USAF Warns F-35 Reengine Decision Needed For Health Of Industrial Base

On the same subject

• 

  June 30, 2020 | International, Aerospace

  Britain Spent So Much On Two Giant Aircraft Carriers, It Can’t Afford Planes Or Escorts

  David Axe The United Kingdom is spending nearly $8 billion building two new large, conventionally-fueled aircraft carriers and equipping them with F-35B Lightning II stealth jump jets. HMS Queen Elizabeth is scheduled to deploy for the first time in 2021, ending a seven-year carrier gap that began in 2014 when the Royal Navy decommissioned the last of its three, Cold War-vintage light carriers. The U.K. military by then had already sold off the carriers' Harrier jump jets. Queen Elizabeth and her sister Prince of Wales are impressive vessels. More than 930 feet long and displacing around 70,000 tons, they are bigger and more modern than every other flattop in the world except the U.S. Navy's 11 nuclear-powered supercarriers. The carriers in theory are the steely core of a revitalized and reorganized Royal Navy. “Carrier strike provides the ability to launch fixed-wing aircraft from a ship to undertake a range of military tasks,” the U.K. National Audit Office explained in a June report. “It is central to the government's plans for the country's armed forces.” But there's a problem. Having blown billions of dollars building the ships, the U.K. government no longer can afford the aircraft, escorts and support ships that help the flattops deploy, protect them and give them striking power. Nor can the government afford to modify Queen Elizabeth or Prince of Wales to support amphibious landings, one of the early justifications for cutting existing ships—such as the assault ship HMS Ocean—in order to free up money for the carriers. The new British carrier force is hollow. And at least one analyst believes the Brits would have been better off without. The shortfalls are myriad, according to the NAO. The carriers' air wings at a minimum should include a dozen F-35Bs plus a dozen Merlin helicopters, some of which would carry the Lockheed Martin LMT-made Crowsnest early-warning radar in order to provide sensor coverage over the carrier group. Guess what. “The new Crowsnest system is 18 months late, which will affect carrier strike's capabilities in its first two years,” according to the NAO. “The [Ministry of Defense] did not oversee its contract with Lockheed Martin effectively and, despite earlier problems on the project, neither was aware of the sub-contractor's lack of progress until it was too late to meet the target delivery date.” “It subsequently concluded that the sub-contractor working on the project, Thales, failed to meet its contractual commitments to develop the equipment and had not provided sufficient information on the project's progress. The [ministry] and its industry partners have since implemented a recovery plan and enhanced monitoring arrangements. However, further delays mean that it does not expect to have full airborne radar capability until May 2023.” Meanwhile, the ministry also has been slow to buy F-35s. “From 2015, its intention has been to buy 138 Lightning II jets, which will sustain carrier strike operations to the 2060s. The [ministry] initially ordered 48 jets but has not yet committed to buying any more. In response to wider financial pressures, it will also receive seven of the 48 jets in 2025, a year later than planned.” A single Queen Elizabeth-class flattop could carry as many as 24 F-35s. But a total force of 48 F-35s probably wouldn't allow for a 24-plane air wing after taking into account training and maintenance needs. As a rule, usually no more than third of a particular fighter fleet can deploy at any given time. Equally vexing, the Royal Navy has laid up all but one of its solid support ships, which sail along with front-line vessels in order to keep them stocked with food, parts and weapons. The defense ministry “has long been aware that this will restrict the operational freedom of carrier strike but has not yet developed a solution,” the NAO warned. “In November 2019, the [ministry] stopped the competition to build three new support ships due to concerns about value for money. It believes this will delay the introduction of new ships by between 18 and 36 months, making it uncertain the first new ship will be operational before the existing support ship leaves service in 2028.” The list of shortfalls continues. A British carrier group at a minimum should include one frigate for anti-submarine protection plus a destroyer for air-defense. But the Royal Navy operates just 13 aging Type 23 frigates and six Type 45 destroyers. The former are slated to leave the fleet starting in 2023. Their replacement, the new Type 26, won't start joining the fleet until 2027. The navy expects to buy just eight Type 26s. At least five new Type 31 frigates will replace the balance of the Type 23 force, but the Type 31s lack major anti-submarine systems. All that is to say that, from the mid-2020s on, the carriers could be vulnerable to submarines. Don't expect some sudden cash windfall to save the Royal Navy from its carrier problems. If anything, the budgetary problems could get worse. The defense ministry already is cutting back on its investment in Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales. The government had planned to spend $75 million modifying one of the new flattops with extra accommodations in order for the ship to double as an amphibious assault ship. But according to the NAO, the ministry in March 2020 quietly dropped the amphibious requirement. The bitter irony for the navy is that it sacrificed the assault ship Ocean back in 2018 in order to free up money and manpower for the carriers and eventually claw back the lost amphibious capability by way of modifications to at least one of the newer ships. Now it appears the fleet gave up Ocean for nothing. So are the new flattops worth it? As costs rise and budgets shrink, the carriers gobble up a growing proportion of the Royal Navy's resources while at the same time falling far short of their operational potential owing to cuts at the margins of their capabilities. “Given that what the Royal Navy has become in return for its two carriers, and given how at present this investment has delivered a part-time carrier force with a small number of available fast jets, significant spares shortages, reduced escort fleet numbers and a lack of longer-term support ships or escort elements,” one commentator wrote, “then perhaps the answer to the question ‘was it all worth it' is ‘no, it was not worth the pain for the gain'—at least not in the short term.” https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2020/06/28/britain-spent-so-much-on-two-giant-aircraft-carriers-it-cant-afford-planes-or-escorts/#7988b615bcc7

