Retour aux nouvelles

15 juillet 2020 | International, Aérospatial

Air Force’s Roper Sparks Debate On ‘Nationalizing Advanced Aviation’ Industry

The Air Force should field several iterations of improved drones before 2030 -- not just to replace the MQ-9 -- but to do everything from ISR to strike to counter-air missions.

By on July 14, 2020 at 4:44 PM

WASHINGTON: Air Force acquisition head Will Roper is worried the ever-shrinking US defense industrial base may force DoD to nationalize major programs in the not-so-distant future — expressing surprise that other senior leaders are not more concerned.

“I think it's really important that we find a new model where there are no big winners, and no big losers, but continual competition,” he told reporters today. “Because if our industrial base collapses any more, we'll have to nationalize advanced aviation — and maybe other parts of the Air Force that currently aren't competitive.”

While rushing to say that, as of now, there has not been any internal Pentagon discussion about nationalization of the aerospace industry, he told reporters today: “I don't think that's out of the tea leaf reading.

“It has surprised me in this job that there's not more concern in the Pentagon about the continual shrinking of the defense industrial base,” he added. “And it's not because the defense industrial base has gotten worse — it's just that programs are so few and far between.”

He explained that this reality forces defense companies to acquire “a pretty diversified portfolio” because the only competitions “may be a fighter one year, a satellite the next year, and a helicopter the next year.

“We've seen this trend of major acquisitions to get those portfolios diverse enough so that you can deal with the chutes and rapids of few and far between major acquisitions. So that should be a huge concern to us, especially with our research and development dollars in defense only accounting for 20 percent of the total nation's.”

A shrinking base means less competition; combine with that the fact that innovation now happens primarily in the commercial sector, not the defense sector.

“I don't have to tell you that, eventually, we will nationalize warfighting capabilities and the defense industrial base, it will happen by necessity — by national security necessity, but I don't think that that's a fait accompli,” he said.

Digital Century Series

That concern is one of the reasons Roper is betting on the Digital Century Series concept as the Air Force considers its development plans and procurement strategy for the highly classified Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD).

“My hope in the Digital Century Series is to stabilize, at least for tactical aircraft, the collapse of our aviation industrial base any further,” he said.

The new Program Executive Office for Fighters and Advanced Aircraft working on those programs has drafted a study to determine whether that concept — where new versions of aircraft are rotated into the fleet every 15 or so years — is actually cheaper than traditional programs, where up front unit costs are low but vendors make bank on modernization and sustainment.

In major acquisition programs where one winner takes all, he explained, “there is no way to tell industry, in a way you can enforce, not to significantly invest — it's too big of a deal, they have to win. That internal investment is then what creates that strong incentive to lock into the program, to put intellectual property into all different interfaces, no matter how good we are at trying to police it out of the system.”

“The designer always have mechanisms to skirt around our best policy and oversight,” he said wryly, because without being able to ensure future contracts for upgrades and upkeep, the firm wouldn't have a business case. But for the Air Force, modernizing and sustaining aircraft after year 15 results in increased costs of somewhere between three and eight percent per year, he said.

The idea with Digital Century Series, by contrast, is to break out of this model into one where the up-front price the Air Force pays for new aircraft — “somewhere between X-planes and mass production” — is essentially the “total price of ownership.” The hope, he said, is that while the up-front unit prices will be higher, the cost over time will be significantly lower than a traditional major program buy. And in fact, he said, Air Force's “compare and contrast” study of the two different acquisition models so far has found that the Digital Century Series concept is “slightly cheaper.”

“Maybe significantly cheaper,” he added, “but slightly cheaper than a traditional acquisition,” even one leveraging digital engineering to help keep the costs of future modernizations down.

However, Roper said he has now brought in independent experts to “check our assumptions, check our math,” and is awaiting the results of their assessment.

“I think in three weeks, I'll be able to go from pencil to ink and say whether this is viable or not,” he said.

MQ-9 Reaper and MQ-Next

In the wide-ranging briefing, Roper also touched on the hot-button MQ-9 Reaper replacement effort that has piqued congressional concern. The reason the service is taking a bit of time to study future options, he explained, is the belief that future peer combat will require not just a new unmanned aerial vehicle for ISR/strike — but instead a multi-mission family of drones to do everything from air-to-air missions to ISR/strike to base defense.

