UK Defence Secretary sets out ambitious Defence Prosperity Programme

On the same subject

• 

  May 8, 2020 | International, Aerospace

  COVID Can’t Stop A Busy Summer For Army FVL

  Despite disruptions worldwide, Future Vertical Lift flight tests, virtual industry days, and design reviews are all moving ahead on schedule or mere weeks behind. By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR.on May 07, 2020 at 5:07 PM WASHINGTON: As the Army urgently develops weapons to counter Russia and China, it's largely staying on its tight schedule despite both the COVID-19 pandemic and the service's own history of dysfunction and delay. A prime example is the Future Vertical Lift initiative to replace existing helicopters and drones, which is on track for all but two of more than 20 major events – from field tests to contract awards – happening this year. Half a dozen are scheduled for May and June alone. What's the biggest impact COVID has had on FVL so far? Of the five project managers who spoke to reporters this morning, just one said he's definitely delaying something, a Critical Design Review for the new Improved Turbine Engine. How big was that delay? Just two weeks. The engine system CDR will start June 15th instead of June 1st, said the turbine PM, Col. Roger Kuykendall. But the deadline to complete the review wasn't until October, he went on, “so we're actually still ahead of our schedule.” The other major impact has been on combat units field-testing potential Future Tactical Unmanned Aerial System drones, but that's still in flux, said the unmanned aircraft PM, Col. Scott Anderson. Masked soldiers began flying one contending design, the Arcturus JUMP-20, began at Fort Riley a month ago. The second test unit, at Fort Campbell, started flying a different contender last week, as planned, Col. Anderson said. The third unit, at Fort Lewis, was scheduled to start in June: “The had asked to move back to July,” he said, “but it looks like, as of this morning, they're going to maybe try to come back to June.” That the FTUAS field tests are happening mostly on schedule is particularly remarkable, because it takes a team of soldiers to operate and maintain the drones, and they can't maintain social distancing all the time. Most of the other FVL projects are in different stages of development where schedules, while packed, are full of activities that are a lot easier to do online, like planning sessions and digital design. But even where physical objects have to be built or flown, the project managers stay they're staying on schedule. For the Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft to replace the Reagan-era UH-60 Black Hawk, PM Col. David Phillips said, “our demonstrators are continuing to fly.” Those are the Bell V-280 Valor tiltrotor and the Sikorsky-Boeing SB>1 Defiant compound helicopter, which despite the term of art “demonstrator” are de facto prototypes. The companies are now refining their designs and, in 2022, the Army will choose one for mass production. While Phillips didn't provide details like flight hours – the Defiant has had a lot fewer so far – he said both aircraft are still providing test data to mature key technologies like flight controls. FLRAA's smaller sister is the Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft, a light scout to replace the retired OH-58 Kiowa. Once again it's Bell and Sikorsky competing, but for FARA they haven't built the prototypes yet. Those are set to fly in 2023. (That said, Sikorsky's existing S-97 Raider is very close to their FARA design). Most of the work this year is being spent on digital design, said the FARA PM, Col. Gregory Fortier, but that should finish by December, so preparations to build the physical prototypes do have to get underway now. “We have currently seen no impact, [but] there are certainly concerns within Bell and Sikorsky about long lead materials and shipping and the [subcontractors] at the second and third tier,” Col Fortier said. “They are okay with the summer timeframe and into the fall,” Fortier said. “If this thing stretches six months to a year, then that's a different conversation.” The FARA scout, FLRAA transport, and future drones will all have as many components in common as possible, especially electronics, and need to seamlessly