March 16, 2020 | International, Aerospace
By Steve Trimble
Pratt & Whitney's F100 (pictured) is designed to be interchangeable with GE Aviation's F110 as the engine for the Boeing F-15 fleet.
A jet engine maker is pressuring the U.S. Defense Department to scrap a plan to award a sole-source contract to a rival for a fleet of new fighters and investigate the opportunity for performance and cost improvements yielded by a competitive selection process.
If that narrative sounds familiar, it is because it echoes a role GE Aviation played for more than 40 years, which included a successful bid in the 1980s to launch the “Great Engine War” over the F-15 and F-16 fleets and a failed campaign that ended almost a decade ago to establish the F136 as the alternate engine for the F-35.
This time, however, the roles are reversed. Pratt & Whitney, which waged fierce lobbying campaigns against competitive engine policies for the F-15, F-16 and F-35, has switched sides in the debate.
In response to the U.S. Air Force's decision to field the F-15EX into production powered solely by GE F110 engines, Pratt has filed two protests with the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which is scheduled to render judgments on both cases by early July.
The Air Force sided with GE during the Great Engine War in 1984. Seeking to lower costs and motivate Pratt to resolve stall-stagnation problems with the original F100, the Air Force decided that year to split the engine contract for the F-15 and F-16 between GE's F110 and Pratt's F100.
Thirty-six years later, the Air Force now worries about the schedule impact if the GAO sustains either or both of Pratt's protests of the F-15EX engine. Service officials decided to acquire the F-15EX after concluding the F-15C/Ds were too costly to sustain and because it would take too long for the Pratt F135-powered F-35A to replace all of them.
Pratt's protests threaten to disrupt that schedule and erode the Air Force's original business case for the F-15EX.
“If we have to do an engine competition, it will add time—2-3 years,” said Will Roper, assistant secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, testifying before the House Armed Services Committee on March 10.
Only a decade ago, Pratt welcomed a vote by Congress in 2010 to cancel funding for the F-35 program's alternate engine, along with a decision by GE and Rolls-Royce a year later to abandon a plan to self-fund the certification of the F136. But Pratt now embraces the potential benefits of an engine competition for the F-15EX.
“Our government supports competition at all levels, and we're interested in providing the F100 as a competitive alternative,” Pratt Military Engines President Matthew Bromberg told Aviation Week. “If we're not competitive in terms of capability, schedule [and] price, I get it. But after the U.S. government spent all this money creating two engines for the F-15 and F-16 platforms, why would it then not compete a 450-engine program?”
Asked if the existing F100 would require additional development to meet the Air Force's requirements for the F-15EX, Bromberg replied that he cannot answer that question in the absence of a competitive process that allows Pratt access to the specifications. He also noted that the F100 exclusively powers the Air Force's existing fleet of F-15Es.
The F100 and F110 were designed to fit interchangeably in the F-15, although the heavily modified Saudi Arabian F-15SA and the Qatari F-15QA from which the F-15EX was derived are exclusively powered by GE's engine.
The GAO does not release complaints filed by protesters up front, but it does release the full text of decisions. It is not clear why Pratt filed two separate protests on the sole-source decision for the GE engine on the F-15EX, but Bromberg advised not reading too much into it.
“I'd like to obviously be able to discuss them, but I can't because it's a legal process,” Bromberg said. “I would really view them as a single protest on a single procurement action, and that is a lack of competition.”
July 7, 2023 | International, Land
The company will support the NSPO to design and deliver prototype deck launching systems to support the U.S. Navy and allied countries with the ESSM ship self-defense system.
April 2, 2019 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security, Other Defence
Par Michel Cabirol Cinq des dix start-up accompagnées par Generate, l'accélérateur du Groupement des Industries Françaises de Défense et de Sécurité Terrestres et Aéroterrestres (GICAT), sont devenues des scale-up. Qui a dit que la défense et la sécurité n'étaient plus un domaine d'innovations... Deux ans après le lancement de son accélérateur de start-up dans le domaine de la défense et de la sécurité (Generate), le Groupement des Industries Françaises de Défense et de Sécurité Terrestres et Aéroterrestres (GICAT) tire un bilan positif des deux premières promotions de start-up accompagnées. Sur les dix ayant intégré Generate dès le départ, cinq ont franchi un cap pour devenir les fameuses scale-up (ou TPE). Ce sont le cas d'Aleph Networks, qui explore le deep et le dark web, de CerbAir (lutte anti-drone), de Diodon (drones), d'Internest, qui améliore la sécurité des vols des drones et des hélicoptères et, enfin, de l'éditeur de logiciels Linkurious, qui fournit des analyses de réseaux sociaux. En revanche, Othello, qui a développé une approche scientifique du comportement humain, Numalis, qui analyse les logiciels pour détecter et corriger les vulnérabilités numériques, Physip, qui propose des solutions d'analyse automatique de l'activité cérébrale basées sur l'EEG (électroencéphalogramme) et Uniris, qui fournit des services inviolables d'authentification, vont rester une année supplémentaire au sein de Generate afin de d'essayer de passer le cap de start-up. Enfin, Sterblue, qui édite une solution de pilotage automatique adaptable à tous les drones du marché, va se consacrer aux marchés civils. Cette start-up nantaise, créée par des anciens d'Airbus, a réussi fin 2018 une première levée de fonds de 2 millions de dollars. 