“We need these UAVs to be true utility players, to use the baseball analogy,” he suggested.

But Roper knows he's got to keep a close eye on the Hill, because “building a utility player that can meet multiple mission demands is not something that our acquisition system has historically been good at. And we've got to get good quickly to convince Congress that this is a good pivot, and I look forward to having those discussions that summer.”

Roper said he met with the development team studying concepts for the “Next Generation UAS ISR/Strike Platform” two weeks ago to discuss everything from how high-end drones could be teamed with relatively inexpensive and attritable ones to how to do “smart automation” that limits the number of people needed to operate them.

“We made the pivot to divest MQ-9 to pivot into high-end warfighting, and we're gonna have to build new systems for high-end warfighting and teamed systems for high-end fighting. So I think the litmus test for ‘MQ-Next' is going to be what other letter can we assign to its name because it's doing a mission other than is ISR strike,” he said, with a chuckle.

“Ones that that jumped to the forefront for me,” he added, “are arming systems with air-to-air weapons, not just air-to-ground, so that you could play a role with forward tac air, but also being able to pull said system back to defend high-value assets that don't have defensive systems that are able to hold adversary air at risk. I think that would be a wonderful combination.”

Roper said it's necessary for the Air Force “to explore more than just the MQ-9 mission” of gathering ISR data and striking targets in places like the Middle East, because there simply isn't enough budget leeway to do otherwise as the service shifts focus to combat with peer competitors.

Lawmakers are concerned that the service doesn't yet have a solid acquisition strategy for replacing the venerable MQ-9 — a platform that has flown more than 4 million operational flight hours.

Thus there has been a wave of congressional opposition to the Air Force's decision in its 2021 budget request to begin divesting of the aircraft, and its February stop-order on production by prime General Atomics.

The full House Appropriations Committee today approved its subcommittee's decision to add $343.6 million for 16 MQ-9s to the Air Force's budget — with Rep. Ken Calvert noting the importance of the drone to combatant commanders. Report language accompanying the bill highlighted concerns among lawmakers — also voiced by the House and Senate Armed Services Committees — that the Air Force's replacement effort is moving too slowly could result in a gap in capability.

Roper, however, said that not only can the Air Force have new drones fielded by 2030, but that there should be several iterations of improved platforms developed over the next decade.

“Absolutely we can get there by 2030. In a digitally engineered future,10 years is an eternity. I would hope we could spiral multiple times within that 10 years,” he stressed.

Responses to the Air Force's June request for information are due July 24, and judging by discussions so far,. vendors are likely to offer a number of approaches.

“I expect to see a lot of high-end tech options in the submissions that are trying to help us do a current mission, other than ISR strike, differently,” he said, noting that if a system can do that, it also makes ISR easier especially in a permissive environment. “If you can do those high-end missions, then I'm willing to hit the ‘I believe' button,” he said.

On the other hand, he also expects contractors to come in with “a different approach to survivability” — perhaps proposing large quantities of cheap attritable drones; or concepts that team sensor carrying drones with others carrying munitions, Roper said.

“You can imagine, designing things that may not return is a complete cultural shift for us and for industry, but I've been pretty pleased with the informal engagements thus far,” he said, “and I expect to see some really creative thinking.”

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/07/air-forces-roper-suggests-nationalizing-advanced-aviation-industry

