July 5, 2021 | International, Aerospace
Lockheed’s F-35 topples competition in Swiss fighter contest
The F-35 beat out the Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale and Boeing's Super Hornet.
April 26, 2019 | International, Aerospace
US Army picks 5 teams to design new attack recon helicopter
By: Jen Judson
WASHINGTON — AVX Aircraft Co. partnered with L-3 Communications Integrated Systems, Bell Helicopter, Boeing, Karem Aircraft and Lockheed Martin-owned Sikorsky have won awards to design a new Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA) for the U.S. Army over the next year, the service announced April 23.
Only two teams will move forward, at the end of the design phase, to build flyable prototypes of the future helicopter in a head-to-head competition.
The Army laid out a handful of mandatory requirements that the vendors had to meet and also a list of desired requirements for initial designs, Col. Craig Alia, the Future Vertical Lift Cross Functional Team chief of staff, told a select group of reporters just ahead of the contract awards.
The service also looked at the vendors' execution plans and evaluated timing as well as funding profile requirements. “The ones that were selected were clearly meeting the mandatory requirements and were in the acceptable risk level of the execution plan and the desired requirements," Dan Bailey, who is the FARA competitive prototype program manager, added. The prototype program falls under the purview of the Army Combat Capabilities Development Command Aviation and Missile Center's Aviation Development Directorate.
AVX and L3 unveiled its design for the FARA competition at the Army Aviation Association of America's annual summit in Nashville, Tennessee, earlier this month. The design uses AVX's compound coaxial and ducted fans technology. The companies said its single-engine design meets 100 percent of the Army's mandatory requirements and 70 percent of its desired attributes.
The CEO of Textron, Bell's parent company, said during a recent earnings call, that its FARA design will be based on its 525 technology rather than its tiltrotor technology. Bell has built and flown a tiltrotor prototype — the V-280 Valor — for the Army's Future Vertical Lift program.
Karem has been working to develop technology under a small contract to help build requirements for FVL aircraft focused on a medium-lift helicopter.
Sikorsky's offering will be based off of its X2 coaxial technology seen in its S-97 Raider and the Sikorsky-Boeing developed SB-1 Defiant, which are now both flying.
“This is the culmination of years of investment in the X2 Technology Demonstrator and the S-97 RAIDER aircraft that have proven the advanced technology and shown its ability to change the future battlefield,” Tim Malia, Sikorsky's director of Future Vertical Lift Light, told Defense News in an emailed statement shortly after the announcement.
“We continue to fly the S-97 RAIDER to inform the design for FARA, which provides significant risk reduction to the program schedule and technical objectives. We are eager to continue to support the US Army, and we are excited that the Sikorsky FARA X2 will be ready for this critical mission," he said.
A total of eight teams submitted data and potential designs for FARA, but upon evaluation, three of those did not meet mandatory requirements, according to Bailey.
It is not publicly stated who the losing teams were, but MD Helicopters had previously protested the Army's decision to not enter into a first phase agreement with the company to develop a FARA prototype, arguing to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) that the Army “unreasonably” evaluated its proposal and failed to promote small business participation.
The GAO denied the protest earlier this month on the grounds it did not have authority to review protests of contracting mechanisms like Other Transaction Authorities (OTA) which the Army used in this case.
The awards were made two months ahead of an already ambitious schedule to get FARA prototypes flying by 2023. A production decision could happen in 2028, but the service is looking at any way possible to speed up that timeline.
The Army has to move quickly, Alia said. Echoing his boss, Brig. Gen. Wally Rugen, the FVL CFT director, he said the Army is “at an inflection point. We can't afford not to modernize. We know the current fleet is fantastic, but we can't indefinitely continue to incrementally improve 1970s to 1980s technology.”
FARA is intended to fill a critical capability gap currently being filled by AH-64E Apache attack helicopters teamed with Shadow unmanned aircraft following the retirement of the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior helicopters.
The service has tried and failed three times to fill the gap with an aircraft.
The Army is also planning to procure another helicopter to fill the long-range assault mission, replacing some UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters in the fleet, simultaneously.
With the advent of the new Army Futures Command — that is focused on six major modernization priorities of which FVL is third — the service is moving faster on prototyping capability to ultimately procure major weapon systems at a somewhat unprecedented speed. Through the AFC and the use of contracting mechanisms like OTAs, the Army has found a way to compress parts of the acquisition process that previously took three to five years into periods of time often amounting to less than a year.
