The $25 million contract will provide a system that supports the military’s complex weather prediction workloads.

On the same subject

• 

  April 27, 2020 | International, Aerospace

  Five F-35 issues have been downgraded, but they remain unsolved

  By: Aaron Mehta , Valerie Insinna , and David B. Larter WASHINGTON — The F-35 Joint Program Office has put in place stopgap fixes for five key technical flaws plaguing America's top-end fighter jet, but the problems have not been completely eliminated. Last June, Defense News reported exclusive details about 13 major technical issues, known as category 1 deficiencies, impacting the F-35. The JPO has since quietly downgraded five of those issues to the lesser category 2. A category 1 deficiency is defined as a shortfall that could cause death, severe injury or illness; could cause loss or damage to the aircraft or its equipment; critically restricts the operator's ability to be ready for combat; prevents the jet from performing well enough to accomplish primary or secondary missions; results in a work stoppage at the production line; or blocks mission-critical test points. In comparison, a category 2 deficiency is of lesser concern — something that requires monitoring, but not something that should impact operations. But downgrading the category doesn't mean the problems are solved, said Dan Grazier, who tracks military issues for the Project on Government Oversight. CAT 2 programs are still "definitely cause for concern. They are going to have an impact on how the aircraft performs,” Grazier said. "It really depends on what the issue is, but every design flaw has a potential issue on the mission. ... You want to not have flaws, you want these things can be fixed so pilots can get out and do what they need to do.” Aside from a few basic statements on which projects were downgraded to CAT 2, a JPO spokesperson said the office “cannot disclose any information about how these deficiencies were resolved or downgraded due to their security classification.” The ALIS sovereign data transfer solution does not meet information assurance requirements. The Autonomic Logistics Information System, or ALIS, provides the backbone of the F-35, used by the aircraft's operators in virtually all stages of flying and sustaining the Joint Strike Fighter. The system is used to plan and debrief missions, order spare parts, walk maintainers through repairs, and view technical data and work orders. (A potential replacement, named ODIN, is in the works.) But some international partners on the F-35 program have expressed concerns that data flowing through ALIS to the United States government — and to Lockheed Martin — could give both the U.S. military and the American defense contractor a window into that country's flight operations, including when and where its F-35s are flying. Those concerns were so high that two countries threatened to leave the program entirely if a fix was not quickly applied, according to the original documents viewed by Defense News. That fix is now in, according to the JPO, which said that on April 29, 2019, an update to ALIS included an initial version of a new Sovereign Data Management tool. “The SDM tool permits F-35 operators more control over the types of Prognostics and Health Management (PHM) data that are transferred to the F-35 Operations Center,” the JPO said. Incorrect inventory data for complex assemblies continues to result in grounding conditions. This particular deficiency involves supplies or components that, upon installation, are not actually listed and tracked in ALIS as designed. Those require specific, almost daily requests to software engineers to have data corrected in the system. While those requests can catch some problems, the issue is not always detected by the user. These “holes,” as the JPO calls them, do not collect data on how parts are used after installation, which means a part might be breaking down from heavy use. Yet, that part won't be flagged by ALIS as an at-risk piece. As a result, it's less likely that issues developing from wear and tear or a lack of replacement parts will be discovered until such an issue has become an acute problem, possibly leading to a grounding of the aircraft. The issue was downgraded to a CAT 2 deficiency on Jan. 13, 2020, “due to ALIS data quality improvements that have been made in the two years since this DR [deficiency report] was written,” according to the JPO. “The quality improvements have reduced the frequency and magnitude of issues that have impacted operational units' abilities to quickly release aircraft for flight following maintenance.” The F-35B and F-35C experienced incongruous lateral and longitudinal control response above a 20-degree angle of attack. One of the most eye-opening issues identified in the initial report was that the F-35B and F-35C models used by the Marine Corps and Navy become difficult to control when operating above a 20-degree angle of attack — which would be seen in the extreme maneuvers a pilot might use in a dogfight or while avoiding a missile. Pilots reported the aircraft experiencing unpredictable changes in pitch, as well as erratic yaw and rolling motions when coming in at that angle of attack.. “It has random oscillations, pitch and yaw issues above [its] 20-[degree angle of attack]," a longtime naval aviator told Defense News last year. "[So] if I had to perform the aircraft — if I had to maneuver to defeat a missile, maneuver to fight another aircraft, the plane could have issues moving. And if I turn around aggressively and get away from these guys and use the afterburner, [the horizontal tail and tail boom] start to melt or have issues.” The issue was important enough that it accounted for two CAT 1 issues, one each for the two variants impacted by the design issue. However, the JPO downgraded this issue to a CAT 2 on May 28, 2019, for the F-35C and on July 8, 2019, for the F-35B. The solution involves “improvements in flying qualities that were implemented in software. The improvements provide pilots with an intuitive reference indication for AOA [angle of attack], which allows pilots to more quickly optimize lateral maneuvering during air-to-air maneuvering. These software improvements have been released to all F-35 operators.” There were unanticipated thrust limits in jetborne flight on hot days. This particular issue only occurred once, but was so significant that it was identified in the original document as the “No. 1 priority” for the Marine Corps. The issue was identified aboard the amphibious assault ship Essex, where a Marine pilot performed what is known as a “mode four” operation. That is where the jet enters hover mode near a landing spot, slides over to a target area and then vertically lands onto the ship. It's a key capability for the "B" model, which was designed for its short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing abilities. The engine — working hard on a day that temperatures cracked 90 degrees Fahrenheit while trying to lift a plane that was heavier than most returning to base — wouldn't generate the needed thrust for a safe, ideal landing. The pilot managed to land, but the issue set off alarm bells in the Marine aviation community. The JPO initially expected a fix for this issue to be out sometime in 2019, but it wasn't until March 2020 that a mix of nondescript “software updates and procedural adjustments” brought the “propulsion system performance back to original specified performance levels.” https://www.defensenews.com/smr/hidden-troubles-f35/2020/04/24/five-f-35-issues-have-been-downgraded-but-they-remain-unsolved/

• 

  February 4, 2019 | International, Aerospace

  The US Air Force wants to continue its light-attack experiment. Will industry buy in?

