January 26, 2021 | International, Land
By: Jen Judson
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army's new Infantry Squad Vehicle is a cramped ride and offers limited protection from certain threats, according to a recent report from the Pentagon's chief weapons tester, but it still meets the service's requirements in tests and evaluations, the product lead told Defense News.
The ISV “key requirements are being met and we are increasing soldier operational readiness by providing an operationally relevant vehicle that can transport small tactical units to a dismount point faster and in better physical and mental condition for the fight,” said Steven Herrick, the Army's product lead for ground mobility vehicles within the Program Executive Office Combat Support and Combat Service Support.
The vehicle was designed for easy transport to operational environments with the infantry's current rotary and fixed-wing transport platforms. The key performance parameters required that the vehicle's weight not exceed 5,000 pounds and that it fit inside a CH-47 Chinook cargo helicopter. Those requirements “force dimensional requirements only allowing the vehicle to be a certain height, width and length,” he said.
The requirements led to a vehicle that makes it hard for soldiers with all their gear needed for a 72-hour mission to comfortably fit inside and be able to access rucksacks on the move.
The Army assessed three vendors in developmental testing from December 2019 through January 2020. The service chose General Motors Defense to supply the vehicle to the force, with the company beating out an Oshkosh Defense and Flyer Defense team as well as an SAIC and Polaris team.
All offerings were capable of carrying a nine-soldier infantry squad with weapons and equipment during movement, the director of operational test and evaluation said in the report. But the Pentagon also noted the ISV “has not demonstrated the capability to carry the required mission equipment, supplies and water for a unit to sustain itself to cover a range of 300 miles within a 72-hour period.”
The Army, however, has assessed the ISV requirement and solution set is in alignment, Herrick said. The DOT&E report, he said, “indicates a desire to include more equipment than a standard nine-soldier squad would carry on a 72-hour mission.”
This lack of space, the report stated, “may create a logistics and operational burden” and might limit the type of missions and duration for ISVs.
The soldiers that participated in the touch point evaluating the vehicles were asked to bring their Advanced Combat Helmet and Improved Outer Tactical Vest with plates; individual weapon; night vision devices; and ruck with three days' worth of supplies, Herrick said.
“All vendors' ISVs are cramped and soldiers cannot reach, stow, and secure equipment as needed, degrading and slowing mission operations,” the report explained. During tests “soldiers on all ISVs could not readily access items in their rucksacks without stopping the movement, dismounting, and removing their rucksacks from the vehicle.”
The soldier touch point took into account soldier comfort, visibility and ability to execute the mission, Herrick said. This was all factored into the Army's decision to choose GM Defense's vehicle.
“Additionally, no current or planned combat or tactical vehicle allows access to rucksacks while moving to support operator safety,” Herrick noted. “Crew spaces on the ISV are designed to allow mission performance of specific duty tasks.”
Units also lacked reliable communication capability, according to the report, using hand-held or manpack radios between 62 and 300 miles. The ISV does not have a mounted radio requirement. “Communication between the squad leader, soldiers, and the platoon leader was intermittent and not reliable,” the report found.
Because of the concept of the ISV providing an effective aid to insert soldiers into combat operations, the requirements support just what the soldier carries, so there is no mounted requirement yet, Herrick said. That requirement could be added as a growth capability later.
The DOT&E report also noted that the ISV doesn't have an underbody and ballistic survivability requirement, which could mean the unit would be susceptible to certain threats, but the ISV's speed as well as its small, low profile might help deal with those issues. Adding protection to the vehicle would sacrifice the speed the squad needs to rapidly inject itself into operations.
Overall, GM Defense's vehicle had the highest reliability among the three vendors, demonstrating 585 mean miles between operational mission failures. The Army's user requirement is 1,200 mean miles for that situation.
Herrick noted that reliability and maintainability testing was not scheduled or conducted by Army Test and Evaluation Command or the program office, so the calculations used in the DOT&E report were “not supported by traditional [reliability and maintainability] RAM elements, such as scoring conferences and time for the vendor to implement changes.”
The mileage accumulated and referenced in the report was “not meant to evaluate RAM by the Army, but rather to provide the program office and contractor an initial insight on the capability of the system over 500 miles,” Herrick added. The vehicle's RAM testing is scheduled to begin this month, he added..
The service wasn't able to evaluate every aspect of the vehicle before moving into production, but it plans to test the vehicle's ability to be carried by a Chinook during its initial operational test and evaluation this year.
