Germany awards 159 MUSD vehicle contract to GDELS

On the same subject

• 

  September 1, 2020 | International, Aerospace

  New and old aircraft programs could get axed as top US Air Force general seeks ‘ruthless prioritization’ of capabilities

  By: Valerie Insinna WASHINGTON — With stagnant budgets on the horizon, the U.S. Air Force is hurtling toward “the most difficult force structure decisions in generations” and must cancel programs and sacrifice some of its existing aircraft inventory to prepare for a potential fight against Russia or China, the service's top general said Monday. A future war with either country could entail combat losses on par with those of a major conflict like World War II, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles “CQ” Brown wrote in a paper titled “Accelerate Change or Lose,” which outlines his vision as the service's new top uniformed leader. Brown became chief of staff of the Air Force on Aug. 6. Although the Defense Department has focused on war with an advanced, near-peer nation since 2016, Brown raised concerns that the Air Force's sense of urgency is not strong enough and warned of potential mission failure unless the service accelerates the pace of change. A “ruthless prioritization” of the service's requirements is in order, he said. “We must reframe platform-centric debates to focus instead on capabilities to execute the mission relative to our adversaries,” he wrote. “Programs that once held promise, but are no longer affordable or will not deliver needed capabilities on competition-relevant timelines, must be divested or terminated. Cost, schedule, and performance metrics alone are no longer sufficient metrics of acquisition success.” The Air Force must be responsive to the actions of its adversaries, pivoting when necessary to stay ahead and creating technologies that can be cost-effectively operated and maintained, Brown added. “Capabilities must be conceived, developed, and fielded inside competitors' fielding timelines — knowing we will need to adapt and adjust over time. Innovative ideas from our Airmen need viable sustainment pathways. If we are to beat our competitors in conflict, we must also beat them in development and fielding of capability,” he said. It's unclear what existing capabilities could be on the chopping block, but more details on the Air Force's path forward are expected. During a Aug. 31 roundtable, Brown told reporters that the service is working on action orders associated with his strategic vision that will be unveiled at the Air Force Association's conference during the week of Sept. 14. Brown's call for rapid change could pave the way for another bloody budget rollout when the Air Force's plan for fiscal 2022 is revealed next year. During its FY21 budget deliberations, service leaders alluded to “controversial changes” such as fleetwide divestments, but ultimately the Air Force proposed retiring handfuls of older platforms rather than entire aircraft types. Congress has attempted to curtail some of those changes, putting strict limits on the amount of tankers and bombers permitted to be retired each year. Brown acknowledged that if he's to make radical changes to force structure, he will need to have tough conversations with other Air Force and Pentagon leaders, Congress, and industry to determine where risk can be taken. “When we work in various silos, we're all trying to make our particular program or platform as capable as we can be. But we can't afford all of those,” he said. The difficulty is getting “the right set of full programs” and not “a number of broken programs” that “balance the checkbook at the expense of our capability.” Brown's priorities for the Air Force extend beyond changes to existing force structure and modernization plans. Like his predecessor, Gen. Dave Goldfein, Brown stressed the importance of the military's Joint All-Domain Command and Control concept, as well as increased interoperability and data sharing with allies. Brown also hinted that a restructure of the Air Force could be forthcoming, and that the creation of the Space Force provides an opportunity to review the roles and missions of his service. “Sometimes the model we use in the deployed environment is different than the model we use at home,” he said. “You want to train like you're going to fight. From that aspect, we've got to take a look at ourselves.” https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/08/31/new-and-old-aircraft-programs-could-get-the-ax-as-top-us-air-force-general-calls-for-a-ruthless-prioritization-of-its-capabilities/

• 

  January 22, 2020 | International, Aerospace

  Top Military Engine Manufacturers By Deliveries/Retirements 2020-2029

  Aviation Week Network forecasts that over the next ten years, 18,631 new, western-developed engines will be delivered for new military aircraft or as part of re-engining processes. In the same period 11,669 engines will be retired from service. Note: Engines produced by industrial partnerships such as Eurojet are tracked separately from their partner companies. General Electric will deliver 27.7% of total global deliveries of engines. Out of General Electric's total deliveries, 3,560 will be variants of their T700 series of engines, found on most U.S. military helicopters, including the Sikorsky S-70/H-60. The T700 family alone will account for 19.1% of the total deliveries of engines for military aircraft. In a distant second is Pratt & Whitney, which will deliver 12.7% of total global deliveries. Of those deliveries, 70.9%, will be variants of the F135 engine that powers Lockheed Martin's F-35. Following Pratt & Whitney is Rolls-Royce, which will deliver just 7% engines under their own name but contribute heavily to numerous industrial partnerships. A full 25% of engines are tied to competitions or requirements for which an engine manufacturer has not yet been selected, leaving ample growth opportunity for all manufacturers. General Electric also will see the most engine retirements of any manufacturer between 2020 to 2029, with 36.8% of global retirements. The T700 engine family once again makes up the bulk of General Electric's activity, with 24.4% retirements. Rolls-Royce will have more than twice as many engine retirements as deliveries with 23.4% of all global retirements in the next decade. The retirement of T56 (501) engines, mainly on older-model Lockheed Martin C-130s, is the single-largest driver of retirements for Rolls-Royce. https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/z/top-military-engine-manufacturers-deliveriesretirements-2020-2029