share both tactical and maintenance data. To make this happen, they're being designed to a common set of technical standards known as the Modular Open System Architecture, allowing the Army to plug-and-play MOSA-compliant components from any company for both maintenance and upgrades. While existing Army aircraft can't be retrofitted with the complete open architecture, the Army plans to upgrade them with a mini-MOSA called the Aviation Mission Common Server. AMCS will both provide some of the benefits of open architecture to the current fleet and real-world experience to help build the future system. AMCS, too, remains on schedule, the project manager said. “We are currently on track to award an OTA [Other Transaction Authority contract] in June 2020 and negotiations are currently ongoing,” Col. Johnathan Frasier said. The Schedule To Stay On Future Vertical Lift is doing a lot this year. Here's a list of most – not all – of the things they've accomplished so far and what they aim to do. A startling amount of it is due in June. Modular Open Systems Architecture (involves multiple project managers) April: Over 300 government and industry participants joined in a virtual meeting of the Architecture Collaboration Working Group fleshing out MOSA. June: A follow-on ACWG meeting is scheduled. The Army will award an Other Transaction Authority (OTA) contract for the Aviation Mission Common Server (AMCS). Engine & Electrical (PM: Col. Roger Kuykendal) May-June: Tentative date for an industry day on electrical systems, including batteries, generators, Auxiliary Power Units (APUs), and thermal management (i.e. cooling). June 15-19: Critical Design Review for the integrated engine system. October: Power management systems demonstration, conducted with the Army C5ISR center. Fall: Improved Turbine Engine testing begins. Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft (PM: Col. David Phillips) March 17: The Army awarded Bell and the Sikorsky-Boeing team contracts for Competitive Demonstration & Risk Reduction (CDRR) of their rival FLRAA designs. June: FLRAA and FARA will hold a joint industry day – virtually, of course – on their shared mission systems. And the FLRAA competitors will deliver conceptual designs to help shape the program's final requirements. Fall: Those FLRAA requirements will come up for review by the Army Requirements Oversight Council (AROC), a high-level body usually chaired by either the four-star boss of Army Futures Command or even the Army Chief of Staff himself. Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (PM: Col. Gregory Fortier) March 25: The Army picked Bell and Sikorsky to build competing prototypes. May 15: Industry responses are due for a formal Request For Information (RFI) on FARA mission systems. June: FLRAA and FARA hold their joint industry day on shared mission systems. Boston Consulting Group will deliver the first of two studies on FARA-specific mission systems. Summer (month not specified): Deloitte will deliver the second FARA mission systems study. Sikorsky and Bell will both go through Preliminary Design Review. December: Sikorsky and Bell will submit their final designs. With those approved, they'll begin building the actual prototypes. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (PM: Col. Scott Anderson) April: The first FTUAS contender began field testing (formally “demonstrations”) at Fort Riley, Kan. May: The second FTUAS contender began field testing at Fort Campbell, Ken. May-June: This is the likely window for the Army to award three Other Transaction Authority contracts for the mini-drones known as Air-Launched Effects (ALE). June-July: Third FTUAS contender begins testing at Fort Lewis, Wash. July: Fourth contender begins testing at Fort Bliss, Tex. August-September: A fifth unit begins testing at Fort Bragg, NC. There are only four different designs being studied, so this brigade will double up on of the designs already in testing. Fall: The Army Requirements Oversight Council will review the final requirement for FTUAS – which will be based on how the contenders actually performed – as well as requirements for a highly automated Scalable Control Interface (SCI) for all future drones. https://breakingdefense.com/2020/05/covid-cant-stop-a-busy-summer-for-army-fvl

