New Production Contracts for UH-60s, HH-60s, and P-8s

On the same subject

• 

  January 14, 2019 | International, Land

  Here are the four prizes Textron Systems is watching in 2019

  By: Valerie Insinna WASHINGTON — Textron Systems is focusing on the U.S. Army this year, with its chief executive naming four unmanned and small arms programs with the service as the company's “need to win” items in 2019. Speaking to reporters Jan. 10, Textron President and CEO Lisa Atherton laid out the company's top priorities: 1. Squad Mobility Equipment Transport With its recent acquisition of Howe & Howe Technologies, Textron finds itself a player in the Army's Squad Mobility Equipment Transport competition. The Army wants to buy a robotic equipment carrier that troops can load with their gear, and Howe & Howe's tracked RS2-H1 robot is competing alongside three other companies for the contract. “We believe that program will progress this year, and we look forward to moving that to low-rate production,” Atherton said. The other competitors undergoing tests with the Army and Marine Corps are the Polaris MRZR X, a four-wheeled vehicle based on the Polaris MRZR currently in service with the Marines; the General Dynamics four-wheel drive Multi-Utility Tactical Transport; and the six-wheeled HDT Global Hunter WOLF, or Wheeled Offload Logistics Follower, Army Times reported last year. Each company delivered prototypes to two Army infantry brigade combat teams and a Marine Corps unit for tests last year. “They asked us to deliver eight vehicles and then just give them to the soldiers and let the soldiers do what they will with them and basically try to break them,” Atherton said. The vehicles have now come back to Textron in good working condition, which Atherton said is a “testament to the robustness of that capability.” After a year of tests, the Army will make a decision on the way forward with the program, which could involve a downselect to a single SMET provider, Army Times has reported. 2. Robotic combat vehicle As the Army looks to replace the Bradley Fighting Vehicle with what the service is calling the Next Generation Combat Vehicle, it is also hoping to develop an unmanned tank that can accompany it into battle as a robotic “wingman.” Again, Textron's acquisition of Howe & Howe gives the company an entry point into the competition, Atherton said. “We believe that the Ripsaw is tailor-made for that,” she said, referring to the light unmanned tank developed by Howe & Howe. “So this year we will be focused on responding to the [requests for proposals] that come out for the prototypes.” Ripsaw's appearance on the show “Jay Leno's Garage” attracted Atherton's attention to Howe & Howe and laid the foundation for the company's eventual acquisition. The robotic tank has been featured in numerous TV and movie spots, including the film “Mad Max: Fury Road.” The Army previously tested it at Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey. Atherton said Textron will make investments to improve the survivability of Ripsaw, as well as add “other innovations.” Brig. Gen. David Lesperance, who is leading the NGCV Cross-Functional Team, said in March that both NGCV and robot combat vehicle prototypes will be ready for soldier evaluations by 2020, with follow-on prototypes ready by 2022 and 2024. 3. Future tactical unmanned aerial system As the Army looks to replace its RQ-7 Shadow drones, it's testing a number of small, nondevelopmental unmanned aerial systems with the hopes of buying something off the shelf. As part of that effort, Textron was chosen to demonstrate Aerosonde HQ at Dugway Proving Ground, Utah, last month, Atherton said. Aerosonde HQ is a version of Textron's small Aerosonde UAS and includes a kit that allows it to take off and land vertically. “Our team widely exceeded the threshold requirements,” she said. “So we're very proud of what we were able to do: very rapidly integrate those techniques and procedures and technologies into the Aerosonde to be able to provide that to the Army for the future tactical UAS.” 4. Next Generation Squad Weapons Textron also believes it has strong offerings for the Army's Next Generation Squad Weapons effort, an umbrella program to replace soldiers' small arms, Atherton said. Reducing the weight of small arms is a major goal of the program, and Textron previously developed case-telescoped weapons it claims are lighter in weight and more lethal than current weaponry. “We believe we are the leaders in the case-telescoped prototypes for the Army's next-generation squad weapon with our lightweight small arms technologies,” Atherton said. The company showcased a 5.56mm light machine gun variant and a 6.5mm caseless service rifle variant at the Association of the U.S. Army's annual meeting in 2017, Army Times reported. The service has awarded contracts to Textron; FN America, LLC; General Dynamics; PCP Tactical; and Sig Sauer to build prototypes of a Next Generation Squad Automatic Rifle, or NGSAR. The prototypes are due to be delivered this year. That weapon would replace the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, which fires 5.56mm rounds. The program also seeks to find a replacement for the M4, which it calls the Next Generation Squad Weapon Rifle, or NGSW-Rifle. Both NGSW-Rifle and NGSAR will fire 6.8mm rounds. https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/01/11/here-are-the-four-prizes-textron-systems-is-watching-in-2019

