Back to news

September 8, 2020 | International, Aerospace

Reforging Of USAF Pilot Training Hits New Complications

Steve Trimble

In June 2019, U.S. Air Force Gen. James Holmes strapped into an Israeli Air Force M-346 Lavi advanced jet trainer and flew off to attack a ship in the Mediterranean Sea.

“We fought our way through air threats and ground threats; we did a simulated attack on a target; we came off and fought through air threats and then [returned to base],” recalls Holmes, who retired last month as head of Air Combat Command (ACC).

Of course, the attack was simulated: The threats and target appeared as constructed elements on the sensor displays inside the cockpit. The purpose of the exercise was not to defend the Israeli coastline but instead to show Holmes a new way of training pilots as the Boeing T-7A enters service within three years.

The U.S. Air Force pilot training curriculum is almost as dated as the 60-year-old Northrop T-38Cs the T-7As will replace. New fighter and bomber pilots spend two years mastering basic skills at bases focused solely on training new pilots; then they move on to fighter training units (FTU) at operational bases. When Holmes entered the Air Force in 1982, FTU pilots still flew about 250 hr. each year. With flight-hour costs for F-15Es, F-22s and F-35As now over $25,000 per hour, FTU pilots today on average log about 150 hr. annually, contributing to a four-digit backlog of pilots certified for combat.

But Holmes' experience with the Israeli Air Force has inspired a new approach to changing U.S. Air Force training. Unlike the T-38C's limited computing power, the M-346's embedded simulation system allows pilots at FTUs to fly realistic combat scenarios. As the T-7A enters service with similar technology, the Air Force is considering a broad shake-up of its pilot training system. The end result would be streamlining the curriculum by teaching fundamental skills and shifting earlier to combat training with T-7As instead of F-35s, F-22s or F-15Es.

“One option might be to take those T-7s and put a mix of them at [training] bases to teach people how to fly them and do advanced bomber training and then put some portion of them out at the fighter wings,” Holmes says. “One option might be to do that training at training bases.”

To determine the best approach, Holmes' ACC launched Project Reforge. The original idea outlined in May 2019 called for leasing eight Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI)/Lockheed Martin T-50 jets from Hillwood Aviation for five years. ACC hoped to use the jets to understand how embedded training systems in the T-50 cockpits could allow the Air Force to streamline the pilot training system.

The ACC is still pursuing Project Reforge, but the acquisition process has been trickier than expected. Mission Systems Solutions (MSS), which has partnered with Leonardo to offer the M-346, objected to a plan from ACC to sole-source the lease deal to Hillwood's T-50s. Ultimately, the Air Force agreed to open the lease deal to competition and released an “invitation to propose” to industry in June.

As the bidding deadline passed on Aug. 17, however, ACC changed course again. The invitation to propose for the lease deal was canceled for unknown reasons. Instead, ACC is continuing to accept proposals under a less formal process called a Commercial Solutions Opening (CSO). The CSO allows ACC to accept proposals for providing advanced jet trainers through means other than a leasing arrangement.

Meanwhile, a new company called Quesada Aviation Holdings has emerged to submit a proposal with the KAI/Lockheed T-50, replacing Hillwood.

“Quesada is fully prepared to support the [Air Force] and Air Combat Command,” says Seth Downing, the CEO. “We are pleased to see the CSO open and look forward to working alongside the [Air Force] and ACC in structuring a mutually beneficial and commercially viable alternative.”

MSS also remains active in the Reforge project as the Air Force shifts to the CSO process.

“We began conversations with the Air Force about the Reforge training concept more than a year ago,” says David Nichols, CEO of MSS. “We are continuing discussions with them to better understand their requirements and provide innovative solutions.”

The final decision on the acquisition path for Project Reforge will be made by Gen. Mark Kelly, now the head of ACC, and will determine how to move forward with pilot training reform.

https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/aircraft-propulsion/reforging-usaf-pilot-training-hits-new-complications