Now that the Army has chosen the GM Defense vehicle, it has already initiated developmental testing that will lead to an initial operational test and evaluation in August 2021 at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. That testing began in November 2020.
April 2, 2024 | International, Land
Rheinmetall delivers 22 weapon systems L52 of 155 mm calibre and just as many chassis for the PzH 2000 for the German Bundeswehr.
April 27, 2020 | International, Aerospace
By: Aaron Mehta , Valerie Insinna , and David B. Larter WASHINGTON — The F-35 Joint Program Office has put in place stopgap fixes for five key technical flaws plaguing America's top-end fighter jet, but the problems have not been completely eliminated. Last June, Defense News reported exclusive details about 13 major technical issues, known as category 1 deficiencies, impacting the F-35. The JPO has since quietly downgraded five of those issues to the lesser category 2. A category 1 deficiency is defined as a shortfall that could cause death, severe injury or illness; could cause loss or damage to the aircraft or its equipment; critically restricts the operator's ability to be ready for combat; prevents the jet from performing well enough to accomplish primary or secondary missions; results in a work stoppage at the production line; or blocks mission-critical test points. In comparison, a category 2 deficiency is of lesser concern — something that requires monitoring, but not something that should impact operations. But downgrading the category doesn't mean the problems are solved, said Dan Grazier, who tracks military issues for the Project on Government Oversight. CAT 2 programs are still "definitely cause for concern. They are going to have an impact on how the aircraft performs,” Grazier said. "It really depends on what the issue is, but every design flaw has a potential issue on the mission. ... You want to not have flaws, you want these things can be fixed so pilots can get out and do what they need to do.” Aside from a few basic statements on which projects were downgraded to CAT 2, a JPO spokesperson said the office “cannot disclose any information about how these deficiencies were resolved or downgraded due to their security classification.” The ALIS sovereign data transfer solution does not meet information assurance requirements. The Autonomic Logistics Information System, or ALIS, provides the backbone of the F-35, used by the aircraft's operators in virtually all stages of flying and sustaining the Joint Strike Fighter. The system is used to plan and debrief missions, order spare parts, walk maintainers through repairs, and view technical data and work orders. (A potential replacement, named ODIN, is in the works.) But some international partners on the F-35 program have expressed concerns that data flowing through ALIS to the United States government — and to Lockheed Martin — could give both the U.S. military and the American defense contractor a window into that country's flight operations, including when and where its F-35s are flying. Those concerns were so high that two countries threatened to leave the program entirely if a fix was not quickly applied, according to the original documents viewed by Defense News. That fix is now in, according to the JPO, which said that on April 29, 2019, an update to ALIS included an initial version of a new Sovereign Data Management tool. “The SDM tool permits F-35 operators more control over the types of Prognostics and Health Management (PHM) data that are transferred to the F-35 Operations Center,” the JPO said. Incorrect inventory data for complex assemblies continues to result in grounding conditions. This particular deficiency involves supplies or components that, upon installation, are not actually listed and tracked in ALIS as designed. Those require specific, almost daily requests to software engineers to have data corrected in the system. While those requests can catch some problems, the issue is not always detected by the user. These “holes,” as the JPO calls them, do not collect data on how parts are used after installation, which means a part might be breaking down from heavy use. Yet, that part won't be flagged by ALIS as an at-risk piece. As a result, it's less likely that issues developing from wear and tear or a lack of replacement parts will be discovered until such an issue has become an acute problem, possibly leading to a grounding of the aircraft. The issue was downgraded to a CAT 2 deficiency on Jan. 13, 2020, “due to ALIS data quality improvements that have been made in the two years since this DR [deficiency report] was written,” according to the JPO. “The quality improvements have reduced the frequency and magnitude of issues that have impacted operational units' abilities to quickly release aircraft for flight following maintenance.” The F-35B and F-35C experienced incongruous lateral and longitudinal control response above a 20-degree angle of attack. One of the most eye-opening issues identified in the initial report was that the F-35B and F-35C models used by the Marine Corps and Navy become difficult to control when operating above a 20-degree angle of attack — which would be seen in the extreme maneuvers a pilot might use in a dogfight or while avoiding a missile. Pilots reported the aircraft experiencing unpredictable changes in pitch, as well as erratic yaw and rolling motions when coming in at that angle of attack.. “It has