August 23, 2022 | International, Aerospace
Engine Deals Reveal US Wants to Maintain Three Warplane Makers
But the multibillion-dollar deals raise questions about just how far along the Next Generation Air Dominance program is.
May 7, 2019 | International, Aerospace
Here's the Air Force's plan to revolutionize the way it trains pilots
Oriana Pawlyk, Military.com
When Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson visited AFWERX's Pilot Training Next program in Austin, Texas, last year, she watched as trainees took flight from the seats in front of her — through the use of virtual reality.
It piqued her interest enough to ask service officials to explore waysthat similar flight simulator programs could be introduced to high schools to get young students involved in the nation's endeavors to create more pilots.
Officials with Air Education and Training Command (AETC) are now gearing up to present Wilson's successor with a business case for more widespread use of the system, within the force.
The move provides a glimpse into Air Force leaders' thinking as they overhaul the pilot training curriculum, introducing one that augments time airborne in the cockpit with simulators and technology on the ground. It comes as the Air Force readies itself for the possibility of complex conflict with a peer-level adversary equipped with long-range missiles and advanced combat aircraft.
It's a future that may represent a strong contrast to recent decades, in which the Air Force has flown in largely uncontested airspace supporting ground troops.
The service is attempting to boost its pilot ranks amid a longterm pilot shortage, even as its trainer fleet ages.
Air Force officials say they want to move away from the service's old-fashioned, "industrial" approach to training — having pilots sit in classrooms for weeks then moving on to a trainer. This means using virtual reality earlier and more frequently in the training pipeline.
As the service prepares to bring its latest trainer, known as the T-X, into the fold, it is proposing a more "concentrated dose" of training to seamlessly transition from virtual reality to the trainer and, finally, to the Formal Training Unit, or FTU.
The system is well poised to reform in a few ways, said Gen. Mike Holmes, commander of Air Combat Command (ACC). Using the low-cost immersive environment of virtual reality, together with "competency-based learning," and moving skillset testing at the graduate level to an earlier place in the model, "would experience our pilots much faster," he said.
"Those are two things that are poised to make a revolutionary changein how well we train pilots and in how long it takes us to train pilots," Holmes said Tuesday in an interview with Military.com. "I want to see how fast and well I can produce experienced pilots."
Pilots end up leaving the service if they feel dissatisfied and lack a sense of purpose, added Lt. Gen. Steven Kwast, AETC commander.
"You have to fly a lot to be good at what you do, and we don't have the money, and we don't have the weather, and we don't have the range space ... [because of] sequestration. And all these things that are politically driven oftentimes are frustrating the force," Kwast said in a separate interview.
Airline hiring efforts are the biggest factor that drives pilot retention and production problem in the services, officials have said.
Old learning mechanisms also bog down the system, often adding to pilots' frustration, Kwast said.
"We would [add] layers of things over time" through the course of a pilot's service, "basically assuming, 'You can't handle the truth!' or 'You're not smart enough to be able to learn this holistically, we have to give it to you piecemeal and then you'd put it together in your brain over time.' That's why it would take seven years to make a great mission commander pilot."
But now, he said "We're breaking that paradigm."
Trainer fleet in trouble?
The service still relies heavily on its trainer fleet for training, even though virtual reality is the new frontier, Holmes said.
"There's still no substitute for being in a real airplane," he said. "I think we'll always want a mix of learning our skills cheaply, but also build on decision-making in a real airplane."
The T-38 Talon has been the backbone of the Air Force's undergraduate pilot training, or UPT, program for decades.
But last year, the trainer fleet was plagued with a series of crashes, two of which were fatal.
Those selected to fly bombers and fighters typically receive their advanced pilot training in the T-38. The T-1A Jayhawk, meanwhile, is used in advanced training for students who are slated to go into cargo or tanker aircraft.
The T-6 Texan II, used for instrument familiarization and low-level and formation flying, also has had its share of problems. Last year, the Air Force ordered an operational pause for the T-6 fleet after pilots suffered a series of unexplained physiological episodes, or UPEs.
As a result, AETC on Feb. 1 ordered an indefinite operational pause for all T-6 aircraft at Columbus Air Force Base, Mississippi; Vance Air Force Base, Oklahoma; and Sheppard Air Force Base, Texas. That pause was lifted Feb. 28. A team of experts determined that the T-6's On-Board Oxygen Generating System (OBOGS) filter and drain valvesfailed at higher rates than expected.
The discovery led to repairs and increased inspections, but pilotscontinued to suffer from UPEs.
A T-6 trainer from Sheppard Air Force Base, Texas, crashed just last week.
The Air Force is preparing to receive new trainer jets to replace its current Northrop Grumman-made T-38s, some of which date to the mid-1960s. In September, the service awarded Boeing Co. a $9.2 billion contract to build its next aircraft for training pilots, known as the T-X program.
The first T-X aircraft and simulators are scheduled to arrive at Joint Base San Antonio-Randolph, Texas, in 2023.