On the same subject

  • Hypersonics: DoD Wants ‘Hundreds of Weapons’ ASAP

    April 27, 2020 | International, Aerospace

    Hypersonics: DoD Wants ‘Hundreds of Weapons’ ASAP

    “We want to deliver hypersonics at scale,” said R&D director Mark Lewis, from air-breathing cruise missiles to rocket-boosted gliders that fly through space. By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR. WASHINGTON: The Pentagon has created a “war room” to ramp up production of hypersonic weapons from a handful of prototypes over the last decade to “hundreds of weapons” in the near future, a senior official said Wednesday. Those weapons will range from huge rocket-powered boost-glide missiles, fired from Army trucks and Navy submarines at more than Mach 10, to more compact and affordable air-breathing cruise missiles, fired from aircraft at a relatively modest Mach 5-plus. “It isn't an either-or,” said Mark Lewis, modernization director for Pentagon R&D chief Mike Griffin. “It isn't rocket-boost or air-breathing, we actually want both, because those systems do different things.” Right now, however, US combat units have neither. Inconsistent focus and funding over the years means that “we had a number of programs in the department that were very solid technology development programs, but at the end of those programs, we would have prototypes and we'd have weapons in the single-digit counts,” Lewis said during a webcast with the Air Force Association's Mitchell Institute. “If you've got a program that delivers eight missiles and then stops, well, which of the thousand targets in our target set are we going to use those eight missiles against?” With hypersonics now a top priority for both Undersecretary Griffin and Defense Secretary Mark Esper, the Pentagon is trying to improve that stop-and-go track record with a new “hypersonic acceleration plan” – no pun intended, Lewis said. Griffin likes to compare the effort to the Cold War, when the US had a massive nuclear weapons infrastructure capable of building complex components by the tens of thousands. “We want to deliver hypersonics at scale,” Lewis said. “That means hundreds of weapons in a short period of time in the hands of the warfighter.” Mass-production, in turn, requires production facilities – but today hypersonic prototypes are basically hand-crafted by R&D labs like Sandia. Lewis and his counterpart in the Pentagon's acquisition & sustainment directorate, Kevin Fahey, are “co-chairing what we're were calling a war room ... looking at the hypersonic industrial base,” he said. “That's not just the primes, but the entire industrial base” down to small, specialized suppliers. Controlling cost is both essential to large-scale production and a huge challenge, Lewis acknowledged. “We don't know what these things cost yet,” he said. “We've asked the primes to consider costs as they're developing.” Which hypersonic weapons the Pentagon buys also makes a major difference. “There are some technology choices we can make that lead us to more cost-effective systems,” he said. “I'm especially enthusiastic about hypersonic weapons that come off the wings of airplanes and come out of bomb bays, [because] I think those are some of the keys to delivering hypersonic capabilities at scale and moderate cost.” Likewise, “[there's] larger investment now in the rocket boost systems,” Lewis said, “[but] one of the reasons I'm so enthusiastic about scramjet-powered systems, air-breathing systems is I think that, fundamentally, they can be lower-cost than their rocket-boosted alternatives.” Why is that? Understanding the policy, it turns out, requires a basic understanding of the physics. Breaking Defense graphic from DoD data Four Types of Hypersonics “Hypersonics isn't a single thing,” Lewis said. “It's a range of applications, a range of attributes, [defined by] the combination of speed and maneuverability and trajectory.” To put it in simple terms – and I'll beg the forgiveness of any aerospace engineers reading this – there are two kinds of hypersonic projectile, based on how they fly: one is an air-breathing engine flying through the atmosphere, like a jet plane or cruise missile; the other is a rocket booster arcing to the edge of space, like an ICBM. There are also two kinds of platform you can launch from: an aircraft in flight high and fast above the earth, or a relatively slow-moving vehicle on or below the surface, like an Army truck, Navy warship or submarine. Combine these and you get four types. Lewis thinks all four could be worth pursuing, although the Pentagon currently has programs – that we know about – for only three: Air-launched boost-glide: Air Force ARRW (Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon). The Air Force also had another program in this category, HCSW (Hypersonic Conventional Strike Weapon), but they canceled it to focus on ARRW, which the service considers more innovative and promising. Surface-launched boost-glide: Army LRHW (Long Range Hypersonic Weapon) and Navy CPS (Conventional Prompt Strike). Both weapons share the same rocket booster, built by the Navy, and the same Common Hypersonic Glide Body, built by the Army, but one tailors the package to launch from a wheeled vehicle and the other from a submarine. Air-launched air-breathing: HAWC (Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapons Concept) and HSW-ab (Hypersonic Strike Weapon-air breathing). Arguably the most challenging and cutting-edge technology, these programs are both currently run by DARPA, which specializes in high-risk, high-return research, but they'll be handed over to the Air Force when they mature. Surface-launched air-breathing: This is the one category not in development – at least not in the unclassified world. But Lewis said, “eventually, you could see some ground-launched air breathers as well. I personally think those are very promising.” Each of these has its own advantages and disadvantages, Lewis explained. Rocket boosters are proven technology, offering tremendous speed and range. The Minuteman III ICBM, introduced in 1970, can travel over 6,000 miles at Mach 23. Their one drawback is that ICBMs can't steer. Once launched, they follow a predictable course like a cannon ball, which is why they're called ballistic missiles. The big innovation of boost-glide weaponry is that it replaces the traditional warhead with an agile glider. Once the rocket booster burns out, the glide body detaches and coasts the rest of the way, skipping nimbly across the upper layers of the atmosphere like a stone across the pond. But boost-glide has some big limitations. First, once the rocket booster detaches, the glide body has no engine of its own so it just coasts, losing speed throughout its flight. Second, precisely because the rocket launch is so powerful, it puts tremendous strain on the weapon, whose delicate electronics must be hardened against shock and heat. Third, the booster is big, because a rocket not only has to carry fuel, it has to carry tanks of oxygen to burn the fuel. Breaking Defense graphic from DoD data An air-breathing engine, by contrast, can be significantly smaller. It just has to carry the fuel, because it can scoop up all the oxygen it needs from the atmosphere. That means the whole weapon can be smaller, making it much easier to fit on an aircraft, and that it can accelerate freely during flight instead of just coasting, making it more maneuverable. But while conventional jet engines are well-proven technology, they don't function at hypersonic speeds, because the airflow pours their intakes far too fast. So you need a sophisticated alternative such as a scramjet, a complex, costly technology so far found only on experimental vehicles, like the Air Force's revolutionary Boeing X-51. Even with a scramjet, you can't fly too high because the air doesn't provide the needed oxygen. That means air-breathing weapons can't reach the same near-space altitudes as boost-glide missiles. They also can't fly nearly as fast. Lewis expects air-breathers will probably top out around Mach 7, half or less the peak speed of a boost-glide weapon. (That said, remember the glider will have slowed down somewhat by the time it reaches the target). Sandia National Laboratories glide vehicle, the ancestor of the Army-built Common Hypersonic Glide Body The platform you launch from also has a major impact on performance. Warships, submarines, and long-bodied heavy trucks can carry bigger weapons than aircraft, but the weapons they carry need to be bigger because they have to start from low altitude and low speed and go all the way to high-altitude hypersonic flight. By contrast, an air-launched weapon doesn't need to be as big, because it's already flying high and fast even before it turns on its motor. All these factors suggest that the big boost-glide weapons are probably best launched from land or sea, the smaller air-breathing ones from aircraft in flight. But since boost-gliders go farther and faster than air-breathers, you still want them as an option for your bombers for certain targets. On the flipside, while a naval vessel or ground vehicle has plenty of room to carry boost-glide weapons for ultra-long-range strikes, it can also use the same space to carry a larger number of the smaller air-breathers for closer targets. “We're interested in basically the full range,” Lewis said. “We've got some ideas of things we want to put into play quickly, but we're also extremely open-minded about future applications, future technologies.” https://breakingdefense.com/2020/04/hypersonics-dod-wants-hundreds-of-weapons-asap/

