USAF's Next Airborne Nuclear Command-And-Control Aircraft, Needs Four Engines

On the same subject

• 

  March 16, 2023 | International, Land

  Demand exploding for Tomahawk missiles as US backs latest foreign sale

  Australia plans to buy the latest version of America’s long-range Tomahawk land attack missile.

• 

  April 2, 2019 | International, Aerospace

  Le dernier contrat militaire marocain suscite la vigilance en Espagne

  Le développement militaire que connaît le Maroc semble inquiéter les milieux espagnols concernés. Le journal El Confidencial lui consacre un long article. Médias24 fait une lecture critique de cette analyse espagnole. “Il n'y a plus de doute: le réarmement du Maroc est important, progressif et, même s'il est encore loin des effectifs de l'armée espagnole, il s'en rapproche de plus en plus. Le dernier achat d'armes du pays voisin confirme cette tendance: 25 nouveaux chasseurs F-16 et la modernisation de 23 autres“. C'est ainsi que commence l'article espagnol. Le ton est vite donné. La tendance générale de l'article consiste à attirer l'attention sur l'armement marocain et sa modernisation, tout en minimisant certains aspects. Par exemple, le Maroc aura 384 chars Abrams et non pas 200 comme indiqué. Le premier lot étant un A1 version SA à la marocaine. On peut considérer que ce premier lot est au même niveau que les derniers chars Leopard E de l'armée espagnole, avec des capacités technologiques, un blindage et des munitions dernier cri. Le deuxième lot Abrams sera constitué des A2. Les changements demandés par les FAR le situent au-dessus de son standard habituel ! Le Maroc surpassera avec ce lot, les capacités des blindés espagnols. Pour ce qui concerne les chars que l'auteur de l'article qualifie d'"obsolètes" en parlant des M60A3, T72 et MBT2000/VT1, il s'agit des chars de soutien qui peuvent faire mal aux blindés et transporteurs de troupes espagnols. Le Maroc dispose de plusieurs unités dites "Bataillons de Soutien Matériels", rodées pour le soutien logistique des troupes et matériels, réglant le problème de la maintenance et des pièces de rechange. Pour ce qui concerne l'aviation : En optant pour les F-16 avec AESA, le Maroc surpasse largement les capacités de l'aviation de chasse espagnole. L'auteur de l'article affirme que les capacités des Eurofighters/Typhoon dépassent celles des F16 avec l'argument que la plateforme des F-16 est ancienne et que les pilotes marocains ne sont pas bien formés ! En réalité, la plateforme de base des F-16 a évolué pour leur donner des capacités aérodynamiques plus agiles, et une signature radar dite RCS plus réduite, la petite taille de l'avion étant toujours en sa faveur. Par ailleurs, les pilotes marocains ont toujours eu une formation de très haut niveau, et sont réputés être de bons chasseurs. Exemple : Lors du dernier exercice Atlas 2018, les chasseurs espagnols ont utilisé leur fleuron, l'Eurofighter ! Ils ont pris une sacré défaite avec un score 5-1 en faveur des F-16 marocains, tout en faisant match nul 3-3 contre les Mirage F1 marocains. Dans les années 80, lors des manœuvres gigantesques organisées par les USA au Maroc, appelées Majestic Eagle, les avions Mirage marocains ont pu dépasser les défenses et la chasse américaine à deux reprises et toucher le porte-avion américain à la surprise totale des officiers américains qui découvraient pour la premier fois la plateforme Mirage. Autre erreur : l'auteur avance que les réservoirs supplémentaires dits CFT qui équipent les F16 des FRA, impactent leur agilité. En réalité, ceci a été démenti preuves à l'appui, par l'ensemble des pays utilisateurs notamment les pays de l'OTAN. Pour tout le reste, l'analyse est correcte. Le Maroc a effectivement par rapport à l'Espagne, un très grand retard en termes de marine de combat. https://www.medias24.com/le-dernier-contrat-militaire-marocain-suscite-la-vigilance-en-espagne-1261.html

• 

  February 4, 2021 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  As mission-capable rates languish, Pentagon should embrace digital engineering

