Contract Awards by US Department of Defense - February 16, 2021

On the same subject

• 

  September 29, 2020 | International, Aerospace

  KC-46 Progress Revives Next-Generation Tanker Talks

  Steve Trimble Proposals for a next-generation tanker that would come after the last Boeing KC-46 delivery in fiscal 2029 have popped up every few years since 2006, only to get sidetracked by yet another acquisition process misstep or technical problem afflicting the program's frustrating development phase. As a fresh sense of optimism gathers among senior U.S. Air Force leaders about the direction of the KC-46 program, a new discussion has started between Defense Department officials and the Air Mobility Command (AMC) about the future of the air-refueling mission. Some proposals in the discussions include revived versions of various older concepts for weaponized larger tankers and smaller stealth tankers. But this time, discussions involve taking a wider view of the overall need to defend and deliver fuel to aircraft in combat, with implications for base defenses, the size and range of future fighters and next-generation tanker designs. A perceived turnaround in the fortunes of the KC-46 program allows the Air Force to reopen the next-generation discussion. Since at least 2016, a heated dispute over Boeing's original design—and, later, proposed fixes—for the KC-46's remote vision system (RVS) sidetracked planning for a next-generation tanker. Air Force officials complained that Boeing's original RVS design fell short of operator requirements, especially when the receiver aircraft was backlit by the Sun. In addition, the canted layout of the belly-mounted, panoramic cameras created subtle distortions in the displayed video that proved bothersome to some RVS operators, Air Force officials say. The Air Force and Boeing finally agreed to a redesign plan in January 2019. The Air Force is finalizing a test report on an enhanced RVS, which was formerly known as RVS 1.5. AMC officials have committed to review the test data but offered no promises on whether they would approve the enhanced RVS to be installed in the KC-46. The installation would require parking a fleet of more than 36 delivered KC-46s to complete the retrofit, and the AMC remains unsure whether the improvement is worth the delay. The enhanced RVS offers only software updates to the current system, but the AMC clearly wants more. Boeing has committed to a more dramatic upgrade called RVS 2.0. Including hardware and software changes, this Boeing-funded, second-generation RVS system is expected to meet the image-resolution standards demanded by the Air Force and create a path to inserting the software algorithms necessary to give the KC-46 an optional autonomous-refueling mode. Boeing is scheduled to deliver the first 12 RVS 2.0 shipsets by the end of 2023 and begin the retrofit process on delivered KC-46s, says Gen. Jacqueline Van Ovost, the AMC commander. The AMC expects a production cutin for RVS 2.0 starting in 2024, although Boeing's KC-46 global sales and marketing director, Mike Hafer, says the first RVS 2.0-equipped aircraft could start rolling off the assembly line in late 2023. Will Roper, the Air Force's assistant secretary for acquisition, technology and logistics, says the progress toward fielding the RVS 2.0 makes him feel “excited” about the KC-46 program. “I think we've turned a new page,” he says. In mid-September, Roper and Van Ovost met to discuss what will follow the KC-46. The next-generation tanker discussion comes after a series of dramatic acquisition decisions surrounding Air Force aircraft. Most visibly, Roper led a push in 2018 to cancel the Joint Stars recapitalization program, which was replaced with the Advanced Battle Management System (ABMS). More quietly, Roper also drove the Air Force to rethink the acquisition strategy for the Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program. The ABMS and NGAD are now characterized by an architecture of multiple systems, with no single-aircraft silver bullet solution. Roper acknowledges that the nature of tanker operations does not immediately lend itself to a distributed multiplatform solution. “We can break up a J-Stars [replacement into multiple systems],” Roper says. “We may be able to break up an [E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System] in the future, but we can't break up fuel easily.” Still, Roper prefers to address the future air-refueling problem in an era of great power competition with a similar architectural approach as ABMS and NGAD. “When there's a solvable problem and you need to turn multiple knobs, the Pentagon likes to turn one and only one,” Roper says. “And [aerial refueling] sounds like a really good architectural question that you'd want to have an architected solution for—[rather than] design a one-solution candidate in the form of a platform.” Roper's turnable knobs for a future air-refueling system cover a wide range of options, including two with only indirect impacts on a tanker aircraft design. To Roper, the problem of air refueling includes defending the bases closest to an adversary where aircraft can be refueled on the ground. Likewise, another part of the solution is to move away from relatively small fighter aircraft that lack sufficient range for a Pacific theater scenario. “Maybe having small, currently sized fighters is not the way to go in the future,” Roper says. “Thinking about bigger fighters is a natural question to lay alongside the question, ‘How does your future tanker force look?'” Air-refueling capacity also is partly a function of the vulnerability of the tanker aircraft. Fewer and perhaps smaller tankers may be possible if existing tanker aircraft could operate closer to the battlefield. The Air Force now uses fighters on combat air patrols to defend high-value assets, such as tankers, surveillance and command-and-control aircraft. Those fighters conducting the patrols also add to the refueling burden. A possible solution is to weaponize tankers such as the KC-46 and KC-135. The Air Force is developing podded defensive lasers and miniature self-defense munitions. “We don't put weapons and sensors on tankers to shoot down aircraft, but the current KC-46 is a big airplane with the ability to mount sensors and weapons on the wings,” Roper says. “We're going to look at all those [options].” The Air Force also believes a new tanker aircraft is necessary. As far back as 2002, research began on stealthy mobility aircraft under the Air Force Research Laboratory's Speed Agile program. As the KC-X acquisition program kicked off, the Air Force released a tanker road map in 2006 that called for launching a KC-Y acquisition program in 2022 and a KC-Z program by 2035. By 2016, AMC leaders openly discussed proposals for leapfrogging the KC-Y requirement, which sought to buy a larger version of a commercial derivative. Instead, AMC officials began investigating concepts for an autonomous stealthy aircraft. By 2018, Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works had defined a concept for such an aircraft, which featured an undisclosed refueling technology that could dock with a receiver aircraft without compromising radar stealth. As discussions have reopened in September, the Air Force is again considering the acquisition of a mix of larger and smaller aircraft to fulfill the demand for in-flight refueling in the 2030s and 2040s. “One trade we can do is having bigger tankers that stand off a lot farther,” Roper says, “[and] having smaller, microtankers that do that last mile, the dangerous mile—and we expect to lose some of them.” The Air Force's budget justification documents suggest research on a next-generation tanker will continue at a low level: Nearly $8 million was requested in fiscal 2021 to “assess promising configurations in high- and low-speed wind tunnels.” The Air Force also is designing a small, pod-mounted tactical air-refueling boom, according to budget documents. The latter suggests that one option for increasing refueling capacity for aircraft equipped with boom receivers is to integrate a podded fuel-delivery system on tactical aircraft, such as a Lockheed Martin C-130. “I expect that as we really look at airpower in the truly contested environment, we'll be looking at fuel very strategically,” Roper says. “We may have a different solution for outside [a threat area] versus inside. And I think we will value, increasingly, aircraft that have range for the last mile.” https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/aircraft-propulsion/kc-46-progress-revives-next-generation-tanker-talks