“What is exciting about the new process the Army has put in place,” Bailey said, “in basically a year's period of time, we've gone through concept, through an approved set of requirements, to developing an innovative approach to contracting, to building industry partnerships to have industry propose to us a plan and a solution.”
And the Army rigorously evaluated those FARA proposals, Bailey said, all within that year.
The teams have until January or February next year to provide design plans and an approach to executing the build of the prototypes followed by potential larger-scale manufacturing, Bailey said.
The second phase of the program will be to build prototypes, and “only two will make it into phase 2 and they all know that now,” Bailey added.
According to Rugen, when the request for proposals was released, the Army did not want to get locked into keeping inflexible requirements, but the request did state that the aircraft should have a maximum 40-foot rotor diameter.
The Army also asked for the aircraft to be able to accept some government furnished equipment including an engine, a gun and a rocket launcher, Alia said.
When it comes to some of the desirable attributes for a new aircraft, the Army is considering speed, range and payload possibilities, Alia said, but the service “wanted to encourage innovation by industry to come to us with their ideas and unique ways of meeting both mandatory and desirable characteristics and that is where we got some great feedback from industry and some innovative designs.”
On the same subject
-
-
March 31, 2020 | International, Aerospace
FVL Q&A: 7 Leaders On The Future Of Army Aviation
New Future Vertical Lift aircraft are just part of the solution. So are new tactics and technology upgrades for existing helicopters. By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR WASHINGTON: Drones. Helicopters. Networks. Revolutionary future aircraft. Pressing current missions. Every week, the seven senior officers of the Army's aviation community get together – in person or virtually – to check their collective bearings on all these issues and adjust their course into the future. Last month, I had the privilege of speaking to all seven as part of that weekly meeting. The “six-pack plus one” represents institutions across the Army: Maj. Gen. David Francis heads the helicopter training “schoolhouse” in Fort Rucker, Ala., formally known as the US Army Aviation Center of Excellence. Maj. Gen. Todd Royar heads Army Aviation & Missile Command (AMCOM), headquartered at Redstone Arsenal, Ala., which supports maintenance and sustainment Army-wide. Brig. Gen. Michael McCurry is director of Army aviation on the Army's headquarters staff in the Pentagon, under the Deputy Chief of Staff of the Army for Operations, Plans, & Training (G3/5/7). Brig. Gen. Allan Pepin leads US Army Special Operations Aviation Command (USASOAC), which handles the unique air support needs of special ops forces. Col. Robert Barrie is the Deputy Program Executive Officer for PEO Aviation, the Army's aviation acquisition organization; he was standing in for the PEO, Patrick Mason. Mr. Geoff Downer directs special operations programs at Army Aviation and Missile Command. He's a member of the Senior Executive Service, making him the civilian equivalent of a general. Brig. Gen. Walter Rugen – the “plus one” added in recent years to the longstanding six-pack – heads the newest organization on the list: the Future Vertical Lift Cross Functional Team (FVL CFT) at the 17-month-old Army Futures Command. “If we have a failure, we have a culture where anybody in the six-pack can raise a red flag of concern,” Brig. Gen. Pepin said. “And if there's concern among the six-pack, we're willing to tell the senior leaders early, so we do not go down the road of lost investments.” We've used choice pieces of this hour-plus interview in our Future Vertical Lift articles so far, but as we wind up our FVL series, we wanted to give our readers the chance to hear from these leaders at greater length, in their own words (edited for clarity and brevity). Gen. David Francis Maj. Gen. David FRANCIS Commander, US Army Aviation Center of Excellence, Fort Rucker, Ala.: Speaking with you here today is what we affectionately refer to as the six-pack-plus-one. It's the senior officers that affect every aspect of Army Aviation. Oftentimes in aviation, we focus on material piece of this, just because of the cost – but you should understand that there are multiple things happening continuously. It's more than just the airframes themselves. There's a whole host of things that we look at, from potentially changing some of our infrastructure in terms of hangers and so forth to accommodate Future Vertical Lift, to how are we going to train? Brig. Gen. Allan Pepin Brig. Gen. Allan PEPIN Commander, US Army Special Operations Aviation Command (USASOAC): Tactics, techniques, and procedures alone won't allow you to fly into a contested environment and survive. And using technology alone will not let you survive. It has to be a combination of both technology and how we train. FRANCIS, Aviation Center: In counterinsurgency operations, the threat has allowed us to operate