How One Component Improved U.S. Navy F/A-18 Fleet Readiness

On the same subject

• 

  July 23, 2018 | International, Aerospace

  Avion de combat du futur : Dassault veut avancer

  Par Véronique Guillermard Tout comme son partenaire Airbus, le groupe attend des contrats d'études et de développement de démonstrateurs. «Une bonne nouvelle.» La décision du Royaume-Uni de lancer, lundi 16 juillet, un nouvel avion de combat pour succéder à l'Eurofighter et au F-35 américain, qui équipent ses forces armées, est bien accueillie par Éric Trappier, PDG de Dassault Aviation*. «Cette décision prouve que l'aviation de combat est un sujet stratégique pour les pays européens, qu'elle suscite de l'enthousiasme et de la compétition face à la volonté hégémonique des États-Unis», a-t-il développé en marge de la publication des résultats semestriels du groupe ce jeudi. Le programme britannique, baptisé Tempest, répond au projet d'avion de combat franco-allemand qui doit succéder au Rafale français, construit par Dassault Aviation, et à l'Eurofighter, fabriqué par Airbus Defence, BAE Systems et Leonardo. L'Eurofighter équipe plusieurs armées européennes dont l'Allemagne. Plusieurs jalons ont été franchis depuis l'impulsion politique donnée par Emmanuel Macron et la chancelière Angela Merkel, en juillet 2017. Dernier en date, la signature, lors du sommet franco-allemand de juin dernier, de deux lettres d'intention commune: la première pour la réalisation du Système de combat aérien du futur (Scaf), qui sera mis en service à horizon 2040 ; la seconde pour la conception d'un char de combat opérationnel à partir de 2035. Après cette étape importante, les deux grands partenaires du projet, Dassault Aviation, maître d'œuvre du futur avion de combat, et Airbus Defence attendent l'entrée en vigueur de contrats d'études et de développement de démonstrateurs. Il faut établir une feuille de route en balisant les développements et en passant par une réduction des risques gr'ce à la simulation et aux démonstrateurs. Dassault Aviation attend «un engagement dans le temps long» et un budget sanctuarisé. Et «le plus tôt serait le mieux», souligne Éric Trappier. Il relève que le Royaume-Uni a annoncé un investissement de 2 milliards de livres (2,3 milliards d'euros) d'ici à 2025 dans le projet Tempest. Comme si les Britanniques tentaient de prendre de vitesse l'alliance franco-allemande. À terme, ces deux projets pourraient-ils converger? Trop tôt pour le dire. Si le Scaf franco-allemand a vocation à embarquer d'autres pays européens, au préalable, il «faut une locomotive. Et elle est formée de deux pays, la France et l'Allemagne», résume Éric Trappier. À ce stade, Saab, qui construit le Gripen, le 3e avion de combat européen, n'a pas rendu publiques ses intentions. Le suédois modernise son appareil, tout comme Dassault Aviation, qui, parallèlement au Scaf qui prépare le long terme, améliore le Rafale avec le standard F3R et, demain, le standard F4. 12 Rafale pour le Qatar Au cours du semestre écoulé, le groupe français a continué à livrer des Rafale dont deux à la France. Dassault Aviation a également signé un nouveau lot de 12 Rafale pour le Qatar. Doha a levé une option prise, en mai 2015, dans le cadre d'un premier contrat portant sur l'achat de 24 avions de combat français. Le Qatar a également pris une nouvelle option pour 36 appareils de plus. L'activité militaire de Dassault est tirée par les livraisons du Rafale aux clients exports et à l'éventuelle concrétisation de nouveaux contrats à l'international. Le Rafale est notamment en lice en Belgique. Après trois années blanches (2019-2021), les livraisons aux armées françaises doivent reprendre en 2022. Quant aux jets d'affaires Falcon, ils évoluent sur un marché «qui va mieux et repart», souligne Éric Trappier. Les stocks de jets d'occasion ont décru et les ventes d'avions neufs se redressent (18 prises de commandes au 1er semestre). «L'embellie vient du marché américain et du redémarrage de l'Asie. Nous espérons que l'Europe va suivre», développe le PDG du groupe. Autre source de satisfaction, le lancement, en mars 2018, du 6X, le nouveau Falcon à long rayon d'action et large cabine, qui doit entrer en service en 2022. Son bon démarrage commercial a permis de tirer un trait sur le Falcon 5X, dont le carnet de commandes en a été totalement expurgé. Pour 2018, Dassault prévoit de livrer 12 Rafale et 40 Falcon et de réaliser un chiffre d'affaires proche de celui de 2017 (4,8 milliards d'euros). http://www.lefigaro.fr/societes/2018/07/19/20005-20180719ARTFIG00320-avion-de-combat-du-futur-dassault-veut-avancer.php