• 

  February 18, 2019 | International, C4ISR

  There’s a Big Obstacle to the Pentagon’s New Strategy to Speed AI to Troops

  BY PATRICK TUCKER Defense officials want to accelerate the delivery of artificial-intelligence tools from the lab to the field. But it's hard to obtain the massive data streams that make AI work. The Pentagon's new artificial-intelligence strategy, released on Tuesday, aims to get AI out of research labs and into the hands of troops and employees across the Defense Department. But truly transforming the Defense Department into an “AI First” institution will require help from tech companies — and the military to rethink its approach to the massive data streams that AI needs to work. In a conversation with reporters on Tuesday, Dana Deasy, chief information officer of the Defense Department, and Lt. Gen. Jack Shanahan, who runs its new Joint Artificial Intelligence Center, said the JAIC will develop AI tools and programs to assist with everything the Pentagon does. That will eventually include combat operations, although both said the military won't deviate from its core doctrine that dictates how humans are to have authority over autonomous systems. They said near-term projects include efforts to predict forest fires, better spot network anomalies that can indicate cyber attacks, and, most prominently, predictive maintenance. It's an area where some smaller tech firms are already working with the Pentagon. SUBSCRIBE Receive daily email updates: Subscribe to the Defense One daily. Be the first to receive updates. One such firm is Uptake, run by GE alum Ganesh Bell, which has a contract with the Defense Innovation Unit to better predict and accelerate repairs for Bradley Fighting Vehicles. The company is building a virtual Bradley, using data streams from sensors on real Bradleys in the field — what Bell has called a learning, digital twin. “We are able to collect what the best-performing Bradley would look like because we are able to go into many of the subsystems and pull the data,” he said. “Just from a single vehicle, we were able to pull terabytes of data.” Bell aims to also incorporate data from external sensors, and use it to digitally recreate the vehicles' operating environments. It's a process that could be relevant to larger military endeavors, such as the Army's effort to design a new combat vehicle, Bell said. “If we prove the value here, imagine what we can do in that environment as we build that system out? We do the same thing in wind turbines. There's so much to learn from all the unused data in these industries; less than one percent of the data is ever actually used.” Bell says that he's had promising conversations with Army officials about helping out. “It's better to get in all the data right now while you're designing the next generation of vehicles,” he said. Or take California-based C3, whose nine Pentagon contracts include predictive-maintenance work on the Boeing E-3 Sentry for the Air Force's AFWERX office. Here, too, massive amounts of diagnostic data plays the essential role. But finding that data wasn't easy. “You go through the wild goose chase with DOD to get the data that you need,” Lt. Col. Dave Harden, AFWERX chief operating officer, said in December. “I had another project where I literally had people with 10-terabyte hard drives going around the country to get the data. I talk to people who are in charge of the data. The data in the database isn't what we needed. I wonder, ‘Who put these people in charge of the data?'” The main thing that the Defense Department brings to the process isn't the algorithms or machine-learning methodologies. Those are increasingly coming from the private sector and companies like Uptake and C3. It's the unique data sets. Thus, if getting that data is a problem, then the Department has a major obstacle in terms of realizing its ambitions. In their briefing on Tuesday, Deasy and Shanahan said they are willing to work with companies on intellectual property issues, which have deterred some companies from taking government contracts. But Shanahan made one condition clear: “The government owns the government's data.” That begs a few questions: How will contractors get the data that they need if the Department is so bad at collecting and keeping it internally? Who owns a datastream that combines private and government data? AFWERX's Harden said getting the Defense Department to change how it collects and makes data available on systems like the E-3 aircraft is less than totally straightforward. Another challenge is getting the department to actually accept AI-generated recommendations. “All of the processes and procedures need to change,” he said. “When I get a prediction now that says, ‘Hey, this aircraft battery, the data shows you were parked in Alaska and it's cold in Alaska and you were there for years. You don't have to swap out this battery on a regular cycle like you're doing,' how are the policy and guidance and procedures changing to allow that to occur? That is our billion-dollar question for DoD. We haven't solved that. How do we get the technology win that we get and turn that into true ROI?” https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2019/02/department-has-rolled-out-its-ai-strategy-now-hard-part-begins/154864/

• 

  January 24, 2024 | International, Land

  IAV 2024: Dutch CV90 MLU releases new firepower and survival tech