News

The U.S. Navy's F/A-18 and EA-18G fleets have experienced a dramatic turnaround. In 2017, less than half of the Navy's Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornets were able to fly. Now, 80% of its carrier-based fighters are ready for missions. The solution involved fixing a single component within the General Electric F414 engine. The Navy faulted constrained spending following the 2008 financial crisis and increased demand from the wars in the Middle East as reasons for the fleet's lack of readiness. More specifically, those conditions exacerbated an issue embedded in the military's vast supply chain. For 20 years, the Super Hornets and EA-18G Growlers have continually had electronic systems and new sensors added that placed greater and greater demand for power from its General Electric engine. That demand taxed a key component of the F414's electrical power generation system—its generator control unit (GCU), which keeps the generator output within a specified range. Initial attempts to address the GCU's issues through “component-level reliability improvements were not sustainable,” Navy spokeswoman Gulianna Dunn tells Aviation Week. Eventually, the GCU, already in short supply, failed to keep pace, causing a cascading effect on the availability of the carrier-based fighters. In the words of a Navy program official, the GCU was the “top platform degrader for all naval aviation.” When sequestration-era spending limits were imposed on the Pentagon in 2013, the entire military faced across-the-board funding cuts, including the operations and maintenance accounts. The Navy had to make tough choices about what bills it would pay and what to defer. At the same time, flight hours for the Super Hornet and Growler in the Middle East increased to meet the high operational tempos of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Inherent Resolve. As the Navy reduced aviation sustainment budgets, the program office did not have sufficient funding to purchase spare parts. From fiscal years 2013-16, the program office requested between $193.6-311.5 million and received between $85.2-136.3 million, according to a 2019 Defense Department Inspector General report. To compensate, Navy officials cannibalized aircraft to obtain the required spare parts. Maintainers removed working parts from an aircraft and installed them on a second jet to make that aircraft operational. A backlog of spare parts exacerbated fleet readiness and availability rates—an issue that affected the GCU acutely. New mission payloads created new types of electrical load, straining the aircraft's electronics, and wearing out the GCU at a faster rate. The second-generation (G2) and G3 GCU models that equipped the fleet could handle only about 150 flight hours. To increase reliability General Electric Aviation Systems, in consultation with the Navy, began working to redesign the GCU. A G3-to-G4 conversion kit could reach up to 532 flight hours. A G4 GCU was even better—sustaining 1,220 flight hours. Naval Air Systems Command (Navair) flight-tested the G4 in August 2015, and GE started production in mid-2016, Joe Krisciunas, general manager and president of GE Aviation Electrical Power Systems, tells Aviation Week. But the part was still only being manufactured at a minimal rate. The matter came to a head in October 2018, when then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis set an 80% mission-capable readiness goal. At the time, only 260 F/A-18 and EA-18G aircraft were capable of flying missions—approximately 60%, far short of the mandate. In response, the Navy convened a Reliability Control Board (RCB) in 2019 to improve the F/A-18 and EA-18G mission-capable rate. The board pinpointed the main problem—insufficient production of the F414's GCU. The Navy had 200 of the units on back order. Navair worked with GE to ramp up GCU production, according to Lt. Cmdr. Jason Shaw, power and propulsion lead at the F/A-18 and EA-18G program office. The RCB determined GE was producing roughly six GCUs per month that would funnel into the program office, Boeing or Naval Supply Systems Command (Navsup). The program and Boeing had predictable delivery schedules, but Navsup would only receive GCUs that were produced beyond what the other two contracts required. “It created a hole on the supply shelf,” Shaw says. “When a jet would lose a GCU, there was no other one to replace it from supply.” The team brainstormed and decided GE would increase production to about 21 GCUs each month, while Navair would defer a contract for 320 GCU conversion kits to 2021. Pushing the contract would leave room for Navsup to acquire a more predictable delivery schedule. The company doubled its GCU production rate from 2018 to 2019, and almost doubled it again in 2020 to reach the 21 units per month rate, Krisciunas says. These courses of action resulted in zero GCU back orders by mid-June 2020. Additionally, the team is working with GE to resolve production issues related to GCU testing capacity. The plan is to purchase new, larger test stands and upgrade software on existing test equipment. This would allow the company to conduct more tests and further increase production. The test stand is a large electric motor that simulates the engine spinning the gearbox, and it has a pad that duplicates the GCU interface. A test stand costs approximately $1.5-2 million and typically takes 15-18 months to get up and running, Krisciunas says. Still, more improvements are being made: The program office is now assessing wiring issues that may have also contributed to low GCU reliability. The service awarded a $17 million contract to purchase additional software and cables for Automated Wiring Test Sets, which will allow aircraft mechanics to identify system faults. “The U.S. Navy is the only [Pentagon] military branch to have met and sustained the 80% readiness call that Mattis put out, and that is largely associated with resolving the issues with GCUs,” Shaw says. https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/aircraft-propulsion/how-one-component-improved-us-navy-fa-18-fleet-readiness

