Air Force Research Laboratory announces new space experiments

Sur le même sujet

• 

  3 mars 2021 | International, Aérospatial

  The pre-release of the following Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) topics has been EXTENDED until March 9, 2021:

  ATTENTION: The pre-release of the following Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) topics has been EXTENDED until March 9, 2021: Space Development Agency (SDA), HQ085021S0001 SBIR Topic HQ085021S0001-01: Free-Space Optical Communication (FSOC) Technology for Optical Intersatellite Links (OISLs), published at: https://beta.sam.gov/opp/7e60b2b1a9014888925a1d4b4fecd0df/view SBIR Topic HQ085021S0001-02: L-Band Multiband/Interleaved Electronically Scanned Array (ESA) Antenna, published at: https://beta.sam.gov/opp/6b1fd1d4efca4e3aad5d7ad4699ac4eb/view SBIR Topic HQ085021S0001-03: Advanced Space Mesh Networking, published at: https://beta.sam.gov/opp/338239928d54409ea01ee400325b2e5e/view STTR Topic HQ085021S0001-04: Advanced Space Mesh Networking, published at: https://beta.sam.gov/opp/002cf1a4efcb472dbb5f87c9e23aab26/view SBIR Topic HQ085021S0001-05: Mesh Network NSA Certifiable Cryptographic Solution, published at: https://beta.sam.gov/opp/262cd2b6216e4002bdd6b15789d5a73e/view STTR Topic HQ085021S0001-06: Mesh Network NSA Certifiable Cryptographic Solution, published at: https://beta.sam.gov/opp/533dbc7e30e4452eb3cc814b882c21a7/view IMPORTANT DATES: [NEW] March 9, 2021: Topic Q&A opens; BAA opens, begin submitting proposals in DSIP [NEW] March 24, 2021: Topic Q&A closes to new questions at 12:00 p.m. ET March 31, 2021: BAA closes, full proposals must be submitted in DSIP no later than 12:00 p.m. ET Topic Q&A During pre-release, proposers can contact TPOCs directly. Once DoD begins accepting proposals on March 9, 2021, no further direct contact between proposers and topic authors is allowed. Topic Q&A will be available for proposers to submit technical questions at https://www.dodsbirsttr.mil/submissions/login beginning March 9, 2021. All questions and answers are posted electronically for general viewing. Topic Q&A will close to new questions on March 24, 2021 at 12:00 p.m. ET, but will remain active to view questions and answers related to the topics until the BAA close. DSIP Help Desk Contact Info Phone Number: 703-214-1333 Email: DoDSBIRSupport@reisystems.com Hours: Monday – Friday, 9:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. ET Thank you for your interest in the DoD SBIR/STTR Program. DoD SBIR/STTR Support Team To sign up and receive upcoming emails, please follow this link: https://secure.campaigner.com/CSB/Public/Form.aspx?fid=667492&ac=g9gk 

