GE, Pratt & Whitney Publicly Pitch F-35 Engine Plans as Decision Looms - Air Force Magazine

On the same subject

• 

  June 10, 2019 | International, Aerospace

  German spat over Airbus could spoil fighter fest at Paris Air Show

  By: Sebastian Sprenger COLOGNE, Germany — A lingering dispute between German lawmakers and Airbus could nix immediate plans to move forward with a future Franco-German-Spanish fighter aircraft, Defense News has learned. The kerfuffle goes back to a February request for information by members of the Bundestag's Budget Committee. Citing the government's role as a major shareholder in the company, lawmakers called on the administration to provide in-depth information about Airbus locations, programs and management equities throughout Europe. Airbus is one of two prime contractors for the Future Combat Air System, an ambitious project to field a sixth-generation fighter aircraft by 2040. The envisioned weapon also includes new sensors, drones and a complex data infrastructure, making it Europe's preeminent industrial project for decades to come. Lawmakers in Berlin are worried that German defense-industry interests, presumably channeled through Airbus, could get the short shrift once substantial contracts are up for grabs amid French competition, led by Dassault. The Budget Committee reiterated its request for the company deep dive on June 5, when members approved the initial batch of funds for the FCAS program: $37 million for a study on propulsion options. Lawmakers inserted a note into their approval text that makes answering the February request a condition for entering into follow-on agreements with France. Meanwhile, officials in Paris and Berlin have been planning signing ceremonies for such pacts with Ursula von der Leyen and Florence Parly, the German and French defense ministers, respectively, at the Paris Air Show in mid-June. It's expected the pair will ink the concept study plan and a key governance document called the framework agreement. Meanwhile, the Spanish defense minister, Margarita Robles, is expected to be on hand to sign the program's memorandum of understanding, a more high-level, vague text beginning Madrid's road to full participation. As of Friday, lawmakers had yet to receive the requested information on Airbus, which is to include an analysis of management personnel down to the third tier throughout different locations, separated by programs and individual job functions. As June 10 is federal holiday in Germany, that leaves four business days next week before the Paris Air Show begins. An Airbus spokesman told Defense News on Friday the company is working to resolve the issue and is coordinating with the government. A Defence Ministry spokesman did not immediately return an emailed request for comment. Documents obtained by Defense News suggest that a previous back-and-forth between the Budget Committee and Airbus, through the Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy, left a bit of bad blood, raising the question of whether the company will comply at all. While executives provided some information — forwarded in a confidential letter to the Bundestag by the ministry on April 26 — Airbus largely claims the detailed data demanded by the committee would needlessly reveal competitive secrets. “Airbus, in return, asks for information about the background of the request,” the company's written response states. “The question must be raised whether other companies where the German government is a shareholder, like Deutsche Bahn [the German rail service], is subject to similar requests.” The company claims to have given the administration a detailed personnel breakdown by subsidiary and nationalities in 2018, which was also offered to committee members. According to Airbus, no lawmakers were interested. Airbus Defence and Space, which would lead the conglomerate's work on FCAS, is based in Ottobrunn near Munich, Germany. As of December 2018, roughly 40 percent of the subsidiary's employees were based in Germany, around 22 percent in France, 27 percent in Spain and 12 percent in the United Kingdom, the company wrote to lawmakers in April. As the FCAS program progresses, Budget Committee members want the government in Berlin to safeguard a 50-50 cost and workshare plan with France. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2019/06/07/german-spat-over-airbus-could-foil-fighter-fest-at-paris-air-show/