  Ben Kassel and Bruce Kaplan While many Pentagon initiatives face a change of course under new Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, its digital engineering strategy deserves a push forward. The strategy, issued in 2018 by then-Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering Michael Griffin, aimed to help military services harness modern sustainment methods like additive manufacturing, digital twin and augmented reality. For the Department of Defense, enterprisewide implementation of these techniques would lower costs, increase weapon systems' mission-capable rates and afford flexibility in fleet modernization. But digital engineering requires digital, 3D data — and the DoD doesn't have enough. Modern sustainment practices hinge on the availability of what's known as the model-based definition, 3D models and digitized descriptive information for a system or component. Using computer-aided design programs, engineers can manipulate the data to enable practices like condition-based maintenance, eliminating weapon systems' unnecessary downtime. Digital data can facilitate seamless transit from original equipment manufacturers, or OEM, to procurers and sustainers in the field and at maintenance depots worldwide. However, the technical data for most weapons systems remains elusive to the services and their program management offices, or PMO, or the datasets are available only in 2D documentation, such as blueprints. Meanwhile, readiness suffers. Of 46 weapons systems reviewed by the Government Accountability Office, only three achieved annual mission-capable targets at least five times between 2011 and 2019. More than half (24) failed to meet their goal even once, according to GAO's November 2020 report. The KC-13OJ Super Hercules air refueler and the MV-22B Osprey tiltrotor were among the programs to miss their target all nine years. GAO cited inaccessible technical data as a contributing factor for both programs. Of the Super Hercules, the report says: “The Navy and Marine Corps were unable to obtain the technical data of the aircraft ... the lack of the technical data compromises [their] ability to analyze and resolve sustainment issues.” Similar concerns were raised about the P-8A Poseidon anti-submarine aircraft, saying “technical data needed for maintenance has not been readily available to the Navy.” Dozens of systems, including the F-35 fighter jet, face similar obstacles. Notably, the GAO report referred not to 3D, model-based data but rather legacy incarnations: blueprints and documents that may have been converted “digitally” into PDFs. This is a far cry from the machine-readable formats required to use digital engineering technologies across the enterprise. The GAO cited the production of 170 “structural repair manuals” as a means of narrowing the Osprey's technical data gaps. The labor-intensive replication of physical documents — the PMO projected five years to deliver all of them — is a piecemeal solution, at best. Troublingly, modern sustainment methods seem beyond the reasonable expectation of not just PMOs but even forward-looking organizations like the GAO. To foster its DoD-wide implementation, the digital engineering strategy needs reinforcement, which could take the following forms: Champion the availability of model-based technical data in policy. Modern sustainment requires a shift from decadesold practices. Paper data that supports secondhand manuals and haphazard 2D-to-3D conversion should no longer be the norm. Services cannot lead this transition on their own, however. Federal guidance on the acquisition, creation, use and management of authentic, model-based technical data would jump-start the movement toward digital sustainment. Educate PMOs to acquire technical data rights strategically. Policy must be partnered by the right mindset. One reason PMOs don't have technical data is that sometimes they never asked for it. An afterthought at the time of procurement, technical data is often overlooked until maintenance is needed. Then it's too late — or too expensive — to acquire the needed rights. Leadership can encourage PMOs to identify potential sustainment solutions — and the technical data rights needed to execute them — at the time of acquisition. Assert the government's rights to model-based technical data. A sea change in sustainment depends on building unprecedented trust between OEMs and PMOs. OEMs understandably need to protect intellectual property, but their grip on model-based technical data must loosen for digital sustainment to flourish at scale. This can be accomplished without OEMs surrendering their competitive advantage. In many cases, OEMs need not transfer custody of the data itself for sustainment activities. Limited-rights agreements and trusted third-party arrangements can be tailored to enable data availability only when needed or to execute specific solutions. Giving OEMs confidence in these approaches will entail extensive dialogue and commitment by DoD leaders. Given the GAO's assessment, seeking a breakthrough is worth the attempt. Operationalizing the DoD strategy requires work in other areas as well, particularly in removing intra- and inter-organizational stovepipes, and securing the data's transmission and storage. But the first step toward a model-based sustainment enterprise is ensuring the availability of modern technical data. This need will only grow more crucial. Today's sustainment practices too closely resemble those of 30 years ago, not what they should be 30 years from now. We're already playing catch up. It's time to view sustainment with 3D glasses. Ben Kassel is a senior consultant at LMI. He previously worked with the U.S. government on defining and exchanging technical data used for naval architecture, marine and mechanical engineering, and manufacturing. Bruce Kaplan is a fellow at LMI. He previously served as technical director of logistics for research and development at the Defense Logistics Agency. https://www.c4isrnet.com/opinion/2021/02/03/as-mission-capable-rates-languish-pentagon-should-embrace-digital-engineering/