July 15, 2022 | International, Other Defence
Seeking to reposition, LMI plans to sells for-profit subsidiary
LMI has sold its for-profit subsidiary in a bid to accelerate its growth.
November 6, 2019 | International, Aerospace
Unmanned aircraft could provide low-cost boost for Air Force’s future aircraft inventory, new study says
By: Valerie Insinna
WASHINGTON — As the U.S. Air Force looks to increase the size and capability of its aircraft inventory, the service should assess the possibility of using drones as a low-cost and highly available alternative to manned airplanes, posits a new study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
The CSIS report, which was obtained by Defense News and other news outlets ahead of its Oct. 29 release, compares three recent congressionally mandated studies on the Air Force's future force structure by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments think tank, the federally funded research organization MITRE Corp. and the service itself.
All three studies were broadly supportive of retaining existing unmanned aircraft, or as the Air Force terms them, Remotely Piloted Aircraft or RPAs. However, the CSIS report makes the case that the low cost and high mission capable rate of RPAs like the MQ-9 Reaper or RQ-4 Global Hawk merits more attention when making future force planning.
“I think we need a roadmap for RPAs in terms of what are the new missions that we can begin to transition over to RPAs and some new operational concepts for how we use them,” CSIS senior analyst Todd Harrison told reporters at a Oct. 28 briefing.
“I say this more from a cost perspective and a readiness perspective because our RPA fleet stands out from the rest of the Air Force in that it costs a lot less to operate [them] and we utilize them much more,” he said. “We need to leverage that. That's a strength that we need to double down on.”
Harrison pointed to two data points supporting a wider use case for RPAs.
Despite clocking in the highest number of flight hours per airframe, drones boast some of the highest mission capable rates in the Air Force's inventory, averaging near 90 percent for the MQ-9 and its predecessor, the MQ-1, and around 75 percent for the RQ-4 Global Hawk.
Those aircraft are also cheap to operate, with some of the lowest costs per flying hour or total ownership costs in the inventory, Harrison said.
The Air Force, MITRE and CSBA studies provide solid support for keeping the Air Force's current RPA force.
The Air Force's study, which proposes a growth to 386 total operational squadrons, would add two squadrons of unmanned strike aircraft, although it does not say what kind of aircraft should be acquired. It also recommends an increase of 22 squadrons of aircraft devoted to command and control or the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance mission sets, but does not provide a breakdown of what specific capability gaps need to be addressed or whether they could be filled by unmanned aircraft.
The MITRE and CSBA study, by contrast, advocate retaining the current inventory of MQ-9 Reapers and RQ-4 Global Hawk surveillance drones. CSBA also recommends the procurement of a new, stealthy MQ-X drone that could be used for strike, electronic attack and other missions in a contested environment.
Despite the broad support, the three studies do not necessarily portend a wider acceptance or demand for unmanned aircraft in the next budget, Harrison said.
“I wouldn't count on it happening that soon. I think this is a wider term change that's going to be needed. Part of it is a cultural change within the Air Force and part of it requires some real strategic thinking about what are the types of missions where unmanned is going to make sense and how do we best leverage those,” he said.
“The RPAs that we have today, they didn't come about overnight. They evolved. A lot of the time they faced a lot of institutional resistance, but they proved themselves. They proved themselves valuable in the kind of fights that we've been in in the past 20 years.”
One mission area that could be flown by unmanned aircraft in the future is aerial refueling, Harrison said. The Navy in 2018 awarded Boeing a contract to produce an unmanned carrier-based tanker drone known as the MQ-25. That aircraft, like all Navy planes, will use the simpler probe and drogue for refueling.
Refueling via a rigid boom, as utilized by Air Force tankers, makes for a more challenging development, but the remote vision system on Boeing's KC-46 tanker — which allows the boom operator to steer the boom using a series of cameras as his or her only visual cue — is a step in the right direction, he said.
Another potential area for expanded RPA use could be the development of low-cost drones that can be flown in swarms or as “loyal wingmen” to manned aircraft, the CSIS report stated. These “attritable” aircraft can be expended during a conflict without making an adverse impact on the mission or putting human pilots at risk.