Today's aerospace and defense companies are at the forefront of two historic trends: unprecedented innovation and increased complexity. To take advantage of these trends and compete successfully, aerospace and defense companies must embrace the digital enterprise (digital twin and digital thread) in order to be more productive, innovate faster, and achieve program execution excellence to ensure programs deliver on technical requirements, cost and schedule. Read this white paper to learn how digital transformation affects aerospace manufacturers and government agencies enabling productivity and innovations for the next generation of design, manufacturing and maintenance. https://aviationweek.com/knowledge-center/growing-importance-digital-thread-across-ad-product-lifecycle

Steve Trimble Stabilizing the production system and securing a funded, long-term upgrade plan are now the main objectives for Pratt & Whitney's F135 propulsion system for the Lockheed Martin F-35. Although first delivered for ground--testing 17 years ago, the F135 remains a lifeline in Pratt's combat aircraft engines portfolio for new-development funding. The U.S. military engines market is entering an era of transition with great uncertainty for the timing of the next major combat aircraft program. Enhancement Package replaces “Growth Option” New F-35 propulsion road map due in six months The transition era begins with the likely pending delivery of Pratt's most secretive development project. In 2016, the U.S. Air Force named Pratt as one of seven major suppliers for the Northrop Grumman B-21 bomber. The Air Force also has set the first flight of the B-21 for around December 2021. That timing means Pratt is likely to have delivered the first engine for ground-testing. At some point within the next year, Pratt should be planning to deliver the first flight-worthy engine to Northrop's final assembly line in Palmdale, California, to support the Air Force's first B-21 flight schedule. As the bomber engine development project winds down, the propulsion system for the next fighter aircraft continues to be developed, but without a clear schedule for transitioning to an operational system. The Air Force Research Laboratory's Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP) is sponsoring a competition to develop an adaptive engine that can modulate the airflow into and around the core to improve fuel efficiency and increase range. The AETP competition is between Pratt's XA101 and GE's XA100 designs, with the first engines set to be delivered for ground-testing by the end of this year or early next year. As 45,000-lb.-thrust-class engines, the first AETP designs are optimized for repowering the single-engine F-35, but the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) has established no requirement to replace the F135 for at least another five years. A follow-on effort within the AETP is developing a similar engine for a next-generation fighter, but neither the Air Force nor the Navy have committed to a schedule for transitioning the technology into an aircraft-development program. That leaves Pratt's F135 as the only feasible application for inserting new propulsion technology for a decade more. After spending the last decade focused on completing development of the F-35 and upgrading the software, electronics and mission systems, the JPO is developing a road map to improve the propulsion system through 2035. As the road map is being developed, program officials also are seeking to stabilize the engine production system. Pratt delivered about 600 F135s to Lockheed through the end of last year, including 150—or about 25%—in 2019 alone. The JPO signed a $7.3 billion contract with Pratt last year to deliver another 509 engines in 2020-22, or about 170 a year. Although Pratt exceeded the delivery goal in 2019 by three engines, each shipment came an average of 10-15 days behind the schedule in the contract. The fan, low-pressure turbine and nozzle hardware drove the delivery delays, according to the Defense Department's latest annual Selected Acquisition Report on the F-35. Lockheed's production schedule allows more than two weeks before the engine is needed for the final assembly line, so Pratt's late deliveries did not hold up the overall F-35 schedule, says Matthew Bromberg, president of Pratt's Military Engines business. F135 deliveries finally caught up to the contract delivery dates in the first quarter of this year, but the supply chain and productivity disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic have set the program back. About five engines scheduled for