Boeing says ground-based system keeps satellites free from jamming

Sur le même sujet

• 

  17 septembre 2020 | International, Aérospatial

  Who is Secretly Building the USAF’s New Fighter?

  MARCUS WEISGERBER Officials are mum, so here's a roundup of clues. Among the big questions surrounding the secret U.S. Air Force fighter-jet demonstrator revealed this week is: who built it? Will Roper, the head of Air Force acquisition, declined to say much about the new plane, other than it has actually flown, that some of the plane's systems have been flight-tested, and that it was designed and built using digital engineering. So let's look at some clues, starting with a likely predecessor to the Next Generation Air Dominance project that produced the new demonstrator. In January 2015, Frank Kendall, then defense undersecretary for acquisition, technology and logistics, told the House Armed Services Committee about a DARPA-led project that was developing new planes and engine technology for the Air Force and Navy. “The intent is to develop prototypes for the next generation of air-dominance platforms — X-plane programs, if you will," Kendall said. Dubbed the Aerospace Innovation Initiative, the project aimed to “develop the technologies and address the risks associated with the air dominance platforms that will follow the F-35, as well as other advanced aeronautical challenges.” Roper wouldn't say whether the NGAD and AII projects are linked, but they sound quite similar. He instead said that he disclosed the plane's existence, in part, to encourage companies to invest more in digital engineering. "The obvious candidates for the NGAD prototype are Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, though General Atomics might be a possible designer—but that's a long-shot," Byron Callan, an analyst with Capital Alpha Partners, wrote in a Tuesday note to clients. "Textron's Scorpion program had recently proven that in one year's time, it could take a new clean sheet design to flight, but we doubt it's been able to elevate this skill to combat aircraft." The plane's engine, Callan wrote, was built by either GE or Raytheon Technologies' Pratt & Whitney. Here's the case for why each of the following companies could have built the new NGAD fighter. Boeing The Chicago-based aerospace giant already knows a lot about digital engineering, having partnered with Sweden's Saab to design and build their T-7A training jet in less than a year, near-lightspeed by U.S. military standards. Air Force officials have gushed about the T-7A, which beat out two other planes, the Lockheed Martin T-50 and Leonardo T-100, that were already being used by foreign air forces. The Boeing plane has a mission computer that can run third-party software and apps, allowing for easy updates. It is also designed for quick assembly: it takes just 15 minutes to assemble the forward and aft fuselages, compared with some 24 hours to assemble a F/A-18 Super Hornet fuselage, according to Leanne Caret, the CEO of Boeing Defense. Northrop Grumman It often gets overlooked that Northrop owns Scaled Composites — the Burt Rutan-founded, XPrize-winning design shop behind SpaceShipOne, the first aircraft to carry private citizens into space. Like Boeing, Northrop's Scaled built a plane from scratch for the Air Force's pilot training jet contest, but in the end didn't submit a bid. Northrop has seen an uptick in classified Pentagon work in recent years. It's been presumed that a sizable portion of that cash has gone to build B-21 stealth bombers, whose existence has been disclosed but are being built in secret. It's conceivable that some of the classified cash flowing into the company's Aeronautical Systems business is for the NGAD test aircraft. Northrop is also building the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent, the new intercontinental ballistic missiles that will replace the Cold War Minuteman III, using the same digital design technology often touted by Roper. Lockheed Martin The company's Advanced Development Programs division — far better known as the Skunk Works — has long developed super-advanced, super-secret planes for the U.S. military, including the famed U-2 and SR-71 spy planes and the F-117 ground-attack jet. They also built the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. “ADP seems pretty busy across a number of fronts, but also...looking at the Digital Century Series and also looking at where the services are going to go in terms of sixth-gen and next-gen aircraft,” said Michele Evans, who leads Lockheed Martin Aeronautics and its Skunk Works operation, last week. Evans also touted Stardrive, a Lockheed effort to incorporate more commercial technology and practices into its manufacturing. “Think of model-based systems engineering, think about factory of the future, software development in terms of containerization technologies like Kubernetes, and agile [software] and then even into sustainment in terms of how we use data analytics and AI,” she said. “I think the technologies are just going to provide tremendous opportunities to speed up the development in the delivery of platforms going forward.” Someone else The most intriguing possibility is that the new jet may not be the product of one of the defense giants at all. There is evidence that the digital-design tools that Roper touted are allowing smaller upstarts to enter markets once reserved for only a few established contractors. In July, for example, an Air Force solicitation for proposals for drones to accompany manned jets drew 18 entries. “It shows there's a lot of interest from very large [companies], which you would expect, to very small,” Gen. Arnold Bunch, the head of Air Force Materiel Command, said in a Wednesday videoconference call with reporters. “I actually believe as we do the digital campaign and we look at doing digital engineering, it will actually open the door to more people to be able to participate that may not have before.” https://www.defenseone.com/business/2020/09/who-secretly-building-usafs-new-fighter/168541/

