. Army’s Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) program that will eventually replace at least portions of the UH-60 Black Hawk fleet. The Defiant X shared the same basic configuration as the S-97/Raider X, but was scaled up to the 30,000-pound class. In the event, it lost out to the Bell’s V-280 Valor advanced tiltrotor for FLRAA.

This means that Sikorsky’s compound coaxial helicopters currently don’t have a foothold in the small and medium categories within the U.S. Army’s broader Future Vertical Lift (FVL) initiative, which included FARA and FLRAA.

That’s not to say the concept is dead, however, and China clearly thinks its capabilities are worth exploring.

It’s also notable that the appearance of China’s new compound coaxial helicopter comes so soon after it was confirmed that its first known crewed tiltrotor aircraft was also being flight-tested.

This mirrors the competing design philosophies for FLRAA in the United States, and it’s certainly conceivable that a decision might be made between the compound coaxial and tiltrotor designs to inform what one or more next-generation rotorcraft for the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) might look like. At the same time, it’s also possible that China envisages a discrete role for the two different rotorcraft configurations. With the likelihood that these are demonstrators, there’s also potential for one or both of them to be scaled up, in much the same way that Sikorsky leveraged the S-97 design for both the Raider X and the larger Defiant X.

Equally fascinating is to consider how the PLA might envisage the future of rotorcraft on the battlefield more generally.

Amid concerns around survivability, the relevance of rotorcraft is now a major point of discussion, fueled by emerging lessons from both sides of the war in Ukraine. In this theater, conventional rotorcraft have suffered greatly, especially at the hands of forces armed with man-portable air defense weapons (MANPADS), while lower-end drones are also a fast-emerging threat, in Ukraine and elsewhere.

A Russian Mi-24/35 series helicopter is shot down by a Ukrainian missile, likely from a MANPADS:

Looking at the Indo-Pacific theater specifically, TWZ has, in the past, weighed up the arguments for canceling FARA as the Pentagon increasingly reconfigures for the possibility of a high-end fight with China in this region.

As TWZ’s Tyler Rogoway wrote at the time, in regard to FARA:

“Procuring hundreds of highly complex helicopters with relatively short-range capabilities — even those that are uniquely optimized for more range and speed than their predecessors — at great cost makes no sense when it comes to a fight in the Pacific. The opportunity cost of the dollars that would be spent on FARA instead of more relevant priorities and emerging technologies is just far too large for what the Army would be getting in return.”

“In a Pacific fight, for the vast majority of use cases, FARA, even with its enhanced range, will not be able to get from anything resembling a feasibly secure basing location to where they can have a major impact and survive to do so repeatedly. The most likely outcome is that these aircraft would have little to do during such a conflict, not because they are not highly capable, but because they simply can’t get to the areas where the fight is occurring, and the odds of returning home alive would be questionable even if they could.”

For the PLA, the situation is a little different, in that it would be better able to preposition its rotary assets ahead of a conflict and, while the distances to cover are still huge, support assets, spares, and other parts of the logistics trail are that much closer to where the fighting would be taking place.

Even in peacetime, China has a significant requirement to deliver cargoes to remote locations, including island outposts in the South China Sea. China also has access to a growing fleet of amphibious assault ships that would be ideal platforms for hosting advanced rotorcraft.

China is keenly aware of the need to maintain wartime operations without access to conventional airstrips, and helicopters would play a fundamental part in this.

On the other hand, even with the additional speed and agility that a compound coaxial offers, helicopters of any kind remain vulnerable when operating on a modern battlefield, with its layered air defenses. When it comes to the attack and reconnaissance roles, survivability increasingly depends on the respective ranges between the helicopter and its target. With that in mind, the kinds of weapons and sensors that production versions of China’s next-generation rotorcraft might field are just as important as the airframes themselves.