at altitude, above 1,000 feet, routinely. As we look to large-scale combat operations, we know that the threat will drive us lower [i.e. to evade radar]. That changes the way we train to fight that fight. When we operate in COIN, we operate in smaller elements [i.e. two helicopters or four on a mission]. When we get to large-scale combat operations, we have to operate more at a battalion level [i.e. 18-24 aircraft]. That means that what we have to be able to do, regardless of the platform, is train to that level of proficiency. Not only are we training our aviation forces, we're training as part of a combined-arms team — with ground-maneuver elements, with fires, with cyber, and all of the multi-domain things that we're going to bring to bear in a fight. We are also working, for the first time, on a distinct Aviation supporting concept to talk about how Aviation will fight and contribute in Multi-Domain Operations in 2028. This will all inform the Army concept, which will in turn inform the joint concept that is being written at the joint staff level as we speak. Brig. Gen. Walter Rugen Brig. Gen. Walter RUGEN Director, Future Vertical Lift Cross Functional Team (FVL CFT), Army Futures Command: We are converging with the other services. It's Joint All Domain Operations, no matter the domain. [The official domains of military operations are land, sea, air, space, and cyberspace – ed.]. We need an interface to communicate critical data, whether that data is sustainment or in the tactical operations realm. When you look at our lines of effort – the FARA [Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft], the future UAS [Unmanned Aerial Systems, i.e. drones], FLRAA [Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft] — those are important. But it really is the ecosystem that they bring. FRANCIS, Aviation Center: We know that as we go into a Multi-Domain Operations fight, our enduring fleet – the fleet that we have today, which consists of UH-6OM Black Hawks, AH-64E Apaches and CH-47F Chinooks – stays with us into the 2040s. So not only are we concerned about how we get to Future Vertical Lift, and the capability that brings, we're doing targeted modernization to our enduring fleet. What we have to do is improve our stand-off and our survivability with the introduction of some technology that will be available prior to the actual FVL platform, like the Long-Range Precision Munition and Air-Launched Effects [i.e. multi-purpose mini-drones]. Those combined, we think, will keep us very, very competitive in that [anti-aircraft] environment until we get the increased speed and survivability of our Future Vertical Lift platforms. RUGEN, Futures Command: When we look at ALE and Long-Range Precision Munition, what we're finding, in our modeling and our experimentation at Yuma last year, is you really generate that stand-off and overmatch against threats. We can stay outside their weapon engagement zone and put effects on them. Air-Launched Effects are what is going to find and fix these threats, and then what the Long-Range Precision Munition is going to do is finish that threat. In the Presidents' Budget [request for] 2021, there's $152 million dedicated to getting Spike N-LOS missiles into up to three Combat Aviation Brigades in the swiftest possible manner. We're currently projecting that it would be an FY22 initial capability. We're currently projecting that it would be an FY'22 initial [operational] capability. But that's just our initial increment of the Long-Range Precision Munition. We will follow that on with more detailed requirements to fix some of the challenges that we see already with Spike [and] improve upon that capability. FRANCIS, Aviation Center: Another example is the ITEP [Improved Turbine Engine Program]. That's going to be the engine that goes into FARA. It's also going to be retrofitted onto our UH-60 and AH-64 fleet. That's an extremely successful, well-funded program that is going to affect both of those fleets. Another is maintenance. Col. Barrie was the previous program manager for the CH-47. He initiated a process for the CH-47 fleet that is starting to bear results today in reducing the maintenance burden. We're looking to expand that across both our attack and utility fleets as well. Col. Robert Barrie Col. Robert BARRIE Deputy Program Executive Officer, PEO Aviation: We're finding ways that we can better leverage our investment dollars in the future. We balance the imperative that we have to modernize [with FVL] and the imperative that we have to maintain the readiness of the enduring fleet. When we're modernizing towards a future capability, are there opportunities [for spin-offs] that can benefit the enduring fleet? In similarly, shame on us if we are doing anything on our enduring fleet that does not reduce the risk for the development of our future fleet. For example, there's the Aviation Mission Common Server. We can now have processing capability that is government owned and the cost will be significantly reduced. As we go forward, we want to reduce risk on whatever we wind up doing for processing capability on our future fleets, but, in the near term, this allows us a processing capability