March 21, 2024 | International, Aerospace
F-35 delivery delays frustrate European air force upgrade plans
Client governments early in the acquisition sequence could be the first to feel the ripple effects of a snag related to technology upgrades.
June 18, 2019 | International, Aerospace, Land, C4ISR
The next key to the Army network: air-ground integration
By: Mark Pomerleau
The Army wants greater network integration with its air and ground units and has started working with industry to make that process more seamless.
Service leaders point to significant gaps in today's network architecture enabling aircraft to communicate with ground units and vice versa. But, they say, forces in the future will have to operate over significant distances and do so under a near constant jamming threat.
“A lot of units and rifle squads in the 101st [Airborne Division] right now, that squad leader's radio in many cases can't interface with similar radios in adjacent units or the helicopter that just delivered him or her to an objective area. Or the helicopter that's providing close air support ... can't pass data with it,” Maj. Gen. Brian Winski, the division's commander, said in Nashville, Tennessee, May 30. “We need that capability for ground forces to be able to talk to their aviation partners and have that inextricable link that makes us so incredibly powerful. We also have to collectively figure out how we're going to communicate over significantly increased distances.”
To solve these problems, Army leaders from the aviation and networking community gathered in Nashville, Tennessee at the end of May to hash out the challenges they face with industry and the operational community. The forum was a venue for members of the operational community to voice their concerns and provide examples of issues they faced while deployed.
“This air to ground focus ... is the thing we've really got to crack the code on if we are going to penetrate deep into an [anti-Access/area denial] environment ... they've got to be able to communicate,” Maj. Gen. Peter Gallagher, director of the network cross functional team, said at the event. “Contested in space, contested in cyber, there are no easy answers to that wicked problem.”
Gallagher stressed to the industry representatives that it's up to their engineers to “help us crack the code to making sure we have assured network transport in a contested environment, terrestrial, aerial and space.”
Operating at long distances
One of the first challenges officials described was ensuring network connectivity over hundreds of miles while facing a jamming threat.
“No longer are we talking about operating at distances of 100 to 150 kilometers. We're about talking of operating at distance to 400 to 1,000-plus kilometers,” Al Abejon, chief of aviation architecture at the program executive office aviation, said. “Now the challenge is: how do you maintain that continuous mission command, [situational awareness] ... throughout that operational distance and oh, by the way, be able to survive the operational environments that are going to be changing at these distances at those air speeds.
"All those rolled into one thing make up a considerable problem set.”
Along with the newtwork, the Army has also listed future vertical lift aircraft as one of its six top modernization priorities. These future aircraft will be capable of teaming with unmanned systems, a concept the aviation community is calling advanced teaming.
From an operational perspective, Winski said the 101st must be able to share information digitally between air and ground units in the Army and with joint and coalition partners to “violently and decisively exploit developing opportunities on the battlefield.” They'll also need to provide electronic and kinetic fires over the horizon, increase the linkages between intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance platforms and shooters, whether they are existing or future aircraft, future long range precision fires platforms or existing fires platforms.
Gallagher told C4ISRNET that if beyond line of sight satellite communications are knocked out, alternative solutions could include high frequency solutions or mid-earth or low-earth orbit satellites rather than geosynchronous satellites.
Abejon mentioned one option could be to link line of sight communications to the command and control aircraft that have beyond line of sight capability. Those aircraft can then move data forward while still maintaining connectivity to bases. Unmanned systems can also be used as range extension platforms.
Common operating environment
The Army is pursuing a common operating environment that will allow soldiers in a command post, ground vehicle, aircraft or on the ground to easily pass data back and forth, share information, communicate and look at the same map.
Now, the aviation community is trying to change its mission command system and radios into a program called the Aviation Information System (AIS).
This system will “centralize mission command on a single tool that connects war fighting function software and applications with [the] mission command network,” said Col. Ryan Coyle of the aviation enablers – requirements determination directorate. “Converging [the] mission command system and the network to support efficient data management but also rapid voice and data exchange are critical in order to optimize those cross domain effects.”
