US Army seeks tethered UAV for laser-designating

On the same subject

• 

  May 10, 2023 | International, Aerospace

  Drones, planes need new weapons and sensors, says special ops official

  The gunships still take center stage but require advancements to keep up with the pace of warfare.

• 

  September 2, 2020 | International, Aerospace

  F-35 program costs are evolving, and these savings matter

  By: Steven P. Bucci Last month, Congress held an oversight and accountability hearing regarding the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter's burdensome logistical IT system. The Department of Defense Office of Inspector General reported earlier this year that millions of additional dollars were spent in the form of labor hours by military personnel who manually tracked the plane's spare parts since its electronic logistical system didn't. The congressional review was undoubtedly warranted, especially as the F-35 program office phases in a newer system over the next two years to replace its legacy IT platform. But noticeably absent from this testimony, was a more fulsome discussion (and understanding) about the affordability of the program and how both acquisition costs and the price to fly the aircraft are significantly trending downward at a time that matters most. In an era of increased military competition against peer adversaries and during a period of tremendous budgetary constraints in the United States, incremental savings across a large enterprise such as the F-35 program matter. The Defense Department understands this well. It has smartly leveraged its buying power, driving down the cost of each F-35A to approximately $80 million one year earlier than planned — now costing taxpayers less than some of the less capable fourth-generation aircraft, and on a par with others. The F-15EX, for example, costs nearly $88 million, and gives our forces no help in a fifth-gen fight. Why spend more for less? This is critical because over the next five years, the number of F-35s purchased will more than double to approximately 1,200 aircraft. That translates to increased capacity and capability for the United States and its allies as they operate in the Indo-Pacific and European theaters. Congress recognizes that the costs to acquire the aircraft have been significantly reduced, and it has now rightfully turned its attention to the costs associated with sustaining the aircraft. But most lawmakers missed the opportunity during July's hearing to more fully explore a key statement made by the F-35′s prime contractor, Lockheed Martin. Lockheed announced that it has reduced its share of the aircraft's sustainability cost per flying hour over the past five years by nearly 40 percent, plummeting the costs to fly the aircraft to nearly $5,000 less each hour than earlier hourly costs. The company says it has invested hundreds of millions of dollars to build state-of-the-art tools, analytics, machine learning and artificial intelligence, which has led to labor efficiency gains as well as improvements to supply response times and data quality. The company implemented robust asset management tools and robotic automation to eliminate manual tasks, while placing a concerted focus on improving the reliability of aircraft parts to meaningfully reduce future repair requirements and material costs. This is significant because the number of hours flown each year will increase by approximately 140,000 hours over the next five years alone. Those savings add up. And more can be done. The F-35′s manufacturer believes it can further drive down its cost share to fly the aircraft by approximately an additional 50 percent. This is all the more significant when considering that the military services and aircraft's engine maker, Pratt & Whitney, are responsible for more than one-half of the total sustainment costs of the program. If a similar level of savings can be achieved by the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and Pratt & Whitney, those savings can be confidently reinvested back into the program to ensure enough aircraft are being procured to deter and, if necessary, fight our adversaries. As the military services and foreign countries consider future threats and the capabilities needed to impede adventuresome opponents, these savings matter. These savings come at the same time the DoD reports that the aircraft's mission-capable rate has increased from the mid-50th percentile to the low 70th percentile from just a couple of years ago. And further improvements in the aircraft's mission-capable rate should be forthcoming as repair backlogs and mismatched spare parts are corrected by a new IT logistical system. A theoretical military principle suggests that steady quantitative changes can lead to a sudden, qualitative leap. After many, many years of sustained focus to drive down F-35 costs, the program may be representative of that maxim and allow the Defense Department to fully realize the advantages of the F-35′s gamechanging technologies. Steven P. Bucci is a visiting fellow at The Heritage Foundation. He previously served as a U.S. Army Special Forces officer and is a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for homeland defense. The Heritage Foundation takes no funding from any government. It does take donations from corporate entities, which average about 4 percent of their total funding in any given year. The think tank reports it does not take a position based on donations, nor do donors have editorial input.. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/09/01/f-35-program-costs-are-evolving-and-these-savings-matter/

• 

  September 26, 2019 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land

  Faulty $5 Parts Cause 18-Month, $1 Billion Delay to Navy, Air Force Nuclear Upgrades

  Defects found in a $5 electrical component will delay the Navy and Air Force nuclear warhead refurbishment program by 18 months and cost more than $1 billion to fix, a National Nuclear Security Administration official said during a congressional hearing Wednesday. The faulty components are small commercially available capacitors that were to be used in upgrades to the Navy's W88 nuclear warheads. These weapons are deployed on the Trident II D5 submarine-launched ballistic missile systems. Similar capacitors are needed to upgrade the Air Force's B61-12 gravity bomb, Charles Verdon, deputy administrator for defense programs at the National Nuclear Security Administration, told members of the House Armed Services subcommittee on strategic forces during the unclassified portion of Wednesday's hearing. When engineers evaluated available parts, they ran tests to determine if the off-the-shelf capacitors were compatible with the systems due for upgrades, Verdon said. Initial results suggested the components would work in the short-term. “Early tests on the capacitors now in question and subsequent tests including component, major assembly and full-up integrated system flight tests demonstrated that these components meet requirement today. Industry best practices were used to stress the components beyond their design planned usage as a way to establish confidence that they will continue to work over the necessary lifetime of the warhead,” Verdon said. “During stress testing, a few of these commercially available capacitors did not meet the reliability requirements.” The problem is, these parts used in the warhead upgrades must survive for decades, up to 30 years after production, Verdon said. However, the quality of each capacitor production lot varied, which led to the stress testing failure. Instead of using the capacitors and risking readiness in the future, Verdon said his agency decided to delay the upgrade work, initially scheduled to begin in December. Replacement capacitors are being produced but will cost about $75 per unit, compared with the $5 per unit cost of the off-the-shelf capacitors that failed stress testing. “The use of commercial-off-the-shelf electric components needs to be improved to reduce future COTS-related risk,” Verdon said. The Navy is working with U.S. Strategic Command to understand how the 18-month delay will affect near-term deployments, Vice Adm. Johnny Wolfe, the director of strategic systems programs for the Navy, told the panel. “Currently, today, based on what we're doing with STRATCOM, we will meet the requirements as we move forward,” Wolfe said. The Navy and STRATCOM are developing a mitigation plan which includes is reevaluating how to turn around the submarine-based nuclear missile stockpile and how to schedule warheads for upgrades in the future, Wolfe said. More details on the Navy's plan to be discussed in a classified hearing. “If you look at the age of these systems and the technology we're using, these are tough, tough issues to solve, and it's critical technology that we're learning as we modernize these,” Wolfe said. Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.), chair of the strategic forces subcommittee, said he held the hearing because he wanted more information on what NNSA was doing to avoid more delays. He called the recapitalization “both necessary and hugely expensive” in his written opening statement. “Maintaining Congress and the public's confidence in these programs, and their effective execution, is imperative,” he wrote. https://news.usni.org/2019/09/25/faulty-5-parts-cause-18-month-1-billion-delay-to-navy-air-force-nuclear-upgrades