• 

  June 2, 2020 | International, Naval

  US Navy embraces robot ships, but some unresolved issues are holding them back

  By: David B. Larter WASHINGTON — The U.S. military is banking on unmanned surface and subsurface vessels to boost its capacity in the face of a tsunami of Chinese naval spending. But before it can field the systems, it must answer some basic questions. How will these systems deploy? How will they be supported overseas? Who will support them? Can the systems be made sufficiently reliable to operate alone and unafraid on the open ocean for weeks at a time? Will the systems be able to communicate in denied environments? As the Navy goes all-in on its unmanned future, with billions of dollars of investments planed, how the service answers those questions will be crucial to the success or failure of its unmanned pivot. Many of those issues fall to the Navy's program manager for unmanned maritime systems, Capt. Pete Small. As the Navy puzzles out some very basic questions, it must also ponder some big organizational changes to maximize the potential of the platforms once they arrive. “Our infrastructure now is highly optimized around large, very capable, highly manned warships,” Small said at the C4ISRNET Conference in May. “We spend a lot of time and effort preparing them for deployment, and we deploy them overseas for months at a time. They are almost perfectly reliable: We generally send them on a mission, they do it and come back almost without fail. “For these distributed and smaller platforms, we're going to have to shift that infrastructure — how we prepare, deploy, transit over and sustain these smaller platforms in theater.” That question is critical because it will affect the requirements for how the systems are designed at the outset. In the case of the medium and large unmanned surface vessels under development, just how big and how rugged they need to be would depend on how the Navy plans to use them. “All the scenarios we're discussing are far forward,” Small said. “Far from the shores of the continental United States. So there is absolutely a transit somewhere — a long transit — to get these platforms where they need to be. We've got to come through that in a range of ways. “For the medium and large [unmanned surface vessel] USV, in setting up the specifications and establishing what the requirements should be for unmanned surface vessels, crossing an ocean is a critical part of those missions.” Making these platforms cost-effective is almost the entire point of their development, but questions such as “Should we design the vessel to be able to make an Atlantic or Pacific crossing?” can mean a big price difference. “With a medium USV, we're kind of on the edge of whether it's big enough to cross the ocean by itself, and we're learning, you know, how big does it need [to be],” Small said. “You may be able to make it smaller and cheaper to get it to do the job you want it to do ultimately, but if it has to cross the ocean to get there, that might be the overall driving requirement, not the end mission requirement. If you are going to heavy-lift them and bring them over in bulk, well that's a new concept and we have to figure out how we're going to do that," he added. “What ships are we going to use to do that? Where do we operate from overseas? There's a range of options in each case, but in general we're going to have to transition from a system more optimized around our manned fleet infrastructure to a more distributed mix of large, highly manned platforms to smaller unmanned platforms.” Relocatable support The introduction of entirely new platforms that operate without humans onboard mean that the Navy must think about how to support them downrange, Small said. “We're going to need to talk about things like tenders, heavy lift ships and forward-operating bases, things like that,” he said. The idea of an unmanned vessel tender for the medium USV, which the Navy intends to use as a far-forward distributed sensor, is likely the best solution, said Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a retired submarine officer. “I think it's likely that they'll be heavy-lifted into the theater, not because they can't make it themselves but because in general it would be less wear and tear on the vessels,” he said. “You want that support to be relocatable as opposed to a group of guys working out of a building ashore. The whole purpose of them is to be flexible; and because they're small, that would, in theory, give you lots of options as to remote locations you could operate from.” The tender could be adapted from an existing platform in the sealift fleet for now, and ultimately procured as new later, Clark said, adding that the ship would need cranes and a platform near the waterline to support the medium USV and perhaps the planned extra-large unmanned undersea vehicle as well. Additionally, the vessels should be stationed where the Navy has long-standing relationships, like Singapore, Souda Bay, Greece, Britain and the like, as well as where they are likely to operate. The Marine Corps' transition from a heavy force concentrated on large amphibious ships to a lighter force distributed around smaller ships and lighter amphibs may free up some platforms for porting unmanned vessels around the globe. “As we change the deployment schemes for amphibious ships, that may afford the opportunity to have amphibs with well decks that are not full of Marines' equipment but with unmanned vessels,” he said. Reliability For Small, the questions that are most immediate are how to make the systems dependable. “We plan to send these systems out to sailors who are at the forefront of the fight, and we need these systems to work every time and be reliable,” he said. “So, reliability is a fundamental issue associated with autonomous vehicles.” Questions have been raised about things as basic as whether the Navy can get a marine diesel engine to run for days and potentially weeks without being touched by humans. But Small said that's not what he spends a lot of time worrying about. “For me, I think there is plenty of technology there and it will get better. I'm less concerned with, ‘Will the engine run long enough?' and more concerned with the reliability of the system as a whole,” he said. “The autonomy running that vessel is a key aspect of the overall reliability of the system. So there's a code and software aspect to this, but there is also the interface between that code and the hull, mechanical and electrical systems that we have on ships.” Perhaps unsurprisingly, it is the human ability to detect subtle changes in the equipment they operate that is the toughest to replicate, Small said. “It's about self-awareness and the ability to self-diagnose problems and changing conditions associated with that equipment and react to those changing conditions,” he explained. “That's either by alerting an operator or having an autonomous response that allows the mission to continue. “A sailor would sense a vibration; a sailor would hear abnormal noise; a sailor would see something getting warmer, do the diagnostics and take actions. ... There's as strong a relationship between that and the overall reliability of those physical systems themselves.” https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/06/01/us-navy-embraces-robot-ships-but-some-unresolved-issues-are-holding-them-back/

• 

  August 31, 2018 | International, Aerospace

  Lockheed Pitching F-22/F-35 Hybrid to U.S. Air Force

  BY MARCUS WEISGERBER With a Raptor's body and the JSF's brain, the new jet would aim to answer the next decade's Russian and Chinese threats. Lockheed Martin is quietly pitching the U.S. Air Force a new variant of the F-22 Raptor, equipped with the F-35's more modern mission avionics and some structural changes, Defense Onehas learned. It is one of several options being shopped to the U.S. military and allies as Lockheed explores how it might upgrade its combat jets to counter Russian and Chinese threats anticipated by military officials in the coming decade, according to people with direct knowledge of the plan. “You're building a hybrid aircraft,” David Deptula, a retired Air Force lieutenant general who is now dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies. “It's not an F-22. It's not an F-35. It's a combination thereof. That can be done much, much more rapidly than introducing a new design.” The new variant — similar to one Lockheed is pitching to Japan— would incorporate the F-35's more modern mission system and “other advancements in the stealth coatings and things of that nature,” according to a person familiar with the proposal. Full article: https://www.defenseone.com/business/2018/08/lockheed-pitching-f-22f-35-hybrid-us-air-force/150943/