This is similar to the Command Post Computing Environment, which will shrink stovepiped systems into applications on a common interface allowing all forces to have a common look and feel regardless of their location.
The other part of a common suite of communications gear is having radios that can connect to ground and air forces.
However, for air platforms, such as radios, waveforms or mission command systems, the air community must pass airworthiness standards to fly in domestic or international airspaces.
“If we have a SINCGARS waveform in the bird and we have a SINCGARS waveform on the ground in a manpack radio or a leader radio, there is no reason we shouldn't be able to interoperate perfectly between those two systems,” said Jim Evangelos, standards branch deputy director of the Joint Tactical Networking Center.
“One way to guarantee this interoperability is to have software defined radios on the ground, software defined radios in the bird operating the same version of the same software. That's a lot easier said than done. I totally get and understand the aviation challenges and you have to meet some very tough standards especially with airworthiness standards.”
Overall, the top tactical network buyer for the Army says he wants one single network, though acknowledges there will be some exceptions.
“My goal is one network. One tactical network,” Maj. Gen. Dave Bassett, program executive officer, command, control, communications-tactical, said. “There are going to be some exceptions. There are going to be some things the aviation platforms want to do in terms of [man-unmanned teaming] or sensor to shooter and other things where the networks that the common network isn't going to meet that requirement. We ought to manage those things as exceptions but that should not be the default.”
To the extent possible, Bassett said, the Army should ensure the aviation community is part of the overall Army network using the waveforms and capabilities that are provided and common to all.
The Army is currently soliciting white papers and will evaluate proposals to help solve these challenges.
On the same subject
-
-
August 24, 2020 | International, Naval
Watchdog: 75 percent of sub and aircraft carrier maintenance ended late in recent years
Geoff Ziezulewicz While the U.S. Navy has spent nearly $3 billion to improve shipyard maintenance performance in recent years, “the shipyards continue to face persistent and substantial maintenance delays that hinder the readiness of aircraft carriers and submarines,” according to a government watchdog report released this week. Three-quarters of the 51 aircraft carrier and submarine maintenance periods from fiscal 2015 to 2019 were completed late, resulting in 7,425 days of delays, according to the report by the Government Accountability Office. The Navy's four shipyards — in Portsmouth, Virginia; Kittery, Maine; Honolulu, Hawaii; and Bremerton, Washington — provide vital maintenance that includes ship overhauls, nuclear refueling, alterations and refits, among other duties. The aircraft carrier maintenance periods that ended late exceeded their deadlines by an average of 113 days, the GAO reports, while submarine maintenance periods ending late missed the mark by an average of 225 days. Such availabilities last anywhere from six months to three years, and when they don't end on time, it gums up the entire system, delaying other maintenance periods, deployments and other needs. The main factors leading to the tardiness had to do with shipyard workforce performance and having enough people to perform the vital work, the GAO found. Unplanned work, or tasks identified after finalizing maintenance plans, was also cited as a significant factor resulting in the delays. While the Navy has taken steps to address such delays, the sea service has yet to fully address the unplanned work and workforce factors causing the majority of delays, according to the GAO. https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2020/08/21/watchdog-75-percent-of-sub-and-aircraft-carrier-maintenance-ended-late-in-recent-years/
-
April 22, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security
COVID closed Mexican factories that supply US defense industry. The Pentagon wants them opened.