• 

  August 6, 2019 | International, Aerospace

  F-35 talks to US Army’s missile command system, says Lockheed

  By: Jen Judson HUNTSVILLE, Alabama — The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter demonstrated its ability to send data to the U.S. Army's Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command System during the Orange Flag Evaluation 19-2 at Palmdale, California, and Fort Bliss, Texas, in June. F-35 manufacturer Lockheed Martin announced in an Aug. 6 statement that the jet, in a live demonstration, sent track data to the IBCS through the F-35 ground station and “F-35-IBCS adaptation kit.” The Northrop Grumman-developed IBCS was able to “receive and develop fire control quality composite tracks during the exercise, leveraging the F-35 as an elevated sensor," the statement added. The capability is seen as important in multidomain operations because it would be able to detect threats that are tough for ground-based sensors alone to pick up. “This demonstration represents a significant growth in capability for the Army IAMD program and Army for multi-domain operations. The capability creates additional battlespace awareness, and the ability to track incoming targets and take action, if necessary,” Scott Arnold, Lockheed's deputy of integrated air and missile defense, said in the statement. “The F-35, with its advanced sensors and connectivity, is able to gather and seamlessly share critical information, enabling greater joint force protection and a higher level of lethality of Army IAMD forces.” But the demonstration isn't only about the F-35′s ability to contribute as a sensor in the air and missile defense architecture, but also about the IBCS' ability to bring in sensor data from a variety of platforms. The IBCS was originally developed as the brains of the Army's future air and missile defense system, but its potential mission continues to grow as the service works to tie other sensors to IBCS to create a layered defense. The service is also working to tie in radars and sensors for its Indirect Fire Protection Capability as well as its Maneuver Short-Range Air Defense system. The idea now is for the IBCS to tie into any sensor or shooter the Army brings into its framework. The F-35 ground station has been sent to White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, to continue F-35 integration testing during IAMD developmental testing. The Army's IBCS program experienced delays as it added capabilities to its defensive framework to protect against everything from ballistic missiles and cruise missiles to unmanned aircraft to rockets, artillery and mortars. But it is now the top priority for the Army's cross-functional team dedicated to air and missile defense. The team is tasked with modernizing capabilities under Army Futures Command. IBCS will undergo a limited user test next spring ahead of a production decision in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2020. https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/08/06/f-35-talks-to-army-missile-command-system/

• 

  July 10, 2018 | International, Naval

  Has the US Navy thought this new frigate through? New report raises questions.

  By: David B. Larter WASHINGTON ― The U.S. Navy is rapidly moving toward procuring the first hull in its new class of frigate in 2020, but a new report is raising questions about whether the Navy has done detailed analysis about what it needs out of the ship before barging ahead. The Navy may not have done an adequate job of analyzing gaps and capabilities shortfalls before it set itself on a fast-track to buying the so-called FFG(X) as an adaptation from a parent design, said influential Navy analyst Ron O'Rourke in a new Congressional Research Service report. In essence, the CRS report questions whether the Navy looked at what capabilities the service already has in the fleet, what capabilities it's missing and whether the FFG(X) is the optimal solution to address any identified shortfalls. O'Rourke suggests Congress push the Navy on “whether procuring a new class of FFGs is the best or most promising general approach for addressing the identified capability gaps and mission needs, and whether the Navy has performed a formal, rigorous analysis of this issue, as opposed to relying solely on subjective judgments of Navy or [Defense Department] leaders.” ““Subjective judgments, though helpful, can overlook counter-intuitive results regarding the best or most promising general approach,” the report reads. “Potential alternative general approaches for addressing identified capability gaps and mission needs in this instance include (to cite a few possibilities) modified LCSs, FFs, destroyers, aircraft, unmanned vehicles, or some combination of these platforms.” The Navy is looking to adapt its FFG(X) from an existing design such as Fincantieri's FREMM, one of the two existing littoral combat ships or the Coast Guard's national security cutter as a means of getting updated capabilities into a small surface combatant and into the fleet quickly. A better approach, O'Rourke suggests, would be to make a formal, rigorous analysis of alternatives to its current course. Failure to do so has led to a series of setbacks with the Navy's current small surface combatant program, the LCS. “The Navy did not perform a formal, rigorous analysis of this kind prior to announcing the start of the LCS program in November 2001, and this can be viewed as a root cause of much of the debate and controversy that attended the LCS program, and of the program's ultimate restructurings in February 2014 and December 2015,” O'Rourke writes. O'Rourke further suggests the Navy is relying too much on subjective opinions of Navy and Defense Department leaders, instead of a legitimate analysis. And indeed, the Navy has made rapid acquisition of the new ship the hallmark of the program. “Subjective judgments can be helpful, particularly in terms of capturing knowledge and experience that is not easily reduced to numbers, in taking advantage of the ‘wisdom of the crowd,‘ and in coming to conclusions and making decisions quickly,” O'Rourke argues. “On the other hand, a process that relies heavily on subjective judgments can be vulnerable to group-think, can overlook counter-intuitive results regarding capability gaps and mission needs, and, depending on the leaders involved, can emphasize those leaders' understanding of the Navy's needs.” Read the full report here. https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/07/09/has-the-us-navy-thought-this-new-frigate-through-new-report-raises-questions/