Space Force fleshing out second phase of missile-tracking program

On the same subject

• 

  June 17, 2020 | International, Naval

  With the future of the US Navy’s carrier air wing murky, Congress demands a plan

  By: David B. Larter WASHINGTON – The US Navy will need to develop a roadmap for developing future fighter aircraft years after it became apparent that the Navy's mainstay F/A-18 Super Hornet would struggle to keep the carrier outside of range to be effective against Chinese anti-ship missiles. A provision in the Senate Armed Services Committee's mark of the National Defense Authorization Act told the Navy to come up with a concrete plan for fielding next generation fighter aircraft, a move that comes months after congressional appropriators gutted 2020 funding for the Navy's next-generation air dominance program, taking the requested $20.7 million and slashing it to $7.1 million. By way of comparison, the Air Force requested $1 billion in funding for its Next Generation Air Dominance program, but saw a relatively minor 10 percent cut from appropriators that was cited as a “classified adjustment.” The SASC mark “requires the Navy to create a fighter aircraft force structure acquisition strategy and report on aircraft carrier air wing composition and carrier-based strike fighter squadrons to better prepare for potential conflicts envisioned by the National Defense Strategy,” according to a summary posted on the Committee's website. The Navy likely upset the congressional apple cart by zeroing out a planned buy of at least 36 Super Hornets that would have spanned FY22 through FY24. That move that should save $4.5 billion that the service plans to redirect to its sixth-generation fighter program, known as Next Generation Air Dominance or F/A-XX. So, what's F/A-XX? The Navy has tried to address the range issue with fielding an unmanned tanker, the MQ-25 Stingray, but that program could face delays if the Navy's operational schedule doesn't align to allow testing. But what exactly the F/A-XX will be is anyone's guess. The Navy finished an Analysis of Alternatives in June of last year and the spokesman for the Navy's assistant secretary for research, development and acquisition told Defense News earlier this month that the program was in the concept development phase. But some experts believe that given the Navy's budgetary constraints for the foreseeable future, the F/A-XX should be a derivative of a current aircraft. Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a retired submarine officer, said in recent testimony before the House Armed Services Committee that it would make sense to keep buying the F/A-18s to keep the line hot for a potential F/A-XX. “I think the F/A-XX is going to need to be probably a derivative of an existing airplane rather than some complete new clean sheet design given the fiscal constraints we're under,” Clark said. “Therefore, keeping production lines going for both of our existing strike fighters is a good idea to allow both to be an option for this future F/A-XX.” In 2019, formed Deputy Secretary of Defense Bob Work told Defense News that the next fighter should really be unmanned, and that going that route would help save some money. “The focus should be on the F/A-XX. If you really want range, that has to be the platform you are shooting for,” Work said. “Because with the Navy buying the F-35Cs, and the Marine [Corps] buying the F-35Bs and the Navy buying the Block III Super Hornet, you are not going to be able to afford two or three programs. So, the F/A-XX is the one you need to focus on. And if the analysis shows you need range, that points to unmanned.” But naval aviation has shown very little appetite for fielding an unmanned long-range fighter, and the Navy more generally has been tepid on unmanned technologies, according to former Chief of Naval Operations retired Adm. Garry Roughead, who testified at HASC alongside Clark. “I reflect that we flew an unmanned aircraft off of an aircraft carrier in 2012,” Roughead said. “2012! That has not happened again. Eight years, in my mind, of a hiatus in trying to advance this new technology is not aggressive by any stretch of the imagination.” Valerie Insinna contributed to this report from Washington. https://www.defensenews.com/2020/06/15/with-the-future-us-navys-carrier-air-wing-murky-congress-demands-a-plan/