delivery in the second quarter fell behind the contractual delivery date, Bromberg says. The pressure will grow as a loaded delivery schedule in the second half of the year adds pressure on deliveries, but Pratt's supply chain managers expect to be back within the contract dates in the first quarter of next year, he says. The F-35 program's political nature also has caused program disruptions. The Defense Department's expulsion of Turkey from the F-35 program last year also banished the country's supply chain, which contributed 188 parts to the F135. In particular, Alp Aviation produces the Stage 2, 3, 4 and 5 integrally bladed rotors (IBR) for the F135. As of early July, about 128 parts now made in Turkey are ready to transition to other suppliers, of which about 80% are based in the U.S., according to Bromberg. The new suppliers should be requalified to produce those parts in the first quarter of 2021 and ready to meet production rate targets for Lot 15 aircraft, which will begin deliveries in 2023. “The overriding objective was to move with speed and diligence along the transition plan and ensure we are ready to be fully out of Turkey by about Lot 15,” Bromberg explains. “And we are on track for that.” As Pratt transfers suppliers, the company also has to manage the effect on potential upgrade options. Alp Aviation, for example, had announced a research and development program to convert the finished titanium IBRs to a more resilient nickel material. For several years, Pratt has sought to improve the performance of the F135 above the baseline level. In 2017, the company unveiled the Growth Option 1.0 upgrade, which is aimed at delivering modular improvements that would lead to a 5% or 6% fuel-burn improvement and a 6-10% increase in thrust across the flight envelope. The Marine Corps, in particular, was seeking additional thrust to increase payload mass for a vertical landing, but the proposed package did not go far enough to attract the JPO's interest. “It missed the mark because we didn't focus our technologies on power and thermal management,” Bromberg says. A year later, Pratt unveiled the Growth Option 2.0. In addition to providing more thrust at less fuel burn, the new package offered to generate more electrical power to support planned advances in the aircraft's electronics and sensors, with the ability to manage the additional heat without compromising the F-35's signature in the infrared spectrum. Last fall, the JPO's propulsion management office teamed up with the Advanced Design Group at Naval Air Systems Command to analyze how planned F-35 mission systems upgrades will increase the load on the engine's thrust levels and power generation and thermal management capacity. In May, the JPO commissioned studies by Lockheed and Pratt to inform a 15-year technology-insertion road map for the propulsion system. The road map is due later this year or in early 2021, with the goal of informing the spending plan submitted with the Pentagon's fiscal 2023 budget request. As the studies continue, a name change to Pratt's upgrade proposals reveals a fundamental shift in philosophy. Pratt's earlier “Growth Option” terminology is gone. The proposals are now called Engine Enhancement Packages (EEP). The goal of the rebranding is to show the upgrades no longer are optional for F-35 customers. “As the engine provider and the [sustainment] provider, I'm very interested in keeping everything common,” Bromberg says. “The idea behind the Engine Enhancement Packages is they will migrate into the engines or upgrade over time. We don't have to do them all at once. The [digital engine controls] will understand which configuration. That allows us again to be seamless in production, where I would presumably cut over entirely, but also to upgrade fleets at regularly scheduled maintenance visits.” Pratt has divided the capabilities from Growth Options 1 and 2 into a series of EEPs, with new capabilities packaged in increments of two years from 2025 to 2029. “If you go all the way to the right, you get all the benefits of Growth Option 2, plus some that we've been able to create,” Bromberg says. “But if you need less than that and you're shorter on time or money, then you can take a subset of it.” Meanwhile, the Air Force continues to fund AETP development as a potential F135 replacement. As the propulsion road map is finalized, the JPO will decide whether Pratt's F135 upgrade proposals support the requirement or if a new engine core is needed to support the F-35's thrust and power-generation needs over the long term. Previously, Bromberg questioned the business case for reengining the F-35 by pointing out that a split fleet of F135- and AETP-powered jets erodes commonality and increases sustainment costs. Bromberg also noted it is not clear the third-stream technology required for the AETP can be accommodated within the roughly 4-ft.-dia. engine bay of the F-35B. Now Bromberg says he is willing to support the JPO's decision if the road map determines a reengining is necessary. “If the road map indicates that they need significantly more out of the engine than the Engine Enhancement Packages can provide, we would be the first to say an AETP motor would be required,” Bromberg says. “But we think a lot of the AETP technologies will make those Engines Enhancement Packages viable.” https://aviationweek.com/ad-week/f-35-propulsion-upgrade-moves-forward-despite-uncertainty