• 

  August 19, 2020 | International, Land

  USAF Errantly Reveals Research On ICBM-Range Hypersonic Glide Vehicle

  Steve Trimble The U.S. Air Force agency that manages the service's nuclear arsenal has started researching enabling technology for an intercontinental-range, hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV), according to a document that was published briefly in error on a public website. Although the document shows a U.S. nuclear weapons agency is researching HGV technology, senior Pentagon officials say there has been no change to a policy that “strictly” limits the emerging class of hypersonic gliders and cruise missiles to non-nuclear warheads. A request for information (RFI) published on Aug. 12 by the Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center asks companies to submit ideas across seven categories of potential upgrades for intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) designed with a “modular open architecture.” The Air Force often describes the future Ground Based Strategic Deterrent ICBM as featuring a “modular systems architecture,” in contrast with the aging Minuteman III, which does not. Among the seven items on the upgrade list, the Air Force called for a new “thermal protection system that can support [a] hypersonic glide to ICBM ranges,” according to the RFI, which is no longer publicly available on the government's procurement website. The RFI appears to have disclosed information that was not meant by the Air Force's nuclear weapons buyers to be made public. Each of the seven items listed in the RFI's “scope of effort” for ICBM upgrades included a prefix designation of “U/FOUO,” a military marking for information that is unclassified, but for official-use only. Although not technically a classified secret, information marked as “FOUO” usually is withheld from the public. The RFI was removed from beta.sam.gov on Aug. 17 after Aviation Week inquired about the document with the Air Force and the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). The Defense Department (DOD) has three different operational prototypes for HGVs in development now: the Air Force's AGM-183A Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon, the Army's Long Range Hypersonic Weapon and the Navy's Intermediate Range Conventional Prompt Strike. Once fired from an aircraft, ground-launcher or submarine, all three are designed to strike targets with conventional warheads at intermediate range, which is defined as 1,500-3,000 nm by the official DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. But the Pentagon has no acknowledged plan to develop an HGV with a range beyond 3,000 nm and maintains a policy that “strictly” prohibits arming any such weapon—regardless of range—with nuclear warheads. The two-most senior staffers leading the hypersonic weapons portfolio reiterated that policy during a press conference on March 2. “Our entire hypersonic portfolio is based on delivering conventional warheads,” said Mike White, assistant director of defense research and engineering for hypersonic weapons. “Right,” agreed Mark Lewis, the director of defense research and engineering for modernization programs. “Strictly conventional.” The Pentagon has not changed the policy since March 2, said Lt. Col. Robert Carver, a spokesman for Lewis' office. “DOD is not developing nuclear-capable hypersonic weapons,” Carver said in an email. “There are common technology needs between the nuclear enterprise and hypersonic systems. Particularly in the area of high-temperature materials, we typically collaborate on the development of advanced dual-use materials technology. I will reiterate that our entire hypersonic program portfolio continues to be based on delivering conventional effects only.” Although the DOD upholds the conventional-only policy for hypersonic gliders and scramjet-powered cruise missiles, the source of the RFI raises questions, said James Acton, co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “The fact that [this RFI] is coming from the nuclear weapons center, it makes it sound an awful lot like this would at least be nuclear-armed or conceivably dual-capable,” Acton said. Although the RFI confirms research is underway, the DOD still has no acknowledged plan to proceed from basic research into the acquisition phase of an ICBM-range hypersonic glider, whether carrying a conventional or nuclear warhead. If the thermal-protection system technology is limited to research only, the RFI by the Air Force's nuclear weapons organization may not violate the DOD policy, which may apply only to fielded weapons. “DOD does a lot of research on a lot of different things and the vast majority of these programs never turn into an acquisition,” Acton said. “It could turn into something, but sophisticated observers recognize that it may not.” The DOD's conventional-only policy for maneuvering hypersonic weapons stands apart from other countries in the field. Russia, for example, has deployed the nuclear-armed Avangard HGV on the SS-19 ICBM. In February, the head of U.S. Northern Command, Gen. Terrence O'Shaughnessy, said in written testimony submitted to Congress that “China is testing a [nuclear-armed] intercontinental-range hypersonic glide vehicle, which is designed to fly at high speeds and low altitudes, complicating our ability to provide precise warning.” The DOD never has had an announced weapons development program for a conventional- or nuclear-armed, intercontinental-range HGV, but has experimented with air-launched gliders. The Hypersonic Test Vehicle-2 program by the DARPA attempted to demonstrate a range of 4,170 nm, but each experimental glider in two tests staged in 2010 and 2011 failed about 9 min. into a planned 30-min. hypersonic glide. The leading edges of an intercontinental-range HGV could be exposed to temperatures as high as 7,000K (6,726C) on reentry, then endure a prolonged glide phase compared to an intermediate-range system, said Christopher Combs, who researches hypersonic aerodynamics as an assistant professor at the University of Texas-San Antonio. “The bottom line is it's just crazy temperatures,” Combs said. “They're still not dealing with space shuttle or Apollo [capsule] temperatures, but it's still really hot.” The rescinded RFI, meanwhile, also may provide a rare glimpse into the Air Force's plans for the new ICBM developed under the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) program. Apart from the thermal-protection system for a hypersonic glider, the scope of effort in the RFI sought industry input on a variety of topics, including: • Fusing data from lower-fidelity, onboard sensors to improve guidance, navigation and control. • New navigation aids to correct inertial measurement unit drift on long-time-of-flight missions. • A lighter, smaller and more efficient “future fuze,” which also could “accept inputs from external subsystems.” • Radiation-hardening techniques for advanced microelectronics, such as a system on a chip or system in a package. • Improved computer hardware and software, including artificial intelligence algorithms. • A more secure architecture and better security sensors for ICBM ground facilities. The Air Force plans to award the contract to Northrop Grumman by the end of the month to launch the engineering and manufacturing development contract for the GBSD program. Northrop remained the sole bidder for the program to deliver more than 600 new ICBMs to the Air Force after a Boeing-led team withdrew from the competition last year. https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/missile-defense-weapons/usaf-errantly-reveals-research-icbm-range-hypersonic-glide