  • Lithuania signs deal with Rheinmetall for ammunition plant

    April 16, 2024 | International, Land

    Lithuania signs deal with Rheinmetall for ammunition plant

  • After Pacific tour, Navy’s No. 2 talks readiness, staying ahead of competition

    September 18, 2018 | International, Naval

    After Pacific tour, Navy’s No. 2 talks readiness, staying ahead of competition

    By CAITLIN DOORNBOS | STARS AND STRIPES YOKOSUKA NAVAL BASE, Japan — Vice Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Bill Moran heard right from the source how the Navy's largest foreign command is keeping up with readiness challenges, including a significant maintenance backlog and an ever-increasing competition landscape. Moran — the service's second-highest ranking officer — visited Navy bases in South Korea and Japan last week on a listening tour that he said brought helpful insight into on-the-ground operations in the Pacific. “We in Washington have our own views about things and it's largely programmatic in nature, budgetary in nature and some policy,” he told Stars and Stripes in an interview Thursday. “But to get feedback from sailors, commanding officers, chiefs and master chiefs in the fleet really helps us refine and make sure that we're supporting from Washington what they need [in the Pacific].” Readiness challenges At Yokosuka on Thursday, Moran spent time on the waterfront discussing ship maintenance. The base is home to U.S. Naval Ship Repair Facility Japan Regional Maintenance Center, which is working on what Moran called a “not insignificant” backlog. A request for exact numbers on that backlog went unanswered. The 7th Fleet is operating with fewer ships than it had planned after two of its guided-missile destroyers — the USS Fitzgerald and the USS John S. McCain — were severely damaged in separate fatal collisions at sea last year. While Yokosuka added an additional destroyer — the USS Milius — earlier this year, the fleet remains down two operational ships because Milius was originally intended to be an additional ship in support of Indo-Pacific operations, former Pacific Fleet commander Adm. Scott Swift told Stars and Stripes last year. Moran said the McCain, which is being repaired in Yokosuka, is expected to get out of drydock this fall and the Navy is aiming to have it underway in the spring. The Fitzgerald is undergoing maintenance in Pascagoula, Miss., and the service has said the goal is to return it to sea by 2020. Moran said ship maintenance “is a key critical element for overall fleet readiness.” “Everybody recognizes that we've got to do the maintenance that's built up over time. While that's important to everybody, no one likes to be in the yards,” Moran said. “There's a cost of doing that right now and we have to re-baseline the maintenance of our ships across the fleet, particularly [in the Pacific] because it is so active, it has been a very busy place for a long time.” On Sept. 12, Moran and Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy Russell Smith toured Yokosuka's USS Blue Ridge, which has been undergoing maintenance for about two years. Crews first re-lit the boilers on the Navy's oldest commissioned operational ship in June, and Moran said the 7th Fleet's flagship is “about ready to go to sea.” “She's outfitted like an old ‘57 Chevy that we've took the engine out, took the dashboard out and put all modern capability in, and man, she sounds and she's going to run kind of nice,” Moran said. The Blue Ridge's staff moved back onto the ship this summer. Capt. Brett Crozier, the Blue Ridge's commander, said it was an honor to host Moran. Full article: https://www.stripes.com/news/after-pacific-tour-navy-s-no-2-talks-readiness-staying-ahead-of-competition-1.547999

All news