Back to news

February 15, 2021 | International, Aerospace

What Might DARPA’s Longshot Fighter Drone Be Armed With?

It appears that the new drone will come with an upgraded, or perhaps new, advanced air-to-air missile.

by Kris Osborn

The prospect of new drone-fired air-to-air weapons, such as those being introduced in DARPA's LongShot effort, raise impactful tactical questions regarding the nature of air warfare moving into future decades.

The DARPA program is invested in engineering a new kind of aerial attack drone configured such that it can integrate a new generation of air-to-air weapons potentially changing or at least impacting existing aerial warfare paradigms. The Pentagon's DARPA just awarded LongShot development deals to Northrop Grumman, Lockheed and General Atomics to explore concepts, computer modeling and design options for a new air-attack platform.

“Current air superiority concepts rely on advanced manned fighter aircraft to provide a penetrating counter air capability to effectively deliver weapons. It is envisioned that LongShot will increase the survivability of manned platforms by allowing them to be at standoff ranges far away from enemy threats, while an air-launched LongShot UAV efficiently closes the gap to take more effective missile shots,” DARPA writes in a statement on the program.

What kinds of technologies and air-attack systems are likely to characterize future warfare in the skies? Clearly the intent of the DARPA program, which is early on and primarily in a conceptual phase, is to break existing technical barriers and architect weapons which advance the attack envelope well beyond simply upgrading existing weapons. This sets the bar quite high, given that the current state of upgraded air-to-air weapons is increasingly more advanced. The AIM-9X, for example, has been upgraded to accommodate what's called “off-boresight” targeting wherein a missile can engage a target to the side or even behind the aircraft it launches from. Off boresight capable AIM-9X missiles are now arming F-35s, bringing a new ability to fire course-changing air-to-air weapons at angles beyond direct line-of-sight.

Weapons upgrades to the F-22 as well, brought to fruition through a Lockheed software upgrade called 3.2b, brings new upgrades to the AIM-9X and AIM-120D. Raytheon data explains that a Block 2 AIM-9X variant also adds a redesigned fuze, new datalink to support beyond visual range engagements, improved electronics and a digital ignition safety device.

Another part of the weapons upgrade includes engineering the F-22 to fire the AIM-120D, a beyond visual range Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM), designed for all weather day-and-night attacks. It is a “fire and forget” missile with active transmit radar guidance, Raytheon data states. The AIM-120D is built with upgrades to previous AMRAAM missiles by increasing attack range, improving seeker guidance GPS navigation, inertial measurement units and a two-way data link, Raytheon statements explain.

Air-to-Air weapons are also being upgraded with new “countermeasures” to, among other things, enable guidance systems to stay locked on target even in a “jamming” environment. For example, adversaries are increasingly engineering electronic warfare weapons intended to find and “jam” radio frequency or infrared targeting technologies used in air-to-air weapons. Technical efforts to “counter” the countermeasures with frequency-hopping adaptations can enable electronically guided weapons to sustain a precision trajectory despite enemy jamming attempts.

These kinds of innovations might, at least initially, be providing a technical baseline from which new weapons can be envisioned, developed and ultimately engineered. The new air-to-air weapons intended for LongShot will most likely not only be much longer range but also operate with hardened guidance systems, flexible flight trajectories, advanced countermeasures, a wider range of fuze options and newer kinds of explosives as well.

Kris Osborn is the defense editor for the National Interest. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/what-might-darpa%E2%80%99s-longshot-fighter-drone-be-armed-178113

On the same subject

  • Is Germany’s Puma combat vehicle still tickling the US Army’s interest?

    March 18, 2019 | International, Land

    Is Germany’s Puma combat vehicle still tickling the US Army’s interest?

