Back to news

February 25, 2019 | International, C4ISR

Army Taps Raytheon to Build Enhanced Radios for Black Hawks, Apaches

By Matthew Cox

The U.S. Army recently awarded Raytheon Co. a $406 million contract to supply the service with aviation radios over the next five years.

Raytheon will manufacture up to 5,000 ARC-231A radio systems that will be installed on the Army's existing helicopter platforms, according to a Feb. 14 company press release.

The ARC-231A meets the Pentagon's requirements for "airborne, multi-band, multi-mission, secure anti-jam voice, data and imagery transmission and provides network-capable communications in a compact radio set," according to the Raytheon website.

Full article: https://www.military.com/defensetech/2019/02/20/army-taps-raytheon-build-enhanced-radios-black-hawks-apaches.html

On the same subject

  • FVL: The Army’s 10-Year Plan For FARA Scout

    March 31, 2020 | International, Aerospace

    FVL: The Army’s 10-Year Plan For FARA Scout

    The Army's urgently developing new air-launched drones, long-range missiles, and electronic architecture to go on the Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft that Bell and Sikorsky are vying to build. By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR WASHINGTON: The Army's Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft program is much bigger than the two ambitious high-speed helicopters that Bell and Sikorsky will now get more than $1 billion to build. At least five other major moving pieces must come together on time to turn the final aircraft, whoever makes it, into a working weapon: a new Improved Turbine Engine built by GE; helicopter-launched mini-drones called Air Launched Effects (ALE); a new Long-Range Precision Munition (LRPM), with the Israeli Spike-NLOS as the initial version; an Integrated Missile Launcher (IML) to launch both the missile and the drones; and the underlying electronic framework of standards and interfaces to plug it all together, the Modular Open Systems Architecture (MOSA). The Army is “not just focused on the air vehicle, but focused on the weapon system,” said Brig. Gen. Walter Rugen, Future Vertical Lift director at Army Futures Command, in a call this morning with reporters. Here's the current schedule for everything to come together: 2019 April: The Army awarded five contracts for “initial designs” of the FARA aircraft itself. 2020 March: The Army assessed the five initial designs – including each company's ability to deliver on budget and schedule. Yesterday, they chose Bell and Sikorsky to build prototypes. Each company has already received a “digital model” of how their design must conform to the Modular Open Systems Architecture (MOSA), which will allow the government to plug-and-play MOSA-compliant components from any company, not just the manufacturer, over the life of the program, program manager Dan Bailey said: “We, the government, will control the interfaces internal to the aircraft so we can efficiently upgrade.” December: The Army will conduct a Final Design Review of both designs to confirm “that they are postured for success and risk is acceptable,” Bailey said. “After that, they will begin to build the aircraft.” 2021 Bell and Sikorsky build their prototypes. Despite their very different designs, each company must incorporate certain common Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) provide by the Army. That includes a 20mm cannon; the GE T909 Improved Turbine Engine, which will also be retrofitted to existing Apache and Black Hawk helicopters; and the Integrated Munitions Launcher (IML), which will use MOSA interface standards to connect missiles and ALE mini-drones to the aircraft – without having to modify the aircraft each time a new weapon is developed. If the Army's 2021 budget request is approved, this year the service will buy $152 million of Spike NLOS (Non-Line-Of-Sight) missiles from Israel armsmaker Rafael as an interim Long Range Precision Munition. 2022 Bell and Sikorsky begin ground testing of their prototypes. The Army fields Spike-NLOS missiles on existing aircraft across three Combat Aviation Brigades (CABs), providing both immediate combat power and hands-on experience with the technology to refine either the Spike or a competitor into the full-up LRPM. November: The Bell 360 Invictus and Sikorsky Raider-X fly for the first time. Flight testing begins. 2023 Summer: The prototype aircraft move from their builders' test sites to Redstone Arsenal to begin Army flight testing with all-government crews. The Army finalizes its formal requirements for FARA based on how the prototypes actually perform. Fall: The Army conducts a Weapons System Preliminary Design Review – that is, not of the aircraft alone, but of how all the pieces work together – and, in context of that holistic assessment, selects either Bell or Sikorsky to build the aircraft. By December 31st: The Army launches an official Program Of Record (POR) to acquire FARA. While the first few aircraft will cost more, the service's long-term goal is to spend no more than $30 million per FARA, the same price as the current AH-64 Apache gunship. 