Back to news

September 19, 2018 | International, Aerospace

Bombers, fighters and tankers unite: Will the Air Force rebuild composite wings to fight near-peer foes?

By:

The Air Force has spent the past few years gearing up for a near-peer fight against adversaries with high-end air forces that match their own. While new doctrines and technologies occupy much of the planning for such a shift, another type of preparation is needed: reorganizing wings and squadrons.

One possibility on the table is a return to composite wings.

In the early 1990s, the Air Force organized the 366th Fighter Wing out of Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho, into the service's premier “air intervention” composite wing. For roughly a decade, the wing flew fighters, bombers and tankers with the goal of meeting the challenges of a post-Cold War world order — where conflict could arrive anywhere, anytime.

“They were ready to pack up and go fight as a unified team,” Lt. Gen. Mark Kelly, commander of 12th Air Force, told a crowd of Air Force leaders Monday at the 2018 Air, Space and Cyber Conference in Washington, D.C.

“But that was disbanded, and part of it came down to money," Kelly said. "The cost per flying hour of trying to sustain the small-fleet dynamics there didn't look great on spreadsheets.”

But Kelly argues that financial assessment was faulty. The quality of the training airmen were getting was being compared to the day-to-day operations at other bases around the Air Force. In reality, it was more comparable to the day-to-day training at Red Flag — a two-week, advanced air combat training exercise still held several times a year in Nevada and Alaska.

“Frankly, the training they were getting compared more to Red Flag daily ops," Kelly said. “And that would be a good problem to have and a good construct to be able to build.”

The Air Force is rethinking how it constructs wings and squadrons, as well as how it deploys airmen, as it shifts to better align with the 2018 National Defense Strategy, according to Kelly.

As it stands, “airmen only come together to fight at the line of scrimmage," Kelly said.

For instance, before airmen arrive at a forward base to fight against insurgents in Afghanistan, they may have a unified command at the squadron level, but a unified command at the wing level is severely lacking.

Additionally, airmen preparing to deploy today benefit from a surplus of “spin-up" time. They know when their unit is scheduled to deploy and have the luxury of training to meet that challenge well in advance.

“That's a luxury that we cannot rely on in great power competition,” Kelly said.

Organizing some aircraft and airmen into composite wings could provide the training and deployment structure necessary for fights against modern militaries, Kelly said.

The composite wing concept was heavily pushed in 1991 by then Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Merrill McPeak, according to his biography on the Defense Department's website.

McPeak wanted to organize wings by their mission-set, not aircraft type. According to his “air intervention” doctrine, a wing deploying for a near-peer fight should have all the aircraft and airmen it needs to accomplish its mission with limited, or possibly no, outside support.

This meant one wing could potentially operate electronic warfare aircraft for the suppression of enemy air defenses, bombers to lay waste to enemy fortifications, fighters to engage in air-to-air combat, and tankers to refuel them all.

After the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, however, the old composite squadron idea was mostly discarded. The 366th Fighter Wing was restored to fly F-16Js, and the consolidation of the Air Force's KC-135 and B-1 forces led to the reallocation of the wing's bombers and tankers to McConnell AFB, Kansas, and Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota, according to Mountain Home's website.

But composite wings, and the idea of sustainable fights with more or less autonomous Air Force commanders, is back in vogue.

Funding was one of the biggest challenges to composite wings back in the day, but the reasons for that unit structure are better appreciated now as concerns about China and Russia preoccupy defense planners.

To fuel a restructuring, steady funding will be key, according to Kelly. He projected the Air Force's shift to great power competition will continue to be a focus of the defense budget into 2021 and 2022.

But regardless of the funds Congress ultimately appropriates for the Air Force in the coming years, restructuring for a near-peer fight needs to happen, Kelly said.

“This has to happen regardless of if we have the force we have today with only one more airman, or the force we need with tens of thousands more airmen," he added.

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2018/09/18/bombers-fighters-and-tankers-unite-will-the-air-force-rebuild-composite-wings-to-fight-near-peer-foes