• 

  18 septembre 2020 | International, Terrestre

  Army backs off idea to submit its own bid in Bradley replacement competition

  Jen Judson WASHINGTON — The Army is backing off a plan for the service to submit its own bid to the Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle replacement competition after it indicated its intention to offer up its own design in a draft request for proposals posted in July. The service tried once before to competitively solicit designs for its Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV) but ended up with just one offering after its requirements proved too onerous to industry and included a requirement to deliver a working prototype to the Army by October 2019. In a statement sent to Defense News Sept. 17 from Ashley John, an Army spokeswoman, she said “As a result of industry feedback and continuous dialogue between Army senior leaders, the government will not submit a proposal in response to the OMFV RFP. A revision to the draft OMFV RFP was made today and deletes paragraph A.3.1 Interested Government Offeror in its entirety." The Army's intention to develop its own bid was met with scrutiny as industry officials questioned whether the service could play the game after service leaders had already seen industry's cards during an earlier iteration of the competition. The move, many in industry thought, would have easily teed up protests. With pressure to get the competitive process right this time in a program where the service plans to spend $4.6 billion from fiscal 2022 through FY26, it is turning to industry input earlier and more than ever. Congress questioned Army leaders earlier this year on why it seemed the service did not pay attention to the signs or listen to industry and make adjustments before having to cancel its previous competition. First, BAE Systems, which manufactures the Bradley, decided not to compete due to unachievable requirements set within a very short timeline. Then the Army had to disqualify a Raytheon and Rheinmetall team because they couldn't get a physical bid sample to Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, in time. The service, this time around, reviewed and analyzed over 500 industry comments in response to the draft RFP and will now spend several weeks providing responses to industry concerns, John said. “As we continue to progress through the first-phase of our five-phased approach for the OMFV program, communication, inclusive feedback and innovative thinking from industry remains key,” John said. The Army waded back into the OMFV effort with the release of a market survey in February that tapped industry for ideas on what a future vehicle might look like. The market survey itself asked companies to weigh in on what affected their decisions to participate in the previous OMFV competitive effort and how the Army might better engage with industry this time around. Instead of providing a laundry list of requirements that when paired together became unachievable — especially when delivered over an ambitious fielding goal of 2026 — the Army will give industry roughly nine characteristics with which to work. The Army is also not requiring the delivery of physical bid samples in the first phase of competition. The Army plans to release a final RFP in December, which will results in the award of up to five contracts in June 2021. It appears likely that the Raytheon and Rheinmetall team and General Dynamics Land Systems will submit bids for the new competition. BAE Systems has not publicly said whether they plan to compete this time. https://www.defensenews.com/land/2020/09/17/army-backs-off-idea-to-submit-its-own-bid-in-bradley-replacement-competition/