Dassault Aviation CEO Eric Trappier hinted at a new Rafale jet export contract in the making while speaking at his company's first half 2020 financial results conference in Paris earlier this week. “A potential new Rafale export contract is postponed,” he said while referring to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Dassault's performance without naming the country with whom his company was close to signing the contract with. This is the first official acknowledgement by Dassault Aviation of a new Rafale export order reaching the contract stage- the first since deals were struck with Egypt, Qatar and India starting 2015. Reports of India being in talks to buy an additional 36 Rafale aircraft have been going on for a while now, but nothing has been revealed officially as yet. In addition, Dassault Aviation is in talks with UAE and Malaysia. It is in competition to sell jets to Switzerland and Finland pitted against European rivals Eurofighter and Saab. Of these prospects, India appears as the most likely candidate even as the first five Rafale jets arrive in India Monday. Earlier this year, comments by the Indian Chief of Defence Staff, Gen Bipin Rawat that a potential order for 114 jets would be “staggered” set off speculation of an additional order for Rafale fighters. A staggered purchase (of the Rafales) would ease financial burden by paying for the jets as they are manufactured. In addition, buying additional Rafales would ensure that the jets keep getting supplied to India uninterrupted beyond the end of the first contract for 36 jets. Several Indian media reports said that French aircraft manufacturer Dassault and India's HAL are in talks for possible cooperation in producing Rafale fighter jets in India for additional anticipated orders under a staggered procurement plan. The Economic Times reported in February this year that a few rounds of discussions have taken place between the two companies on possible work share for additional orders of the Rafale. In this context ‘work share' could mean local assembly of either the aircraft or some major components. It could also mean installation of some Indian components in the jet. Dassault and HAL are already implementing a contract to modernize India's Mirage-2000 jets. Additional Rafales could be cheaper than the 36 ordered in 2016 for Euro 7.8 billion. Of the total cost, Euro 195 million was spent on India-specific enhancements which will come down as the majority of the cost was for R & D, modification and certification. Besides, India had paid for setting up two bases for just 36 aircraft. These bases can easily accommodate more jets. https://www.defenseworld.net/news/27509#.XyCAdZ5KiUk

By Harry Lye The US has eased rules governing the export of military unmanned aerial systems (UAS) making it easier for it to sell UAS internationally. Under the new rules, announced by US State Department Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs René Clarke Cooper, UAS that fly under 800kph (497mph) will no longer be subject to “presumption of denial” that made approving their sale more difficult. The change affects the US's implementation of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). Under the new rules, possible UAS sales will be vetted using rules already in place for other exports. Commenting on the change during a telebriefing, Cooper said: “All proposed transfers affected by this change will continue to be subject to the same rigorous review criteria that we have outlined in our UAS Export Policy, our Conventional Arms Transfer Policy, and of course, the Arms Export Control Act, as well as the specific non-proliferation criteria that has been identified in the MTCR Guidelines. “The United States is going to continue conducting our robust review procedures for exporting UAS technology to support global non-proliferation objectives, and we encourage members of the MTCR, as well as non-members such as China, to do the same.” The new rule change applies to UAS but will not affect systems such as cruise missiles, hypersonic aerial vehicles and ‘advanced unmanned aerial combat vehicles'. Cooper added that the subset of UAS covered by the new regulations ‘poses no risk for weapons of mass destruction delivery'. Commenting on the move in a statement the White House said: “While the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) is critical in slowing proliferation and promoting peace and security, it is in dire need of modernization as it applies to UAS. In a sector of rapidly-evolving technology, the MTCR's standards are more than three decades old. “Not only do these outdated standards give an unfair advantage to countries outside of the MTCR and hurt United States industry, they also hinder our deterrence capability abroad by handicapping our partners and allies with subpar technology. More than two years of discussion with MTCR partners were unable to produce consensus on this overdue reform.” The White House added that the move would bolster US National Security “by improving the capabilities of our partners and increase our economic security by opening the expanding UAS market to United States industry,” adding that it saw the decision as an example for other MTCR members to follow. https://www.airforce-technology.com/news/us-eases-military-uas-export-rules/