The service has committed to buying 351 T-X jets, 46 simulators and associated ground equipment. The pay ment structure, officials have said, also allows for an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity option to give the Air Force the opportunity to purchase up to 475 aircraft and 120 simulators.
Delays to this program or other unforeseen challenges could have catastrophic consequences, said retired Gen. T. Michael "Buzz" Moseley, former Air Force chief of staff.
"My anxiety over this when I was the chief [is that] we are one sortie away from this older inventory having a problem," Moseley, an F-15 Eagle pilot, said in a recent interview with Military.com. "Here we are in 2019, and we're going to fly these airplanes until 2024 before T-X starts coming in."
Kwast and Holmes agreed that the T-38 fleet will continue to undergo any upgrades necessary to keep them flying as long as it makes sense.
"You can make anything last longer; it just takes more money to sustain," Kwast said. "I guarantee that the T-1, the T-38 and the T-6 all can last as long as we need them to last, depending on the business case and the amount of money you want to spend. But will the T-38 or the T-1 become too expensive, and [therefore], we have to jump to a different technology? Then we would look at other options."
Boeing said it stands ready to produce the T-X.
"Our T-X program, including engineering, manufacturing and test, is located in long-established Boeing St. Louis facilities," wrote Rachelle Lockhart, spokeswoman for the company's T-X program, in an email. "In fact, we built and assembled our first two T-X aircraft in St. Louis prior to contract award to prove the maturity of our design, repeatability in manufacturing and performance. We're now on contract, executing on schedule as planned, as are our suppliers."
She added the trainer's production schedule could be advanced at the Air Force's request.
"The US Air Force plan calls for a full production rate of 48 jets a year, and we will meet the customer need," Lockhart said. "Should the Air Force request a higher rate of production, we are well positioned to accommodate it."
Full article: https://www.businessinsider.com/air-force-plan-to-revolutionize-pilot-training-2019-5
On the same subject
-
-
January 10, 2019 | International, C4ISR
U.S. Air Force Contracts Lockheed Martin To Continue GPS Ground Control System Sustainment
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo., January 9, 2019 – The U.S. Air Force awarded Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) the GPS Control Segment Sustainment II (GCS II) contract to continue to sustain and further modernize the Global Positioning System (GPS) satellite constellation's ground control system through 2025. This is the follow-on contract to Lockheed Martin's current GCS contract awarded in 2013. Under the GCS II contract, the continued upgrade of the GPS Architecture Evolution Plan Operational Control Segment (AEP OCS) will allow GPS' legacy ground control system to support GPS III satellite on-orbit operations, developed under the GPS III Contingency Operations (COps) program. COps will enable the AEP OCS to support the positioning, navigation and timing missions of the Air Force's new GPS III satellites, which began launching in 2018. In addition, GCS II will sustain the operational M-code capability being deployed in 2020 that is in development under the M-code Early Use (MCEU) contract. Operational M-code is a critical warfighter capability to support missions in contested environments. Under the GCS contract, Lockheed Martin executed numerous engineering modifications to the OCS, including the COTS Upgrade 3(CUP3)/Ground Antenna Air Force Satellite Control Network (AFSCN) Interface Technology Refresh (GAITR) upgrade, the Remote Site COTS Network (RSCN) project, the GPS Information Protection Reinforcement (GIPR) project, the COTS Upgrade #2 (CUP2) project, and Red Dragon Cybersecurity Suite (RDCSS). These projects modernized the infrastructure, improved the cyber posture and added mission capability. The GCS II contract continues that commitment to evolving the OCS to address today's mission needs. Under GCS II, LM will continue to manage the technical baselines for the OCS and GPS Information Network (GIN) and regularly procure, develop, fabricate, integrate, test, and install software and hardware modifications into the GPS operational baseline. Focus areas will be performing a technical refresh of the GIN and increasing the resiliency of the OCS. “Lockheed Martin's experience integrating GCS projects as well as the system engineering and software integration performed on GPS III Contingency Operations (COps) and M-Code Early Use (MCEU) position us well to deliver GCS II,” says Maria Demaree, VP/GM Mission Solutions for Lockheed Martin Space. “We look forward to supporting the Air Force as it deploys the next generation GPS III satellites and their new capabilities for our warfighters.” For additional GPS Ground Control System information, photos and video visit: https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/gps.html. About Lockheed Martin Headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland, Lockheed Martin is a global security and aerospace company that employs approximately 100,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. https://news.lockheedmartin.com/news-releases?item=128657
-
April 27, 2020 | International, C4ISR
Recalculating: GPS, L-band and the Pentagon’s untenable position on 5G
