Canada announces Ukraine $60M for F-16 supplies and equipment ahead of NATO meeting

On the same subject

• 

  October 4, 2018 | International, Aerospace

  US Army triggers design competition for future attack reconnaissance helicopter

  By: Jen Judson WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army has kicked off a major design competition for its Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft by releasing a request to industry on Oct. 3 to submit plans that could lead to a chance to build flyable prototypes in just a few years. The service, in June, released a draft solicitation that outlined its intention to get two different helicopter prototypes flying in 2023. The effort is part of the Army's larger move to procure a family of Future Vertical Lift, or FVL, aircraft in the early 2030s, if not sooner. The Army has been talking about procuring an FVL family of helicopters for the better part of a decade and has debated whether to prioritize the pursuit of a medium-lift helicopter to replace UH-60 Black Hawks and AH-64 Apache helicopters. Alternatively, the service was considering buying an armed reconnaissance helicopter to fill the gap left by the OH-58 Kiowa Warrior's 2014 retirement. With the advent of the Army Futures Command and its focus on six modernization priorities, of which FVL is third, progress is being made at lightning speed to make FVL a reality. The service, through an FVL Cross-Functional Team, led by Brig. Gen. Wally Rugen, has settled on going after both a long-range assault helicopter and a Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraftsomewhat back-to-back. But the FARA procurement plans are fast-paced and lead straight to a winner through a fly-off competition, which deviates from the way the Army has gone about its future medium-lift helicopter development. While the Army collected designs, reviewed them and selected two teams to build prototypes to fly in a Joint Multi-Role technology demonstration for a medium-lift aircraft, the results will simply inform requirements for the Army to move into a program of record where the service will make a determination on how it will compete, build and procure a long-range assault variant of FVL. With the FARA competition, the Army plans to award four to six initial design contracts in June of 2019, and then nine months later — to avoid camping out in the PowerPoint stage — the service will choose up to two designs to move forward in fiscal 2021 with a fly-off planned to start in the first quarter of 2023 (November 2022 to be specific, according to the solicitation). The Army will choose a winner and move forward into a milestone appropriate to advance the procurement of the helicopter, whether that is a technology development phase or engineering and manufacturing development or even a production phase, Rugen told a small group of reporters in an Oct. 3 media roundtable. It all depends on where the technology stands following the fly-off and what phase of the acquisition process the Army will enter once it chooses a winner, Dan Bailey, the Army's JMR-TD director, said in the interview. “The Army currently lacks the ability to conduct armed reconnaissance, light attack, and security with improved stand-off and lethal and non-lethal capabilities with a platform sized to hide in radar clutter and for the urban canyons and mega cities,” the solicitation states. The helicopter would be the “ ‘knife-fighter' of future Army Aviation capabilities” in a small package with “maximized performance,” it describes. The Army doesn't want to carve out requirements in granite, according to Rugen, and intends to be flexible as technology capability unfolds in the program, but the solicitation does state it wants a 40-foot maximum rotor diameter, and the fuselage should also not exceed 40 feet in width. By staying flexible, the Army hopes to steer clear of some of the mistakes it has made in the past attempting to acquire an armed reconnaissance helicopter. The Army failed three times to procure a new aircraft — the most memorable being the cancellation of the Comanche helicopter program in 2004 after two aircraft were built and $6.9 billion was spent. Rugen said the Army also wants to make sure affordability considerations are driven into the program and the designs from the beginning are a top requirement for industry to consider. The Army also wants the designs to incorporate the Improved Turbine Engine Program, or ITEP,engine that is being competitively developed to replace the engines in Black Hawks and Apaches. The Army is close to choosing a winner from two teams designing engines to move into the engineering and manufacturing development phase of the program within the next few months. The Army plans to spend approximately $15 million per industry participant in the initial design phase. Participants would receive $8.5 million in FY19 and $6.5 million in FY20. The two participants selected to continue into the prototype phase of the program would receive about $735 million each from FY20 to FY23. Rugen and Bailey said industry interest following the release of the draft solicitation in June has been higher than anticipated and included both industry partners that were not expected and all of those that were. Bailey said that, based on industry interest and participation so far, choosing six designs would be a competitive process because there are more than six possible entrants that have expressed interest in submitting designs. Tim Malia, Sikorsky's program director for FVL light development, told Defense News in a recent interview that the Lockheed Martin-owned company planned to use its X2 technology that is used in its S-97 Raider coaxial helicopter program as the centerpiece to its design offering for the FARA competition. The company is already scaling its X2 technology used in Raider up to a medium-lift aircraft — called the SB-1 Defiant that is participating in the JMR technology demonstration and expected to fly by the end of the year. Malia said it would not be difficult to scale the helicopter from the 34-foot main rotor diameter size of the Raider to the desired 40-foot diameter rotor blades envisioned for FARA. The company has also been working on designs to outfit Raider or any aircraft it builds with X2 technology with the ITEP engine. Sikorsky announced Oct. 3 that its Raider aircraft exceeded 200 knots in a flight test at its West Palm Beach, Florida, flight test center. Bell, which has been flying its V-280 Valor til-trotor helicopter as part of the JMR-TD effort for the better part of a year, continues to hold tight its plans for a design to submit to the FARA competition. https://www.defensenews.com/land/2018/10/03/us-army-triggers-design-competition-for-future-attack-reconnaissance-helicopter