Conservative critic says maintenance plan ignores fact that not everything on a submarine can be replaced Murray Brewster The Canadian navy has found a very creative way to keep its second-hand submarines afloat until the late 2030s and early 2040s — a plan that emphasizes maintenance over age in predicting how long the vessels can remain seaworthy. The plan — according to a newly-released briefing note prepared in the run-up to the release of the Liberal government's marquee defence policy — would not see HMCS Victoria decommissioned until the end of 2042, giving the warship over 45 years service in Canada. That estimate does not include the time the boat served with Britain's Royal Navy, which would add at least a decade to its working life. The retirements of the other submarines — HMCS Chicoutimi, HMCS Windsor and HMCS Corner Brook — would be staggered throughout the 2030s, with Windsor being the first to go in 2033. "The [Victoria Class Submarines] are a well-designed and solidly constructed class of modern conventional submarines that have had an unusual life since entering service with the [Royal Navy] in the early 1990s," said the August 2016 briefing analysis, recently obtained by Conservative Party researchers. "'While chronologically 20 years older, they have not been operated extensively during that time." The boats were first constructed for the Royal Navy in the 1980s, but Britain decided to sell them when the government of the day made the policy decision to operate only nuclear-powered submarines. One aspect of the Liberal defence policy, released in June 2017, that has puzzled military experts and opposition critics alike was its assumption that the submarines — which have had a tortured technical history that includes one fatal fire — will remain in service until at least the 2040s. The briefing note spells out in detail — and for the first time publicly — how the navy intends to squeeze more life out of boats it was supposed to start retiring in four years. It was originally envisioned, the briefing said, that the Victoria-Class submarines would retire one at a time, beginning in 2024. he report argues it is possible to operate the submarines beyond their expected working lives if the military assesses the "material state" of each boat rather than following "a simplistic calendar driven" evaluation of their operational condition. In others words, the report argues that what matters most is not how old the submarines are, but rather how hard have they been driven and how well have they been maintained. The submarines operate on what's called a "6-2 schedule" — six years of service at sea followed by two years of deep maintenance before returning to duty. The briefing note proposes that the boats do nine years of service and then go into a longer refurbishment of up to three years. The submarines would need a full life-extension overhaul in addition to the extended maintenance plan. As evidence to support the plan, the briefing note to senior defence officials pointed to a 2013 study of the Victoria-Class submarines — which said that "although there are numerous technical and supportability challenges, there was no single obstacle precluding a life extension of up to 12 years." 'Lower expectations' The briefing offers one note of caution, however: "It is reasonable to assume that operational availability will decrease as the submarine ages." The briefing note predicted higher maintenance and sustainment costs as the boats get older. To save money, it said, the navy might have to lower expectations of what the boats can do. The existing plan "assumed that there would be no relaxation of operational performance requirements, although in fact some discretion by the Operational Requirements Authority in this regard may be feasible as a cost saving measure," said the note. Conservative defence critic James Bezan said he was astounded by the plan to stretch out the operational life of the subs. He said he doesn't blame the naval planners who drew up the document — but he does hold the Liberal government accountable, arguing it must have ordered the Department of National Defence to give it some justification for putting off the purchase of new submarines. "It is ridiculous," Bezan said. "There was potential for some political direction on how this was written." Canada's submarine fleet spent 'zero days' at sea last year: government documents Canada's front-line frigates have suffered 10 fire and smoke incidents since 2018 In an interview with CBC News at the end of last year, the commander of the navy, Vice-Admiral Art McDonald, defended the plan to extend the life of the boats, saying he had full confidence in the "pretty resourceful and capable" submarine engineering community. The defence policy, he said, "directed us to operate and modernize" the submarine fleet and he's confident it can be done safely. "We know there is still excellent life in the Victoria-class submarine," McDonald told CBC News. "I've seen that personally as an outsider who has come into the program and taken a look at it." The focus of the subs' modernization project — which was in the early stages of being developed when the pandemic hit back in late winter — will be on survivability and making the submarines more livable for crew members. "We're going to be able to operate those boats into the 