• 

  August 10, 2020 | International, Land

  Government watchdog warns of cost and technical risk for next-gen combat vehicle effort

  By: Jen Judson WASHINGTON — The Government Accountability Office is warning the Army its approach to cost estimates and technical development for its Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle program is risky and should be amended, according to an August 6 report. The Army has already struggled to get the OMFV program, intended to replace the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, off the ground, canceling its previous solicitation to compete after receiving just one bid from General Dynamics Land Systems last fall. And GAO, in its report, is concerned that the service's newest attempt to get after delivering an OMFV comes with risk because the program documentation “does not clearly communicate the uncertainty associated with projected costs” and limits the program's “ability to gather the knowledge to effectively mitigate risk associated with system design maturity.” For one, the Army has come up with a singular cost estimate for the life-cycle of the program rather than a range of potential costs that takes uncertainty into account, according to the report. The OMFV program cost estimate, the report notes, is roughly $46 billion in fiscal 2019 dollars. “Our past work has determined that a point estimate alone is insufficient for managers to make informed decisions about the cost of a program,” the GAO writes. “For informed decisions, the cost estimate must reflect a degree of uncertainty, typically achieved through an uncertainty analysis, so that level of confidence can be given about the estimate.” For example, the OMFV program will be optionally manned, “which adds complexity and unknowns to the design as no vehicle like this currently exists in the Army's ground vehicle fleet,” the GAO said. “But the uncertainty surrounding this complex design is not reflected in the point estimate.” And because of this “decision makers are left making choices without a clear understanding of the impact on costs and may not be able to accurately budget for the program,” the report states. The constrained development schedule for OMFV is also a cause for concern as it inevitably drives risk into the program. GAO notes the Army had laid out, in its previous solicitation, a plan to design and demonstrate an OMFV prototype in three years and three months, but has since spread the schedule out a bit more with the relaunch of the program and now plans to complete system development and prototype demonstration in “close to” five years. The new solicitation also lays out a five-phase effort that will allow the Army to reassess the process at certain checkpoints throughout development, according to the report. The GAO also found promise in the Army's plan to use a modular open systems architecture to incorporate incremental upgrades. In the Army's previous plan for OMFV it also planned to use a mix of existing and new technologies but, the GAO report states, the program did not include plans to complete an independent technology readiness assessment until it was approaching a production decision. According to the Office of the Under Secretary for Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, in a report to Congress, “the least mature technology for OMFV had only been demonstrated at the component level in a laboratory environment,” the report notes, adding that the level of technology maturity would require “significant” additional development before it could be added to a weapon system. “The Army is maturing, or has plans to mature, individual technologies to a level lower than the threshold recommended by leading practices before beginning system development,” the report says. “This creates a danger of limited insight into key technology risks.” Critical technologies, GAO states, should be demonstrated in “an operational or realistic environment — not simply in a relevant environment — prior to their incorporation into a system design to ensure that they work as intended for the end-user.” The GAO adds, based on past experience, that without proving out technology at that level, the Army risks the possibility that new capabilities won't work as planned and will require further maturation, which results in schedule slips and rising costs. In the previous competition, OMFV didn't hold a systems engineering design review before beginning system development and the Army canceled the solicitation “in part due to the conclusion that contractors could not complete a system design that met requirements within the given schedule,” the report notes, which “illustrates the risk of beginning system development without conducting a systems engineering design review.” Program officials told the GAO that the program office and requirements developers “may have misjudged the ability of contractors to integrate the desired technology within the given schedule.” The GAO recommends the Army secretary direct the OMFV program office to include a range of cost estimates to support a range of possible outcomes as well as conduct systems engineering reviews at key decision points. The report also lays out similar findings on the Mobile Protected Firepower program, which is heading into competitive prototype testing this summer. General Dynamics Land Systems and BAE Systems are competing to build the new light tank for Army infantry. The GAO recommended the Army should ensure the MPF program also include a range of cost estimates that account for uncertainty. https://www.defensenews.com/land/2020/08/06/government-watchdog-warns-of-cost-and-technical-risk-for-next-gen-combat-vehicle-effort/