There’s also the question of how China sees the future balance between crewed rotorcraft and different kinds of uncrewed aircraft on the battlefield. Already, it is looking at the potential of tiltrotor designs that can be either crewed or uncrewed. China’s huge pivot toward uncrewed air systems will likely also see these play a hugely important role alongside crewed helicopters in a mutually beneficial force mix.

At this point, there are more questions than answers about China’s new compound coaxial helicopter, with a lack of clarity about its intended role as well as its design authority. On the other hand, it’s notable in itself that China is now exploring rotary technologies that should allow speeds of close to double that of conventional helicopters.

Even though Sikorsky says it still has hopes for its X-2 technology, it would be highly ironic if its potential ends up being exploited by America’s top pacing threat, China.

Contact the author: [email protected]

A bipartisan congressional committee is investigating whether California’s High-Speed Rail Authority knowingly misrepresented ridership projections and financial outlooks, as alleged by the Trump administration, to secure federal funding.

In a letter sent to Department of Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy on Tuesday, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform chair James Comer (R-KY) requested a staff briefing and all communications and records about federal funding for the high-speed rail project and any analysis over the train’s viability.

“The Authority’s apparent repeated use of misleading ridership projections, despite longstanding warnings from experts, raises serious questions about whether funds were allocated under false pretenses,” Comer wrote.

Comer’s letter copied Congressman Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the committee who has also voiced skepticism about the project. Garcia, whose districts represent communities in Southern California, was not immediately available for comment.

An authority spokesperson called the House committee’s investigation “another baseless attempt to manufacture controversy around America’s largest and most complex infrastructure project,” and added that the project’s chief executive Ian Choudri previously addressed the claims and called them “cherrypicked and out-of-date, and therefore misleading.”

Last month, the Trump administration pulled $4 billion in federal funding from the project meant for construction in the Central Valley. After a months-long review, prompted by calls from Republican lawmakers, the administration found “no viable path” forward for the fast train, which is billions of dollars over budget and years behind schedule. The administration also questioned whether the authority’s projected ridership counts were intentionally misrepresented.

California leaders called the move “illegal” and sued the Trump administration for declaratory and injunctive relief. Gov. Gavin Newsom said it was “a political stunt” and a “heartless attack on the Central Valley.”

The bullet train was proposed decades ago as a way to connect Los Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours by 2020. While the entire line has cleared environmental reviews, no stretch of the route has been completed. Construction has been limited to the Central Valley, where authority leaders have said a segment between Merced and Bakersfield will open by 2033. The project is also about $100 billion over its original budget of $33 billion.

Even before the White House pulled federal funding, authority leaders and advisers repeatedly raised concerns over the project’s long-term financial sustainability.

Roughly $13 billion has been spent so far — the bulk of which was supplied by the state, which has proposed $1 billion per year towards the project. But Choudri, who started at the authority last year, has said the project needs to find new sources of funding and has turned focus toward establishing public-private partnerships to supplement costs.

US president blasts long-delayed project to link Los Angeles and San Francisco as a ‘boondoggle’ and a ‘train to nowhere’.

United States President Donald Trump has pulled the plug on $4bn in funding for a long-delayed high-speed rail line in California, blasting the project as a “boondoggle” and a “train to nowhere”.

Trump said in a social media post on Wednesday that he had “freed” taxpayers from the “disastrously overpriced” proposed railway linking Los Angeles and San Francisco, which has been plagued by delays and cost overruns.

“This boondoggle, led by the incompetent Governor of California, Gavin Newscum, has cost Taxpayers Hundreds of Billions of Dollars, and we have received NOTHING in return except Cost Overruns,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, using a nickname he commonly deploys to mock the state’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom.

“The Railroad we were promised still does not exist, and never will.”

US Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy accused Democrats of wasting taxpayers’ money and said federal money was not a “blank cheque”.

“It’s time for this boondoggle to die,” Duffy said in a statement.

Newsom slammed the Trump administration’s move as illegal and said the state would put “all options on the table” to oppose the funding cut.

“Trump wants to hand China the future and abandon the Central Valley. We won’t let him,” Newsom said in a statement.

