July 8, 2019 | International, Aerospace, Other Defence
RACHEL S. COHEN
The Air Force's top weapons development official says Raytheon's Small Diameter Bomb II, or “StormBreaker,” is ready for primetime despite needing to work out some lingering issues.
“Getting them out into the field, right now I think that's the best way for us to wring this out,” Air Force Weapons Program Executive Officer Brig. Gen. Anthony Genatempo said at a recent Air Force Life Cycle Management Center conference. “Get it into the hands of the people using it, figure out what they can do with it that we did not think of, figure out what things are happening in the operational environment that we were not able to replicate and test, and then feed that back into successive upgrades.”
The Pentagon plans to buy 17,000 SDB IIs, split between 12,000 for the Air Force and 5,000 for the Navy, and will fly them on all current Air Force fighter and bomber aircraft as well as the A-10, AC-130J, and MQ-9. StormBreaker was designed as a precision munition that can communicate with nearby aircraft to attack moving and stationary targets in bad weather and notch “multiple kills per pass,” according to the Air Force.
“The StormBreaker tri-mode seeker uses imaging infrared and millimeter wave radar in its normal mode to give pilots the ability to destroy moving targets, even in adverse weather, from standoff ranges,” Raytheon said in a press release. “Additionally, the weapon can use its semi-active laser guidance to hit targets.”
As of October 2018, the service planned to spend $1.9 billion on development and $2.6 billion on procurement, the Government Accountability Office reported in May.
StormBreaker's ability to communicate with its host aircraft needs more vetting, Genatempo said, and other fixes are already being added into the current production batch, Lot 4. Its radio may not be fixed until Lot 6 or 7, and the service plans to address parts that will be outdated in Lot 8.
“Whether or not that is an issue that will prevent fielding, I don't think I can say that. I don't even think Air Combat Command can say that right now,” Genatempo said. “They very well may choose to take an initial delivery of these weapons at the capability they're at, knowing that one caveat. ... It certainly doesn't affect the entire envelope of operation of the weapon. It's a miniature part of one or two different scenarios.”
The weapon is moving closer to being declared ready for initial operations afterfinishing operational tests in June and an overall test program that uncovered a range of performance issues that Raytheon and government officials say are routine in the course of vetting. When airmen are ready to receive the new bomb is ultimately up to Air Combat Command.
“It's a very good conversation and dialogue with Air Combat Command about what they would like, when they would like it, what they're willing to take and employ,” Genatempo said. “I very much think that this weapon is ready to go out [to] operational use.”
The Air Force now expects to reach its “required assets available” milestone, which has changed multiple times, from the fourth quarter of fiscal 2019 through the end of 2020. It was most recently slated for January 2019. To meet RAA, the service must arm 12 Boeing F-15Es with 144 weapons and own spare parts, support equipment, and more. The milestone was originally scheduled for July 2017.
Genatempo said RAA was pushed back again to avoid punishing the program for having to wait its turn for testing ranges, as range availability is scarce thanks to several weapons programs simultaneously in testing. Delaying the milestone to later this year was “predominantly a paperwork exercise to make sure we didn't breach our [acquisition program baseline],” he said.
September 1, 2024 | International, C4ISR, Security
Cyberattackers leverage Google Sheets for command control in a global espionage campaign targeting 70+ organizations.
February 21, 2020 | International, Naval
February 20, 2020 - Technical students from the Royal Netherlands Navy can now make virtual acquaintance with naval ships. They do this with a Virtual Reality (VR) programme that Damen Schelde Naval Shipbuilding (DSNS), Thales Nederland and the maritime innovation cluster Extended Reality developed for them. The programme was commissioned by the Royal Dutch Navy last Wednesday, prior to the signing of the contract for a new supply vessel. The so-called Intro-TD-OPV experience was created for students of the Royal Navy Technical Training. Supported by game techniques and a narrative, the student moves over the HNLMS Holland, a patrol ship of the Holland class and learns, playfully, the functional design of the ship and the location of the systems on board. The idea is that VR technology, game technology and gamification contribute to innovative education. With this, the Royal Netherlands Navy tries to fascinate and bind the technical target group. After all, the defence sector in general, and the Royal Navy in particular, nowadays need all the tools to recruit and retain suitable personnel. The VR programme was developed in close collaboration with the maritime innovation cluster Extended Reality. This cluster is largely run by naval personnel from the Simulation Center Maritime (SimCenMar). Here experiments are performed with all kinds of possibilities of extended reality. For the realisation of this VR project, DSNS worked closely with students from the Media Designer course at Scalda in Vlissingen. They participated in the course 3D models and graphics. To date, more than ten trainees have been involved in DSNS's ever-growing VR/AR department. View source version on Damen: https://www.damen.com/en/news/2020/02/virtual_training_becomes_reality_for_royal_netherlands_navy
August 19, 2019 | International, Naval
