The Air Force may have found new imagery it needs at a pitch day

On the same subject

• 

  June 11, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  Defense bill to include billion dollars for pandemic response and preparedness

  By: Joe Gould WASHINGTON ― A key House Democrat will propose a billion-dollar pandemic response and preparedness fund in the annual defense policy bill, Defense News has learned. The bill would help boost production of key medical equipment sought by states amid the country's fight against the coronavirus pandemic. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith, D-Wash., will include the measure in his committee's version of the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act as a means to strengthen the Department of Defense and the country's ability to respond to a potential COVID-19 resurgence and other future infectious diseases, according to a House aide familiar with the proposal. The proposal comes as Smith and other Democrats have criticized President Donald Trump as neither sufficiently marshaling American industry to produce medical equipment like swabs, masks and ventilators, nor coordinating with states on their needs. Still, Trump has partially invoked the Defense Production Act, and the Pentagon has had a central role awarding millions of dollars in contracts to address shortages for these items. “Looking forward, I intend to include in this year's National Defense Authorization Act an effort to proactively look beyond the response to COVID-19 and increase preparedness and resilience for future pandemics,” Smith said in prepared remarks for Wednesday's HASC hearing on the DoD's efforts to mitigate the effects of the coronavirus pandemic. The U.S. military, Smith said, “has a unique ability to lead” in efforts to ramp up domestic production of key equipment, “given its experience in acquisition and stockpile management that has already been a deep resource to the federal government response.” At that hearing, Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Ellen Lord is expected to testify that the DoD's Joint Acquisition Task Force has executed $284 million of a planned $312 million for medical resources ― and that there have been challenges in reducing America's dependence on overseas suppliers. “Reconstituting domestic production or creating new production that shifted offshore years ago often requires capital equipment expenditures, retooling, and re-training of the workforce,” Lord said in her prepared testimony. “It can be months before a supplier is fully capable of producing components or end-items at scale, and these timelines are taken into account when reviewing projects to ensure production increases align to prospective needs of medical items.” Major elements of Smith's proposal will aim to strengthen the small business supply chain for essential gear like personal protective equipment; improve the DoD's ability to rapidly acquire and manufacture response supplies using the organic industrial base; and increase DoD research funding for infectious disease detection, treatment and response technologies. Details of the proposal are expected to be released publicly with the bill in late June. The billion dollars for the fund would come from unspecified, “lower priority accounts” in the NDAA, the aide familiar with the proposal told Defense News. (The House and Senate are each expected to propose a $740 billion bill, in line with the most recent bipartisan budget agreement.) “The monies in this fund were identified through routine reviews of [the president's fiscal 2021] budget requests. The COVID crisis has made clear the need for a more aggressive effort to prepare for and enhance resilience in the face of future pandemics,” the aide said. “The approximate $1 billion is less than one-seventh of a percent of the overall DoD budget [request].” If passed into law, the legislation would seem to hand the Defense Department a mission of supporting domestic health care, which falls outside of its traditional responsibilities, said Todd Harrison, a defense budget analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “It's not been a core area for DoD, but the reason people tend to turn to DoD in times like this is the military has the manpower and logistics infrastructure to mobilize and bring a lot of people to a problem very quickly: Do contact tracing, do testing, set up field hospitals,” Harrison said. “Plus, the NDAA is a must-pass piece of legislation every single year, so if you want something funded, you put it in and it will at least get a vote.” The Trump administration has been criticized for a delayed response to the outbreak and a lack of organization in providing tests and medical supplies. Smith, who steers the House version of the NDAA, has telegraphed for weeks that he might pursue action. He has already sent Trump a letter, signed by himself as well as House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone, D-N.J., and House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., calling for a clear federal strategy to procure medical supplies and the aggregation of the country's needs. “100,000 deaths in the U.S. from #COVID19,” Smith said in a May 27 tweet. “Yet we still do not have an adequate national testing plan. We are still failing to use the full force of the Defense Production Act to produce the supplies we need.” On July 1, HASC is expected to mark up its version of the NDAA. The Senate Armed Services Committee this week began closed-door consideration of its version of the NDAA, which is typically reconciled with the House's bill. Because the NDAA is the authorization bill, Congress would have to follow suit in appropriations bills for Smith's forthcoming pandemic response and preparedness proposal to receive funding. https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2020/06/10/defense-bill-to-include-billion-dollars-for-pandemic-response-and-preparedness/