that we have significantly more control over. Geoffrey Downer Mr. Geoff Downer Director of Special Programs, US Army Aviation and Missile Command (AMCOM): How do we miniaturize components and gain capability on these other aircraft? We're working on degraded visual environments, electronic counter measures, terrain following, terrain avoidance. We're losing a lot of aircraft, and about 49 percent of our fatalities, due to degraded visual environment landings [i.e. when the pilot can't see clearly]. So we're actually working to put a degraded visual environment system on the aircraft. The idea is that they use LIDAR and IR cameras, so when the pilot is landing in a brown-out situation, he can look down and have a synthetic display that shows exactly where the obstacles are, with cues to where he can land and where he can't land. We've done testing, and the feedback from the testing is absolutely remarkable. We believe that this is going to add survivability to our enduring fleet. RUGEN, Futures Command: [That said], at the end of the day, we've squeezed everything we can out of these aircraft that were built in an industrial age, a very analog age. We want survivability in those very contested large-scale combat operations [in the future]. We want to be lethal. We want superior reach, so we want speed, range and endurance at range, in our next generation fleet. That's the aspect that the enduring fleet doesn't bring. In our survivability studies, with these advanced rotor craft configurations, we basically saw large percentage increases in survivability, from 24 percent to, in some scenarios, nearly 50 percent more survivable — just based on physical characteristics of the aircraft [i.e. not factoring in new electronics, tactics. etc.] Once our penetration force moves forward, we will generate joint force freedom of maneuver [i.e. not just for the Army, in other words, but for all the services] and our enduring fleet can now start coming forward to help us. Brig. Gen. Michael McCurry Brig. Gen. Michael MCCURRY Director of Army Aviation, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff of the Army for Operations, Plans, & Training (G3/5/7): Once we've kind of fractured the Anti-Access/Area Denial piece in Multi-Domain Operations, then we're able to exploit using some of our enduring fleet systems. That overlap of new and old capabilities — that's not new. I fought in Desert Storm. I flew in OH-58 Kiowa helicopter [which first entered service during Vietnam] and I was teamed with an AH-64 Alpha [which entered service in the 1980s]. We've got to look at, where are the most critical spots to bring capability to first? We will outfit those units [with FVL] first, and then we'll cascade those capabilities throughout the Army. Gen. FRANCIS, Aviation Center: As we always done as Army Aviation, you can't field it all at the same time. So there's a sequence to the fielding plans that are developed based on priorities leveled by the G3 [staff] and the Army. RUGEN, Futures Command: We want it to be backwards and forwards compatible. We have to be able to extend the network forward and integrate it in a denied environment [i.e. in the face of enemy jamming and hacking]. We've done high-fidelity modeling about how to operate in that environment, with waveforms and architecture that will be resilient. Then we followed that up with an experiment in conjunction with our Special Operations partners up at China Lake. We called it A3I: architecture, autonomy, automation and interfaces. That system architecture [has] open systems, interfaces, and gateways, so we can push data machine to machine. We're refining our data formats to auto-populate nine-lines [i.e. calls for urgent medical evacuation], calls for fires [i.e. artillery and air strikes], our production, exploitation and dissemination of intelligence.” Really, the brains behind this is really been our SOF [Special Operations Forces] partners. DOWNER, Special Programs: We set up this demonstration in September of last year, using a Black Hawk [helicopter], a Grey Eagle [drone], and a Small Glide Munition [guided bomb]. SOF is still involved in this, we're still using our team, our resources, and the technology that we developed [to build] the network in the sky. RUGEN, Futures Command: Then, ultimately, probably one of the hardest things we're going to do is affordability. That gets into our sustainment and logistics concept. Long-term, 68 percent of our total cost of ownership is the sustainment of the fleet. Then-Brig. Gen. Todd Royar during a 101st Airborne Division exercise. Maj. Gen. Todd ROYAR Commander, Army Aviation & Missile Command (AMCOM) In our current systems, Army Aviation has done a phenomenal job of leading the Army on condition-based maintenance. We are pretty far out there about collecting data and knowing when something is going to fail. However, we did that by platform, and each individual platform uses a different system to be able to do that. As we move forward, the intent is to go ahead and make sure that we have a common platform for condition-based maintenance. We think this will fundamentally change how maintenance is done, which will ultimately drive down