On the same subject
-
-
November 18, 2020 | International, Aerospace
US Air Force chief’s top modernization priorities aren’t what you think they are
By: Valerie Insinna WASHINGTON — The U.S. Air Force is spending tens of billions of dollars every year to buy new aircraft, including F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, KC-46 tankers, the T-7A trainer jet and more. But none of those platforms makes the list of Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown's top three modernization priorities. “In some cases, I'm not so much enamored with airplanes, although, you know, I flew airplanes,” Brown said during a Nov. 12 interview where Defense News asked him to list his top three weapons priorities for the Air Force. “It's really the capability” that matters, he said. "And as we look at, you know, future conflicts, we may be fighting differently. I don't know that for a fact. But when I came in, cyber wasn't a thing. Now it is. Space was a benign environment. Now, not as much. Here's what Brown put on his list: 1. Nuclear modernization Brown pointed to the recapitalization of the Air Force's nuclear weapons and delivery systems as his No. 1 modernization priority. “Nuclear modernization is there at the top,” Brown said. “That's important.” The Air Force plans to field new ICBMs and develop a new stealth bomber, almost concurrently, through the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent and B-21 Raider programs. During Brown's four years as chief of staff, both efforts will hit critical milestones. The B-21 program is further along, having completed a critical design review in 2018. The first B-21 bomber is currently under construction by Northrop Grumman at the company's facilities in Palmdale, California. In August, Maj. Gen. Mark Weatherington, commander of Eighth Air Force, said the aircraft would fly in 2022. The Air Force plans to buy at least 100 B-21s, though it is considering a larger program of record. Meanwhile, the Air Force awarded Northrop a $13 billion contract for the GBSD program in September. Although the legacy Minuteman III ICBMs won't begin to be retired and replaced until 2029, it will be Brown's job to ensure the program stays on track and gets the funding it needs during the pivotal early days of its engineering and manufacturing development stage. Aside from major delivery systems, the Air Force is also pursuing a dual-capable air-launched cruise missile: the Long Range Standoff Missile. The Air Force is responsible for two legs of the nuclear triad — intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear bombers — with the Navy responsible for ballistic missile submarines. With the Navy currently replacing its current Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines with the Columbia class, all of the nation's major nuclear modernization bills will be coming to a head around the same time. That may create pressure on the Air Force's and the Navy's budgets in the coming years, especially as spending is projected to flatten. But the services have contended there is no time to waste when it comes to nuclear modernization — all programs must stay on schedule. 2. Advanced Battle Management System Like his predecessor, now-retired Gen. Dave Goldfein, Brown wants the Air Force's shooters and sensors to be able to instantaneously share data with the joint force — a concept the military has termed Combined Joint All-Domain Command and Control. Brown's second priority, the Advanced Battle Management System, is the Air Force's effort to field a series of technologies that will make CJADC2 a reality. “I look at ABMS [as critical] because that's going to help us enable our decision-making and how we contribute to Joint All-Domain Command and Control,” Brown said. (The “C” in the concept's name was recently added.) However, Brown acknowledged the service has more work to do to convince lawmakers of the viability of the ABMS program. The Air Force envisions ABMS as a family of systems — think everything from cloud computing technologies, artificial intelligence algorithms and smart devices alongside traditional communications gear like radios. Instead of issuing exact requirements, the service wants to test what industry has available in a series of “on ramp” exercises, eventually buying what works after technologies are customized to meet user needs. Congress, however, has been skeptical. While the Air Force requested $302 million for the program in fiscal 2021, the House and Senate Appropriations committees would subtract anywhere from $50 million to almost $100 million from that sum, citing concerns about the service's acquisition strategy and lack of detailed requirements. “That's feedback to me, feedback to the Air Force that something is maybe being lost in the translation,” Brown said. “We're doing this a bit different than we have done a traditional acquisition program. ... And for us, for the Hill, it is a bit different. I think it's an area that we, as an Air Force, do need to do a little bit better job of how we talk it up.” 3. Cutting-edge acquisition methods Brown's third modernization priority isn't a program at all: He wants to see continued advancements in new acquisition methods that allow the Air Force to more quickly buy new equipment at lower prices. Currently, “by the time [new technology] gets to the hands of the war fighter, the software that's in it is a decade or two decades or 15 years old. How are we able to do things a bit faster in that regard?” Brown said. He pointed to advanced manufacturing processes like digital engineering, which employs detailed data and models during the design of a product, and simulates how it will be manufactured, tested, operated and sustained throughout its life cycle. Air Force acquisition executive Will Roper has heralded techniques like digital engineering for enabling the rapid development and recent first flight of a full-scale demonstrator aircraft, which was tested as part of the service's Next Generation Air Dominance program. Roper told Defense News in September that it will be up to Brown and other Air Force leaders to decide whether it's worth buying into the Digital Century Series plan for NGAD, which would involve the service more rapidly purchasing small batches of aircraft from various manufacturers. While Brown didn't comment on whether the Air Force has committed to the Digital Century Series model for purchasing future combat jets, he cited the approach as one that could potentially speed up the fielding of new technologies. “If we keep doing the same approach we have since I've been in the Air Force and expect a different result, then we're not going to do very well,” Brown said. “We have to change our approach. And this drives change in our thinking, change about how we think about acquisition, it changes how we as an Air Force engage with and collaborate with [the Office of the Secretary of Defense], with [the Pentagon's Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office], with the Hill, with industry. And, you know, I think we've gotten some traction in certain areas, but it's going to require constant dialogue and collaboration and transparency.” https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/11/17/the-air-force-chiefs-top-modernization-priorities-arent-what-you-think-they-are/
