Air Force to install New Mexico-made solar windows

Sur le même sujet

• 

  4 février 2021 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

  As mission-capable rates languish, Pentagon should embrace digital engineering

  Ben Kassel and Bruce Kaplan While many Pentagon initiatives face a change of course under new Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, its digital engineering strategy deserves a push forward. The strategy, issued in 2018 by then-Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering Michael Griffin, aimed to help military services harness modern sustainment methods like additive manufacturing, digital twin and augmented reality. For the Department of Defense, enterprisewide implementation of these techniques would lower costs, increase weapon systems' mission-capable rates and afford flexibility in fleet modernization. But digital engineering requires digital, 3D data — and the DoD doesn't have enough. Modern sustainment practices hinge on the availability of what's known as the model-based definition, 3D models and digitized descriptive information for a system or component. Using computer-aided design programs, engineers can manipulate the data to enable practices like condition-based maintenance, eliminating weapon systems' unnecessary downtime. Digital data can facilitate seamless transit from original equipment manufacturers, or OEM, to procurers and sustainers in the field and at maintenance depots worldwide. However, the technical data for most weapons systems remains elusive to the services and their program management offices, or PMO, or the datasets are available only in 2D documentation, such as blueprints. Meanwhile, readiness suffers. Of 46 weapons systems reviewed by the Government Accountability Office, only three achieved annual mission-capable targets at least five times between 2011 and 2019. More than half (24) failed to meet their goal even once, according to GAO's November 2020 report. The KC-13OJ Super Hercules air refueler and the MV-22B Osprey tiltrotor were among the programs to miss their target all nine years. GAO cited inaccessible technical data as a contributing factor for both programs. Of the Super Hercules, the report says: “The Navy and Marine Corps were unable to obtain the technical data of the aircraft ... the lack of the technical data compromises [their] ability to analyze and resolve sustainment issues.” Similar concerns were raised about the P-8A Poseidon anti-submarine aircraft, saying “technical data needed for maintenance has not been readily available to the Navy.” Dozens of systems, including the F-35 fighter jet, face similar obstacles. Notably, the GAO report referred not to 3D, model-based data but rather legacy incarnations: blueprints and documents that may have been converted “digitally” into PDFs. This is a far cry from the machine-readable formats required to use digital engineering technologies across the enterprise. The GAO cited the production of 170 “structural repair manuals” as a means of narrowing the Osprey's technical data gaps. The labor-intensive replication of physical documents — the PMO projected five years to deliver all of them — is a piecemeal solution, at best. Troublingly, modern sustainment methods seem beyond the reasonable expectation of not just PMOs but even forward-looking organizations like the GAO. To foster its DoD-wide implementation, the digital engineering strategy needs reinforcement, which could take the following forms: Champion the availability of model-based technical data in policy. Modern sustainment requires a shift from decadesold practices. Paper data that supports secondhand manuals and haphazard 2D-to-3D conversion should no longer be the norm. Services cannot lead this transition on their own, however. Federal guidance on the acquisition, creation, use and management of authentic, model-based technical data would jump-start the movement toward digital sustainment. Educate PMOs to acquire technical data rights strategically. Policy must be partnered by the right mindset. One reason PMOs don't have technical data is that sometimes they never asked for it. An afterthought at the time of procurement, technical data is often overlooked until maintenance is needed. Then it's too late — or too expensive — to acquire the needed rights. Leadership can encourage PMOs to identify potential sustainment solutions — and the technical data rights needed to execute them — at the time of acquisition. Assert the government's rights to model-based technical data. A sea change in sustainment depends on building unprecedented trust between OEMs and PMOs. OEMs understandably need to protect intellectual property, but their grip on model-based technical data must loosen for digital sustainment to flourish at scale. This can be accomplished without OEMs surrendering their competitive advantage. In many cases, OEMs need not transfer custody of the data itself for sustainment activities. Limited-rights agreements and trusted third-party arrangements can be tailored to enable data availability only when needed or to execute specific solutions. Giving OEMs confidence in these approaches will entail extensive dialogue and commitment by DoD leaders. Given the GAO's assessment, seeking a breakthrough is worth the attempt. Operationalizing the DoD strategy requires work in other areas as well, particularly in removing intra- and inter-organizational stovepipes, and securing the data's transmission and storage. But the first step toward a model-based sustainment enterprise is ensuring the availability of modern technical data. This need will only grow more crucial. Today's sustainment practices too closely resemble those of 30 years ago, not what they should be 30 years from now. We're already playing catch up. It's time to view sustainment with 3D glasses. Ben Kassel is a senior consultant at LMI. He previously worked with the U.S. government on defining and exchanging technical data used for naval architecture, marine and mechanical engineering, and manufacturing. Bruce Kaplan is a fellow at LMI. He previously served as technical director of logistics for research and development at the Defense Logistics Agency. https://www.c4isrnet.com/opinion/2021/02/03/as-mission-capable-rates-languish-pentagon-should-embrace-digital-engineering/