On the same subject

  • Lockheed Signals Change Is Coming With New CEO

    April 1, 2020 | International, Aerospace

    Lockheed Signals Change Is Coming With New CEO

    Michael Bruno Lockheed Martin Chairman, CEO and President Marillyn Hewson became the prime example of how to stumble into the corner office of the Pentagon's top contractor and still provide laudable business results. Now, as she hands off the reins to an enigmatic successor, Lockheed stakeholders hope the uncertainty ahead will be just as lucrative. On March 16, the Bethesda, Maryland-based prime—the largest contractor to the U.S. Defense Department by annual sales—surprised many followers with the news that current Lockheed board member James “Jim” Taiclet, Jr. will become CEO and president on June 15, while Hewson becomes executive chairman. Lockheed also promoted Frank St. John, current executive vice president of the company's Rotary and Mission Systems (RMS) division, to become chief operating officer (COO)—a role that Hewson technically held last, and briefly, before her January 2013 appointment as chief executive. Before that, the COO role was mostly held by Chris Kubasik prior to his downfall at Lockheed. Stephanie Hill, now senior vice president for enterprise business transformation, was appointed to succeed St. John as executive vice president for RMS. These appointments also are effective June 15. Hewson is 66 years old and Taiclet is 59. The company, which does not have a retirement rule, had not announced a formal transition plan or successor process. Nevertheless, industry insiders were watching movements—such as St. John's rise and recent board appointments—and analysts said they assume the transition was planned before the ongoing COVID-19 crisis erupted. While the announcement was a surprise, the timing was not—due to Hewson's age and the fact that Lockheed ended 2019 with a record $144 billion backlog of work and a stock price that has more than tripled under Hewson, including the recent COVID-19-related pullback. Still, many observers are intrigued by the selection. “While Marillyn's retirement has been in the cards for a while, we were not expecting Lockheed to go outside the company for its new CEO,” say analysts at Vertical Research Partners. “Taiclet has an impressive pedigree based on his resume, but from an A&D perspective, he is an unknown quantity. . . . But with Marillyn sticking around as chairman, and a very experienced cohort of senior Lockheed managers, we are not expecting there to be any revolutionary change as a result of this appointment.” Cowen analysts also noted that St. John's appointment as COO further bookends Taiclet with experienced Lockheed managers. St. John, 53, joined Lockheed more than 30 years ago and as COO is naturally positioned as a potential future CEO, analysts say. Taiclet is currently chairman, president and CEO of American Tower, a real estate investment holding company and owner/operator of wireless and broadband communications networks, where he has held the executive reins since 2003. He joined that company in 2001 and, according to Lockheed, is credited with guiding American Tower's transformation from a U.S.-centric focus to a multinational business outlook. Analysts said he also was central in leading mergers and acquisitions as part of the company's expansion. American Tower announced an immediate replacement for Taiclet but said he will remain chairman and an advisor through June 14. Taiclet previously served as president of Honeywell Aerospace Services and before that was vice president for engine services at the Pratt & Whitney division of United Technologies (UTC). He also worked as a consultant at McKinsey & Co., specializing in telecommunications and aerospace strategy and operations. He is a retired U.S. Air Force pilot and Persian Gulf War veteran. Loren Thompson, a Lexington Institute consultant to Lockheed, says Hewson's selection of Taiclet seems calculated to continue her emphasis on tight financial management and good customer relations while positioning the leading prime for a changing demand environment. “That environment will be characterized by two shifts from previous years,” Thompson writes. “First, the defense budget will enter a flat to declining period very different from the spending increases of the early Trump [administration] years. Second, the preference of military customers for nontraditional suppliers who think like entrepreneurial enterprises rather than government contractors will continue to grow.” Hewson's selection of Taiclet also is telling because she has won the respect of many industry insiders, analysts and advisers. While unplanned, Hewson's tenure as CEO was deemed successful by most. “Hewson's tenure is known for operational execution with such programs as the F-35, while having a successful oversight in maintaining key businesses—such as in the evolving area of space with wins such as Next-Gen OPIR and GPS IIIF,” say Jefferies analysts. Company sales grew at a 5% compound annual growth rate from $45.4 billion in 2013 to an expected $63.3 billion this year. Taiclet's takeover sounds to many like more of the same—but different. “This is the first time Lockheed Martin has promoted someone who did not rise through the corporation to be president and CEO,” writes Capital Alpha Partners analyst Byron Callan. “We find it intriguing that he has a commercial background and wonder if that's not a different direction the company starts to explore in 2020-25.” https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/supply-chain/lockheed-signals-change-coming-new-ceo

  • Berlin plans to spend 8 billion euros in package for 60 Boeing Chinook helicopters

    June 23, 2023 | International, Aerospace

    Berlin plans to spend 8 billion euros in package for 60 Boeing Chinook helicopters

    Germany aims to purchase 60 Chinook helicopters from Boeing in a package that would cost up to 8 billion euros ($8.71 billion), including necessary infrastructure for the aircraft, a parliamentary source told Reuters on Friday.