• 

  11 novembre 2019 | International, Aérospatial, C4ISR, Sécurité

  How the Space Cybersecurity Working Group fosters communication

  By: Nathan Strout In September 2018, the Trump administration added space cybersecurity to the National Cyber Strategy. Of course, adding space cybersecurity to a strategy document doesn't automatically make those systems secure from cyberthreats. In the year since that document was adopted, the Space Cybersecurity Working Group has been trying to make the administration's desire that United States space assets are cybersecure a reality. “The National Security Council, in very close coordination with the National Space Council, as well as the Office of the vice president, decided to form an inner agency group called the Space Cybersecurity Working Group,” explained Jaisha Wray, cybersecurity director of the National Security Council. “The goals of our working group are to identify and coordinate and prioritize U.S. government efforts to manage cybersecurity risks to space systems.” As the cybersecurity director of the National Security Council, Wray is in charge of developing international cybersecurity partnerships. Previously she served as the acting deputy director of emerging security challenges at the Department of State, where she helped build space and cyber policies. At the CyberSat19 conference Nov. 7, Wray explained how her Space Cybersecurity Working Group was fostering communications between various organizations to enhance cybersecurity in space. Key to developing effective cybersecurity across the nation's space systems is communication, be it between space and cyber communities, the U.S. and international partners, or the government and industry, said Wray. “What we saw was that across departments and agencies in the U.S. government, the space and the cyber people are often located in different offices in different bureaus, and so one of the early successes of our working group is simply just bringing these folks together to try to reduce stovepipes, compare notes and provide updates,” she explained. Those meetings are ongoing and have been embraced by both communities, said Wray. The National Cyber Strategy also directed the National Security Council to enhance partnerships between the U.S. government and commercial and other space-faring nations. “This is particularly important since our efforts in space are becoming increasingly intertwined, both commercially and internationally, and we must ensure that all space systems — not just U.S. government satellites — are protected from cyberthreats,” said Wray. “However, a key challenge is convincing others to spend the extra money and resources necessary to make their satellites more secure when the extent of the threat is not always well known or available in the public domain. So this is why both internationally and with industry we plan to enhance our efforts to raise awareness and share information on cyberthreats and to develop and share best practices and principles to counter these threats.” On the industry front, the working group is backing the efforts of the newly established Space Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ISAC). ISACs are member-driven groups that work with the government to spread information through industry. The formation of a separate Space ISAC was announced in April, and the group held its first board meeting Nov. 7. “We were very pleased to see and now support the efforts of the new Space ISAC, which will help gather, analyze and disseminate critical cyberthreat information related to space among the federal commercial and international community,” said Wray. While the technical side of enhancing space cybersecurity presents its own challenge, it's clear that a major gap in implementing cybersecurity in space is connecting the various stakeholders, be they commercial companies, various agencies or other countries. “I'm confident that through the Space Cybersecurity Working Group, we can continue to make progress and working cooperatively to address these threats,” said Wray. https://www.fifthdomain.com/dod/2019/11/08/how-the-space-cybersecurity-working-group-fosters-communication/