cost. In the draft documents [on FVL], we have put the hooks in there to make sure that industry knows that that is going to be a requirement. When we send out the proposals to industry, we will direct that certain things be common as far as condition-based maintenance is concerned: what they measure, how they measure it, how the ones to zeros are holding, so that the unit can get that same data, regardless of whether they're looking at FARA, FLRAA, or one of our enduring systems. That effort is a combination, primarily, between the PEO and my office. We have touchpoints with Future Vertical Lift, to make sure that for the new systems, those requirements are written in. This will be a component of MOSA, the Modular Open Systems Architecture. RUGEN, Futures Command: The number one challenge we have with MOSA is discipline and management. What allowed the enduring fleet of aircraft to wind up with different architectures [is] there was not a driving central body that said, “this is the architecture that you are going to go with.” With MOSA, we have that. It really comes down to defining that government standard, and defining that government interface, and then holding to it. The PEO has led the charge with the architecture control working group, meeting quarterly, with industry participating. This is aligned with the Network CFT [Cross Functional Team]. PEPIN, Special Ops: We have to be able to adapt quickly, and that MOSA environment is key. We have to break away from just doing more hardware add-ons to platforms, because it takes an incredible amount of time. [With the Modular Open Systems Architecture], all that's just a software upgrade, you reboot and turn it back on again. You can do it at the speed of need. https://breakingdefense.com/2020/03/fvl-qa-7-leaders-on-the-future-of-army-aviation
-
April 27, 2018 | International, Aerospace
Companies unveil Eurodrone model at Berlin Air Show
By: Sebastian Sprenger BERLIN ― Airbus, Dassault and Leonardo have revealed the first full-scale model of an envisioned European drone at the Berlin Air Show, upping the the visibility ― and scrutiny ― of a project meant to epitomize the continent's growing military profile. Thursday's mock-up unveiling was orchestrated with big fanfare on the tarmac of Schönefeld airport south of the German capital. Featuring climactic music, lights and dissipating smoke, the ceremony organizers were lucky enough to catch a momentary break between a hefty mix of rain showers, sunshine and wind gusts, considered typical April weather here. The medium-altitude, long-endurance aircraft rides on a twin-turboprop propulsion system and will come in a strike-capable configuration when it reaches the actual flying stage in the mid-2020s. Germany, France, Italy and Spain have a hand in the program, though only the first three are considered the principal main industry partners, with Germany's Airbus in the lead. Notably, companies are building the unmanned plane so it can operate immediately in the dense European airspace. Past practice of first acquiring a drone and later worrying about requisite certifications has proven to be problematic, especially for the Germans. The mock-up is based on a vehicle configuration agreed by the partner nations in mid-2017. In January, the program passed a systems requirements review, prompting another study phase that should last through 2018 and lead to another milestone, a “system preliminary design review,” the companies wrote in a statement. “While still a lot of work lies ahead of us, this full-scale model represents a first milestone of what Europe can achieve in a high-technology sector if it bundles its industrial strength and know-how,” said Dirk Hoke, CEO of Airbus Defence and Space. Hoke told reporters he views the approach to the drone as a learning experience for a new combat aircraft development that is on the horizon between Germany and France. In addition, he told Defense News there is some hope of redemption for problem-plagued projects of the past. For example, the European drone will come in one base configuration for all the countries that users can then move to expand, avoiding too many separate build types that came to haunt the A-400M, Hoke said. “This is a chance to prove that we can work in a different way together,” he said. One of the configurations will entail a strike package, though officials said they had yet to think about the particulars of that mission set. In an apparent nod to Germany, Hoke told Defense News that the combat capability would depend on political sensitivities in each user nations, and that customers can opt to solely install the reconnaissance features. Armed drones are a thorny subject in Germany, as the weapons conjure up images of the U.S. government's targeted killing of suspected terrorists, which many in the country reject. By the time the issue of armaments comes up for the Eurodrone, however, there may already be a resolution. That's because upcoming parliamentary decisions could lead to Germany's first-ever armed drone, the Heron TP, leased through Airbus from Israel. https://www.defensenews.com/industry/techwatch/2018/04/26/companies-unveil-eurodrone-model-at-berlin-air-show/