The 1,249km (776-mile) rail line, which was approved by California voters in a 2008 plebiscite, was initially envisaged for completion in 2020 at a cost of $33bn.

The project’s estimated cost has since ballooned to $89bn to $128bn, with services not expected to begin until 2033 at the earliest.

The US currently does not have a high-speed rail service, but a 354km (220-mile) high-speed link between Los Angeles and Las Vegas is scheduled to begin operations in 2028.

THIS is the moment a huge pile-up takes place on a motorway, involving multiple cars, a caravan and a huge 30-tonne heavy goods vehicle.

But while the destruction and terror brought about by the incident are all very real, not all is as it seems.

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

Indeed, the high-speed crash was all part of a carefully planned experiment conducted as part of a Channel 4 documentary titled Pile Up – The World’s Biggest Crash Test.

Carried out at a former RAF base in Scotland, the experiment involved recreating a high-speed motorway pile-up with eight vehicles and a 30-tonne lorry.

The cars involved were a Toyota Prius, Porsche Boxster, Volkswagen Golf GTI, Ford F-150, Audi A8, Dodge Grand Caravan, Mercedes ML and a Vauxhall Vivaro van.

The team used an almost 2-mile-long stretch of road, which was presumably an aircraft runway, and included white lines, a hard shoulder and motorway-grade varioguard barriers to make everything as realistic as possible.

Professor James Brighton and his team from Cranfield University’s Advanced Vehicle Engineering Centre led the study, which thankfully utilised cars that were remote-controlled from ‘pods’ but driven at motorway speeds.

Four members of the public took part, each selected to represent a cross-section of road users.

To make the pile-up as realistic as possible and to capture genuine reactions, the four selected drivers had no knowledge of the true nature of the experiment.

They were revealed as 19-year-old Caitlyn, who represents inexperienced drivers aged 17 to 24; Luke, 26, a “boy racer,” reflecting young male drivers who account for 65% of serious injuries or deaths; 66-year-old Lynn, representing older drivers aged 60+; and Tito, 57, a surfer and international driver familiar with UK and US road differences.

All four believed they were taking part in an experiment to improve motorway safety and advance their driving skills and were unaware they would be involved in a high-speed multi-car pile-up.

As they drove along at speed, a lorry swerved into their lanes to simulate a pile-up.

Over 90 cameras, drones and black boxes were used to capture the moment of impact, recording crash dynamics, vehicle data and driver reactions.

The experiment provides valuable insights into crash dynamics, safety systems and human behaviour during multi-vehicle accidents, while also highlighting areas for improvement in vehicle design and accident analysis.

The aftermath of the crash replicated several intricate details, such as a car sliding under the lorry and also demonstrated crumple zones, which are effective at absorbing impacts and saving lives.

For example, despite a massive rear shunt from a van, the Prius’ electric battery remained intact.

Afterwards, Marcus Rowe, a crash investigator, was sent to the scene of the accident – having not witnessed the crash – to figure out what happened using crash forensics.

One concerning finding was that airbags might not always deploy and largely depend on where the vehicle is hit, showing that safety systems can struggle with multiple impacts.

One thing that can’t be determined is a driver’s reaction in the heat of the moment, as one panicked motorist accelerated into the lorry, despite having come to a stop safely.

Lastly, it found that the hard shoulder is a dangerous place to be, as any drivers or passengers in the cars on the mock-up hard shoulder would most likely have lost their lives.

Speaking on the experiment, David Twohig, an Automotive Engineering Consultant, said: “The beauty of a lab-based crash test is everything is controlled.

“Everything is repeatable, but unfortunately, the real world is not a laboratory, and there are many, many variables.

“It might be the weather conditions, it might be the friction of the road surface, it might be temperature, humidity, the state of the driver, the mood of the driver – so I think that’s the limitation of the lab, it’s almost too good.”

Pile Up – World’s Biggest Crash Test airs Sunday 15 June at 9pm on Channel 4.