A Closer Look At European Aerospace And Defense Programs

Sur le même sujet

• 

  2 décembre 2019 | International, C4ISR, Sécurité

  New details emerge on a nearly $1B cyber contract

  By: Mark Pomerleau The Army provided new details about its nearly $1 billion cyber training contract that will serve as the cornerstone of the Department of Defense's much needed cyber training platform. The Army released Nov. 25 updated information regarding the scope of work for the Persistent Cyber Training Environment (PCTE), which is the main component for the nearly $957 billion Cyber Training, Readiness, Integration, Delivery and Enterprise Technology (TRIDENT) contract. PCTE, an online client in which members of U.S. Cyber Command's cyber mission force can log on from anywhere in the world for training and to rehearse missions, is one of the more critical needs for Cyber Command. Currently, no integrated or robust cyber training environment exists. The updated statement of work, posted in advance of the Dec. 2 industry day, provides details regarding the overall TRIDENT contract, which will extend training services beyond Cyber Command to the joint services. It is expected that a single vendor will be selected for TRIDENT, serving as the integrator for various efforts that will be strung together to make up PCTE. At a general level, the updated documents describe a variety of management, maintenance and evolution services the contractor shall provide for PCTE. Included among those services: Platform architecture and product management Agile development and delivery systems engineering processes Development and automation Hardware and software infrastructure management Event or exercise support Cyber Innovation Challenge (CIC) capability integration and event support Development Operations (DevOps) environment management Distributed configuration management among various vendors and stakeholders PCTE infrastructure tool management License management Onsite and remote support Additional documents include details on three separate delivery orders. The first involves support for infrastructure and maintenance, the second involves support for the integration factory of PCTE capabilities, and the third provides details on platform capability production of PCTE. Currently, the Army is in the prototype phase of PCTE. Using what are known as Cyber Innovation Challenges to award smaller companies a piece of the program, they are incrementally building a platform. That platform, which is being used by forces currently, is helping to prove out the concept for PCTE, refine requirements for the final contract, and reduce risk. Regarding the future of the TRIDENT contract, industry sources have explained that a request for proposals was expected in November with a final proposal expected in March 2020. An award for TRIDENT is expected in late 2020. https://www.fifthdomain.com/dod/2019/11/26/new-details-emerge-on-a-nearly-1b-cyber-contract/

• 

  20 novembre 2019 | International, Aérospatial

  B-21 Program Hits Schedule Pressure Even On ‘Conventional Trajectory’

  Steve Trimble As the first B-21 enters final assembly in Palmdale, California, the Northrop Grumman-led program is on track to hit a first-flight target in two years, although the first signs of schedule pressure have appeared. Most of the details of the U.S. Air Force's newest stealth bomber remain a tightly guarded secret, but those facts released show the program is following a conventional trajectory despite being managed by an organization with the word “rapid” in its title. The Air Force announced completion of the critical design review in December 2018 in the standard three years after Northrop Grumman won the engineering and manufacturing development contract. The target for the first flight milestone stayed secret until July , when Gen. Stephen Wilson, the Air Force's vice chief of staff, stated publicly—and with remarkable specificity—that the milestone was 863 days away. Wilson offered that timetable on July 25, suggesting the targeted date is around Dec. 3, 2021. SCO leader says earliest flight would be in December 2021 Public rollout event expected in Palmdale, California The final piece of the publicly acknowledged schedule is that the first B-21 entered the early stages of final assembly around September in Palmdale, presumably within Northrop's Site 4 manufacturing complex and perhaps inside Building 401 in the same assembly bay that once housed the B-2. To hit Wilson's first-flight target, Northrop's staff must complete assembly of the first aircraft, stage a public rollout event and perform necessary ground testing within about two years. But Wilson's first-flight target may already be under pressure. His description made the December 2021 date seem like a fixed schedule milestone typical of most major defense acquisition programs. Randall Walden, who leads the Rapid Capabilities Office assigned to lead the B-21 program, describes Wilson's timing as closer to a schedule goal than a deadline. Walden recast the target as the “earliest possible” date for first flight, which he has little confidence the program will achieve. “I would not bet on that date,” Walden told an audience at a Capitol Hill Club breakfast on Oct. 24 organized by the Air Force Association. The comment is a rare cautionary note among otherwise glowing descriptions of the B-21 program by officials cleared to know the status of the development program. In March 2018, Rep. Rob Wittman (R-Va.) reported concerns about the design of the engine inlet, citing an internal dispute between Northrop and engine supplier Pratt & Whitney's engineers. Twelve months later, Wittman confirmed that the inlet design problem had been resolved. The program has since received only glowing assessments by Air Force leaders, including a statement in October by Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein that the B-21 ranks at the top of his list of successful acquisition projects. Despite those assurances, transitioning a new aircraft from a paper design into manufactured hardware is a challenging phase for any program. Large pieces of the first aircraft are now in assembly. “We're working a production line, literally, today,” Walden says. An official artist's rendering shows the B-21 shares the all-wing profile of the B-2, minus the latter's distinctive sawtooth trailing edge. The Air Force's acquisition strategy also focused on minimizing risk by relying as much as possible on available technology. But a modern bomber with the B-21's mission to penetrate into highly contested airspace is still anything but a simple project. “It is a complex airplane. I'll leave it at that,” Walden says. Walden expects the Air Force to stage a public rollout event in Palmdale when the aircraft is ready. For the B-2, the rollout was staged seven months before the first flight. If the B-21 stays to the same schedule, the unveiling could come as early as May 2020. But Walden adds that includes several big “ifs.” “Like anything, building a complex system could add those schedule pressures,” Walden says. “We've got to bring parts together, got to assemble it and get it stuffed with the right avionics, get the landing gear on it, all the things that go along with an airplane.” Any schedule pressure facing the B-21 would not surprise Frank Kendall, the former undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics. Kendall led the shaping of the acquisition strategy for the B-21. In a recent interview, he recalled pushing back against attempts by the Air Force to award a firm, fixed-price contract instead of a more flexible cost-plus arrangement, which is generally applied to acquisition projects with a higher risk. “When I looked at . . . the actual content of the program, I [was] so glad I told [the Air Force to use cost-plus],” Kendall says. “It's not risk-free. I'll be amazed if they get this thing in on schedule and on cost. But it was designed to have a reasonable chance of success.” An independent estimate by the Defense Department assessed the cost of the engineering and manufacturing development phase at $21.4 billion, with follow-on production of at least 80-100 bombers worth up to $60 billion more. The Air Force has budgeted $5.9 billion over the next five years to pay for the first operational aircraft, with low-rate initial production possibly beginning in fiscal 2023. “There are a lot of things that have to happen between now and a couple of years,” Walden says. https://aviationweek.com/defense/b-21-program-hits-schedule-pressure-even-conventional-trajectory