• 

  11 août 2020 | International, Terrestre

  Oshkosh is tinkering with a uniquely British JLTV

  By: Andrew Chuter Correction: A previous version of this story misidentified a contract conclusion date. That has been updated. LONDON – Britain has moved a step closer to completing a deal for purchasing Joint Light Tactical Vehicles (JLTV) following the award of a contract allowing platform builder Oshkosh Defense to trial proposed UK sub-systems on the vehicle. The British Ministry of Defence signed a demonstration phase deal with the US government in June to investigate the integration of UK equipment on the JLTV as part of a proposed foreign military sales agreement. Program officials here said the work being undertaken by Oshkosh is to help them better understand the choices to be made and reduce risk during manufacturing. The US vehicle has been selected by the British Army as the preferred option for the first phase of its Multi-Role Vehicle-Protected program aimed at replacing command, liaison and light logistics vehicles. A second MRV-P package, unrelated to JLTV, involving purchase of larger vehicles for ambulance and general purpose duties is still in competition. The demonstration deal has not been officially announced but radios, electronic countermeasures and other equipment are among the items specified by the British for trialing on a modified JLTV. Mike Ivy, the senior vice president for international programs at Oshkosh Defense, confirmed the work is underway. “The MRV-P program has funded a series of technical work packages that take the UK requirements and ensure proper fit and integration into JLTV,” Ivy said. The Oshkosh Defense executive said the work is being undertaken at the company's headquarters in Wisconsin. “The contract will conclude by December 2022,” said Ivy. Nobody is saying yet when a production contract might finally get signed, or for how many vehicles. Talks between the British and US governments on a proposed JLTV purchase have been underway for more than four years. Cost has been cited by some media reports as one of the reasons the two sides have failed so far to finalize a deal. Ivy said talks to conclude the deal were still underway. “The timing for the purchase of JLTV, the quantity of vehicles and subsequent delivery is the subject of ongoing discussions between the UK MoD and US DoD,” he said. British armed forces minister James Heappey told Parliament in January the intention was to decide on the JLTV procurement this year. That, though, was before Covid-19 struck, causing the delay of a defense review until around the end of the year and chronically damaging the financial prospects of military equipment spending. Equipment programs are regularly being delayed as the MoD seeks to balance its books. Most recently officials cited the defense review as one of the reasons for delaying a major 155mm howitzer program by more than two years. Analysts and the media here have said the Army may be a big loser if its budget takes a hit as the government defense review pivots towards sectors like space and cyber and away from conventional weapons like armored vehicles and artillery. The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency said in 2017 the British had been approved to purchase 2,747 JLTV vehicles at a cost of $1 billion. The Parliamentary Defence Committee , also in 2017, said the expectation was that 750 vehicles would likely be procured. Whatever number the British settle for Ivy said that Oshkosh is mindful of the importance of UK content for its contracts with the UK MoD. “The MRV-P program is no exception. Once the work packages have been completed by Oshkosh and the configuration has been determined by the UK MoD, Oshkosh will present options on shared work content that can be completed in collaboration with UK partners,” said the executive. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/08/10/oshkosh-is-tinkering-with-a-uniquely-british-jltv/

• 

  18 février 2019 | International, Aérospatial

  Taking sides: Italian defense industry rep attacks Franco-German fighter deal

  By: Tom Kington ROME — Plans by France and Germany to team up on a next-generation fighter are an affront to Italy and will weaken the European Union, according to the head of an Italian defense industry association. In a strong attack on the Future Air Combat System, or FCAS, deal, Guido Crosetto told Defense News that Italy would seek closer ties with the U.K. as a consequence, despite the U.K.'s pending exit from the EU. “The fighter deal between Germany and France leaves all others on the margins. And since the only other country with equal industrial capabilities is Italy, the deal is clearly against Italy,” he said. “Have France and Germany tried to get the Italy involved? It doesn't look that way,” he added. “Additionally, if two European stakeholders strike deals together, how should the others react? This risks weakening the EU, while giving more justification to those trying to weaken the EU.” Crosetto is the head of the Italian defense industry association AIAD. After signing to pursue a joint fighter last year, France and Germany this month awarded home players Airbus and Dassault a first contract for a concept study worth €65 million (U.S. $73 million), while Safran Aircraft Engines and MTU Aero Engines announced a partnership to supply propulsion. The FCAS program covers both manned and unmanned aircraft, which are due in service from 2040 to replace French Rafale fighters and Eurofighters currently flown by Germany. Showing that Paris and Berlin do want additional partners, Spain signed up Feb. 14, stating it would become an equal partner on the program. But in the belief that Germany and France will call the shots, Crosetto said Italy would do well to sign up with the U.K. to work on the British future fighter known as Tempest. “A jilted partner has the right to look around for other partners, and the U.K. has asked us to join Tempest,” he said. Italy's junior defense minister, Angelo Tofalo, said in December that the country “needed to enter the program immediately.” Crosetto said he was not alarmed by the potential difficulty of doing business with the U.K. if and when it leaves the European customs union, which is due to happen this year. The split will be a headache for Italy's defense champion Leonardo, which owns facilities in the U.K. and would spearhead Italy's work on Tempest. “Brexit would mean more red tape for Leonardo but would not be a difficulty — the Italy-U.K. relationship would remain very positive,” he said. As Germany and France signal progress on FCAS, they are also drawing closer politically in the face of Brexit and the rise of populist governments in Europe, including in Italy. Last month, Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte told Italian daily Corriere della Sera he was upset by France's offer to Germany to get it a permanent seat at the U.N. Security Council, despite long-term plans in Europe to give a new seat to the EU, and not to an individual country. Italy is already involved in a row with France over migrant quotas and Italian support for the gilet jaunes protesters in France, which have targeted the government of Emmanuel Macron. Crosetto said the current rift with Paris was not a cause of Italy's being sidelined on the fighter deal. “That predates the recent rows,” he said. The new Franco-German tie-up suggests the two countries will now look to work together on joint programs that can draw on cash made available by the new European Defence Fund, possibly isolating Italy. Crosetto said the Italian government was now obliged to invest more heavily in Italy's defense industry to make it more competitive and better able to grab slices of the funding. “Industry now needs the government to invest more,” he said. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2019/02/15/taking-sides-italian-defense-industry-rep-attacks-franco-german-fighter-deal/