By: Joe Gould WASHINGTON ― Factory closures in Mexico due to the coronavirus pandemic are hurting U.S. defense firms, and the Pentagon is urging America's neighbor to the south to reopen vital suppliers. Because Mexico has not designated its aerospace and defense sector as essential, it's disrupting the supply chain for the American defense industrial base, particularly aircraft manufacturers. Though little known, Mexico's defense exports to the U.S. and beyond grew mightily over the last 15 years as defense firms large and small opened production facilities there. Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon on Monday, Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Ellen Lord said she discussed the problem with U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Christopher Landau. She was planning a letter to Mexican Foreign Affairs Minister Marcelo Ebrard, she said, to ask that he, “help reopen international suppliers there. “These companies are especially important for our U.S. airframe production.” The pandemic has raised broader questions about America's dependence on global supply chains, particularly its reliance on China for key medicines and supplies. A Pentagon task force set up to monitor COVID-19′s impact on military suppliers found “several pockets of closure” linked to “international dependencies,” Lord said. “Mexico right now is somewhat problematical for us but we're working through our embassy, and then there are pockets in India as well,” Lord said. More broadly, only small fractions of the Pentagon's suppliers in the U.S. have closed due to the new coronavirus and distancing measures imposed to fights its spread, but the aviation, shipbuilding and small space launch subsectors have been hardest hit by disruptions from the virus, Lord said. The Pentagon is using $250 million from last month's emergency stimulus funding to bolster defense firms, and it will funnel another $750 million to medical resources. The Defense Department is also working with the White House budget office to request “billions and billions” of dollars in future fiscal packages to cover schedule delays, accelerated progress payments and other costs, Lord said. A Pentagon spokesman declined to provide details about the products and companies impacted by the Mexican factory closures, and said Lord's letter to Ebrard was not being shared publicly because it contained sensitive information. A 2013 United States International Trade Commission report noted that General Electric, Honeywell, Lockheed Martin and Eurocopter were among more than a dozen U.S. firms of various sizes that opened Mexican subsidiaries ― all part of a Mexican aerospace export boom. Mexico's growth was fueled by its lower manufacturing costs, duty-free access to markets through the North American Free Trade Agreement, a Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement with the U.S., and by Mexican government subsidies and workforce development efforts. According to the Mexican Federation of Aerospace Industries, or FEMIA, Mexico's aerospace exports rocketed from $1.3 billion in 2004 to $9.6 billion last year. Lizcano said Mexico manufactures everything from avionics, to landing gear and fuselages, and it's in the top ten overseas suppliers to the U.S. aerospace and defense sector. But coronavirus is blunting Mexico aerospace growth, and it is reverberating across its economy. Mexico's Labor Department said this month that the country had lost 346,748 jobs since mid-March due to the economic impact of the new coronavirus. FEMIA is arguing publicly that its government should designate Mexico's aerospace and defense sector as “essential,” to synchronize with the U.S. and Canada, its general manager, Luis Lizcano, told Defense News. It's also coordinating with its trade association counterparts in the U.S. and Canada. “What we're asking is that we standardize in this sector because we're going to break with supply chains with OEMs for commercial and defense aircraft,” Lizcano said. The U.S.-based Aerospace Industries Association had a similar argument: “Maintaining the free flow of goods and services between the United States, Canada, and Mexico is vital to our nation's economy and to our industry," AIA President and CEO Eric Fanning said in a statement. He hailed the recent United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement as aid to that goal. “However, this certainty is currently threatened by disruptions in America's common aerospace and defense supply chain affecting companies of all shapes and sizes. To restore certainty and keep goods and services moving, all levels of government within the U.S., Canada, and Mexico must work together to provide clear, coordinated, and direct guidance about how best to protect our workers, while ensuring aerospace and defense is declared an ‘essential' function in all three countries. "A unified North American approach helps ensure critical operations will continue under some of the strictest health and safety standards in the world and offer much-needed stability during this crisis.” On Monday, the CEO of the National Defense Industrial Association, retired Gen. Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle, said the increasingly global nature of some American defense supply chains cannot and should not be reversed. The U.S. ought to keep its suppliers diversified, he said, to avoid choke points overseas. “What you don't want are single points of failure where if something happened in that country, it couldn't produce,” Carlisle said. “You have [to have] multiple, avenues to supply that capability. Some may be internal, and you can have more than one nation external.” https://www.defensenews.com/2020/04/21/covid-closed-mexican-factories-that-supply-us-defense-industry-the-pentagon-wants-them-opened/