2024-2025 The Air-Launched Effects (ALE) mini-drones begin to enter service on existing Army aircraft. As with the Spike missile, this early deployment provides both immediate military benefit and the necessary experience to refine the technology for FARA. 2028-2030 The first FARA aircraft enter operational service. The Army hasn't specified how many it ultimately plans to build or for what price. But the Army's Program Executive Officer (PEO) for Aviation, Patrick Mason, told reporters today that “I have no reason to disagree with” widely circulated independent estimates of 300-400 aircraft for $15-20 billion. “We've got a series of gates” over the years, Mason said. “This is a constant assessment as we go through, and this is really the beauty and benefit of the prototyping design of this program: We will get to see both vendors as they go to their final designs and they build their prototype air vehicle, as we simultaneously carry forward [with] the other elements that are part of the FVL ecosystem.” “We're going to see very, very clear indication of the technology maturity, the readiness, and the ability of the prototype aircraft to meet the requirements,” he said. Novel Contracts, Novel Technology, Tight Schedule It's worth delving into some detail on what happened yesterday, when the Army announced that Bell and Sikorsky would get the chance to build competing prototypes of FARA – the Bell 360 Invictus and the Sikorsky Raider-X – while designs from AVX, Boeing, and Karem were rejected. Each of the five companies had received up to $15 million for design work, while Bell and Sikorsky will each get up to $735 million more to build and test their prototypes. The exact figures are competition-sensitive, and each vendor has invested much of its own money in any case. The contracts call for one-third private funding and two-thirds government funding over the design and prototyping phases combined, but the companies have almost certainly outspent the government so far. Technically, FARA program manager Dan Bailey told reporters, “we actually aren't awarding anything at this time.” Instead, last April, all five contenders got Other Transaction Authority Prototyping (OTAP) contracts for both the design and prototyping phases, but with clauses allowing the Army to cut any vendor at any time. It's that option they've just exercised. Rather than making an award, Bailey said, “yesterday, we notified two that we would continue to fund them into Phase 2 and we notified three that we would stop funding them.” (Emphasis ours). This novel approach, among other benefits, is nigh-impossible for losing bidders to appeal against, Rugen said: “There really is no ability to protest per se with the GAO [Government Accountability Office]. There is legal recourse potentially through the courts but, again, our legal team has advised us the risk is low.” That's helpful because – as the JEDI cloud computing contract proves – legal battles can delay Defense Department programs for months. The Army has a tight timeline for FARA, which it sees as essential to fill the gap in its aerial reconnaissance capability left by the retirement of the aging and much-upgraded Bell OH-58 Kiowa. While the competing designs are very different, Army simulations so far show that either would meet the military needs “Both are advanced rotorcraft configurations,” Brig. Gen. Rugen said. “Both did very well with speed, range, endurance at range, in our European scenario.... The power [for] takeoff with payload out of ground effect was also, again, leap-ahead.” The Bell 360 Invictus is basically a conventional helicopter with small wings for added lift, using fly-by-wire and rotor technology developed for the civilian Bell 525. The Sikorsky Raider-X is a compound helicopter with coaxial rotors and a pusher propeller for added thrust, derived from Sikorsky's S-97 Raider – which is a real, flight-testing aircraft – and ultimately the award-winning X2. “The X2 technology continues to impress,” Rugen said. While Bell's design may not have struck some observers as revolutionary, he said, “the efficiency” with which Bell's engineers stripped out every possible bit of drag – allowing much higher speeds – “was truly innovative. “We've got two great competitors ... on a program that we must deliver for the Army,” Rugen said. https://breakingdefense.com/2020/03/fvl-the-armys-10-year-plan-for-fara-scout

  • Coopérations dans l'armement : la France peut-elle vraiment faire confiance à l'Allemagne ? (1/3)

    November 7, 2018 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

    Coopérations dans l'armement : la France peut-elle vraiment faire confiance à l'Allemagne ? (1/3)