  • Major players pitch solutions for Navy’s next training helicopter

    April 20, 2018 | International, Aerospace, Naval

    Major players pitch solutions for Navy’s next training helicopter

    By: Jen Judson NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — Several major players in the helicopter industry pitched possible solutions at the Navy League's Sea-Air-Space conference for the Navy's next initial-entry, rotary-wing training helicopter as the service signals stronger intentions to replace its aging TH-57 Sea Ranger fleet. The Navy has announced during recent congressional hearings that it plans to buy a new training helicopter in fiscal 2020. For years, the service has put out requests for information asking industry for training helicopter options with the latest coming out in October 2017. That RFI left some requirements open-ended such as whether the aircraft should have one or two engines, but has asked for the helicopter to be Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) certified, an obvious requirement when flying over sea or in reduced visibility environments. It's also assumed the Navy wants a commercial off-the-shelf aircraft. The TH-57 is more than reaching the end of its life, having first been fielded to the Navy's training fleet in the 1970s. So three companies — Airbus, Bell and Leonardo — all brought examples of possible training helicopters to the Navy's biggest trade show. Airbus H135 Airbus is keeping all of its options on the table for a Navy trainer because the service has yet to define all of its requirements, according to John Roth, senior director of business development for Airbus Helicopters Inc. “We have a broad product range that goes from light, single-engine into light, twin-engine to medium and heavy twin-engine platforms,” Roth told Defense News at Sea-Air-Space. “Our approach is we will evaluate those requirements and offer based on those requirements. However, given the nature of training and how the complexity of training has evolved over time, we do have recommendations for the Navy as it relates to having the best possible solution to accomplish all of their missions.” And one recommendation is the H135 light, twin-engine helicopter Airbus had on display at the show. “We believe this is certainly a very capable potential solution that meets all the Navy requirements as a commercial off-the-shelf product,” Roth said. The H135 is similar to the EC-145 helicopter that the Army now uses for its trainer, replacing its TH-67 Creek helicopters with LUH-72A Lakota light utility helicopters already in the service's inventory beginning in 2014. The Army's decision to retire the TH-67s and replace them with Lakotas was met with much debate as to whether it made sense to teach helicopter pilots basic skills in a more complex digital glass cockpit helicopter with twin engines. And the decision was even met with a lawsuit. Leonardo — then known as AgustaWestland — sued the Army over its decision not to compete for a new trainer but to instead sole-source a helicopter already fielded by the service. Leonardo initially won the lawsuit but the decision was overturned in the appellate court. The Army is still filling out its Lakota training fleet, but, Roth said, “from a qualitative perspective, we've got some very positive feedback that talks to capability of the aviators when they complete the training and having them more prepared for the advanced aircraft once they arrive at their advanced training stations.” The fact that both the Lakota and the H135 have advanced digital glass cockpits, four-axis autopilot and twin-engine capability with Full Authority Digital Engine (FADEC) controls “all prepared them for the type of vehicle that they are going to get in when they get into their advanced training,” Roth said. The Army has taken tasks normally taught in the more expensive advanced aircraft and brought those down to basic training, he added. “There has been a lot of advantages realized from that decision that we think the Navy will be able to take advantage of as well,” Roth said. The H135s, if purchased by the Navy, would be built at its Columbus, Mississippi, production line where commercial EC135s and Lakotas are built. The helicopter pitched to the Navy is also used by approximately a dozen countries with nearly 130 aircraft serving as a primary trainer worldwide, Roth said. Bell 407 GXi Bell would be the incumbent in a competition for a new Navy trainer, being the current manufacturer of the TH-57. The company plans to offer up its 407 GXi, according to Steve Mathias, Bell's vice president for Global Military Business Development. Bell has already built and sold 1,500 407s worldwide which have flown over 4.75 million hours, he said, so the helicopter is “very reliable, sustainable, maintainable glass cockpit, just a great overall aircraft,” Mathias said. And from a programmatic perspective, he said, choosing Bell's trainer offers “a lot less risk because it's very similar to the TH-57 that the Navy currently has, so a transition from a Bell product to a Bell product would be a lower risk, I would think, to the customer.” Bell also provides many of the helicopters the Navy and Marine Corps fly today such as the UH-1Y Venom, the AH-1Z Viper and the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor and therefore has a high level of experience working with the services on a day-to-day basis “so we very closely understand what the Navy requirements are,” Mathias argued. The company is hoping the Navy chooses to go with a single-engine aircraft because it would “be less costly to operate” and less complex to train, according to Mathias. He added that he believes the choice would offer the best value to the service. Leonardo TH-119 Italian company Leonardo is making a play for the trainer with plans to submit its TH-119, which puts them, like Bell, into the single-engine camp, according to Andrew Gappy, who is in charge of the company's government sales and programs. The helicopter is a variant of the AW119Kx, a single-engine, full-spectrum training aircraft and can be used for training from the basics like learning how to hover above the ground all the way to advanced tactics. And while Leonardo is a foreign company, all of the 119s worldwide are manufactured in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The 119 is also IFR certified to meet that Navy requirement. The helicopter is known for its significant power, which means the aircraft's training mission sets can grow and change over time without affecting its performance, Gappy said. It's important for the Navy to buy a new trainer now because, Gappy said, he trained on the TH-57 “a long time ago.” The aircraft averages roughly 70,000 flight hours a year and will become more and more costly to operate as it continues to age. “When I went through, the TH-57 had a lot in common with combat aircraft, how the aircraft flew and instrumentation training was really relevant,” he said. “It's so disparate now with glass cockpits and all of them are multi-bladed rotor systems that fly differently than the twin rotor system, so it's really resetting the baseline,” which allows the service to incorporate more advanced training into the basic courses that has migrated away from that training due to the loss in power margin, Gappy said. https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/navy-league/2018/04/11/major-players-pitch-solutions-for-navys-next-training-helicopter/

All news