Airlines, planemakers set to unveil new orders at Indian aviation event

Sur le même sujet

• 

  19 septembre 2024 | International, Terrestre

  The SAMP/T NG system enters into serial production

  With this latest order, the SAMP/T NG system is preparing the full-scale serial production phase.

• 

  7 août 2019 | International, Naval

  With mounting questions about cost and survivability, a shifting political landscape for US aircraft carriers

  By: David B. Larter and Joe Gould WASHINGTON — The new chief of naval operations, Adm. Michael Gilday, was confirmed quickly by the Senate last week, but lawmakers made clear that the cost and growing vulnerability of aircraft carriers to ever-faster and evasive missiles will be among the issues he's expected to tackle when he officially takes the reins. The Navy's main force projection tool, the carrier, became a punching bag for several lawmakers at Gilday's confirmation hearing, as they alternately raised the threat posed by Chinese and Russian hypersonic missiles and berated the Navy's future top admiral for the significant delays and cost overruns associated with the new carrier Gerald R. Ford. At one point during the July 31 hearing, the Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., told Gilday the Navy's arrogance on the carrier “ought to be criminal.” Later on, longtime friend of the Navy Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, warned that hypersonic missiles were a “nightmare weapon” that threatened to make carriers obsolete. And while the lawmakers differed on the future of aircraft carriers and their long-term viability, the hearing left no doubt that Gilday, a career surface warfare officer, has his work cut out for him in proving he can guide the service toward a more stable future for the Navy's most expensive and strategically invaluable assets. To be clear, Inhofe does not oppose carriers, and he has publicly reminded multiple Trump administration officials of the Navy's legal requirement to maintain 11 of them. Inhofe was in the bipartisan chorus of lawmakers who opposed Pentagon plans to cut costs by decommissioning the aircraft carrier Harry S. Truman before the administration scuttledthose plans this year. When it comes to the Ford program, Inhofe plans to keep the Navy on a short leash and pressed Gilday to commit that he would work to prevent the kind of widespread “first-in-class” issues that have plagued the Ford. It's an issue with some urgency behind it, as the Navy prepares to tackle the new Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine for nuclear deterrent patrols, as well as a next-generation frigate, new classes of unmanned warships and a new large surface combatant. “The Navy entered into this contract in 2008, which, combined with other contracts, have ballooned the cost of the ship more than $13 billion without understanding the technical risks, the costs or the schedules, and you know this ought to be criminal,” Inhofe said. The Navy had taken a gamble integrating immature dual-band radar, catapult, arresting gear and weapons elevators, and Inhofe expressed displeasure with the result. Tackling the first-in-class issue will be a priority, Gilday said. “I commit to that and complete transparency as well as taking what we learn from the Ford and ensuring that we don't commit those same mistakes again in the Columbia class and other ships that we need to field in the next few years,” Gilday told Inhofe. ‘Sitting ducks' As for rising threats to the carrier, King believes hypersonic missiles are an existential threat to the Navy and urged Gilday to take the issue head on. “Every aircraft carrier that we own can disappear in a coordinated attack,” King said. “And it is a matter of minutes. Murmansk, [Russia], to the Norwegian Sea is 12 minutes at 6,000 miles an hour. “So I hope you will take back a sense of urgency to the Navy and to the research capacity and to the private sector that this has to be an urgent priority because otherwise we are creating a vulnerability that could in itself lead to instability.” In an interview with Defense News, King said the speed at which the Russians and Chinese are fielding the capability worries him. “My concern is that we are a number of years away from having that capacity, and our adversaries are within a year of deployment,” he said. “And that creates a dangerous gap, in my view. This represents a qualitative gap in offensive warfare that history tells we better figure out how to deal with, or it will mitigate our ... advantage.” King, who represents the state where half the Navy's destroyers are produced, also said he's concerned about the long-term viability of aircraft carriers in a world with hypersonic missiles. “I think it does raise a question of the role of the aircraft carrier if we cannot figure a way to counter this capability,” he said. “I don't want indefensible, $12 billion sitting ducks out there. I'm not prepared to say the carrier is obsolete, but I say that this weapon undermines the viability of the carrier.” Inhofe, in response to another senator's questions about carrier obsolescence, said he disagrees carriers are becoming obsolete, but that he's concerned about the cost. But the threats to the carrier are mounting, experts say. With the advent of ground-launched hypersonic missiles, it's a matter of time before air-launched hypersonic missiles present a nearly insurmountable threat, barring a significant development to counter them. “I think what King's comments reflect is that he sees the vulnerability of the aircraft carrier only getting worse,” said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “Specifically, maybe not so much these kind of boost-glide weapons, but its more about cruise missiles that are hypersonic — air-launched perhaps. “Then you are talking about something that is relatively inexpensive and could be delivered in large numbers, and that would be a bigger deal because missile defenses are not necessarily built for hypersonic weapons. “So we'll have to find a way to deal with this new challenge, or we'll have to rethink how we do things.” https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/08/06/with-mounting-questions-about-cost-and-survivability-a-shifting-political-landscape-for-us-aircraft-carriers/

