Canada's Multi-Mission Aircraft Team

Sur le même sujet

• 

  13 novembre 2019 | Information, Aérospatial

  4 reasons why fuel threatens our lethality — and what we can do about it

  By: Roberto Guerrero “As a service that provides global reach, global vigilance, and global power, are we thinking globally?” — Gen. David Goldfein, U.S. Air Force chief of staff, at the 2017 Air Force Association Symposium This is a question that keeps me up at night. Are we prepared to defend the homeland and defeat our enemies at any location around the world? If faced against a near-peer or peer competitor, will we have the necessary infrastructure and logistical supply chain to support the lethality we need on the battlefield? More than ever before, the United States depends on the Air Force to complete the mission. In 2018, the congressionally appointed National Defense Strategy Commission concluded that “regardless of where the next conflict occurs or which adversary it features, the Air Force will be at the forefront.” Every year, the Air Force conducts approximately 800,000 sorties and uses over 2 billion gallons of aviation fuel, making it the largest consumer across the Department of Defense. That's 2,200 sorties per day! The Air Force has made some relatively small investments to modernize how we plan, optimize and deliver fuel for the war fighter, but we must do more to maintain dominance in an ever-changing battlespace. Here are four reasons why. 1. Without fuel, there is no fight. We are strategically and tactically dependent on fuel for nearly all of our missions. From delivering cargo and humanitarian aid to transporting our troops and conducting airstrikes, we can't get much done without fuel. As Gen. George Patton famously proclaimed during World War II: “My men can eat their belts, but my tanks gotta have gas.” While I don't recommend eating your belt, our tanks, ships and aircraft still need a ready supply of energy — anytime, anywhere. 2. Fuel is an inherent security risk for our troops. Thirty percent of the causalities in Iraq and Afghanistan during the height of the war were caused by attacks on fuel and water convoys. Transporting fuel — whether by air, land or sea — is a necessary risk. But the more we use, the more of a risk it becomes. If we face external constraints like oil shortages, adversary attacks or interrupted access, our vulnerabilities become even greater. 3. The future fight requires modern fuel logistics. Our adversaries are developing state-of-the-art innovations and technologies to propel fuel logistics into the future, and we need to do more to stay ahead of the game. No longer can we rely on whiteboards and markers to plan complex aerial-refueling operations. We need to provide airmen with 21st century technology that is agile, adaptive and secure — at the “speed of relevance.” 4. Optimizing fuel usage builds readiness for years to come. When we use our assets more efficiently in peacetime, we build a more energy-aware culture that will better prepare our airmen for tomorrow's fight, if and when it happens. Smarter use of fuel means more funds available to invest in our airmen and weapon systems; and when we employ our assets optimally, we reduce stress on airframes and crews. So how do we address these challenges for a secure tomorrow? First, we must get better at understanding how, when and where we use aviation fuel to detect possible efficiency gaps and logistical challenges. To do this we need operational and maintenance data that is integrated, reliable and transparent. Data allows us to make informed decisions on critical issues like basing, fuel logistics, security, maintenance and technology acquisition. We also need to invest in tools and hardware that optimize our fuel demand, such as new drag-reduction technologies and next-generation efficient engines. My office has identified numerous commercially developed products that would result in increased combat capability if adopted across the Air Force. We can also invest in tools that support more streamlined mission planning. For example, agile software tools that help us efficiently plan the “last mile” of fuel delivery — aerial refueling — will provide combatant commanders with greater flexibility and maximize combat air power. Furthermore, we need to improve our understanding of energy and fuel logistics challenges as part of the modern battlespace. Through modeling and simulation, recent war games have identified a number of joint energy risks, and we now have a deeper understanding of how our energy sources, and the troops transporting them, may be jeopardized in future conflicts. However, further work must be done to increase energy supply chain resiliency and protect fuel storage and distribution networks. Right now we have small examples of fuel efficiency gains. It's time to think bigger. It's time to reach for the big efficiency gains and get big war-fighting rewards. We must move toward a more modern and innovative world to get the most of what we already have. We need to be able to compete against our near-peer adversaries — the advantage will not only be in technological advances in weaponry, but in the best, most efficient use of our technology. It is time that fuel becomes a strategic imperative. Roberto Guerrero is the deputy assistant secretary of the U.S. Air Force for operational energy. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2019/11/11/4-reasons-why-fuel-threatens-our-lethality-and-what-we-can-do-about-it/

• 

  23 mars 2022 | Information, Autre défense

  Why government funding is critical for Canadian businesses and how to plan for funding success - Trade Ready

  Canadian government grant and loan programs are common for strategic projects in Canada, helping businesses thrive both domestically and...