• 

  June 2, 2020 | International, Naval

  At a budgetary crossroads, the US Navy’s aviation wing must choose between old and new

  By: Valerie Insinna WASHINGTON — In the coming years, the U.S. Navy will be faced with a decision that will radically shape the carrier air wing: Is the service willing to sacrifice dozens of new Super Hornet jets for the promise of a sixth-generation fighter in the 2030s? The Navy is opting to buy a final 24 F/A-18E/Fs in fiscal 2021, slashing a planned purchase of at least 36 Super Hornets that would have spanned FY22 through FY24. The move will save $4.5 billion, which the service plans to redirect to its sixth-generation fighter program, known as Next Generation Air Dominance, or F/A-XX. However, the decision may not be as clear cut — or final — as budget documents make it seem. The Navy is at the very start of the NGAD development process, having completed an analysis of alternatives in June 2019, as well as broad requirements and guidance for a concept of operations. The effort is now in the concept development phase, during which defense companies explore ideas “that balance advanced air dominance capabilities and long-term affordability/sustainment,” said Navy spokesman Capt. Danny Hernandez. But with an economic downturn potentially leading to even more pressure on the defense budget, the Navy may not have the funds to proceed with NGAD as a clean-sheet fighter jet. “Although the Navy would like to start developing the next generation of aircraft ... I just don't think — and increasingly people in the department are thinking — there's not going to be the money to devote to this next generation of fighter,” said Bryan Clark, an analyst with the Hudson Institute and a retired naval officer. “I think they are going to fall back to looking at F/A-XX as a modification or an evolution of the F-35,” he said. “Instead of the other half of the air wing being some new aircraft, you'll have a combination of F-35Cs and then some modified version of the F-35 or a modified Super Hornet." Jerry Hendrix, a retired Navy captain and an analyst with the Telemus Group, said the service's enthusiasm for F/A-XX is a sign of a continued preference for manned aviation as well as a desire to shut out any hope of fielding a long-range, penetrating strike drone. “I've always been in favor of extending the Hornet production line because it is solid and stable,” Hendrix said. “But the extension was based on the proviso that we're extending in order to get to an unmanned combat aerial vehicle. If it was an extension to get to the next manned fighter ... we're missing the idea of what the future competitive environment, or really the present competitive environment, is all about.” A tightrope of risk The Navy has grappled in prior years with the question of whether to cease production of the Super Hornet in favor of a future fighter, and it is an argument that lawmakers are wary of. The Navy first planned to stop buying the F/A-18 in its FY15 budget — a decision made to fund the transition to the F-35. But technical issues and delays pushed out the fielding of the Navy's F-35C takeoff-and-landing model for aircraft carriers to 2018, leaving the service dependent on a fleet of aging, battle-worn F/A-18s in need of a service-life extension. The Navy ended up listing the F/A-18 on its unfunded priorities list, and Congress followed by funding enough Super Hornets to keep Boeing's line running. “If we go back a few years and we look at what happened when we thought we were going to plant the F-35, we let the F-18 slide down,” Rep. Donald Norcross, D-N.J., said in a March 10 hearing. Norcross is the chairman of the House Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces. The process of standing up the F-35C was much slower than expected, and the Navy ended up buying additional F/A-18s to bridge the capability gap, he said. “Yet, here we are getting ready to curtail 36 Super Hornets because we are expecting, you know, the F/A-XX to come online,” he added. Asked how he could be confident that F/A-XX would stay on schedule, Rear Adm. Gregory Harris, the Navy's director of air warfare, said he could provide lawmakers a more detailed defense of the Navy's Next Generation Air Dominance family of systems in a classified setting. “We're working closely with the Air Force to ensure the systems that we put on that have the [technology readiness level] that gives us confidence that we can achieve that aircraft on time in the early 2030s to replace the F/A-18E/F as it reaches the end of its service life,” Harris said. Missouri Rep. Vicky Hartzler, the subcommittee's top Republican, pointed out that the Navy already has a fighter shortfall of about 49 aircraft, with additional F/A-18s being pulled from the operational fleet into a service-life extension period that will take at least a year. “I feel like this is too much operational risk,” she said. “If you add all those up, this is a severe shortage that we are experiencing, and if you don't account for the attrition rate, actually in combat we would have a very large gap there potentially.” James Geurts, the Navy's assistant secretary for research, development and acquisition, said there is always risk when transitioning from legacy to new aircraft, but that improved mission-capable rates and a steady flow of jets moving through upgrades will help balance the shortfall. “We're taking risk until the late 2020s. I think 2029 is when we will get to the full fighter inventory, and so we had to take some risk as we balance that,” he said. The most likely scenario is that, as the Navy presses forward with its plan to curtail funding for F/A-18s, Congress will simply continue buying more of them, Hendrix said. But one unanswered question is whether lawmakers will also intervene to force the Navy to consider a wider range of aviation options that could give the carrier air wing longer legs. “I'm hopeful that there will be a broader conversation, led by Congress and the administration, perhaps together, to say: ‘We are looking at the future security environment. We are looking at the Chinese threat. We are looking at what's happening in Taiwan, what's happening [in] Hong Kong and within the first island chain, and we really need to have this new capability of long-range, penetrating strike,' ” Hendrix said. “What I do realize is that because the Navy is very conservative right now in how it's approaching its procurement programs, the Navy will not be the one to say we need this mission.” No matter what the Navy decides, it could impact its procurement of the MQ-25 unmanned tanker drone currently under development by Boeing. Hendrix sees the MQ-25 program as a likely bill payer, particularly if the service continues to buy Hornets. “What was the reason for the MQ-25? It was to take the strain off from the Hornets,” which were being used to refuel other F/A-18s and burning through their service lives faster than anticipated, Hendrix said. “When you reopen the Hornet production line and you add 120-something new Hornets, you actually took that strain off the Hornet fleet. So there really isn't a requirement now for a recovery tanker.” Clark agrees that the Navy should develop a long-range unmanned combat aircraft but is unlikely to do so. But should the Navy choose not to proceed with an F/A-XX program, Clark believes the service could funnel some of that money into modifying the MQ-25 to supplement strike, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capacities, and could even end buy more MQ-25s than planned. “The MQ-25 program, once it gets fielded and proven out, I could see the Navy expanding it,” he said. “I think the operational and programmatic pressures have driven the Navy to embrace the MQ-25, and because it's a complement to the manned aircraft, it's generated less resentment among the manned aviation community.” https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/06/01/at-a-budgetary-crossroads-the-us-navys-aviation-wing-must-choose-between-old-and-new/

