Les Européens achètent de plus en plus d’avions de chasse américains

On the same subject

• 

  May 14, 2018 | International, Aerospace

  Special Operators Predict AC-130J Will Be 'Most Requested' Aircraft

  Military.com 9 May 2018 By Oriana Pawlyk HURLBURT FIELD, Fla. -- "That's the sound America makes when she's angry." That's how Col. Tom Palenske, commander of the 1st Special Operations Wing, characterized the AC-130 gunship after two aircraft fired hundreds of rounds from their 40mm and 105mm cannons and 25mm Gatling gun in the skies above A-77, a range specially made for target practice. Palenske, also the installation commander here, says crews can't wait for the next best thing: the AC-130J Ghostrider. "It's going to be awesome. It's our big gun truck. It's going to have more powerful engines, a more efficient fuel rate, and also has a more precise fuel capability so you know exactly how much gas you've got on board," he said. Palenske caught up with Military.com during a tour of Air Force Special Operations Command aircraft and a live-fire training exercise on ranges used by Hurlburt and neighboring Eglin Air Force Base as part of Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson's recent trip to AFSOC. "You can keep the sensors on the bad guys longer," Palenske said, referring to the J-model's ability to stay airborne longer due to better fuel management. Along with the 105mm cannon the U-models sport, the AC-130J will be equipped with a 30mm cannon "almost like a sniper rifle ... it's that precise, it can pretty much hit first shot, first kill," he said. "It's also going to have AGM-176 [Griffin] missiles on the back, so you can put 10 missiles on the back of them. And two of the tubes are reloadable, so those missiles, they're sitting in the tube backward so the tail's pointing out, [and] they eject out of the airplane, right-side themselves and shoot like a forward-fired missile," Palenske said. The J-model will have the ability to launch 250-pound small-diameter bombs (SDB), GPS- or laser-guided, he added. The aircraft is expected to carry AGM-114 Hellfire missiles, interchangeable with the SDBs on its wing pylons. The model achieved initial operational capability in September. The fourth-generation J is slated to replace the AC-130H/U/W models, with delivery of the final J- model sometime in 2021, according to the Air Force. The service plans to buy 32 of the aircraft. Crews here expect the J to be deployed in late 2019 or early 2020 and are optimistic about its progress. In January, the Pentagon's Office of the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation said fire control systems associated with the plane's left-hand-side 30mm GAU-23/A cannon had issues, including being knocked out of alignment when fired and needing to be re-centered repeatedly by an operator. The AC-130W Stinger II and J-model are the only variants of the gunship to use the Orbital ATK-made cannon. "That was drastically exaggerated," Palenske said in response to the problems cited in the report. Officials said some of the issues were already being fixed by the time the report was made public. Now, "all of the gun actuating systems are electric as opposed to hydraulic. Hydraulic's sloppy," Palenske said, referring to the gun mounts that previously used hydraulics to aim the weapons. "And remember, we're just bringing this thing online. You can't expect to slap this thing together ... and have that thing come out perfect," he said. "From soup to nuts, it's all run by computers and computer programs. But it's going to [be] the most lethal, with the most loiter time, probably the most requested weapons system from ground forces in the history of warfare. That's my prediction," Palenske said. There are two electro-optical/infrared sensor/laser designator pods on the gunship, a significant upgrade from the U-model. The U-model "has an older Raytheon ALQ-39 and a L3/Wescam MX-15," Lt. Col. Pete Hughes, an AFSOC spokesman, said in a follow-up email. The J-model has two L3/Wescam MX-20 electro-optical/infrared sensor/laser designator pods. "The upgraded sensors provide greater resolution at longer distances," he said. The new sensors can zoom in well enough to identify a shoe on the ground and will be able to share information with fifth-generation aircraft such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, officials said. In the future, AC-130 crews also hope to incorporate a high-energy laser aboard the gunship. Palenske said the laser will be the ultimate ace in the hole, making disabling other weapons systems easier. "If you're flying along and your mission is to disable an airplane or a car, like when we took down Noriega back in the day, now as opposed to sending a Navy SEAL team to go disable [aircraft] on the ground, you make a pass over that thing with an airborne laser, and burn a hole through its engine," he said. Palenske was referring to Operation Nifty Package to capture and remove Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega from power in 1989, during which a SEAL team "disable[d] his aircraft so he couldn't escape." With a laser, "it's just like that. And you just keep going on, and there's no noise, no fuss, nobody knows it happened. They don't know the thing's broken until they go and try to fire it up," he said. The transition to the J-model will happen simultaneously in the AC gunship community and the MC-130 Combat Talon special mission community, as older C-130 models are divested "in an elegant ballet" to make sure commandos and ground forces are covered, Palenske said. The Air Force is procuring more MC-130J models -- used for clandestine missions; low-level air refueling for helicopter and tiltrotor aircraft; and infiltration, exfiltration, and resupply of special operations forces -- but is still using H-models in deployed locations. Palenske said having a standard aircraft in not only the gunship community but also the MC community will be less of a strain on maintainers. "Imagine the efficiency in the parts supply [for] the maintainers. You can keep less people in harm's way because the people that are going to maintain the systems on [both of] those, they can do it," he said. https://www.military.com/dodbuzz/2018/05/09/special-operators-predict-ac-130j-will-be-most-requested-aircraft.html