8 millions d'euros de levées En deux ans, 50% des start-up de Generate ont réussi à lever des fonds, nouer des partenariats industriels, remporter des contrats et se projeter à l'export. Ainsi, elles ont réussi à lever 8 millions d'euros de fonds auprès d'investisseurs publics, privés et notamment des Venture Capital d'industriels du GICAT. Elles ont réalisé un chiffre d'affaire de 4,8 millions d'euros et près d'une start-up sur deux est aujourd'hui présente à l'export et y remporte des marchés. Elles emploient aujourd'hui près d'une centaine de personnes, dont la moitié a été recrutée sur les deux dernières années. Enfin, elles ont remporté sept trophées et prix aussi bien dans la défense et la sécurité, mais également auprès d'organisme civil. Pour le GICAT, ces résultats confirment sa volonté de poursuivre le recrutement de nouvelles pépites, en développant son système de parrainage, en se faisant connaitre auprès d'investisseurs et en accompagnant nos partenaires institutionnels (Délégation générale de l'armement, Agence Innovation défense, Armées, Ministère de l'intérieur, etc.). Generate accueille ou a accueilli au total 28 start-up depuis ses débuts. https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/les-start-up-specialisees-dans-la-defense-et-la-securite-poussent-tous-azimuts-811829.html
July 23, 2020 | International, Aerospace
Updated: Jul 22, 2020 8:43 AM The PAF had acquired the F-16 Fighting Falcons a couple of years before. This time around, with the induction of the Rafale, does the IAF need more than a catchy tag line to keep the PLAAF at bay? By Wing Commander Amit Ranjan Giri “The balance rests on us”–this was the catchphrase of the IAF when the first MiG 29 thundered down and took to the skies in Pune, in the mid-eighties, heralding the parity in new generation fighter jets between the PAF and IAF. The PAF had acquired the F-16 Fighting Falcons a couple of years before. This time around, with the induction of the Rafale, does the IAF need more than a catchy tag line to keep the PLAAF at bay? As Group Captain Harkirat and his boys land the latest fighting machines at Ambala, five in all, two twins seaters (RB series) and three single-seaters (BS series), they propel the IAF to another level of air fighting capability, one which would enhance itself with the acquisition of all 36 Rafales and associated weaponry in the near future. An interesting trivia about IAF fighters is that, Russian fighters generally come in huge crates and are assembled in India whereas most ‘western' fighters are flown in, from the OEM country. This, by no means, indicates that the incoming Rafales would be able to take on the enemy immediately, it would take the IAF a little time before these jets are operationalised with a plethora of weaponry, the earlier the better. How does the Rafale fare against the Chinese fighters? The Rafales' main contender in the PLAAF would be the Chengdu J-20 and if produced and operationalised the Shenyang J-31, both are highly rated by the Chinese media and pitched as fifth-generation stealth fighters against the Rafales' 4.5 generation lineage. That having been said, the Chinese fighters' capabilities are only on paper, much of them are yet to be demonstrated or proven. True, the Rafale lacks stealth but is built around the low RCS philosophy whereas, though the J-20 proclaims itself as a proponent of stealth the ‘canards' in front and additional external hardpoints for extra fuel tanks would shatter much of its claims in this department. Just to clear the air around stealth – absolute all aspect stealth is a myth, at least as of now. Aeroplanes claiming stealth are actually low observables depending on their aspect – the way they look to the enemy sensors- never invisible from all direction. The IAF has been known to pick up Chinese J-20s on their Su 30 radars earlier. Engine, weapons and avionics: who gets the better score? With limited internal capacity of weapons and no ‘supercruise' capability as yet, the Chinese contenders do have a lot to live up to. The Rafale, in this aspect, delivers what it promises – low RCS, excellent weapon carriage capability – albeit external and supercruise – the ability to go supersonic without afterburners. When it comes to avionics, all three aircraft would pitch ‘neck to neck'. All boast of one of the most advanced radars – the Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) and all three have equivalent avionics suites onboard. However, it is yet to be seen if the Chinese have been able to integrate these technologies to match, compute and present the desired data – a capability which leapfrogs an aircraft to the next level. The Rafale's SPECTRA defensive aids system is a classic example of this – processing and amalgamating information from various sensors to safeguard the aircraft. The SCALP and Meteor are some of the goodies in the Rafale package for the IAF. Whilst the former is a ground attack precision weapon, the latter, is one of the best BeyondVisualRange (BVR) air to air missiles available at present. The J-20 in comparison carries the PL series of missiles with the PL 15 matching up with the Meteor in terms of range. As per the last reports, the PL 21 with enhanced range was yet to be operationalised. Pedigree versus Pariah, who wins? The Rafale comes from an ancestry of well-known fighters which Dassault has produced and earned their place in the annals of history. If western intelligence reports are to be believed the Chinese fighters have been an attempted copy of the F 22 Raptor and the F 35 Lightning, curtsy hackers who had managed to steal substantial amount of data from the US servers. Apart from the privileged pedigree the Rafale is also combat-proven – Libya, Iraq and Syria were all contemporary conflicts wherein the French fighter has been able to earn a name for itself. The Chinese fighters, in contrast, are yet to be proven in battle, as far as the J-31 goes there are doubts if the machine has gone beyond the prototype stage as yet. The J-20, on the other hand, does enjoy an edge over its single-engined cousin, it has entered the production stage and rumours of about one squadron of this type with PLAAF has surfaced in the intelligence circle. All the above being said it needs to be appreciated that no comparison of fighting machines can be justified with data on paper – a lot goes in exploiting platforms during the war and a major portion of the winning effort comes from other non-tangible factors – the side which exploits the entire spectrum generally lands up on the victorious side. https://www.financialexpress.com/defence/rafale-coming-in-how-does-rafale-fighter-jets-fare-against-the-chinese-plaaf-fighters/2031381/