Daniel S. Goldin Last week, Ajit Pai, the chairman of the Federal Communication Commission, submitted the L-band Ligado spectrum proposal for approval, which, he said, will “make more efficient use of underused spectrum and promote the deployment of 5G” with “stringent conditions to prevent harmful [GPS] interference.” All five FCC commissioners voted to affirm the proposal, which was formally published in a 70-page report. L-band is a critical piece of spectrum that will help accelerate the deployment of U.S. 5G so we can compete and ultimately win against China. The Department of Defense argues that use of the L-band (as Ligado proposes) will interfere with GPS, which is essential to our military and economy. The FCC's final order concludes that the testing upon which the DoD and other opponents based their GPS interference claims was invalid. L-band opponents' interference measurement (termed 1dB C/No) is “inappropriate” and “there is no connection presented in the technical studies” that prove this measure of interference “relates to performance-based metrics” of a GPS receiver. In short, the FCC said there is no harmful GPS interference, and opponents have been using a flawed methodology and an invalid test with which the FCC “strongly disagree[s].” The FCC's recent report is not the first time the Ligado proposal was determined to cause no GPS interference. In early 2019, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration under David Redl reviewed the Ligado proposal carefully — along with the 20 government agencies that comprise the review body — and determined there is no interference. The NTIA then wrote a recommendation for approval and, before it could get to the FCC, it was blocked, eventually leading to Redl's dismissal. Further, over 5,000 hours of testing, including 1,500 hours at a high-tech U.S./DoD-sponsored and designed facility (performed by the world-recognized standard-in-testing National Institute of Standards and Technology scientists and engineers), proved no harmful GPS interference. Afterward, a DoD expert who monitored and confirmed the testing results told me “there is no interference problem, only a bureaucracy problem.” Yet DoD has continued to blitz the executive and legislative branches, galvanizing opposition with a compelling plea: Ligado hurts GPS, which endangers military operations and will harm the economy. Powerful. But factually wrong. And if wrong, why is Defense Secretary Mark Esper continuing to lobby against the FCC? The FCC is an independent agency. The Communications Act of 1934 charged the FCC with regulating communications for important reasons, including “for the purpose of national defense.” So why is the DoD employing principles of war — offensive operations to mass upon and seize the objective — toward the demise of Ligado's proposal and, perhaps implicitly, Ligado itself? Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the House Armed Services Committee are weighing in on the DoD's behalf. They have been presented partial, one-sided information. Mr. Esper is a capable, reform-minded defense secretary who has brought much-needed change to the Pentagon. But he has also been advancing one-sided recommendations from his senior staff for GPS issues, some with longstanding connections to the highly influential Position, Navigation, and Timing Advisory Board — which enjoys a level of influence akin to a special interest group within the U.S. government. A reading of the defense secretary's November 2019 letter to the NTIA reveals that even the DoD was never really sure about its own GPS interference claims, stating merely there are “too many unknowns,” the “risks are far too great,” testing shows “potential for” disruption and the Ligado system “could have a significant negative impact.” Yet, once the Ligado proposal was presented for approval on April 15 — with no new testing or analysis since November — DoD leadership tweeted that Ligado's signal “would needlessly imperil” DoD capabilities that use GPS, and risk “crippling our GPS networks.” If taken at face value, this means the DoD has spent over $50 billion over 45 years on a military GPS system that is so fragile it can be rendered useless by a 10-watt transmitter (a refrigerator light bulb) operating 23 MHz away. If true, this would represent one of the most egregious mismanagements of taxpayer dollars in federal procurement history. The pandemic has shown that China is coercing nations in need of medical assistance to adopt Chinese 5G infrastructure. Coercion from Chinese dominance in 5G would be worse. Agencies like the FCC and NTIA are in the national security arena now. As Attorney General William Barr stated in February, “we have to move decisively to auction the C-band and bring resolution on the L-band. Our economic future is at stake. We have to bear in mind in making these spectrum decisions that, given the narrow window we face, the risk of losing the 5G struggle with China should vastly outweigh all other considerations.” It is time for bold, forward-looking leadership and a wartime mindset. Chairman Pai deserves credit for setting this example. His courageous decision, coupled with support from the FCC commissioners and the strong statements of support from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Barr, signals a new determination to win the 5G race. L-band spectrum will enable other key elements of the U.S. 5G strategy and private sector innovation faster than any other option. It also demonstrates that a science-based approach to technology and policy is critical, otherwise we will grind to a near halt on every major decision — like this one — to China's benefit. America is truly “exceptional,” and the envy of every political system the world over, because our system is anchored on the rule of law and institutions that allow stakeholders' competing interests to be adjudicated. All parties have had many years to make their cases. The FCC's world-class scientists and engineers have come to a conclusion. The DoD has no new information; it just does not like the result. After all the internal policy battles are fought, there is only one constituency that matters: the American people and their national and economic security, consistent with U.S. policy objectives grounded in facts. This is why we must embrace this scientifically sound and strategically wise decision by the FCC and move forward, guided by another more apt principle of war: unity of effort. https://www.c4isrnet.com/opinion/2020/04/24/recalculating-gps-l-band-and-the-pentagons-untenable-position-on-5g/