2030s, but to do that we have to continue with the routine investments we've made and modernize, as was directed" by the defence policy, McDonald said. Not everything can be replaced A series of assessments was conducted between 2008 and 2014. The defence department's naval board, which is charged with planning the future shape of the fleet, met in November 2014 to study the life expectancy of the second-hand boats. "While it is considered unrealistic to predict the material state of 40-year-old platforms, 20 years into the future, certain items such as the pressure hull and main motor will require additional monitoring and maintenance above the current regime, since unpredicted degradation in such areas may not be cost effective to repair and mitigate," said the 2016 briefing note. And that's the problem with the life-extension plan, said Bezan: some key parts of a submarine — such as the pressure hull and the engines — can't be upgraded. He also pointed to how the submarine fleet had "zero days at sea" in 2019 because all of the vessels were tied up for maintenance. The analysis, Bezan said, shows that the Liberal government should immediately begin looking for a replacement for the submarines — something the previous Conservative government was in the process of doing when it was defeated in 2015. The options that were discussed before the election, he said, included partnering with the Australians — who were in the process of acquiring their own submarine replacements — or buying an off-the-shelf design for inclusion in the federal shipbuilding strategy. None of those ideas got very far before the election, he added. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-forces-navy-submarine-1.5665020

Andrew Eversden WASHINGTON — The Army program office tasked with network modernization has started procuring its first iteration of new network tools, known as Capability Set ‘21. The Army's Program Executive Office Command, Control, Communications-Tactical received mid-tier acquisition authority for Capability Set '21 in July this year, according to Paul Mehney, director of public communications at the office. Four infantry brigade combat teams will receive Capability Set '21 equipment in fiscal 2021. PEO C3T will procure Capability Set '21 to support fielding to the new tools to infantry and Stryker brigade combat teams from FY21 to FY23. Tools from Capability Set '21 will serve as the foundation for Capability Set '23, which will focus on improving resilient communications capabilities in contested environments. In April, the Army network team completed its critical design review for Capability Set '21. During the review, it finalized decisions regarding the types and amounts of technology needed across brigades, such as the number of single-channel radios versus leader radios. “Critical design was as much about making sure that we ended up with a design that we could afford to buy in the quantities we promised as it was exploring specific technical issues,” said then-Maj. Gen. David Bassett, who led PEO C3T and is now a three-star general serving as director of the Defense Contract Management Agency. For example, Bassett said, going into the critical design review, the team thought it would be able to have a smaller quantity of leader radios, which are two-channel radios, and a larger quantity of single-channel radios. The Army ultimately landed back at the original quantities it envisioned and reduced the amount of single-channel radios while increasing the leader radio amount. On satellite communications terminals, the Army had to grapple with the affordability of the number of the terminals. Bassett said they ultimately landed at a “middle ground” of satellite communications terminals, and Gallagher said it will be “a lot” more than what units have today. There were some emerging technologies with which the Army experimented for Capability Set '21, but decided to defer them to Capability Set '23 because of affordability reasons or lack of technical maturity. “The answer is not that we never want them, just that we're not confident enough in those capabilities and their affordability in this time frame to include them in our [Capability Set] '21 baseline,” Bassett said. When the Army's Network Cross-Functional Team began work on Capability Set '21 a few years ago, it was looking for existing technologies that could solve network capability gaps. In Capability Set '21, the Army is looking for “smaller, lighter, faster” capabilities and “more options” on network transport. Critical design review for Capability Set '21 also moved from a 100 percent classified network to a 75 percent secure but unclassified network at the battalion level and below, which will save money and time with security clearances, according to Col. Garth Winterle, project manager for tactical radio at PEO C3T. The Army also plans to go through a competitive procurement process for the technologies, Winterle told C4ISRNET in a May interview. Anywhere “where there was a stand-in capability where we know from market research that there's other vendors, we'll perform the same sort of competitive actions,” Winterle said. https://www.c4isrnet.com/newsletters/daily-news-roundup/2020/07/27/the-army-is-procuring-its-new-tactical-network-tools/