• 

  23 octobre 2020 | International, Aérospatial

  European nations should shape their air-combat fleets to support the F-35, US analysts say

  By: Sebastian Sprenger COLOGNE, Germany — European NATO nations without the fifth-generation F-35 combat jet should mold their fleets to complement the U.S.-developed aircraft in future operations, according to a new report commissioned by U.S. European Command. The analysis, done by the think tank Rand and published Oct. 22, ascribes such a vital advantage to the F-35′s stealth and sensor-fusion features that the jet would be the only aircraft suitable for an initial contact with Russian forces in the event of a conflict. Following that logic, European nations that have already signed up for the Lockheed Martin-made jet should hone their tactics toward that initial engagement, and countries with less advanced aircraft should strive to maximize their ability to complement such an operation, the authors argued. The United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Belgium and Italy are European NATO members in various stages of getting F-35 aircraft. One tier below that, in the eyes of Rand analysts, are countries like Germany or France whose Eurofighter and Rafale fleets, respectively, have sensors advanced enough to be considered “fourth-generation-plus” aircraft. The report's recommendations are based on the hypothetical premise of a Russian land grab on the alliance's eastern flank. “One common scenario considers a calculation by the Russian government that Russia could leverage a regional imbalance in ground forces to occupy some slice of NATO territory, employ air defenses to stave off allied air forces, present a fait accompli similar to that seen in Crimea, and politically divide NATO by calling for negotiations,” the document stated. “The ability of European fifth-generation fighters to penetrate Russian air defenses and make significant combat contributions from the opening hours of a response — at the vanguard — would most likely challenge the logic behind this scenario, improving deterrence by increasing the Russian risks associated with this approach.” The observation follows the belief, which the authors propose is shared by Russia, that NATO forces have the upper hand in air-combat capability, whereas Moscow has the lead in ground forces. To be sure, the Rand analysis covers only one dimension in a potential confrontation with Russia. Air and naval assets as well as cyber weapons for information warfare would also shape the battlefield in potentially unpredictable ways, not to mention any surprise capabilities that either side could throw into the mix to nullify the opponent's technological advantage. The problem for European nations' fourth-generation and “fourth-generation-plus” aircraft, which lack stealth capabilities, is the inability to get close enough to targets without getting shot down by sophisticated air defense weapons, according to Rand. The key to making the best of the continent's aircraft mix is developing the fleets with greater interoperability in mind, the analysts argued. In that sense, non-stealthy combat planes, which typically can carry more weapons than the F-35, still have an important role to play after more advanced fighters clear any ground-based threats. European nations are studying two versions of a sixth-generation weapon for air combat, namely the Tempest project (led by the U.K.) and the Future Combat Air System (led by France and Germany). Those aircraft ideas are slated to come online around 2040, which puts them outside of the scope of the Rand analysis. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/10/22/european-nations-should-shape-their-air-combat-fleets-to-support-the-f-35-us-analysts-say/