    By: Sebastian Sprenger COLOGNE, Germany — German and U.S. military officials had planned, then canceled, a demonstration this week of the Bundeswehr's Puma infantry fighting vehicle, as the U.S. Army surveys candidates for its Next-Generation Combat Vehicle program. A German Army spokesman confirmed that an event had been scheduled at the Munster tank-training area for Jeffrey White, a deputy to U.S. Army acquisition chief Bruce Jette. White ended up canceling because of a scheduling conflict, the spokesman told Defense News. Officials on both sides of the Atlantic were tight-lipped about the details of the planned visit and whether another date is being explored. It is also unclear which country initiated the contact, though the government interested in another's hardware would typically lodge the request for a demonstration. The apparent curiosity by the U.S. Army in the Puma evokes memories from 2010 and 2011, when the German vehicle, still largely in the development stage at the time, was a contender for the now-defunct Ground Combat Vehicle program. Boeing and SAIC, along with the German manufacturing consortium of Rheinmetall Defence and Krauss-Maffei Wegmann, had pitched a modified version of the vehicle for the U.S. Army. Contenders for the new Army vehicle program, NGCV, are still getting into position to pounce on a request for proposals. Rheinmetall this time has teamed with Raytheon to offer the Lynx vehicle, unveiled last June at the Eurosatory trade show in Paris. News that the Puma is on the Army's radar brings up the question of how Rheinmetall, a co-developer of the vehicle, would proceed if the Americans were to invite the Puma to join the field of contenders. Another unknown is how Rheinmetall's stated desire to acquire Krauss-Maffei Wegmann is going play out. In any event, it remains to be seen how a German tank design will fare in the race for a high-profile U.S. defense program in the age of President Donald Trump's sour attitude toward Berlin. Trump has repeatedly berated Germany about what he considers lackluster defense spending, and he has threatened to impose tariffs on German cars in retaliation for what he deems unfair trade practices. Full article: https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2019/03/15/is-germanys-puma-combat-vehicle-still-tickling-the-us-armys-interest

  • German brigade to be combat ready in Lithuania, on Russian border, in 2027
  • Six things on the Pentagon’s 2019 acquisition reform checklist