Robert Burns, The Associated Press WHITEMAN AIR FORCE BASE, Mo. — In the topsy-turvy world of U.S. strategic bombers, older and uglier sometimes beats newer and snazzier. As the Air Force charts a bomber future in line with the Pentagon's new focus on potential war with China or Russia, the youngest and flashiest — the stealthy B-2, costing a hair-raising $2 billion each — is to be retired first. The oldest and stodgiest — the Vietnam-era B-52 — will go last. It could still be flying when it is 100 years old. This might seem to defy logic, but the elite group of men and women who have flown the bat-winged B-2 Spirit accept the reasons for phasing it out when a next-generation bomber comes on line. “In my mind, it actually does make sense to have the B-2 as an eventual retirement candidate,” says John Avery, who flew the B-2 for 14 years from Whiteman Air Force Base in western Missouri. He and his wife, Jennifer, were the first married couple to serve as B-2 pilots; she was the first woman to fly it in combat. The Air Force sees it as a matter of money, numbers and strategy. The Air Force expects to spend at least $55 billion to field an all-new, nuclear-capable bomber for the future, the B-21 Raider, at the same time the Pentagon will be spending hundreds of billions of dollars to replace all of the other major elements of the nation's nuclear weapons arsenal. The Air Force also is spending heavily on new fighters and refueling aircraft, and like the rest of the military it foresees tighter defense budgets ahead. The B-2′s viability suffers from the fact that only 21 were built, of which 20 remain. That leaves little slack in the supply chain for unique spare parts. It is thus comparatively expensive to maintain and to fly. It also is seen as increasingly vulnerable against air defenses of emerging war threats like China. Then there is the fact that the B-52, which entered service in the mid-1950s and is known to crews as the Big Ugly Fat Fellow, keeps finding ways to stay relevant. It is equipped to drop or launch the widest array of weapons in the entire Air Force inventory. The plane is so valuable that the Air Force twice in recent years has brought a B-52 back from the grave — taking long-retired planes from a desert “boneyard” in Arizona and restoring them to active service. Strategic bombers have a storied place in U.S. military history, from the early days of the former Strategic Air Command when the only way America and the former Soviet Union could launch nuclear weapons at each other was by air, to the B-52′s carpet bombing missions in Vietnam. Developed in secrecy in the 1980s, the B-2 was rolled out as a revolutionary weapon — the first long-range bomber built with stealth, or radar-evading, technology designed to defeat the best Soviet air defenses. By the time the first B-2 was delivered to the Air Force in 1993, however, the Soviet Union had disintegrated and the Cold War had ended. The plane made its combat debut in the 1999 Kosovo war. It flew a limited number of combat sorties over Iraq and Afghanistan and has launched only five combat sorties since 2011, all in Libya. The last was a 2017 strike notable for the fact that it pitted the world's most expensive and exotic bomber against a flimsy camp of Islamic State group militants. “It has proved its worth in the fight, over time,” says Col. Jeffrey Schreiner, who has flown the B-2 for 19 years and is commander of the 509th Bomb Wing at Whiteman, which flies and maintains the full fleet. But after two decades of fighting small wars and insurgencies, the Pentagon is shifting its main focus to what it calls “great power competition” with a rising China and a resurgent Russia, in an era of stiffer air defenses that expose B-2 vulnerabilities. Thus the Pentagon's commitment to the bomber of the future — the B-21 Raider. The Air Force has committed to buying at least 100 of them. The plane is being developed in secrecy to be a do-it-all strategic bomber. A prototype is being built now, but the first flight is not considered likely before 2022. Bombers are legend, but their results are sometimes regretted. A B-2 bomber scarred U.S.-China relations in 1999 when it bombed Beijing's embassy in the Serbian capital of Belgrade, killing three people. China denounced the attack as a “barbaric act,” while the U.S. insisted it was a grievous error. The Air Force had planned to keep its B-2s flying until 2058 but will instead retire them as the B-21 Raider arrives in this decade. Also retiring early will be the B-1B Lancer, which is the only one of the three bomber types that is no longer nuclear-capable. The Air Force proposes to eliminate 17 of its 62 Lancers in the coming year. The B-52, however, will fly on. It is so old that it made a mark on American pop culture more than half a century ago. It lent its name to a 1960s beehive hairstyle that resembled the plane's nosecone, and the plane featured prominently in Stanley Kubrick's 1964 black comedy, “Dr. Strangelove.” More than once, the B-52 seemed destined to go out of style. “We're talking about a plane that ceased production in 1962 based on a design that was formulated in the late 1940s,” says Loren Thompson, a defense analyst at the Lexington Institute, a Washington think-tank. Rather than retire it, the Air Force is planning to equip the Boeing behemoth with new engines, new radar technology and other upgrades to keep it flying into the 2050s. It will be a “stand off” platform from which to launch cruise missiles and other weapons from beyond the reach of hostile air defenses. In Thompson's view, the Air Force is making a simple calculation: The B-52 costs far less to operate and maintain than the newer but finickier B-2. “They decided the B-52 was good enough,” he says. https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2020/07/26/in-a-future-usaf-bomber-force-old-and-ugly-beats-new-and-snazzy/