• 

  8 mai 2020 | International, Aérospatial

  US Air Force bails on Mattis-era fighter jet readiness goal

  By: Valerie Insinna and Stephen Losey WASHINGTON — The U.S. Air Force has officially abandoned a directive to get its F-35, F-22 and F-16 jets up to an 80 percent mission-capable rate after failing to meet that goal in fiscal 2019, the service's presumptive chief of staff indicated Thursday. According to written responses by Air Force Gen. Charles Q. Brown ahead of his May 7 confirmation hearing, “the F-16 mission capable rate reached a high of 75% in June 2019, the F-22 mission capable rate achieved a high of 68% in April 2019 and the F-35 mission capability rate climbed to a high of 74% in September 2019.” However, data obtained exclusively by Air Force Times and Defense News revealed the mission-capable rates for those three aircraft over the whole of FY19 — while, in some cases, an improvement over the previous year — fell well short of the 80 percent goal mandated by then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis in October 2018. And the overall rates for the year were lower — in some cases, much lower — than the high-water marks cited by Brown. The Air Force's newest fighter jet, the F-35A conventional-takeoff-and-landing model, showed the most improvement, increasing from a mission-capable rate of about 50 percent in FY18 to 62 percent in FY19. The F-16 mission-capable rate grew modestly, with the F-16C increasing from 70 percent in FY18 to 73 percent in FY19. The F-16D's mission-capable rate rose from 66 percent to 70 percent over that time period. However, the F-22's mission-capable rate actually decreased from 52 percent in FY18 to 51 percent in FY19. This is likely due to the continued maintenance challenges after 17 Raptors were left behind at Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, during Hurricane Michael in 2018, damaging a portion of the fleet. Ultimately, Pentagon leadership decided not to renew the effort in FY20, Brown told the Senate Armed Services Committee. “The Office of the Secretary of Defense determined the FY19 80-percent Mission Capable (MC) Rate initiative is not an FY20 requirement,” wrote Brown, who is currently the commander of Pacific Air Forces. Instead, the Air Force has returned to its usual practice of letting commanders set their own readiness objectives, with no definitive requirements for mission-capable rates, he said. “We continue to balance near term readiness recovery with investment long-term combat capability,” Brown said. “While maintaining all of our aging fleets are difficult and expensive, we continuously examine emerging technologies, commercial best practices, and other methods to reduce the sustainment costs for our Air Force.” Although the services tried to meet Mattis' 80 percent mandate, even after he resigned in December 2018, the goal was never popular among Air Force leadership. If confirmed by the Senate as the uniformed head of the Air Force, Brown will replace Gen. Dave Goldfein, who argued that the readiness of the service's aircraft inventory could better be measured by other metrics. In an interview with Air Force Times in August, Goldfein said readiness can truly be measured by how well the Air Force can carry out its missions, which requires more than mission-capable aircraft. It also requires trained and ready air crew, maintainers and other airmen as well as enough spare parts and resources, he said. Goldfein also cited increases in flying hours and pilot training as other indicators of progress. Instead of driving toward an 80 percent mission-capable rate, the Air Force is implementing a new “strategic sustainment framework” that will aim to increase readiness by improving the service's repair network and expanding the use of conditions-based maintenance, Brown wrote in his response to the SASC. The service's inspector general is also conducting a comprehensive classified review of readiness assessments across the Air Force, he said. In his hearing, Brown reiterated the Air Force's need to grow to 386 squadrons over the long term. When asked by Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Neb., whether the Air Force is now large enough to carry out the National Defense Strategy, Brown said: “To an extent.” “In the immediate term, I think we are, but we've still got to be able to grow to the 386” squadrons, Brown said. “Anything less than 386 incurs risk.” However, he acknowledged the Air Force may come close but might not completely meet that goal, which was first laid out by previous Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson. But the Air Force's improved capabilities, including making better use of unmanned platforms, will help make up some of that difference, he said. “We may be a little bit smaller than 386, but we'll be more capable,” Brown said. “It's not just the manned platforms; it's also how we do manned-unmanned teaming. The XQ-58 Valkyrie [combat drone] is one of those systems that we can team up with, particularly some of our fifth-gen capability to increase our range, increase our awareness, to increase our strike capability.” https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/05/07/the-air-force-bails-on-mattis-era-fighter-jet-readiness-goal/