    December 31, 2018 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

    Six things on the Pentagon’s 2019 acquisition reform checklist

    By: Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON — Under the purview of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, reform has become a buzzword inside the Department of Defense, with every office trying to find ways to be more efficient, whether through cost savings or changes to bureaucracy. The department's Acquisition and Sustainment office, headed by Ellen Lord, manages billions of dollars in materiel; and by Lord's own belief, it is ripe for changes that could net the department big savings. On Dec. 17, Lord sat down with reporters and outlined a series of goals for 2019 that she hopes will help transform how the Pentagon buys equipment. Here, then, are six key items to watch for in the coming year. 1. Rework the department's key acquisition rules: The DoD Instruction 5000.02 is a key bedrock that forms the basis of how the defense acquisition system works, guiding acquisition professionals in their day-to-day program execution. And if Lord gets her way, she'll largely rip it up and start over. “In 2019, one of my key objectives is to rewrite 5000.02. We have, right now, this huge, complicated acquisition process that we encourage our acquisition professionals to tailor to their needs,” Lord said. “We are going to invert that approach and take a clean sheet of paper and write the absolute bare minimum to be compliant in 5000.02, and encourage program managers and contracting officers to add to that as they need for specific programs.” Lord envisions taking the massive, unwieldy 5000.02 guidance and getting it down to “a couple page outline of what you need to do,” with “simple” contract language and an easy-to-follow checklist “so that this isn't an onerous process.” “I'm encouraging what I call creative compliance. I want everyone to be compliant, but I want people to be very thoughtful and only use what they need,” she said. “This is literally starting with a clean sheet of paper, looking at the law and the intent, and working to vastly simplify this.” Andrew Hunter, a former Pentagon acquisition official now with the Center for International and Strategic Studies, notes that the instruction is supposed to be rewritten every five years to keep it fresh, and now is probably the right time to start looking into that. But, he added, “a lot of what she says she wants to do are things that sound very similar to my ear to what [Lord's predecessor] Frank Kendall was trying to do in the last rewrite. He tossed stuff out left and right, worked very hard to create the different models, put in extended discussions of different potential models of programs so that it would be obvious to people there's not one single way to do a program.” Hunter is cautious when it comes to a massive shift in the 5000.02 system. “If you literally tell the system, ‘All the rules are repealed, go do everything you want,' the reaction won't be a sudden flood of creativity that astounds you with the amazing talent at the department, even though there is a lot of talent there," he said. “What's more likely to happen is you have total paralysis because everyone is sitting around going: ‘Oh no, the rules are gone. How do we know what we can do? What do we do now?' But over time that might shake out.” If Congress needs to get involved, Lord said, she's prepared to go to Capitol Hill “because I know they are partnering with us and they want to make sure we do things in a simpler, most cost-effective manner.” 2. Intellectual property rules: A long-standing fight between the department and industry is over who should own the intellectual property used by the American military. Before fully taking on 5000.02, Lord hopes to write a departmentwide intellectual property policy. Lord pointed to the “very good job” done by the Army on creating an IP policy and said her goal is to build on that to create a standard across the DoD. “From an industry perspective, we are trying to be consistent across all the services and agencies, so that we don't have different requirements for similar needs,” Lord said. “So intellectual property is a good example. We'd like to have the same kind of contract language that can be tailored to individual needs, but basically have consistent language.” David Berteau, a former Pentagon official who is now the president and CEO of the Professional Services Council, noted it is hard to read the tea leaves for what Lord may be planning based on her public comments. But he pointed out the long-standing challenge for the Pentagon — that nearly 70 percent of all program costs are life-cycle sustainment and maintenance costs — as a sign that something needs to change so the department can avoid major issues in the future. Depending on how new rules are implemented, the use of IP might drive down costs — or, he warned, it might lead to companies unable to compete, forcing the Pentagon to pay more or be less prepared for challenges. Put plainly, Berteau said, “it's complicated.” He hopes Lord will begin interacting with industry on this issue in ways similar to the current “listening tour” on changes to progress payments. 3. Better software development: It's become almost cliché that the department needs to do better at developing software, but in this case it's a cliché that experts, including Lord, agree with. The Defense Innovation Board, a group of tech experts from outside the department, is working on a series of studies on software, including one focused on how to drive agile development techniques inside the building. Lord said to expect that report before the end of March, adding: “I think that will be important in terms of capturing a road map forward on how to do this correctly.” 4. Increase use of OTAs: In 2018, Lord's office released a handbook on when and how to use other transaction authorities — legal standards designed to speed acquisition that critics say are underutilized by the department. Lord called it “sort of a warmup” for creating more useful handbooks for the acquisition community, but said that the goal for 2019 is to get people to correctly employ OTAs. “Usually they should be used when you don't have a clear requirement. So, true prototyping when you don't know what you're going to get,” Lord said. “Prototyping early on, probably before you get to the middle-tier acquisition.” 5. Greater use of prototyping: Speaking of which, Lord said the department has about 10 projects underway for rapid prototyping at the mid-tier level, with the goal of growing to about 50 in the next year. The goal is to take the systems into the field, test them out and then grow the next iteration of the capability based on what is learned. “We're taking systems that are commercially available and perhaps need a little modification, or defense systems that need a modicum of modification to make them appropriate for the war fighter,” Lord said. “That's one of the authorities we are very appreciative for, and we will continue to refine the policy. I signed out very broad policy on that this year. We'll write the detailed policy coming up early next year.” 6. Making the Selected Acquisition Reports public again: Until recently, the department publicly released annual Selected Acquisition Reports for each of the major defense programs. Those reports can inform the public of where programs stand and the costs associated. However, under the Trump administration, those reports have been largely classified as “For Official Use Only,” or FOUO, a higher level of security. Critics, including incoming House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith, D-Wash., have argued there is no need for those once-public reports to be listed as FOUO. It appears Lord is working to open those back up. “We're going to try to minimize the FOUO on that,” Lord said in response to a question about it. “There are certain information [issues] that we have to protect, but [we] understand the need, the requirement, and I will put our guidance to make everything open to the public to the degree we can.” https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2018/12/27/six-things-on-the-pentagons-2019-acquisition-reform-checklist/

All news