• 

  July 29, 2019 | International, Aerospace

  Japan wants to be an official F-35 partner. The Pentagon plans to say no.

  By: Aaron Mehta , Valerie Insinna , and Mike Yeo WASHINGTON and MELBOURNE, Australia — Japan has formally expressed interest in joining the F-35 program as a full partner, but the Pentagon plans to shoot down that request, Defense News has learned. Sources say Japan's request to join the partnership creates major political headaches for the Pentagon, with fears it would cause new tensions among the international production base for the joint strike fighter and open the door for other customer nations to demand a greater role in future capability development. In a June 18 letter from Japan's Ministry of Defense to Pentagon acquisition head Ellen Lord, obtained by Defense News, Atsuo Suzuki, director general for the Bureau of Defense Buildup Planning, formally requests information on how Japan could move from being a customer of the F-35 to a full-fledged member of the industrial base consortium. “I believe becoming a partner country in F-35 program is an option,” the letter reads. “I would like to have your thoughts on whether or not Japan has a possibility to be a partner country in the first place. Also, I would like you to provide the Ministry of Defense with detailed information about the responsibilities and rights of a partner country, as well as cost sharing and conditions such as the approval process and the required period.” “We would like to make a final decision whether we could proceed to become a partner country by thoroughly examining the rights and obligations associated with becoming a partner country based on the terms and conditions you would provide,” the letter concludes. Lord, the Pentagon acquisition head, is scheduled to meet with Japanese officials this week, and the question of membership is expected to come up. But Tokyo won't like the answer. Although Lord's office will be responsible for carrying the final message to Japan, the F-35 Joint Program Office told Defense News that the partnership remains limited to the initial wave of F-35 investors. “The F-35 cooperative Partnership closed on 15 July 2002,” stated Brandi Schiff, a spokesperson for the F-35 JPO. The decision was documented in an April 2002 memo by the Pentagon's acquisition executive stating that, “except for those countries with which we are already engaged in Level III System Development and Demonstration partnership negotiation by 15 July 2002, we will not be able to accommodate any additional Level III partners due to our inability to offer equitable government-to-government benefits and U.S. industry's inability to offer equitable 'best value' workshare arrangements,” according to Schiff. The F-35 partners in 2007 reiterated in a separate memo that only the partners who participated in the development phase of the F-35 program would be eligible to remain partners during the production, sustainment and modernization stages. A source familiar with internal discussions says the Pentagon is concerned that letting Japan become a program partner would lead to other nations demanding similar access. Japan's query is hitting the F-35 program at a time of change. Vice Adm. Mat Winter, the head of the JPO, retired this month after only two years on the job, and Turkey's pursuit of a Russian air defense system has resulted in them being booted from the F-35 consortium, with all work being done by its companies to end early next year. So in many ways, Japan asking to be made a full partner now makes sense, said a former senior official in the F-35 program, who agreed to speak on background out of respect for current decision makers. “You now lost a partner in Turkey, so there is a vacant parking space, so to speak. And other than the U.S. services, [Japan] will be the one nation with the most F-35s,” the former official said, noting two changes that have happened in just the last year. “Ultimately, the Department of Defense, in coordination with the State Department, made up the rules," the former official said. "The Department of Defense can change the rules.” Global impact There are two tiers of participation in the F-35 program. The first-tier members are considered “partners” in the program, which comes with direct involvement in the joint program office. That includes having national representatives stationed in the JPO, weighing in on decisions about future capabilities, and deciding what future industrial participation looks like. And that industrial participation is important — building parts of the jet that go into the global supply chain is expected to net the partner nations billions in revenue over the lifetime of the program. The partners are made up of the first nine nations to sign onto the program: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The second tier consists of “customers” for the jet, comprising nations that came later to the program. Those nations command less industrial participation, lack voting power on what future development of the jet looks like, and do not have officials assigned to the JPO. That tier is made up of Israel, South Korea, Belgium and Japan, but could expand in the future with Finland, Singapore and other nations. In December 2018, Japan announced a plan to expand procurement of F-35s from 42 to 147 jets, making it the single largest F-35 operator outside of the United States, as well as one of only three foreign nations to operate the F-35B jump-jet model. But Tokyo appears interested in increasing its teaming with the program, in large part because it wishes to take part in guiding new capabilities development as the plane gets ready for its Block 4 upgrade. “There are various merits in participating in continuous