By: David B. Larter WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy is months behind schedule getting its latest batch of Virginia-class attack subs under contract, and no resolution appears imminent — leading to mounting concerns that delays on the Virginia will affect the Navy's top acquisition priority, the Columbia-class submarine. The contract for the 10-ship Block V Virginia-class attack submarine was supposed to be signed in April, but Navy and industry sources say that there has been a lot of talk and little agreement between the service and the two shipbuilders, General Dynamics Electric Boat and Huntington Ingalls Newport News. Intended to integrate acoustic upgrades and an 84-foot section for additional strike missile tubes, the delayed contract for the Block V Virginias have instead turned into just the latest warning sign that all is not well in Virginia-land, as schedules have slipped and at least one of the builders is now bleeding profits. Furthermore, it's unclear what the Navy's buying profile for Block V will be, which is subject to both contract negotiations and Congressional action on the fiscal year 2020 budget. The anxiety over Virginia delays, however, are less about Virginia, which is still a strong performing program — especially when compared with other programs such as the Ford-class carrier — but are more driven by the potential for compounding issues bleeding over into the Columbia-class. Both submarines will be drawing on the same workforce and supplier base, which is already showing signs of strain. The Navy says the delays are part of ongoing negotiations and that the schedule should not be affected further since the Navy has already contracted for long-lead time materials, but with the first Columbia expected to be ordered in 2021, the service is facing the reality that it lacks a clear idea of the future of the Virginia program when it is preparing to launch Columbia. The delays center on the integration of the Virginia payload module and just how many the Navy intends to buy. Until this year, the public plan was for Virginia Block V to be a 10-ship class, where the first boat would integrate the acoustic upgrades but the follow-on boats would all integrate the VPM, which is designed to triple the Virginia's Tomahawk payload capacity to 40 per hull. When the Pentagon's 2020 budget request dropped in March, the plan changed, with the total buy expanded to 11 hulls with eight VPM boats. But according to sources who spoke to Defense News, the builder was laying the groundwork for the original plan, which the Navy had already purchased long-lead material toward. The confusion over just how many VPMs the Navy intends to buy has been a major sticking point in the negotiations, with sources telling Defense News that the number of VPMs could still end up as either eight or seven, or potentially even fewer. Complicating matters further is that Congress has yet to weigh in on the fate of the 11th Block V boat, which would mean buying three Virginia's in one year, and some on Capitol Hill have voiced skepticism that the industrial base can support that The Navy's top acquisition official, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Acquisition and Development James Geurts, is working toward a solution that will balance the needs of the Navy and the needs of the builders, his spokesman said. Geurts "continues to work closely with the program team and industry on negotiating a Block V Multi-Year procurement contract that will be affordable, executable and supports the industrial base,” said Capt. Danny Hernandez. “He wants to ensure we are maximizing the use of taxpayer dollars while at the same time striving for an acceptable level of design and program risk. “Additionally, during this period, the Navy is continuing to fund the shipbuilder for long lead time materials and pre-construction efforts to ensure submarine work continues at the shipyards and with the supplier base.” ‘Worst of Both Worlds' With uncertainty looming about the future of the Virginia class, questions remain about whether that will bleed into Columbia, creating schedule risk that Navy leaders have said for years was untenable. Congress has sought to ease the strain on the supplier base by offering money to help smaller vendors expand to meet demand. And in March, Geurts announced that he was standing up a new program executive officer for Columbia, citing the need to be proactive with any problems that might arise from the competing demands on the industrial base. “These yards are integrated,” defense analyst Dan Goure, a former Bush Administration official who now works for The Lexington Institute, said in an April interview. “When you start messing with the other program on a short-notice basis, you risk the yards being able to deliver on time and at cost for multiple programs. “In a sense you risk the worst of both worlds: You risk further perturbations in the Virginia class, and at the same time risk not being able to get Columbia out on time.” Both General Dynamics and Huntington Ingalls said in earnings calls they expect the Block V contract to be signed by the end of the year. Delays The setbacks seem to be compounding for the Virginia program. Welding issues on missile tubes destined for the Virginia Payload Module and the Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine program have eaten into the schedule margin for both programs. And issues with the supplier base as well as the labor force have caused schedule delays. Industry sources who spoke to Defense News said growing the Virginia-class program from one submarine per year to two submarines per year, which started with the budget in FY11, has put increasing strain on a diminished submarine supplier base, which has put pressure on schedules as the shipyards wait for parts. Huntington Ingalls has dropped 23 percent of its profit margin on the Virginia-class program, according to a second-quarter earnings report analyzed by defense business analyst Jim McAleese. In an earnings call, Huntington Ingalls executives seemed to blame the drop on the schedule delays. Two sources familiar with the issue said profit loss stemmed from labor force issues that resulted from a year-long delay in the Navy contracting for the carrier George Washington's mid-life refueling and overhaul. The delay caused Ingalls to lay off about 1,200 employees, which drew off workforce from the Virginia program because of labor union rules that say that the most recent hires must be laid off first. Those rules forced Huntington Ingalls Industries to lay off workers who were working on the Virginia program, who in turn were then snapped up by other yards; Huntington Ingalls Industries then had to train new employees for the Virginia work. Defense News reported in March that class-wide, Virginia is looking at four-to-seven month delays for delivery, which drives up labor costs. Huntington Ingalls Industries chief financial officer Chris Kastner said on the call that getting the Virginia program back on schedule is a top priority. “Especially when you're a in a serial production line like we are with the Virginia-class,” Kastner said. “If you start to have issues with schedule it does start to affect the synchronization of the line. “We've been working pretty hard to reset that this year, given kind of where we started last year fourth quarter and we made great progress on that." https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/08/16/questions-about-us-navy-attack-sub-program-linger-as-contract-negotiations-drag/