    Par Michel Cabirol La France et l'Allemagne ont à l'évidence des enjeux et des objectifs différents. La coopération franco-allemande est-elle assise sur des bases saines ? Pas sûr. La France peut-elle vraiment faire confiance à l'Allemagne en matière de politique de défense et d'armement? Pas sûr si l'on en croit le député LREM du Finistère, Jean-Charles Larsonneur, qui jette un pavé dans la mare avec son rapport sur le programme 146 (Equipement des forces et dissuasion) : "L'approfondissement, sans grande publicité et, pour ainsi dire, à bas bruit, du concept de nation-cadre de l'OTAN, consiste à fédérer autour de l'Allemagne les capacités de 17 « petits » pays, ce qui risque de réduire l'intérêt des Allemands pour nos coopérations bilatérales", a-t-il expliqué le 24 octobre à l'Assemblée nationale. L'Allemagne se place dans une volonté de leadership en Europe dans le domaine de la défense, qu'elle a très clairement exprimé dans son Livre Blanc de 2016 et dans sa stratégie dans le domaine des technologies clés. D'ailleurs, l'un des plus influents think tank d'Allemagne, la Stiftung für Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP), synthétise parfaitement la stratégie allemande. Il préconisait en août 2017 que Berlin prenne le leadership militaire de l'Union européenne, et de devenir le pilier européen de l'OTAN en raison du futur désengagement américain. "La Bundeswehr pourrait devenir une épine dorsale de la sécurité européenne à long terme, affirmait la SWP. (...) Cela exige de la volonté du futur gouvernement fédéral d'accepter un leadership politique et militaire dans l'alliance". Un avantage puissant pour l'industrie allemande L'Allemagne a effectivement su se saisir du concept de nation-cadre ("Framework Nation Concept"- FNC) élaboré par l'OTAN à son initiative à partir de 2012. De fait, l'Allemagne, qui a mis en œuvre ce concept, s'est entourée, en tant que nation-cadre, de 19 États membres pour mettre en œuvre des projets de coopération très approfondis, tendant à une véritable intégration pour certains d'entre eux (Pays-Bas notamment). Et pour de nombreux observateurs, ce concept va se révéler être un rouleau compresseur en faveur des intérêts industriels germaniques. C'est un "instrument stratégique qui pourrait servir puissamment les intérêts de l'industrie allemande", a confirmée Jean-Charles Larsonneur. Pourquoi ? Selon Antoine Bouvier, cité dans le rapport du député, l'interpénétration des enjeux capacitaires et opérationnels est profonde. Ainsi, les États partenaires de l'Allemagne ont souscrit l'engagement de porter au standard le plus élevé leurs capacités des chars de combat, ce qui constitue une "formidable opportunité pour KMW ". Cette opportunité est par nature d'autant plus grande que l'intégration des capacités militaires concernées est poussée. Ainsi, l'armée de terre néerlandaise ne pourrait désormais plus être déployée sans la Bundeswehr, tant leur intégration capacitaire est profonde. L'Allemagne, dans ce schéma, tient un rôle d'intégrateur des capacités européennes. Cette ambition s'appuie sur des ressources budgétaires à la hausse : augmentation de 34,3 milliards d'euros en 2016 à 42,9 milliards en 2019 (soit 1,31% du PIB). "Le concept de nation-cadre se constitue de fait comme le pilier européen de l'Alliance ‒ aux yeux d'Américains, mieux vaut voir l'Europe de la défense se constituer dans un cadre de l'OTAN, bien connu, plutôt que dans des constructions européennes moins maîtrisées par eux", a expliqué Jean-Charles Larsonneur dans son rapport. Le SCAF en danger? Un accord politique a été trouvé au plus haut niveau le 13 juillet 2017, formalisé par des lettres d'intention au printemps 2018. Il est convenu que la France aura un rôle prééminent dans la conduite du programme SCAF. Symétriquement, il est entendu que l'Allemagne en aura un dans la conduite du projet de char du futur tout comme elle a obtenu le leadership sur le futur drone MALE européen. Selon Jean-Charles Larsonneur, les industriels français et allemands ne disposent toujours pas d'un cadre réglementaire, ne serait-ce que pour échanger des informations. "Il ressort de mes travaux que la DGA attend des réponses de son équivalent allemand", a-t-il révélé. "Il est donc urgent de poser des jalons aussi irréversibles que possible dans la coopération franco-allemande, tant que le contexte politique le permet", a-t-il affirmé. Jean-Charles Larsonneur est inquiet sur la coopération franco-allemande. "La coopération franco-allemande présente en ce moment quelques signes de flottement", a-t-il estimé à l'Assemblée nationale. Il a cité en exemple la décision des Allemands de décliner la proposition française de développer en commun un missile européen pour le nouveau standard du Tigre, au profit d'un missile israélien, le Spike, comme l'avait révélé La Tribune. Mais selon Antoine Bouvier, le nouveau Spike LR2 n'est qu'au début de son développement et comporte donc des risques technologiques. "Le choix des Allemands pour une joint venture entre Rafael, fabricant israélien du Spike, et RheinMettall ‒ dont le rôle dans ce programme ne paraît d'ailleurs pas être dominant ‒ ne s'explique donc pas principalement par des considérations techniques", a précisé le rapport du député du Finistère. Le concept de nation-cadre permet également à l'Allemagne d'avancer discrètement ses pions dans le domaine des sous-marins. Après avoir fait céder la Norvège (membre du FNC), Berlin tente désormais de séduire la Pologne et les Pays-Bas en vantant un cluster européen sous-marin sous tutelle allemande. Ce qui marginaliserait clairement la France en Europe. En février 2017, la Norvège a commandé quatre U-212 et doit développer avec Berlin un partenariat à vocation mondiale dans le domaine des missiles mer-mer et des systèmes de traitement de l'information. La décision d'Oslo d'interrompre l'appel d'offres et de choisir une évolution du sous-marin en service dans la Marine allemande dans le cadre d'une coopération opérationnelle et industrielle renforcée, risque de faire t'ches d'huile en Europe... La France est en danger. https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/cooperations-dans-l-armement-la-france-peut-elle-vraiment-faire-confiance-a-l-allemagne-1-3-795987.html