• 

  5 juin 2020 | International, Aérospatial

  U.S. Air Force 'Arsenal Plane' Revival Sparks Intense Debate

  Steve Trimble June 02, 2020 An "Arsenal Plane" has rapidly emerged as a short-term priority for the U.S. Air Force, but an internal debate continues over the type of aircraft to use, potentially affecting the service's existing command structure and the Northrop Grumman B-21 program. A proposal to modify Lockheed C-130s and Boeing C-17s to air-drop existing and new long-range munitions is now favored as a short-term solution by the Air Force Warfighting Integration Capability (AFWIC) office, which is charged with developing new operational concepts by the Air Staff. Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC), which has responsibility for the bomber fleet and inventory of intercontinental ballistic missiles, prefers developing a new aircraft optimized for the mission, rather than seeking to borrow strike capacity from an already overburdened air mobility fleet. Neither proposal is endorsed by the Mitchell Institute, the think tank arm of the Air Force Association (AFA). In a prepublication report obtained by Aviation Week, Col. (ret.) Mark Gunzinger, the institute's director of Future Aerospace Concepts and Capability Assessments, argues that the most cost-effective solution is to buy more B-21 bombers rather than invest in more long-range munitions to support the Arsenal Plane concept. All the parties involved agree that the airborne component of the Air Force's long-range strike capability is inadequate, even after Northrop Grumman delivers at least 100 B-21s, which are expected to replace a fleet of 20 Northrop B-2s and 62 Rockwell B-1Bs and operate alongside about 75 Boeing B-52s. “What we see is that no matter how big our bomber force is, the capacity that the Joint Force needs is always more and more,” says Maj. Gen. Clinton Hinote, deputy director of the AFWIC, which develops new operational concepts on the Air Staff. The Air Force's latest estimate of the requirement calls for a fleet of at least 220 bombers, Gen. Timothy Ray, the head of AFGSC, told reporters in early April. According to a fleet forecast in the Mitchell Institute report, the Air Force inventory could decline to about 120 bombers by 2032 as the B-2 and B-1B fleets are retired. Gunzinger, a former bomber pilot, forecasts the Air Force will order about 120 B-21s by 2040. Combined with 75 B-52s, however, the fleet would still be about 30 aircraft short of the minimum deemed required by the Air Force today. Closing that gap—either by loading long-range munitions on existing airlifters, developing a new aircraft for that purpose or buying more B-21s—is driving the internal debate. At its core, the debate is over cost-effectiveness and capacity. A stealthy bomber, such as the B-21A, is more expensive than an Arsenal Plane but needs less expensive, unpowered munitions because they can be released closer to the target. On the other hand, the B-21A remains early in the development phase, so Northrop may need more than a decade to deliver a significant number of aircraft. Various forms of the Arsenal Plane concept have been discussed since the 1970s. As former President Jimmy Carter's administration considered options to the Rockwell B-1A, the Defense Department briefly proposed the Cruise Missile Carrier Aircraft—a Boeing 747 modified to launch cruise missiles. The idea reemerged nearly 30 years later as the program that led to the B-21A began taking shape. In 2006, the Congressional Budget Office considered an Arsenal Aircraft based on a Boeing C-17 loaded with a supersonic cruise missile and concluded that it would be less effective than a penetrating bomber and require an extra $3.5 billion to order more C-17s. As the Pentagon locked in requirements for the B-21A program four years later, an Air Force-funded study by Rand compared the costs of a penetrating bomber versus an Arsenal Plane concept. If the U.S. military engages in at least 20 days of airstrikes over a 30-year period, the 2010 study concluded a penetrating bomber would be more affordable than the required investment in the Arsenal Plane. Even though the Air Force awarded Northrop a contract to develop the B-21A in October 2015, however, the debate has continued. Will Roper, then director of the Strategic Capabilities Office within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, unveiled an Arsenal Plane concept in February 2016, showing a Lockheed C-130-like aircraft dispensing palletized munitions. A year later, Roper became assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition, technology and logistics, and the Arsenal Plane moved to the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL). In January, the AFRL completed the first test of a new palletized munition dropped by an MC-130J. A picture of the new weapon—the Cargo Launch Expendable Air Vehicles with Extended Range (Cleaver)—showed six munitions on each pallet. A follow-up test involving an airdrop from C-17s was scheduled in April. The Cleaver testing satisfied AFRL that C-130s and C-17s could adapt one of the core capabilities for both aircraft: airdrop. The C-17 also has demonstrated the capability of releasing air-launched rockets from the cargo bay. In 2006, a C-17 was used to air-drop a launcher for a hypersonic boost-glide missile. The aircraft also is used by the Missile Defense Agency to test interceptors by dropping surrogates of medium-range ballistic missiles. The AFRL completed the tests weeks before the Defense Department completed plans for the fiscal 2022 budget proposal. “We are in discussions right now about how we proceed to prototyping and fielding,” Hinote says. For AFWIC, arming C-130s and C-17s with long-range weapons is attractive because it can increase munition capacity significantly in the near term. “It's all about capacity and that you've got to create enough capacity so that long-range punch is really a punch,” Hinote says. “This is why we think that there's a real possibility here for using cargo platforms to be able to increase the capacity of fires.” Not everyone agrees with that approach. As the commander of the Air Force's bomber fleet, Ray told reporters in early April that he does not want a commander to have to choose between using a C-17 for either weapons or airlift capacity. “When you think about using a cargo plane, you're in competition for other airlift requirements,” Ray said. “I think the Arsenal Plane concept is probably better defined as more of a clean-sheet approach to a platform that can affordably and rapidly fill the gap.” While Hinote and Ray debate whether an existing or clean-sheet design is better for an Arsenal Plane, some airpower experts still reject the idea that anything less than a stealthy bomber is adequate. Instead of lobbing long-range missiles, the B-21 is designed to get close enough to a target to use short-range, direct-attack weapons. Such munitions do not need to carry fuel and propulsion systems and so they can be smaller in proportion to the size of their warhead. “Size matters, since the number of weapons that can be delivered per aircraft sortie decreases as weapon size increases,” Gunzinger wrItes in the Mitchell Institute report. In addition to capacity, Gunzinger also questions the cost of an Arsenal Plane's required inventory of long-range munitions versus a bomber's more affordable, precision-guided bombs. A conflict with China or Russia could generate a massive list of targets. “Using tens of thousands of very long-range standoff weapons that cost a million dollars or more each is simply not affordable,” Gunzinger writes. https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/aircraft-propulsion/us-air-force-arsenal-plane-revival-sparks-intense-debate