Sur le même sujet

  • The Army is hunting for a new all-electric light recon vehicle

    20 novembre 2020 | International, Terrestre

    The Army is hunting for a new all-electric light recon vehicle

    JARED KELLER The Army is searching for defense contractors to furnish the service with an off-the-shelf squad reconnaissance vehicle to complement its growing fleet of next-generation ground combat vehicles. The service on Wednesday published a market survey in search of a fully electric or hybrid-electric tactical vehicle to "inform" the acquisition strategy of its electric Light Reconnaissance Vehicle (eLRV) program. The eLRV will provide "enhanced mobility, lethality, protection, mission load capacity, and onboard power" for six soldiers to conduct both mounted and dismounted reconnaissance and surveillance missions for Infantry Brigade Combat Teams, according to the market survey. The ideal vehicle will be transportable via CH-47 or C-130, have a range of more than 300 miles, and come with a medium-caliber weapon system to provide "precision 'stand-off' lethality" against both small arms and other light armored vehicles, according to a 2019 Congressional Research Service report. As Breaking Defense notes, the movement in the long-delayed eLRV program also comes amid a service-wide push to convert gas-powered ground vehicles to electric platforms for both tactical and logistical reasons. Electric vehicles "accelerate quicker, run cooler, and move quieter than internal combustion ones – advantages that are all especially valuable for stealthy scouts like LRV," as Breaking Defense put it in October. In addition, electric power "could reduce dependence on long supply lines and vulnerable convoys of tanker trucks, which are prime targets for adversaries ranging from Taliban irregulars to Russian missiles." The eLRV will also "operate in conjunction" with the service's next-generation Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) light tank and Infantry Squad Vehicle (ISV) to "enhance the lethality, mobility, reconnaissance, and security" of IBCTS, according to the market survey. Those new formations are still a ways off: the Army only accepted its first batch of ISVs in October and won't conduct its assessment of its two MPF prototypes until January 2021. And that's depending on if the Army formally sets aside any funding for the new scout vehicle in the first place. As the 2019 CRS report noted, the service did not actually request any money to fund the eLRV effort in both fiscal years 2020 and 2021 In the meantime, Army officials "were planning to use the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) to serve as the LRV on an interim basis," according to the CRS report. "From a programmatic perspective, the Army referred to its interim LRV solution as the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle-Reconnaissance Vehicle (JLTV-RV)." If the Army gets its funding together, the service aims to potentially choose an off-the-shelf tactical vehicle for full production as soon as fiscal year 2025. https://taskandpurpose.com/military-tech/army-electric-light-reconnaissance-vehicle-markey-survey

  • Boeing Rolls Out Production T-7A, First New Jet Trainer in 60 Years - Air Force Magazine

    2 mai 2022 | International, Aérospatial

    Boeing Rolls Out Production T-7A, First New Jet Trainer in 60 Years - Air Force Magazine

    Boeing unveiled the first T-7A Red Hawk advanced trainer for the Air Force at its St. Louis, Mo., facilities April 28.