-
July 9, 2020 | International, Aerospace
US Army’s Future Vertical Lift program will transform industry, so we must get it right
By: Andrew Hunter and Rhys McCormick It is rare when technological innovation delivers change that fundamentally reshapes military operations. Helicopters made one of these rare breakthroughs after World War II. The ability to support land operations with vertical lift aircraft fundamentally changed how militaries moved on the battlefield. However, the shape of military operations supported by today's helicopters reflect their capabilities and limitations in terms of speed, range and lift capacity. The Army's Future Vertical Lift efforts are designed to reshape military operations by surpassing the limits imposed by today's systems. It is less commonly appreciated, however, that future vertical lift, or FVL, aircraft may do just as much to reshape the vertical lift industry as they do military operations. To deliver the capabilities FVL requires affordably — in development, production and sustainment — industry will have to leverage new design and production techniques that deliver critical components with high quality and moderate cost. Key parts such as rotor blades and rotor heads are big cost drivers. Designing these parts for FVL means redesigning the supply chains and manufacturing processes that produce them. For the smaller companies that make up the lower tiers of the supply chain, this will require them to fundamentally change how their production process works. We recently completed a study that looked at the implications of the Army's Future Vertical Lift project for the industrial base. What became clear in this review is that there are both opportunities and risks in making the transition to FVL. Substantial investment is required by both the Army and industry, and not everyone in industry will make it. However, this transition also offers significant opportunities to leverage emerging technologies such as additive manufacturing, robotics, artificial intelligence, digital twins and data analytics to achieve the Army's objectives. The Army's management will be key in ensuring that industry is able to get the most out of new design and production methods, reconfigured supply chains, and a reshaped workforce. The Army's key tools for managing the transition include its ability to provide an addressable market for the industrial base that attracts the necessary FVL investment, and its ability to align industry incentives with the Army's core goals. The addressable market for industry is not just the Army's future programs, but also the sustainment of legacy platforms. For much of the supply chain, the sustainment market is a huge part of their bottom line. The Army's total vertical lift-addressable market for industry is roughly $8-10 billion annually over the next decade. Although there are some concerns whether that level of spending is feasible while procuring two vertical lift programs simultaneously, previous research by the Center for Strategic and International Studies found that future attack reconnaissance aircraft and future long-range assault aircraft can be accommodated at historical Army modernization funding levels. Of that $8-10 billion annual vertical lift spending, operating and support costs will provide the largest share, while research and development as well as acquisition total a little more than $2 billion annually. Given the size of the addressable market, the biggest challenges and risks in transitioning to a new vertical lift industrial base are not among the big prime contractors, but among the smaller suppliers in the industrial base who can't be sure that investing in FVL today will generate the necessary returns tomorrow. Unlike the bigger prime contractors, these lower-tier suppliers have a much different risk appetite and may struggle with making the upfront investments to build components in new ways. Supporting the supply chain in making this transition is critical to meeting the Army's cost and schedule objectives, which highlights how important incentives are in the Army's approach. The Army's biggest incentive to industry is to provide predictability by keeping FVL program requirements consistent and clear through the development process so that industry can plan and invest. To date, the Army has done this. It should continue to do so. Additionally, the Army can incentivize industry to make upfront investments now that deliver cost savings later. Given that sustainment costs account for 68 percent of rotary-wing costs, these investments are critical. Furthermore, it is in the Army's interest to sustain competition throughout the development process as it moves closer to picking winners. Competition is the strongest incentive for industry. Finally, the Army should be cognizant that incentives will change as FVL moves from development to production, and its management approach will need to evolve. The Army has the key ingredients in place for FVL if it successfully guides the industrial base through this transition. While that is a tall order, our analysis of the Army's FVL plans suggests they begin on solid ground and are well-informed by the technological and affordability realities. One final factor in FVL's success will be sustaining congressional support by being clear and consistent in communicating and executing the Army's plans. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/07/07/us-armys-future-vertical-lift-program-will-transform-industry-so-we-must-get-it-right/