random oscillations, pitch and yaw issues above [its] 20-[degree angle of attack]," a longtime naval aviator told Defense News last year. "[So] if I had to perform the aircraft — if I had to maneuver to defeat a missile, maneuver to fight another aircraft, the plane could have issues moving. And if I turn around aggressively and get away from these guys and use the afterburner, [the horizontal tail and tail boom] start to melt or have issues.” The issue was important enough that it accounted for two CAT 1 issues, one each for the two variants impacted by the design issue. However, the JPO downgraded this issue to a CAT 2 on May 28, 2019, for the F-35C and on July 8, 2019, for the F-35B. The solution involves “improvements in flying qualities that were implemented in software. The improvements provide pilots with an intuitive reference indication for AOA [angle of attack], which allows pilots to more quickly optimize lateral maneuvering during air-to-air maneuvering. These software improvements have been released to all F-35 operators.” There were unanticipated thrust limits in jetborne flight on hot days. This particular issue only occurred once, but was so significant that it was identified in the original document as the “No. 1 priority” for the Marine Corps. The issue was identified aboard the amphibious assault ship Essex, where a Marine pilot performed what is known as a “mode four” operation. That is where the jet enters hover mode near a landing spot, slides over to a target area and then vertically lands onto the ship. It's a key capability for the "B" model, which was designed for its short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing abilities. The engine — working hard on a day that temperatures cracked 90 degrees Fahrenheit while trying to lift a plane that was heavier than most returning to base — wouldn't generate the needed thrust for a safe, ideal landing. The pilot managed to land, but the issue set off alarm bells in the Marine aviation community. The JPO initially expected a fix for this issue to be out sometime in 2019, but it wasn't until March 2020 that a mix of nondescript “software updates and procedural adjustments” brought the “propulsion system performance back to original specified performance levels.” https://www.defensenews.com/smr/hidden-troubles-f35/2020/04/24/five-f-35-issues-have-been-downgraded-but-they-remain-unsolved/
November 5, 2020 | International, Aerospace
Nathan Strout WASHINGTON — The U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory has opened a lab focused on developing materials for new deployable space structures. Construction on the Deployable Structures Laboratory, or DeSel, began in December 2019 and opened Oct. 29, 2020. Scientists and engineers moving into the $4 million lab at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico, will continue the work of the Spacecraft Component Technology Center of Excellence, which has a history of developing spacecraft structure materials. DeSel contains specialized equipment and a climate-controlled, vibration-isolated laboratory capable of testing spacecraft structures up to 20-by-15 meters, allowing AFRL to further research and develop high-strain composite materials. “I'm excited to have a facility that was specifically built for testing novel deployable space structures,” Benjamin Urioste, research engineer and lead for the Integrated Structural Systems team, said in a statement. “With the push toward hybrid architecture and smaller satellites, high packing efficiency structures and the ability to bring large satellite capability to small satellites is more important than ever.” “This new class of high strain composite enabled structures requires new ground test facilities,” he added. “Satellite deployments are nerve-wracking, one-shot endeavors and the high-fidelity ground testing that will take place in the DeSel is critical to ensuring on-orbit success.” Spacecraft Technologies Division chief Mark Roverse said the structures, made possible by high strain composites, "will enable new mission paradigms for the U.S. Space Force.” “AFRL has led development of high strain composites for deployed spacecraft structures, and we are excited to see the new mission capabilities that are being enabled,” Roverse added. One spacecraft in development that will benefit from these new structures is AFRL's Space Solar Power Incremental Demonstration and Research project. With the SSPIDR project, the lab wants to build a spacecraft capable of collecting solar energy on orbit and then transmitting that energy to forward-operating bases via radio frequency. Northrop Grumman was awarded a $100 million contract to support space-based experiments informing SSPIDR's development. The Space Force is testing that technology on the X-37B, the service's secretive spacecraft, but DeSel's work will provide the materials needed to build the SSPIDR craft. “This innovative research will help us to deliver the essential energy our warfighters need at the right place at the right time,” explained Col. Eric Felt, director of the AFRL's Space Vehicles Directorate. “Some of the first structures that we look forward to testing in this new lab are those required for our Space Solar Power Incremental Demonstration and Research (SSPIDR) project, one of our top priority programs.” https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/space/2020/11/04/air-force-research-laboratory-open-new-space-lab/