To afford next-gen combat aircraft, the US Air Force will make cuts to ISR inventory

On the same subject

• 

  October 8, 2023 | International, Aerospace

  How a shovel can help with training, plus common mistakes during drill

  Basic security tasks, communication, logistics and maintenance planning make all the difference.

• 

  October 15, 2019 | International, Aerospace

  Sikorsky Unveils Raider-X Proposal For FARA Armed Scout

  Graham Warwick Sikorsky is emphasizing growth capability to stay ahead of evolving threats as it unveils its offering in the U.S. Army's Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA) competition, the Raider-X. The coaxial rigid-rotor compound helicopter is a development of the S-97 Raider prototype now in flight testing. The Raider-X is about 20% larger, with a 14,000-lb. gross weight compared with 11,000 lb. for the S-97, and a 39-ft. rotor diameter compared with 34 ft. for the Raider. The Army requires a rotor diameter of no more than 40 ft. so that FARA can fly between buildings in urban combat. The Raider-X will exceed the FARA's threshold maximum speed of 180 kt. Sikorsky is not saying how fast it will fly, but notes the S-97 has reached 215 kt., and 207 kt. in level flight—exceeding the 205 kt. target in the Army's initial capability document, says Tim Malia, director of Future Vertical Lift - Light. The Army subsequently reduced the threshold maximum speed to enable a wider competition for the FARA program. But Malia says the greater speed and payload capability of Sikorsky's X2 coaxial rigid-rotor compound configuration compared with a conventional helicopter provides growth capacity. “We looked at a single main rotor helicopter for FARA, but it would be minimally compliant in the early 2020s. We need to be able to stay ahead of the threat into the 2030s and 2040s,” he says. Bell is proposing a winged, single-main-rotor helicopter for FARA, while AVX Aircraft is offering a coaxial-rotor, ducted-fan compound. Boeing and Karem Aircraft have yet to unveil their concepts. “Single main rotor will not be able to keep up. It's already tapped out meeting the minimal FARA requirements. It does not have the ability to grow capability over time,” Malia says. “We didn't want to pull out all the stops to be minimally compliant when we had X2 able to carry more payload and go faster.” The Raider-X has four-blade rotors and a pusher propulsor. The coaxial rotors generate lift only on the advancing sides, eliminating retreating-blade stall and enabling higher speed. At high speed, 90% of the engine power goes to the propulsor, says Bill Fell, senior experimental test pilot. The propulsor is declutched at low speed to reduce noise. The Raider-X closely resembles the S-97 prototype, with side-by-side seating. Compared with tandem seating, this improves crew coordination and situational awareness, Malia says. “And we can do it aerodynamically because of the robust performance inherent in X2. We are not trying to get out every last ounce of drag.” Behind the cockpit is a large internal weapons bay. Internal carriage of missiles and unmanned aircraft—which the Army calls air-launched effects (ALE)—is a FARA requirement, but Malia says the cabin-like volume of Raider-X's bay provides growth space for future, larger systems. “The minimum threshold works now, but what if in 2030 there is a new ALE that can be decisive, but can't be carried?” he asks. The Raider-X is powered by a single 3,000-shp-class General Electric T901 turboshaft—government-furnished equipment to all FARA bidders. “We do not have an additional engine to increase speed,” Malia says, referring to the supplemental power unit in Bell's 360 Invictus. This augments power from the single T901 to give the single-main-rotor, tandem-seat Invictus a 185-kt. maximum speed. “We use the power available and have a solid design built around it,” he says. “The T901 provides speeds out of the chute in excess of requirements and, as it improves, we can take direct benefit. We have a growth path to additional speed and payload as the T901 power increases.” Sikorsky is using the industry-funded S-97 prototype to reduce risk for its FARA bid, conducting flight testing to validate design models and optimize the Raider-X. This includes flying new rotor blades designed to reduce drag and vibration. “We are getting exactly the results the models said,” Malia says. With two rotor systems and a propulsor, Sikorsky is paying close attention to the Raider-X's cost. “We have done a complete affordability analysis and design to cost. We are extremely confident we will come in under the cost goal,” he says. Several divisions of parent company Lockheed Martin are part of Sikorsky's FARA team, Malia says, including Aeronautics, Missiles and Fire Control and Rotary and Mission Systems. Swift Engineering will build the airframe if Sikorsky wins one of two FARA competitive prototype contracts scheduled to be awarded in March 2020. The Army flyoff is planned for 2023, with the first unit to be equipped by 2028. “There is a critical cap in vertical lift, in attack/reconnaissance, and that gap is really impactful to the Army in the 2020s, ‘30s, ‘40s, even ‘50s. So there is a need for a long-term solution,” Malia says. “The threat is projected to evolve rapidly, so we require significant capability growth on our side to stay ahead. Raider-X can provide an asymmetric advantage in the 2030s-50s.” https://aviationweek.com/defense/sikorsky-unveils-raider-x-proposal-fara-armed-scout