capability development and delivery deliberation process by partner countries. In addition, there is a further need to obtain flight safety information for accountability to the public,” the letter from the Japanese defense ministry reads. “I understand that partner countries are allowed to join [JSF Executive Steering Board], to be involved in capability improvement, to dispatch their personnel to JPO, to participate in parts production and to access further information.” The emphasis on the need to obtain flight safety information is notable, after an F-35A crashed into the ocean in April, resulting in the loss of both the plane and its pilot. Japanese officials have since blamed the crash on spatial distortion for the pilot. However, customer nations receive the same safety information that partners do, albeit slightly delayed due to the need to clear information. The letter also acknowledges that “partner countries share significant costs,” an indication that Japan would be willing to pony up more cash in order to join the inner circle of F-35 members. From a pure program logistics perspective, Japan becoming a partner would not be a problem, and in fact program officials would likely find it easier to deal with the largest foreign buyer of the F-35 as a partner rather than customer overall. The politics, however, quickly get tricky. Should Japan be allowed to join, the former official noted, “you've opened Pandora's box.” The former official specifically said that South Korea, due to its complicated political relationship with Japan, and Israel, which was the first nation to be added as a customer after the partnership option was closed, would try to use Japan's joining the program as a way in, as well. The official also highlighted Belgium, for now the sole NATO ally buying the F-35 as a customer and not a partner, as a nation with a strong case for promotion should Japan be allowed in. The best argument DoD could make would be that the sheer size of Japan's buy deserves special privileges, but that sets a bar that other nations could look to climb and effectively buy their way into a partnership. “This is a very interesting political football that DoD has to wrestle with. This is a bigger political decision than a programmatic one,” the former official noted. “I personally think DoD doesn't want the headache if they say yes.” No other countries have made formal requests to join the program, Schiff confirmed. Requests for comment from Lord's office, as well as the Japanese MoD, were not returned by press time. Benefits for Japan In terms of industrial participation, there are opportunities for Japanese firms to pick up work that has been removed from Turkey, said Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the Teal Group. Major Turkish defense firms have had a hand in building hundreds of parts for the jet. Turkey's expulsion from the program, which includes the United States blocking Turkey's planned procurement of 100 fighters, means that production will at least temporarily move to the United States, with a plan to farm it out to other partners in the future. Turkey's aerostructures work could be picked up by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, and to a lesser extent Kawasaki and Subaru, Aboulafia said. But he said he was “baffled” by the idea Japan would want more industrial participation at the same time they have publicly moved away from its domestic final assembly and check out (FACO) facility, which since 2013 has handled final production on Japan's domestic F-35s. The FACO facility, which is operated by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, will continue to carry out production work until FY22 to fulfill the F-35As contracted by Japan between FY15 and FY18. Instead, Aboulafia sees Japan's interest as being driven by a desire for future developments, given the decision to increase the island nation's planned procurement of the jet. “If they are going to base their fighter force on this plane for decades to come, they clearly want a say in how this plane is upgraded,” he said. “It's a sovereignty thing.” And floating in the background is another potential complicating factor for the Pentagon: Japan's continued drive to develop an indigenous fighter. Japan is developing a new fighter type to replace the indigenous Mitsubishi F-2 fighter currently in service, and wants the new design to enter service in the 2030s. It is also looking at development pathways for this project, with a fully indigenous design, collaboration with a foreign partner, or a spinoff from an existing fighter design being considered as possible options. The country is already conducting research and development into a number of relevant areas for fighter design, including stealth technologies, fighter engines and active electronically scanned radars, and had previously built a technology demonstrator, the X-2 Shinshin, and carried out a series of test flights with this aircraft to validate these technologies. Asked if the Japanese could be considering the fighter program in their decision to pursue membership in the F-35, Aboulafia bluntly responded, “How could they not?” Schiff, the JPO spokesperson, said the F-35 remains a critical focal point of the U.S.-Japan alliance. “Any opportunities to strengthen the alliance through interoperability and cooperation will be emphasized. As an FMS customer, Japan participates in F-35 user groups and other bi-lateral forums and engagements," she said. https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia-pacific/2019/07/29/japan-wants-to-be-an-official-f-35-partner-the-pentagon-plans-to-say-no/

• 

  March 21, 2024 | International, Land

  Rheinmetall wins 2.7-bln-eur order for heavy weapons carriers from Germany