  • Despite progress, industry faces ‘very tough roadmap’ to field FCAS by 2040

    10 décembre 2020 | International, Terrestre

    Despite progress, industry faces ‘very tough roadmap’ to field FCAS by 2040

    GA is building a prototype 300-kW missile defense laser for the Pentagon and a 250-kW airborne version with Boeing. By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR.on December 09, 2020 at 3:04 PM WASHINGTON: General Atomics is so confident in a unique technology they say solves the heat and weight problems found in rival laser designs that they're making it the core of two distinctly different projects. The Office of the Secretary of Defense is funding General Atomics and two competitors to build experimental lasers able to blast out some 300 kilowatts of power – enough to burn cruise missiles out of the sky. This project is about scaling up laser power output and testing alternative technologies for the services to pick up for separate follow-on programs. Meanwhile, Boeing and General Atomics are jointly developing a smaller laser weapon – starting at about 100 kilowatts but capable of growing to 250 kW. Unlike OSD's, this 250 kW weapon is being built at the companies' own expense, essentially on spec. (The technical term is IRAD, Independent Research And Development). Like OSD, Boeing and GA are hoping to demonstrate technology that'll be picked up by the services for a wide range of ground- and ship-based applications: The company says they're targeting the Army's Stryker-mounted M-SHORAD and its larger truck-borne IFPC, as well as Navy shipborne models. But for the pilot project, they've set themselves a very specific and demanding technical challenge: make their laser fit aboard an airplane – and make it fire accurately from that plane in flight. (Breaking D readers will remember the Airborne Laser, a huge chemical laser on a modified 747, as well as plans to arm the Next Generation Air Dominance planes with lasers.) Call in the “New York, New York” school of engineering: If you can make your laser work on a plane, you can make it work anywhere. “The idea is, if we can do it for an aircraft, then it truly could be able to go on any ground or sea platform,” said GA's VP for lasers, Michael Perry. “An aircraft...has the largest constraints on size, weight, and power.” Now, that doesn't mean getting lasers to work on ships or Army vehicles is easy. In some ways, surface platforms have a harder time: Their lasers have to penetrate the thickest, most moisture-laden layers of the atmosphere. And, Perry told me, while an aircraft in flight is constantly vibrating, you can account for that with sophisticated beam control software and high-quality aiming mirrors: That tech is tricky to build, but not bulky to install once you've built it. By contrast, a laser installed on a surface platform has to handle sudden, massive jolts as the warship crashes over a wave or the truck drives over a ditch, and that requires shock absorption systems, which are bulky and heavy. (While General Atomics and Boeing haven't said what aircraft they're planning to test the laser aboard, given the fact that Perry thinks extensive shock-absorption will be unnecessary, that suggests it isn't going to be a fighter jet or anything that makes violent high-gee maneuvers. That's in line with Air Force Special Operations Command's longstanding interest in putting a laser cannon aboard their AC-130 turboprop gunship). So GA's major focus in this project seems to be proving how compact their technology can be. Smaller size is a big advantage of the GA approach, Perry said, which they refer to as scalable distributed gain. Fibers, Slabs, & Distributed Gain What is a “distributed gain” laser, anyway? In the Wild West days of Reagan's Star Wars program, the Pentagon looked into lots of ways of powering lasers, from literal nuclear explosions – an idea called Project Excalibur – to massive vats of toxic chemicals, like the ones that filled the converted Boeing 747 that became the Airborne Laser. The real progress, however, has come with so-called solid state lasers: They pump light into a crystalline “gain medium,” which then amplifies the power of that light (hence “gain”), until it's released as a laser beam. But there are two main ways of building a solid-state laser: A slab laser, as its name implies, uses a single big chunk of crystal as the gain medium. This gives you a single coherent beam of laser light. The problem with slab lasers is heat buildup. The bigger you make the slab, the further the distance from its core to the edges, which means it takes longer to disperse waste heat, which can build up and damage the system. (You may recognize this from high school physics as a manifestation of the square-cube law). So slab lasers tend to require cooling systems, which are bulky and heavy. A fiber laser, by contrast, uses lots and lots of fiber-optic cables as gain media. Each individual fiber is very thin, and you can leave space between them, so it's easy for them to disperse waste heat. The problem with fiber lasers is the act of combining the beams. The bigger you make the laser, the more fibers you need – a 250-kW weapon might take 100 fibers, Perry said – and each fiber produces its own, weak laser beam, which you then have to combine into a single, powerful beam. Beam combination systems tend to be expensive and complex, not to mention (surprise!) bulky and heavy. General Atomics' distributed gain laser tries to strike a balance. Instead of a single big slab, you have several smaller slabs, each of them thin enough to disperse heat quickly. But instead of each of these slabs producing its own beam in parallel, which you then have to combine, you connect them in serial. The initial light source goes into the first slab, which magnifies it and shoots it into the second slab, which magnifies it still more. In theory you could have a third slab as well, even a fourth and fifth, though that's not what GA is building here. (They don't have to be lined up end to end, because you can use high-quality mirrors to bounce the light around a corner). “It is a series of slabs,” Perry told me. “The single beam passes through them all, as opposed to being separate lasers.” The advantage of distributed gain for high-power lasers is that you need neither the extensive cooling systems of a slab laser, nor the exquisite beam-combination systems of a fiber laser. “It's pretty compact,” Perry told me. “If you came out to see if you would be surprised at how short it is.” That said, there is a minimum length for a given amount of power output. That's why General Atomics couldn't fit the same 300-kW weapon they're building for OSD onto Boeing's aircraft (again, they're not saying what that aircraft is), which is why that version had to be scaled down to 250 inches. “The problem we have is, the 300-kw architecture is about 18 inches longer then the 250,” Perry said ruefully. “Believe it or not, as painful as it is and as frustrated as I am, I cannot eke out another 18 inches of length... The platform can't even give us another 12 inches.” It may be frustrating for Perry and his team to build two different versions of their lasers, rather than build two identical copies of the same thing – but the exercise could help prove to potential customers just how adaptable the basic design can be. https://breakingdefense.com/2020/12/general-atomics-new-compact-high-powered-lasers/

Toutes les nouvelles