• 

  November 25, 2020 | International, Aerospace

  Boeing Stirs Pentagon’s Ire With More Dings, Damage to Aircraft

  By Anthony Capaccio Boeing Co. has been cited by the Pentagon's contracts management agency for an increase in incidents of damage to military aircraft or components at three of its facilities. The citation from Army Lieutenant General David Bassett, director of the Defense Contract Management Agency, cited “recent negative trends” in mishaps at Boeing's facilities in Seattle, San Antonio and Mesa, Arizona, “that far exceeds historical rates” and are “not consistent with expected performance.” The results could include damage from parts falling off a cart during transportation or too little overhead “clearance when maneuvering the aircraft or ground support equipment resulting in repairs needing to be made,” Matthew Montgomery, a spokesman for the contracts agency, said in an email. “Our analysis of mishaps indicates a disproportionate number of events occurring at Boeing facilities” since 2018 involving aircraft or parts damaged before delivery to the military, Bassett told Leanne Caret, chief executive officer of Boeing's defense unit, in a previously undisclosed June letter obtained by Bloomberg News. The mishaps add to other indications of challenged performance at units of Chicago-based Boeing, the No. 2 defense contractor after Lockheed Martin Corp. They include problems with parts quality for Apache AH-64 helicopters that led to a recent halt in delivery that's still in effect and a wide-ranging Army-led inspection of the Mesa facility. In addition, Boeing is still struggling to deliver a KC-46 refueling tanker that meets refueling system specifications nine years after the company won the contract. Earlier: Boeing's Arizona Chopper Plant Under Scrutiny by Army Mishaps at Boeing facilities increased from 18% of those tracked by the defense contracts agency for large aviation contractors in fiscal years 2017 and 2018 to 38% in 2019. As of June, they stood at 50%, far exceeding “levels observed in other large DoD aircraft contractors of similar scope over the same time period,” Bassett wrote. The issues included a lack of procedures, a failure to follow those in place and “inattention or supervisory factors” that “contributed to the majority of these mishaps,” Bassett wrote. Of particular concern was Boeing's Seattle facility, where 66% of the company's fiscal 2020 mishaps occurred, he wrote. Since the letter, “Boeing leadership and their employees have responded well” and “have initiated changes that should lead to better quality and mishap outcomes,” Bassett said in a statement. “We look forward to those changes demonstrating enduring improvements in quality and mishap reduction that will improve the products we receive.” Boeing spokesman Todd Blecher said the company didn't have a comment on the Bassett letter. Montgomery, the contracts agency spokesman, said that Boeing ranks in the top three of the 13 major aviation contractors tracked for reported mishaps over fiscal 2019 and 2020. “Each mishap is unique and some mishaps are still under investigation,” Montgomery said. “Some mishaps represent a failure to follow a procedure or take necessary preventative action.” During the time period reviewed, Boeing had five reportable mishaps in fiscal 2017 and four in fiscal 2018, he said. “They are currently sitting at 11 mishaps for fiscal 2020.” https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-24/boeing-dinged-and-damaged-military-aircraft-pentagon-complains