• 

  July 16, 2020 | International, Naval

  Congress skeptical of Navy’s unmanned vessels plans

  Nathan Strout The U.S. Navy wants $464 million for unmanned surface vessels, but Congress is not on the same page. Legislators have so far declined to fully fund the massive investment into research and development for large and medium unmanned surface vessels as they work through the annual defense bill, citing the request as “excessive procurement ahead of satisfactory testing.” Among other things, that budget request would give the Navy $239 million to purchase two Overlord large unmanned surface vehicle (LUSV) prototypes for testing. While the Senate Armed Services Committee has declined to authorize any of the $464 million request, the House Armed Services Committee agreed to authorize just $270 million of that request — specifically cutting funding for the two LUSVs. Instead, the House version would provide the Navy $45 million to convert a Spearhead-class expeditionary fast transport ship into a LUSV for further testing. In a report on the bill issued by the Senate Armed Services Committee, lawmakers argued that the Navy already has the LUSVs that can fill the Strategic Capabilities Office's needs in this area. But perhaps more importantly, the committee members do not seem convinced that LUSVs are ready for prime time. “The committee remains concerned that the budget request's concurrent approach to LUSV design, technology development, and integration as well as a limited understanding of the LUSV concept of employment, requirements, and reliability for envisioned missions pose excessive acquisition risk for additional LUSV procurement in fiscal year 2021,” the report reads. “The committee is also concerned by the unclear policy implications of LUSVs, including ill-defined international unmanned surface vessel standards and the legal status of armed or potentially armed LUSVs.” Furthermore, legislators remain unconvinced that the current unmanned vessels can hold up to the physical environment of extended operations at sea. While the Navy requires its unmanned platforms to be able to operate continuously at sea for 30 days without maintenance or repairs, the committee report notes the Strategic Capabilities Office's prototypes have only demonstrated two to three days of continuous operation. The Senate version of the bill would require the Navy to formally qualify two main engines and electrical generators — including successfully demonstrating 30 days of continuous operations at sea — before Milestone B approval is granted. An industry group hit back July 9. In a letter to leaders of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees, the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International called on legislators to fully fund the Navy's fiscal 2021 request. “It is imperative that Congress continues to fund the research and development (R&D) efforts included in the Navy's FY21 budget request,” wrote President and CEO Brian Wynne. “Failing to do so will disrupt the significant investment industry has made in unmanned systems over the last several years. The severe reduction in funding being considered in the FY21 NDAA would eliminate jobs, drive many small companies out of business, and cause larger companies to shift their R&D investments to more stable opportunities” The committee report argues that its requirements do not delay these programs, but in fact will enable the delivery of unmanned surface vehicles faster by ensuring they are “capable, reliable and sustainable.” In the meantime, the Navy has moved forward with its unmanned surface vehicle efforts. On July 13, the Navy awarded L3Harris $35 million to develop a medium unmanned surface vehicle prototype, with an option to buy eight more later on. If all options are exercised, the contract could be worth up to $294 million. “The award of Medium USV is the culmination of a great dialogue with industry to right-size the requirements for a capable, reliable, and affordable unmanned surface vehicle that will employ a variety of modular payloads,” said Capt. Pete Small, program manager of Unmanned Maritime Systems within the Unmanned and Small Combatants Program Executive Office. “Leveraging new rapid prototyping authorities and mature commercial technology will allow us to quickly deliver a capable prototype to the Surface Development Squadron to conduct experimentation and learning in support of the Navy's plans for a future fleet incorporating unmanned vessels.” The prototype is expected to be delivered in fiscal 2023. However, the Navy press release announcing the award notes that funding for future MUSV prototypes is uncertain. While the Navy has asked for additional fiscal 2021 funding for a second MUSV prototype in fiscal 2023, that acquisition strategy is yet to be determined. https://www.c4isrnet.com/unmanned/2020/07/15/congress-skeptical-of-navys-unmanned-vessels-plans/

• 

  August 31, 2023 | International, C4ISR

  NATO to test 5G capabilities in Latvia with virtual reality, drones

  The technology is on the rise in military applications, promising faster data transfer and better security than the 4G standard.