• 

  May 21, 2020 | International, Land

  Army Braces For Post-COVID Cuts: Gen. Murray

  “I've heard some people talk about [going] back to a BCA [Budget Control Act] level of funding,” Gen. Murray says, referring to the steep cuts also known as sequestration. “And I've heard some people say that it's even going to be worse than BCA.” By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR.on May 20, 2020 at 1:11 PM WASHINGTON: Over the last two years, the Army has cut or cancelled more than 240 programs to free billions for its 34 top priorities, from hypersonic missiles to new rifles. Some of those 34 may have to die as the economy and budget reel from the COVID-19 pandemic, . “I start off with what Secretary Esper and Secretary McCarthy have said consistently, across DoD: three to five real growth is what we need,” said Gen. Mike Murray, chief of Army Futures Command. “Given what's going on in this country over the last two or three months.... my personal expectation is we're not going to see three to five percent growth. We'll be lucky to see a flat line.” LRPF: Long-Range Precision Fires. NGCV: Next-Generation Combat Vehicle. FVL: Future Vertical Lift. AMD: Air & Missile Defense. SL: Soldier Lethality. SOURCE: US Army. (Click to expand) While the Army is still working on its long-term spending plan for 2022-2026, the future topline is very much in doubt. “I've heard some people talk about [going] back to a BCA [Budget Control Act] level of funding,” Murray told an online AOC conference yesterday, referring to the steep cuts also known as sequestration. “And I've heard some people say that it's even going to be worse than BCA.” “I do think budgets are going to get tighter,” Murray said. “I do think that decisions are going to get harder.” Across its actual and projected budgets for 2020 through 2025, despite a slight drop in its topline, the Army has moved $40 billion from lower-priority programs to the 34 “signature programs.” Murray's Futures Command runs 31 of the 34, grouped in six portfolios: long-range rocket and cannon artillery is No. 1, followed by new armored vehicles, Future Vertical Lift aircraft, an upgraded battlefield network, air & missile defense, and soldier gear. Meanwhile, three most technologically demanding programs – including hypersonics and high-energy lasers – are handled by the independent Rapid Capabilities & Critical Technology Office. “We're prioritizing what I call the 31 plus 3,” Murray said. “We have fully funded those priorities in the program at the expense of a lot of other things.” The XM1299 Extended Range Cannon Artillery (ERCA) howitzer in an earlier test shot last year. But Army leaders have already warned that the Big Six will need more funding as they move from concept to prototype to mass production. Even a flat budget topline will be tight — and COVID makes flat the best-scare scenario. When and if the budget shrinks, Murray warned, “I do think we're going to have to make some tough decisions.” Hypothetically, he said, the choice may come down to something like, “Is it 31 plus three, or is it 24 plus two?” Considering the agonies the Army went through in its multiple rounds of “night court” cuts to find money for the 34 priority programs in the first place, cancelling any of them will be painful – but not impossible. Yes, the Army needs capabilities from each of its six modernization portfolios to work together in what's called Multi-Domain Operations against a future foe like Russia or China. Long-range precision firepower blasts holes in enemy defenses for aircraft, armor and infantry to advance; then they hunt out enemies too well-entrenched or mobile for artillery to destroy. Meanwhile air and missile defense protects the entire force, and the network passes intelligence and targeting data. But each of the Big Six includes multiple programs, and the Army has never expected all 34 to succeed. That's a crucial difference from the service's last major modernization drive, the Future Combat Systems cancelled in 2009, which depended on each of its 20 component technologies working as planned. Army slide showing the elements of the (later canceled) Future Combat System “Is there room for failures? Yes,” Murray told reporters at an Association of the US Army conference last year. “This concept does not count on any specific piece of capability.” That doesn't make cuts painless or easy, however. “Our priorities are our priorities for a reason,” Murray said yesterday. The Army's current weapons, from missiles to tanks to helicopters, largely entered service in the Reagan era. They've been much upgraded since, but there's only so much add-on armor, souped-up horsepower, and advanced electronics a 40-year chassis can take. The Army says it needs new weapons to take it into the next 40 years. “The kids running around on armored vehicles today are riding... fundamentally the same vehicles I rode around in as a company commander, way back when,” Murray said. “My now five-year-old granddaughter [lives] up the road at Fort Hood, Texas... I've got eight grandchildren, and out of all of them, I have absolutely no doubt that she is my infantry company commander wearing an Airborne Ranger tab at some point in the future. So that makes it personal for me.” https://breakingdefense.com/2020/05/army-braces-for-post-covid-cuts-gen-murray