  • USAF: New Raytheon Bomb Ready for Real-World Vetting

    July 8, 2019 | International, Aerospace, Other Defence

    USAF: New Raytheon Bomb Ready for Real-World Vetting

    RACHEL S. COHEN The Air Force's top weapons development official says Raytheon's Small Diameter Bomb II, or “StormBreaker,” is ready for primetime despite needing to work out some lingering issues. “Getting them out into the field, right now I think that's the best way for us to wring this out,” Air Force Weapons Program Executive Officer Brig. Gen. Anthony Genatempo said at a recent Air Force Life Cycle Management Center conference. “Get it into the hands of the people using it, figure out what they can do with it that we did not think of, figure out what things are happening in the operational environment that we were not able to replicate and test, and then feed that back into successive upgrades.” The Pentagon plans to buy 17,000 SDB IIs, split between 12,000 for the Air Force and 5,000 for the Navy, and will fly them on all current Air Force fighter and bomber aircraft as well as the A-10, AC-130J, and MQ-9. StormBreaker was designed as a precision munition that can communicate with nearby aircraft to attack moving and stationary targets in bad weather and notch “multiple kills per pass,” according to the Air Force. “The StormBreaker tri-mode seeker uses imaging infrared and millimeter wave radar in its normal mode to give pilots the ability to destroy moving targets, even in adverse weather, from standoff ranges,” Raytheon said in a press release. “Additionally, the weapon can use its semi-active laser guidance to hit targets.” As of October 2018, the service planned to spend $1.9 billion on development and $2.6 billion on procurement, the Government Accountability Office reported in May. StormBreaker's ability to communicate with its host aircraft needs more vetting, Genatempo said, and other fixes are already being added into the current production batch, Lot 4. Its radio may not be fixed until Lot 6 or 7, and the service plans to address parts that will be outdated in Lot 8. “Whether or not that is an issue that will prevent fielding, I don't think I can say that. I don't even think Air Combat Command can say that right now,” Genatempo said. “They very well may choose to take an initial delivery of these weapons at the capability they're at, knowing that one caveat. ... It certainly doesn't affect the entire envelope of operation of the weapon. It's a miniature part of one or two different scenarios.” The weapon is moving closer to being declared ready for initial operations afterfinishing operational tests in June and an overall test program that uncovered a range of performance issues that Raytheon and government officials say are routine in the course of vetting. When airmen are ready to receive the new bomb is ultimately up to Air Combat Command. “It's a very good conversation and dialogue with Air Combat Command about what they would like, when they would like it, what they're willing to take and employ,” Genatempo said. “I very much think that this weapon is ready to go out [to] operational use.” The Air Force now expects to reach its “required assets available” milestone, which has changed multiple times, from the fourth quarter of fiscal 2019 through the end of 2020. It was most recently slated for January 2019. To meet RAA, the service must arm 12 Boeing F-15Es with 144 weapons and own spare parts, support equipment, and more. The milestone was originally scheduled for July 2017. Genatempo said RAA was pushed back again to avoid punishing the program for having to wait its turn for testing ranges, as range availability is scarce thanks to several weapons programs simultaneously in testing. Delaying the milestone to later this year was “predominantly a paperwork exercise to make sure we didn't breach our [acquisition program baseline],” he said. http://airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2019/July%202019/USAF-New-Raytheon-Bomb-Ready-for-Real-World-Vetting.aspx

All news