• 

  November 28, 2018 | International, Aerospace

  Système de combat aérien futur: Le SCAF passe aussi par l'innovation

  Helen Chachaty « Nous allons avoir un hackathon permanent sur le Système de combat aérien futur », a déclaré le chef d'état-major de l'armée de l'air lors de son intervention au Forum Innovation Défense, qui s'est tenu à la Cité de la mode et du design du 22 au 24 novembre dernier. Un système futur qu'il souhaite « ouvert », afin de pouvoir y intégrer les dernières innovations disponibles en la matière. « Il faut que le SCAF se mette en place au fil de l'air, on ne va pas attendre 2040 pour avoir un objet figé. » A titre d'exemple, il cite notamment le prochain standard F4 du Rafale - dont la mise en service est prévue à l'horizon 2025 - et dont certaines briques d'innovations pourront être intégrée au SCAF par la suite. « Nous devons tout le temps nous remettre en question, et nous le faisons tout le temps sur le Système de combat aérien futur », a-t-il indiqué, plaçant l'intelligence artificielle au coeur de ce programme, notamment pour intégrer les éléments de « combat collaboratif » : il s'agira ainsi de pouvoir agréger les informations de tous les capteurs, de les afficher et de les présenter en fonction du besoin. « Nous avons besoin de renseignement en temps réel, nous avons besoin de l'intelligence artificielle pour trier les informations », a poursuivi le CEMAA. « Il faut absolument de l'intelligence artificielle pour se focaliser sur l'analyse et non pas la recherche. » Autre bénéfice de l'intelligence artificielle, selon le général Lavigne, la possibilité de « diriger des essaims de drones » à partir de la plateforme de combat, « afin de pouvoir tester la défense anti-missiles ». Le travail engagé sur le SCAF en termes d'innovations implique notamment le Centre d'expertise aérienne militaire, un « laboratoire d'idées et d'idées opérationnelles, dont les grands industriels sont friands ». En parallèle ont également été montées des équipes projet, avec l'objectif de mener un travail en plateau entre industriels, forces armées et DGA. https://www.journal-aviation.com/actualites/41477-le-scaf-passe-aussi-par-l-innovation