• 

  September 28, 2018 | International, Naval

  Navy Awards Ingalls 6 Destroyers, Bath Iron Works 4 in Multiyear Deal; Ingalls to Build Both 2018 Ships

  By: Megan Eckstein The Navy awarded six of its next Arleigh Burke-class destroyers to Ingalls Shipbuilding and four to General Dynamics Bath Iron Works, in a combined $9-billion purchase right at the end of the fiscal year. The two companies had been competing for work in a five-year multiyear procurement (MYP) deal that would cover at least 10 Flight III destroyers. The contracts span Fiscals Years 2018 – which ends on Sunday – through 2022. “These contract awards are further evidence of the Navy's continued delivery of lethal capacity to the nation with a sense of urgency while ensuring best value for the taxpayer,” Navy acquisition chief James Geurts said in a Navy news release. “The Navy saved $700 million for these 10 ships by using multiyear procurement contracts rather than a single year contracting approach. We also have options for an additional five DDG 51s to enable us to continue to accelerate delivery of the outstanding DDG 51 Flight III capabilities to our Naval force. We executed this competition on a quick timeline that reflects the urgency in which the Navy and our industry partners are operating to ensure we meet the demands of the National Defense Strategy.” Ingalls Industries' contract is worth $5.1 billion and covers two ships in FY 2018 and one a year in FY 2019 through 2022. It also includes options for additional ships, which may be subject to a future competition with BIW. Bath Iron Works' contract is valued at $3.9 billion and covers one ship a year in 2019 through 2022 – and none in the short-term in 2018. According to the Navy statement, “each shipbuilder's contract contains options for additional ships in FY18/19/20/21/22, providing the Navy and/or Congress flexibility to increase DDG 51 build rates above the 10 MYP ships in the Navy's FY 2018 budget request, if appropriated.” Lawmakers in the House and Senate armed services committees have pushed for faster acquisition of the destroyers, and in the FY 2018 National Defense Authorization Act they authorized the Navy to enter into a multiyear procurement contract with the two builders for as many as 15 destroyers – three a year, compared to the previous shipbuilding rate of two a year. The lawmakers on the appropriations committees only provided money to buy two ships in 2018, but they did fund three DDGs in the 2019 spending bill, which the Senate passed last week and the House passed this week. It is unclear if that third ship in FY 2019 would have to be competitively awarded or if the Navy would be allowed to select a shipyard based on schedule, performance or other factors – the contract announcement notes the options “may” be subject to a competitive process. Program officials had been mum during the competition on their acquisition strategy and how to handle options for additional ships. All the ships covered under this pair of contracts is for the Flight III configuration, which is built around the powerful AN/SPY-6(v) Air and Missile Defense Radar. “This procurement will efficiently provide Integrated Air and Missile Defense capability for our future fleet while strengthening our critical shipbuilding and defense industrial base,” DDG-51 program manager Capt. Casey Moton said in the news release. “The Navy is proud to be working alongside the dedicated shipbuilders at BIW and Ingalls to continue to deliver these warships to the fleet.” Moton told USNI News in a December 2017 interview that the contracts would be structured in such a way that additional ships – beyond the previous two-a-year rate – could be added easily if the Navy deemed it a priority in its spending request or if lawmakers wanted to add in more funding. With this contract award, the two shipyards – who, for a time after the production line had restarted remained neck-and-neck on contract awards and deliveries – will further diverge. Ingalls Shipbuilding was awarded a contract in June 2017 to begin work on its first Flight III ship, DDG-125. Two months later, Bath Iron Works was awarded a contract that would have the yard build DDG-126 with a Flight III configuration but DDG-127 in the older Flight IIA design, like the rest of the ships in the previous multiyear procurement contract. Though Navy and congressional officials would not comment while the competition was occurring, Bath Iron Works had been challenged to balance the Arleigh Burke-class program and the DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyer program. Keeping DDG-127 – which Congress incrementally funded in FY 2016 and 2016 – at the Flight IIA design would help ease the yard into Flight III production. The yard will not be building any new destroyers in FY 2018, according to the contract announcement, whereas Ingalls will take on two Flight III ships. https://news.usni.org/2018/09/27/navy-awards-ingalls-6-destroyers-bath-iron-works-4-in-multiyear-deal-ingalls-to-build-both-fy-2018-ships