• 

  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

• 

  July 20, 2020 | International, C4ISR

  Augmented reality: Seeing the benefits is believing

  Lt. Col. Brett Lindberg and Jan Kallberg There is always something taken away when there are added functionalities. Does the concept of wearing augmented reality that digitally provides situational awareness create an upside that outweighs what it takes away for rifleman skills? The supercharged hearing, six senses for those equipped, broader view of sight, picking up smells, changes in lights and shadows, slightest change in the near environment: With all these close-action skills, will augmented reality create more distraction than enhancement? Is it too early to push digital situational awareness all the way down to the soldier in maneuver units? Is the upside present? Naturally, all new defense technology takes time to find its place in the fight. The helicopter was invented in the 1930s, and it found a limited military role in the Korean War, not meeting the military expectation of higher impact. But 15 years later, it played a pivotal role in the war in Vietnam. New technology is not only technology — the human component to properly implement it is likely slower than the technological advancements. It is always easier to question than explain, and we understand that many thoughts and thousands of work hours have gone into designing the early augmented reality systems. However, still we find our questions worth discussing because once fielded, utilized and put into action in a conflict, it is too late to raise any concerns. This is the time to discuss. How reliable are the sensors? Can the sensors be easily spoofed? Is it too early to push it all the way down to the individual soldier? A technologically advanced adversary will likely devote research already in peacetime to develop one-time use, tossable, simple, low-cost devices that can — in close combat — create spurious sensor data and derail augmented reality. If the integrity of the sensor data is in question, it will likely force commanders to refrain from using augmented reality. A similar, relevant issue is the extent of the augmented reality technology's electromagnetic signature. Will the interconnectivity of the squad's augmented reality compromise the unit and deliver information to the enemy? What we do not want to face is a situation where adversaries can pinpoint the location or proximity to U.S. forces by simple detection measures. So, worst-case scenario, inexpensive devices can nullify a significant U.S. investment in technology, training and tactics. Added to the loss of usable augmented reality equipment, the soldiers could be “HUD-crippled.” Navy aviators use the term “HUD-cripple” to visualize a complete dependency of heads-up displays in the cockpit. The “HUD-cripple” is the loss of traditional Navy aviator skills such as landing on an aircraft carrier without the heads-up display. Will soldiers have retained the skills to fight effectively without augmented reality if it goes down? Technical advancements bring us new options and abilities, and they increase mission success. But as with all uncharted territory, they also bring surprises and unanticipated outfalls. During the war in Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s, military aviation instruments took a significant leap forward, going from World War II-styled gauges in fixed-winged Douglas A-1 Skyraider planes to an earlier version of today's instrumentation in McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle fighter jets rolled out as the war in Vietnam came to an end. Parallel with the military advancements, these avionic upgrades were transposed into civilian cockpits with increased complexity and variations, as jetliners are multi-engine airframes, where the number of information points and alarms became numerous in the jetliner cockpit. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, civilian aviation faced several accidents that were hard to explain with standard aviation physics and crash evidence. Instead, the conversations recorded in the black boxes revealed these fatal air crashes. Several of the deadly crashes could have had another outcome if the pilots had not become overwhelmed by all the blinking lights, alarms, buzzers and avionics grabbing their attention, so the pilots lost situational awareness and focus. The warnings, avionics and buzzers had the correct information, but the presentation was a tsunami of red blinkers and alarming sounds, lacking any hints on how to prioritize what needs to be done to recover from a dangerous in-flight emergency. In our view, the key to effective augmented reality is to structure and segment what matters and when. Units — and it varies from soldier to soldier — have different experience levels, so information has a variation in value down to the soldier level. In research design, you seek to explain as much as you can with as little as you can without losing rigor. The same challenge goes for augmented reality, where rigor could be said to be the integrity of the information. Transferred to the ground-fighting world, are we, as an engineering-driven nation, so technology-happy that instead of creating tools for increased survivability and mission success, we initially increase the risks for the war fighter and only correct these after we suffered a surprise in combat? We understand that implementing augmented reality is a long process that is just now at the stage of proving the concept; with setbacks and successes, where are we on the learning curve? In our view, synthetic learning environments have already matured and provide an ample opportunity to use the augmented reality technology with a high return on investment. The opportunities reside in knowledge transfer, sharing experiences, preparing for an ever-changing operational environment, and by doing so, increasing soldiers' survivability and ensuring mission success. The question is: Are we ready to rely on augmented reality in combat? Lt. Col. Brett Lindberg is a research scientist at the Army Cyber Institute at West Point and a simulation operations officer. Jan Kallberg is a research scientist at the Army Cyber Institute at West Point, and an assistant professor at the U.S. Military Academy. The views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Army Cyber Institute at West Point, the U.S. Military Academy or the U.S. Defense Department. https://www.c4isrnet.com/opinion/2020/07/17/augmented-reality-seeing-the-benefits-is-believing/