Airbus signs major integrated support contract with Egypt for C295

Sur le même sujet

• 

  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

• 

  3 juillet 2023 | International, Naval, C4ISR

  Frégates, radars, chasseurs de mines… Thales enchaîne les contrats militaires

  Le groupe décroche le contrat pour équiper les futures frégates néerlandaises et belges des équipements nécessaires à la lutte de surface. Un contrat supérieur à 500 millions d'euros.

• 

  15 octobre 2020 | International, Naval

  Outgoing Pakistan Navy chief reveals details of modernization programs

  Usman Ansari ISLAMABAD — Pakistan's Navy is racing to plug operational and technological gaps as part of an unprecedented modernization effort, according to the outgoing naval chief, but analysts are divided on whether the move will deter adversaries. Adm. Zafar Mahmood Abbasi was speaking during the an Oct. 6 change-of-command ceremony when he detailed measures he enacted, prioritizing “combat readiness and offensive capability” for the historically undersized force amid tension with India. In addition to reorganizing the Navy's force structure, he outlined acquisition and development programs, some of which were mentioned for the first time or had new details confirmed. These included: Expanding the Navy to more than 50 warships (more than doubling major surface combatants to 20, with plans for six additional large offshore patrol vessels). The apparent free transfer of a Chinese Yuan-class submarine to train Pakistani crews for its eight Hangor subs. Developing the hypersonic P282 ship-launched anti-ship/land-attack ballistic missile. Establishing the Naval Research and Development Institute to nurture indigenous design talent (it is presently engaged in programs such as the Jinnah-class frigate, Hangor-class subs, UAV jammers, directed-energy weapons, underwater sonar surveillance coastal defense systems, unmanned underwater vehicles and unmanned combat aerial vehicles). Replacing of the P-3C Orion patrol aircraft with 10 converted commercial jets, the first of which has been ordered. Acquiring medium-altitude, long-endurance unmanned combat aerial vehicles as well as 20 indigenous gunboats, which are to be commissioned by 2025. The Navy would not provide more details when asked, though the gunboats were previously confirmed as undergoing design. Rivals However, analysts are divided on whether these programs will prove a sufficient deterrent against Pakistan's archrival India. Author, analyst and former Australian defense attache to Islamabad, Brian Cloughley, claimed it is “quite impossible for Pakistan to achieve a naval structure that even approaches that of the Indian Navy.” “It cannot afford it. At best, its deterrence value would be entirely local," he said. Though he described India's aircraft carriers as “decidedly inferior in effectiveness in international terms, and present no threat to China,” they are a “major threat” to Pakistan's Navy when they are out of range of shore-based air power. In the event of a conflict involving India's Navy, Pakistan “would deploy all its assets to destroy it, and although the [Indian Navy] would suffer major losses, the attrition factor would be the decider,” he added. In contrast, expansion of the Pakistan Navy would “effectively neutralize India's growing naval capability,” according to Mansoor Ahmed, a senior research fellow at the Center for International Strategic Studies in Islamabad. He noted that India has “long enjoyed the most decisive numerical advantage; that is potentially destabilizing, as it could encourage belligerency and aggression, and fuel crisis instability.” However, Pakistan's modernization efforts would “help keep the nuclear threshold high,” “enhance Pakistan's second-strike capability by increasing survivability of its surface and submarine fleet,” and provide considerably increased capacity for attrition, Ahmed added. Similarly, Tom Waldwyn, a naval expert at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, said there is merit in the expansion program. “Certainly the ship- and submarine-building plans, once realized, will be a significant boost to Pakistan's conventional maritime capability. By the end of this decade, the frigate fleet will grow by half and the submarine fleet will probably double in size. The planned gunboats could free up the new frigates to perform tasks the Pakistan Navy is currently not able to do as often,” he said. The Hangor program is probably the most noteworthy because of China's involvement, Waldwyn added. “Although local build of Hangor submarines is planned to be complete before the end of the decade, regenerating that industrial capability will be a big effort, and I expect that Chinese assistance in doing so will be crucial.” But one factor depends on whether Germany provides export clearance of diesel engines for the submarine. Pakistan's Ministry of Defence Production, the Navy's public relations department, the German embassy in Islamabad, and Germany's Federal Office for Economic Affairs and Export Control all declined to respond to Defense News' inquiries about the engines. It is unknown whether the program is now proceeding with Chinese substitutes. Weapons and platforms Announcement of a contract for unmanned combat aerial vehicles, however, appears to be official confirmation the Chinese Wing Loong II deal first reported in October 2018. Though photographed undergoing testing in Pakistan, there was never official confirmation of a contract. Air power expert at the Royal United Services Institute think tank, Justin Bronk, said it “is probably one of the most effective options for armed UAV acquisition available to Pakistan.” “It has proven fairly satisfactory in service with the [United Arab Emirates] and others, and can carry a wide variety of cheap and effective Chinese munitions. Its sensor capabilities are not up to U.S. standards, especially in terms of stabilization. But given that sales of MQ-9 and other comparable U.S. systems are restricted, and Israeli UAVs are seldom exported with acknowledged weapons capabilities, Wing Loong II is probably the best option available,” Bronk explained. In regard to what aircraft Pakistan will choose to replace its P-3C Orion fleet, Defense News asked the Navy and the Ministry of Defence Production, but neither provided details by press time. A small number of business or regional jets from Brazil, Russia or Ukraine with non-Western systems (to avoid sanctions) could readily be converted to suit Pakistan's requirements. However, there is no official, publicly available notice or hint of sale to Pakistan from these countries' manufacturers, and there was no response to related queries. Such a conversion could be locally done, as wider naval modernization is underpinned by Pakistan's in-house research and development program. Still, the IISS analyst added, it's not essential the work be performed domestically. On the modernization effort as a whole, Waldwyn noted that “developing the local capability to design and build this equipment is not a prerequisite to providing conventional deterrence in the short term, and importing equipment from abroad can sometimes be less expensive.” “However, there is value to developing the defense industrial base and sovereign technological capabilities, as it can protect you against geopolitical changes going forward,” the IISS analyst added. For Ahmed, domestic work would demonstrate Pakistan “is determined to maintain the required level of modernization” — particularly with directed-energy weapons. Meanwhile, he said he's uncertain what new purpose the P282 missile will serve. He is unconvinced the P282 is a hypersonic cruise missile intended to replace the current ship- and submarine-launched Harbah cruise missile. However, if the P282 is a ballistic missile as claimed, “it would make sense only if deployed on a submarine” where it could serve as part of Pakistan's nuclear deterrent. Nevertheless, he added, the modernization program will still “greatly enhance the overall credibility of Pakistan's deterrent posture vis-a-vis India.” https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/10/14/outgoing-pakistan-navy-chief-reveals-details-of-modernization-programs/