• 

  18 septembre 2020 | Information, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité, Autre défense

  Defense industry worries Congress will punt budget deal into 2021

  Joe Gould WASHINGTON ― As Congress readies a stopgap spending measure this week, the defense industry is girding for a long-term funding patch that could delay both new procurement programs and needed fiscal certainty into next year. Democrats say they are considering whether to offer a continuing resolution that would stretch 2020 funding levels into next February or March, or whether to go along with a stopgap through mid December, as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., is seeking. Trade groups said this week that passing a CR by the Sept. 30 deadline is better than a government shutdown, but they warned that because CR's ban most new start programs, that will add more turbulence for firms already suffering from pandemic-related economic shocks. “As threats continue to multiply and the COVID-19 crisis continues, sustained and stable funding in national security takes on new meaning for the U.S. military and the defense industrial base that supports it,” Aerospace Industries Association President and CEO Eric Fanning, said in an email to Defense News. AIA represents roughly 340 manufacturers. “Relying on continuing resolutions, for any length of time, removes that stability, undermining the shared supply chain and endangering the solid progress made in readiness and modernization over the last several years.” Defense advocates say continuing resolutions of any length are inefficient for government and disruptive to the budget certainty that businesses need in order to make decisions, but the pandemic and sagging economy add new wrinkles. Smaller defense firms, many hit by cash flow problems related to the pandemic, were of particular concern to shipbuilder Huntington Ingalls Industries, which was among large firms that accelerated millions of dollars in payments to help small suppliers over recent months. “The effects of a long term continuing resolution can be harmful to the defense industrial base by delaying or prohibiting work,” HII spokesperson Beci Brenton said in an email. “Our greatest concern with a long term CR is the impact to our thousands of suppliers located in all 50 states who are already impacted by the COVID pandemic.” Despite a longstanding deal on the budget top lines, only the House has passed full-year appropriations bills, which means Congress will need more time to pass an FY21 appropriations package. Congress would likely need to draft a CR this week and pass it next week to avert a government shutdown. That's just what House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters this week that House leaders are planning. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., say they have agreed to a “clean” CR, free of policy riders. It's not expected to include COVID relief funds, but further details have not been announced. Beyond timing, the defense industry is also watching which anomalies Congress includes to permit select new start programs. The White House sent Congress a list that included the Columbia-class submarine and new W93 submarine-launched nuclear warhead, as well as funds to ramp up the new Space Force ― along with select federal programs across multiple agencies. The National Defense Industrial Association's senior vice president, Wesley Hallman, said delaying new starts means delaying new revenue streams for companies and, for some, new hiring decisions. “How many new starts are planned for 1 October, I can't tell you, but if we go to March or February there are more new starts over that entire period,” Hallman said. “If it's bad in October, it's really bad if it's going into March.” Professional Services Council president and CEO David Berteau, whose group represents services contractors across government, said his member are worried about long delays for a budget deal. “Our members are always concerned because it slows down new contract awards, and it adds uncertainty to every program manager ― not only in the Defense Department, but across the federal government ― because they don't know how much money they're going to get or when they're going to get it,” Berteau said. The duration of the CR has special political dimensions this year. If the bill runs through December, President Donald Trump and a Republican-controlled Senate would negotiate over the final spending package. Depending on the outcome of the election, a CR that stretches into the next calendar year could be negotiated by a President Joe Biden or a Democratic-led Senate, which would give Democrats more leverage. Berteau was concerned that Biden, like Trump in 2017, would not enter office Jan. 20 ready to immediately hammer out a budget deal. It took until that April for Trump to sign a deal, and it took President Bill Clinton ― who entered office under similar circumstances in 1993 ― until that June. “If you don't get it now, history says you won't get it for six months,” said Berteau, “and that's debilitating for industry.” “Our members are always concerned because it slows down new contract awards, and it adds uncertainty to every program manager ― not only in the Defense Department, but across the federal government ― because they don't know how much money they're going to get or when they're going to get it,” Berteau said. The duration of the CR has special political dimensions this year. If the bill runs through December, President Donald Trump and a Republican-controlled Senate would negotiate over the final spending package. Depending on the outcome of the election, a CR that stretches into the next calendar year could be negotiated by a President Joe Biden or a Democratic-led Senate, which would give Democrats more leverage. Berteau was concerned that Biden, like Trump in 2017, would not enter office Jan. 20 ready to immediately hammer out a budget deal. It took until that April for Trump to sign a deal, and it took President Bill Clinton ― who entered office under similar circumstances in 1993 ― until that June. “If you don't get it now, history says you won't get it for six months,” said Berteau, “and that's debilitating for industry.” https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2020/09/16/defense-industry-worries-congress-will-punt-budget-deal-into-2021/