• 

  19 juin 2020 | International, Aérospatial

  Pentagon releases its Defense Space Strategy to counter Russia and China

  Nathan Strout The Pentagon has put forward a new Defense Space Strategy designed to maintain U.S. military superiority in space amid growing counter-space efforts in Russia and China. “China and Russia have weaponized space and turned it into a war-fighting domain,” Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space Policy Stephen Kitay said during a June 17 press call. “Their actions pose the greatest strategic threat with ongoing development, testing and deployment of counter-space systems and the associated military doctrine designed to hold allied and U.S. space systems at risk.” The strategy reflects the Defense Department's shift to approaching space as a war-fighting domain, which includes the establishment of both U.S. Space Command and U.S. Space Force in 2019 as well as the ongoing efforts to bolster those two organizations. Space Command in particular has been vocal in calling out the counter-space capabilities being built and fielded by Russia, such as direct ascent weapons and potential on-orbit kinetic weapons. But the threat extends beyond kinetic threats to include electronic warfare, ground-based lasers that can blind space-based sensors, and cyberattacks. “The U.S. space enterprise was not built for the current strategic environment,” Kitay said, adding that the U.S. has historically approached space as a supporting domain, where satellites are launched into orbit and relied upon to deliver capability without interruption. Now, however, the U.S. military is preparing for conflicts that could extend into the space domain, threatening on-orbit assets that war fighters rely on for communications, navigation and intelligence. The self-stated purpose of the strategy is to ensure the space domain is secure, stable and accessible for U.S. and allied activities over the next 10 years through American military strength. Further, it will leverage its space capabilities to employ power across all domains throughout the spectrum of conflict. “The Defense Space Strategy is the next step to ensure space superiority and to secure the nation's vital interests in space now and in the future,” Defense Secretary Mark Esper said in a statement. “We desire a secure, stable, and accessible space domain that underpins our nation's security, prosperity, and scientific achievement. However, our adversaries have made space a war fighting domain and we have to implement enterprise-wide changes to policies, strategies, operations, investments, capabilities, and expertise for this new strategic environment. This strategy identifies a phased approach on how we are going to achieve the desired conditions in space over the next 10 years.” To achieve these objectives over the next decade, the strategy lays out four lines of effort: Build a comprehensive military advantage in space. According to the strategy, the Department of Defense must transform its space enterprise to meet the evolving counter-space threats. To do that, the DoD must become more agile, taking advantage of technological and commercial innovation. Specifically, this line of effort calls for further support for the Space Force; development of military space power doctrines; and the further development of space war-fighting expertise and culture. This effort also includes the fielding of assured space capabilities, including capabilities that can counter the hostile use of space. The strategy also calls for improving U.S. space-based intelligence and command-and-control capabilities. Integrate space into national, joint and combined operations. As the DoD expands its capabilities, doctrine and culture as outlined above, it plans to integrate them into national, joint and combined operations. Space Command must be enabled to plan, exercise and execute joint and combined space operations across the spectrum of conflict, and space war-fighting efforts must be integrated with military plans and staffs, including those of allies and partners. The strategy calls for the realignment of operational authorities and an updated rules of engagement that reflect this new reality. In addition, the document states that the DoD's space program security classifications should be updated. Shape the strategic environment. Under the strategy, the DoD will try to deter hostile and aggressive activities in space. Partnering with the State Department, the Pentagon will work with allies and partners to develop international norms of behavior for space that will reduce misunderstandings and conflict. In addition, the Pentagon will work to inform the public about the growing threats to U.S. space capabilities. Cooperate with allies, partners, industry and other U.S. government departments and agencies. This line of effort calls for the DoD to work with allies and partners to increase information sharing; align space policy; promote favorable standards and norms of behavior for space; and expand cooperative research, development and acquisition. In addition, the DoD will modernize its approach to the commercial licensing approval process. The full Defense Space Strategy can be read here. https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/space/2020/06/17/pentagon-releases-defense-space-strategy-to-counter-russia-and-china/