Andrew Eversden WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army's combat capabilities development team kicked off a monthslong experiment last week to test emerging technologies that could be added into the service's tactical network. The third annual Network Modernization Experiment at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in New Jersey started July 20 and ends Oct. 2. NetModX provides an opportunity for the Combat Capabilities Development Command's C5ISR Center — or Command, Control, Communication, Computers, Cyber, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Center — to perform field tests with emerging capabilities that have largely been tested in the lab. Field tests with simulated threat environments, as opposed to lab tests, are important because technologies react in unexpected ways due to realities like different types of trees or terrain. This year's theme for NetModX is mission command and command-post survivability, which means participants will focus on technologies that could be fielded in the Army's Integrated Tactical Network Capability Set '23 and Capability Set '25 — future iterations of network tools that the Army plans to deliver to soldiers every two years. In this year's test, the C5ISR Center is testing communications capabilities that allow for distributed mission command systems across the battlefield “and wider area,” said Michael Brownfield, chief of the future capabilities office at the C5ISR Center. “We've learned by watching our enemies fight, and we know that to survive on the battlefield, No. 1, they can't be able to see us,” Brownfield told C4ISRNET in an interview. “And No. 2, we have to distribute our systems across the battlefield to give them multiple targets and multiple dilemmas in order to survive.” NetModX is also testing network resiliency capabilities that could be delivered as part of Capability Set '23. Preliminary design review for the capability set is scheduled for April next year. To test the effectiveness of the resiliency projects the center developed in the lab, the C5ISR Center created a “state-of-the-art red cell” that attacks the network using enemy's tactics, techniques and procedures, according to Brownfield. The goal is to make sure the technology can withstand electronic attacks and allow for continuous operations in contested environments when in the hands of deployed soldiers. “What resiliency means to us is the network bends, it doesn't break,” Brownfield said. “And the commanders have the information they need and the coordination that they need to fight the battle.” A modular radio frequency system of systems is undergoing tests, and Brownfield says it will “revolutionize” the fight on the battlefield. The system automatically switches between primary, alternate, contingency and emergency, or PACE, radios by sensing if radio frequencies are being jammed. The system then responds by automatically switching radio channels to allow for seamless communications in a contested environment. Currently, “it's kind of hard to switch to alternate comms when the person you're talking to is on their primary, not their alternative comms,” Brownfield said. “And the process is very slow. It's human-driven.” Now, the automatic PACE system senses the environment in milliseconds, he said. At last year's experiment, which focused on network transport capabilities to support precision fires for multidomain operations, the center experimented with radios that could flip to new channels on their own, while launching brute force and other more sophisticated attacks against the radios to see how much stress they could handle before passing data became impossible. This year will be a little different. “This year, we're pairing different radios together and see how they can work to actually change the type of modulation schemes that we use to maneuver in cyberspace around for continuous operations while under enemy attack and under contested electronic warfare conditions,” Brownfield said. One of the top priorities for this year's experiment is allowing for projects leaders to bring their technology into to the field, no matter what stage of development they are in, to be tested in an “operationally relevant environment,” Brownfield said. The team then collects data on how the technology performs and puts it into a database where it can be queried to answer specific performance questions. “So we can ... ask the database questions like, ‘What was my latency with these two radios at this point in time,' and start to understand the true metrics of how the systems performed in the field,” Joshua Fischer, acting chief of systems engineering, architecture, modeling and simulation at the C5ISR Center, told C4ISRNET. He added that those involved are also looking at network throughput. https://www.c4isrnet.com/yahoo-syndication/2020/07/24/us-army-begins-experimenting-with-new-network-tools/