  By: Valerie Insinna WASHINGTON — If the U.S. Air Force takes two years to conduct a light-attack experiment — made possible in part by industry investments — and then abandons it, why should defense contractors buy into the next one? That was the question posed to the Air Force's top uniformed acquisition official by one attendee of a Feb. 1 event held by the Air Force Association. "I think there's a skepticism out here,” said Mike Loh, a retired Air Force four-star general who now runs a consulting firm. “There's got to be a requirement or funding or both at the end of that, otherwise you've got guys in industry that are investing a lot of money, and they're looking back at light-attack aircraft,” he said. “What did you do? Nothing. You put it on the back burner.” Loh's question highlights the confusion surrounding the Air Force's path forward on the light-attack experiment, as well as unease about the way the service approaches industry investment in short-term experimentation or development campaigns with no clear contract award at the end of the process. Industry investments have already allowed the service to fly the aircraft, set up logistics infrastructure and try new capabilities Last month, Air Force officials confirmed the service would not put out a final solicitation for the light-attack program. Matt Donovan, its undersecretary, said on Jan. 18 that the service preferred to conduct additional experiments and wanted to broaden the campaign. This latest shift follows a failed attempt to acquire a light-attack plane about a decade ago. In 2009, the Air Force began the Light Attack/Armed Reconnaissance program, and its competitors — the Textron AT-6 and Sierra Nevada Corp.-Embraer A-29 Super Tucano — are the same two aircraft involved in the current experimentation campaign. That program fizzled out due to political reasons around 2013, but the Air Force is still hopeful it can press ahead with its latest light-attack effort. “I have ideas of how we go forward, and I think we know how we go forward,” Lt. Gen. Arnold Bunch, the military deputy for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, said of the light-attack experiment on Friday. ”We are planning to broaden the experimentation out and carry the experimentation forward, and I think when our budget hits, you'll understand more of what we're doing." Bunch said the experiment has helped validate the Air Force's requirement for a light-attack capability that can counter violent extremist threats in a low-cost manner. “What I don't want to do is end up in a position that I've got F-35s chasing small buses or mopeds or whatever else we may be trying to chase,” he said. But when it came down to it, Air Force officials looked at the new National Defense Strategy — which prioritizes a high-end fight — and decided against making a large-scale buy of light-attack planes in the upcoming budget, he said. The Pentagon's annual report by the director of operational test and evaluation, released Thursday, shed some light on what may have been the Air Force's initial plans for the light-attack program. The service would have purchased 359 aircraft for eight operational squadrons and three training units, with a contract for either the AT-6 or A-29 to be awarded before September, the report said. The Air Force also considered getting a waiver so that it conduct component-level, live-fire tests for both aircraft before making a final downselect. An Air Force spokeswoman confirmed to Defense News that the timeline and procurement quantities noted in the DOT&E report are no longer accurate. Expanding the experiment What becomes of the light-attack experiment remains unknown — Air Force officials haven't made it clear what the service wants to see in future stages of the effort. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Dave Goldfein stressed the importance of getting buy-in from international militaries during a Jan. 26 interview with Defense News. He also said aircraft like helicopters and drones could be considered in addition to the turboprop planes that dominated the first phases of the experiment. On Friday, Bunch said the service could look at “technologies we may be able to put on platforms or solutions that we may not have thought of” during the first phase of the experiment. “I know many people have talked about specific platforms. What I want to talk about [is] not necessarily that,” he said. That may point to a systems-of-systems approach similar to what the Air Force is seeking with its Advanced Battle Management System — a replacement for its JSTARS ground surveillance planes that will be comprised of a network of existing and new sensors. But the Air Force will need to be clear with industry about what it wants, said Andrew Hunter, head of the defense-industrial initiatives group at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. For example, “if the answer is that they need to do some kind of dramatic cost-cutting initiative, give them a number,” he said. It might also benefit the Air Force to incorporate prototypes in the large-scale international exercises it regularly holds with partners, which has the added benefit of giving foreign militaries more exposure to technology that the U.S. might buy, he said. “I think people will stick with it for a while because there's still a belief that the Air Force will invest and, more important, that there is still a broad international market for this capability,” Hunter said of the light-attack experiment. But, he added, the uncertainty regarding the future of the effort illustrates the constraints of rapid prototyping and experimentation: There's no promise of a program of record at the end of the road. “[While] there is some value of exercising the muscle ... not every one of these is going to lead to a production program,” he said. After two years of experimentation, the Air Force still doesn't have an answer for how it should fill its light-attack requirement, but Bunch, the acquisition official, was adamant the experiment has had value. "I may be the only one that believes it, but I actually believe it has been a success. We tried something we hadn't done. We built a partnership with industry. We experimented. We learned a lot, and we got to the point where we weren't ready to make a large buy decision at this stage. I still believe that is learning,” Bunch said. “And I believe it is something we will take the lessons learned and roll it into how we go forward,” he added. “We've got to look at ourselves in the mirror and say: ‘Was that good or was it bad, and how do we do it better?' We've got to do our own image check." https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/02/01/the-us-air-force-wants-to-continue-its-light-attack-experiment-will-industry-buy-in

• 

  November 8, 2023 | International, Land

  US Army eyes $3.1 billion ammo production boost in new spending ask

  The service wants to more than triple its stateside 155mm munition production, with infrastructure upgrades planned across the country.