• 

  November 10, 2020 | International, Aerospace

  US Army floats the option of fielding high-altitude balloons

  By: Jen Judson WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army is now carving out a path to field high-altitude balloons to provide an additional but less expensive layer of communications, connectivity, range extension and surveillance capabilities, adding resiliency to the service's existing architecture of space assets and aircraft supporting multidomain operations. Recent tests and experiments with high-altitude balloons at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, left an impression on the head of the Army's Space and Missile Defense Command. “It's just phenomenal what we're able to do with high-altitude balloons,” Lt. Gen. Daniel Karbler told Defense News in an interview ahead of the Association of the U.S. Army's annual conference, which took place virtually Oct. 13-16. “I don't have the cost analysis but, in my mind, pennies on the dollar with respect to doing it. If I had to do it via a [low-Earth orbit] or some satellite constellation, what we are able to provide with high-altitude balloons, it's tactically responsive support to the war fighter,” he added. Karbler said he sees the balloons supporting the Army's Multidomain Task Force in the future. “Conceptually, with the types of missions that the Multidomain Task Force is working, the high-altitude balloons would be a key capability enabler,” Brent Fraser, concept development division chief at SMDC's Space and Missile Defense Center of Excellence, told Defense News in an Oct. 29 interview. “[The balloons would] be able to provide some beyond-line-of-sight capability, whether it's communications, extended distances, to be able to provide the ability to enable sensing of targets deep in the adversary's areas, to be able to reinforce and complement existing sensing systems other than the aerial layer as well as the space layer,” Fraser added. In terms of war games and experiments conducted with high-altitude balloons, “as we look at a number of emerging concepts and capabilities and formations,” he explained, “I think we still have a ways to go, but I think we're on a positive path to continue.” SMDC has been working on high-altitude balloons — basically dirigibles that can camp out roughly 60,000-90,000 feet in the air — for a long time, but recently the technology has improved, particularly through the commercial market. Google, for instance, used high-altitude balloons to help Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria to help establish internet connectivity. Duration is one of the areas that has greatly improved. High-altitude balloons can now stay aloft for weeks, if not months, rather than just hours or days. Users can also command and navigate the balloons better than before, and the platforms can more easily be recovered after missions. “The technology readiness levels have really come a long way,” Fraser said. SMDC has partnered with Army Futures Command to advance the technology, particularly involving the latter's Assured-Positioning, Navigation and Timing cross-functional Team as well as Training and Doctrine Command, the Army Intelligence Center, and cyber and special operations personnel. Several years ago, the Army developed a high-altitude concept that established a foundation on which to build, Col. Tim Dalton, Army capability manager for space and high altitude within the SMDC's center of excellence, said in the same interview. After integrating the concept into a variety of war games with Futures Command and other entities, the Army is starting to develop requirements. “We're in the initial stages of defining what those requirements would be,” Dalton said. “There's kind of two aspects to the high-altitude piece: the high-altitude platform, so it's the balloon, and then whatever it's carrying on there for a payload.” The Army has created initial documents for staffing through Futures Command, and over the next couple of years the service will run those requirements through the Joint Capabilities and Integration and Development System process, which will lead to review by the Army Requirements Oversight Council. The service is in the early stages of figuring out what a program of record would look like, but it has some options, Dalton said. “What we're kind of hoping to do over the next couple of years as part of our campaign of learning is to help define what that looks like and the best way to resource those requirements for the Army.” https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/ausa/2020/11/09/us-army-floats-the-option-of-fielding-high-altitude-balloons/

• 

  January 31, 2023 | International, Aerospace

  Space Force chief calls for tighter link between operators and buyers

  Gen. Chance Saltzman told reporters today he wants space operators to be more involved in shaping plans for future systems and defining training needs.