• 

  November 22, 2019 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  Opinion: How The 2020 Election Is Likely To Affect Defense

  By Byron Callan Unlike in the U.S. health care or energy sectors, it is so far hard to discern much of a stock market reaction for the defense sector in the run-up to the 2020 U.S. election. There has not been the equivalent of issues such as Medicare for all or fracking that has grabbed the attention of defense investors. That might be because defense and security issues have been absent from the debates so far, and Democratic candidates have put forth few detailed defense and foreign policy plans and proposals. It is way too soon to act with conviction on the potential outcomes of the 2020 election and their implications for defense. Polls can and will change. The likely Democratic presidential candidate may not be known until April, when most of the primaries are completed, or July 2020, when the party holds its convention. And it remains to be seen how that candidate will fare against President Donald Trump, presuming he is not removed from office. Still, leaders at defense companies and analysts have to assess potential outcomes and what they may entail for 2021 and beyond. The current consensus is that there likely will be split-party control of Congress and the White House in 2021-22. The House probably will remain in Democratic control, but the Republicans may retain a slim majority in the Senate, given the number of “safe” seats they will defend. Democrats might sweep in, but they are very unlikely to gain a 60-seat majority, and it is arguable that if they do not, the chamber will vote to do away with cloture, which gives the minority party in the Senate power to shape and channel legislation. This alone should temper expectations that there will be radical changes for defense. Moreover, the day after the 2020 election, both parties will have their eyes on the 2022 election, when 12 Democratic and 22 Republican seats will be contested. If Trump is reelected, the simplest path forward will be to conclude that current defense policies will remain in place. Congress has not been willing to approve the deep nondefense discretionary cuts the administration has proposed for 2017-19, and it is not clear what would change this posture in 2021-22. Barring a major change in the global security outlook, U.S. defense spending may thus remain hemmed in by debt/deficit concerns and demands for parity in increases of nondefense spending. Trump is likely to continue to browbeat allies in Europe and Asia to spend more on defense. The Pentagon will push ahead with its current major modernization and technology priorities, including artificial intelligence, directed energy and hypersonics, and there should be some continuity with civilian leadership at the Pentagon. However, the global security outlook may be the biggest variable for the sector to assess. Iran has not shown any readiness to bow to U.S. “maximum pressure,” and North Korea has not denuclearized. How Russia and China respond to the prospects of another four years of Trump also has to be weighed. NATO and other alliances also may be under more stress. And inevitably, there are likely to be new security issues in the early 2020s that are not top of mind or even conceivable today. There are a range of defense views and perspectives among the leading Democratic candidates. The views of the two most progressive candidates—Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)—could be viewed as potentially the most disruptive for defense. Warren, in particular, has emphasized her view of “agency capture” by major U.S. contractors, and her health care plan is to be paid for in part by a $798 billion cut to defense spending over 10 years, though the baseline of those cuts has not been stipulated. If a progressive candidate appears to do well in the Democratic nomination process and in polling against Trump, however, it will be useful to recall the congressional dynamic noted above. Congress could act as a firewall against steeper cuts and sweeping change. Equally, it is useful to recall that what candidates promise is not always what they do once they are in office. A more moderate, centrist Democratic candidate such as former Vice President Joe Biden or South Bend, Illinois, Mayor Pete Buttigieg may appear benign for defense and will very likely face the same geopolitical security challenges that Trump could face. If there is a shift back toward a U.S. promotion of democracy and human rights, that could affect recent international defense export patterns and raise tensions with China, Russia and other autocratic regimes. Probably, there will be a bigger debate over nuclear strategic forces modernization, the role of technology in defense and whether it can deliver credible military capability and deterrence at lower cost. Even if U.S. defense spending evidences little real growth in the early 2020s, these factors could be the most important for contractors to navigate. https://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-how-2020-election-likely-affect-defense