5 août 2019 | International, Aérospatial, Naval

CH-53E Heavy Lift Helicopter Reaches One Million Flight Hours

Aircraft First Entered Service With The USMC In 1981
The CH-53E Super Stallion helicopter reached a major milestone this year by logging more than one million flight hours since it first entered service with the Marine Corps in 1981.

The CH-53E is a versatile machine used for amphibious assault and long-range insertion, delivering troops, vehicles and supplies. This rapid resupply vehicle is still one of the most used aircraft in the United States military air arsenal. “The CH-53E has seen more work than was ever anticipated it would see,” said Major Matthew Baumann, H-53 In-Service, Naval Air Systems Command Heavy Lift Helicopter program office (PMA-261) co-lead.

Currently, there are 142 CH-53E Super Stallions in service. Though out of production, the CH-53E is in the middle of a “RESET” – a rolling period of rebuilding, upgrading and increasing safety, reliability and capabilities to lengthen its service life through 2032.

According to Baumann, the first 25 helicopters have completed their RESET process, “allowing the squadron commanders to plan for training, operations and maintenance with renewed confidence,” he said.

Resetting of the CH-53E fleet is an important segue from the current platform to the new CH-53K King Stallion, which will be its heavy-lift replacement. “The CH-53K is the most powerful helicopter ever built by the United States military,” said Colonel Perrin, PMA-261 program manager. “It will be safer, faster and more capable than any previous heavy lift helicopter in the battlespace.”

Its development is currently in the testing and capability requirements phase, with a goal of bringing the CH-53K to fleet Marines by 2024. “It's a game-changer,” said Perrin. “We can't wait to have the K available for fleet use. But for now we've got a capable, reliable and safe helicopter doing heavy-lift for our Marines.”

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=8e63f37f-9874-4fb9-acf1-72e67d6a9cbd

Sur le même sujet

  • House panel isn’t giving defense industry all the COVID aid it wants

    10 juillet 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

    House panel isn’t giving defense industry all the COVID aid it wants

    By: Joe Gould WASHINGTON ― The Pentagon would have $758 million to help mid-tier defense firms weather the financial effects of the coronavirus pandemic as part of the annual defense spending bill approved by the House Appropriations Committee on Wednesday. But the aid, which was part of the panel's proposed $694.6 billion bill, falls short of the “lower double-digit billions” Pentagon officials say defense firms will claim under the stimulus bill Congress passed in March. As Congress debates the next stimulus, the defense industry has been urging lawmakers to appropriate enough to reimburse the Pentagon's suppliers for pandemic-related disruptions. Under Section 3610 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, contractors can seek to recover such costs, but Congress has yet to appropriate money for it. “While helpful and our industry appreciates the recognition of the need in the HAC mark and all the support we have received from the Pentagon and Congress to date, this level is insufficient to provide the support indicated previously by [the Office of the Secretary of Defense] and also by company leaders who have been communicating with the Pentagon, the Congress and the White House, including [the Office of Management and Budget],” said National Defense Industrial Association Vice Chairman Arnold Punaro. “We are urging that the next stimulus bill provide the needed funds particularly to support section 3610, the reasonable adjustments due to disruptions, and the added costs of protecting the workforces and doing business in a COVID-19 environment,” he added. Not all of the details of the defense bill were available Wednesday, but a committee summary says it provides “$758 million to mitigate the impacts of COVID on second, third, and fourth tier suppliers in the Defense Industrial Base.” Such support would supplement $688 million for the defense-industrial base that the Department of Defense previously set aside as part of the $10.5 billion it got from the coronavirus relief fund created under the CARES Act. Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Ellen Lord warned Congress last month that the DoD's pandemic-related costs, which include 3,610 claims, may nonetheless force it to dip into modernization and readiness accounts if Congress doesn't backfill the money. “The department does not have the funding to cover these costs,” she said. The House Appropriations Committee's bill is not the last word, and Republicans, who control the Senate and the White House, will negotiate over the final numbers. “FY21 appropriations bills must be changed before they have any chance of becoming law,” the panel's top Republican, Rep. Kay Granger of Texas, said Tuesday. This week, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., began to outline a forthcoming GOP-drafted coronavirus relief package, but it was not immediately revealed what the Pentagon's share might be. House Democrats are reportedly seeking $250 billion in emergency spending for an array of issues, to include rural broadband and transportation infrastructure to health care and global coronavirus relief. As lawmakers reconcile these many priorities, at least one one influential lawmaker on defense ― House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith, D-Wash. ― has said repeatedly that the Defense Department should draw from its existing budget. The Project on Government Oversight's Mandy Smithberger said the Pentagon has yet to make the case that payments to the defense industry will be the best means to stimulate the economy. “Even though they often don't act like it, resources are still limited to a degree and Congress has to consider fairness as part of that distribution, including who needs the government's help most, and which sectors are going to do the most to help the country,” Smithberger said. “These companies have much better access to capital than a number of other industries and individuals. Even from a reviving-the-economy perspective, this sector has always been one of the poorer performers per dollar for job creation.” The health care and education sectors create more than twice as many jobs per $1 million than the military, and the energy and infrastructure sectors create 40 percent more, according a 2019 analysis by the Costs of War project at Brown University. https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2020/07/08/house-panel-isnt-giving-defense-industry-all-the-covid-aid-it-wants/

  • New in 2019: The Army’s new way of warfighting will continue to evolve

    7 janvier 2019 | International, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR

    New in 2019: The Army’s new way of warfighting will continue to evolve

    By: Todd South Each of the past three years has seen the Army build and upgrade its newest warfighting concept, one that leaders look to transform the service in an era of greater competitionand multi-faceted threats. That concept, while improved, will continue to evolve in the coming year as well, with more experimentation and feedback from soldiers at all levels. The Army will fight its future battles through formations geared toward multi-domain operations and guided by real-world threats to global military superiority, according to an updated version of Army warfighting called Multi-Domain Operations 2028. “U.S. Army in Multi-Domain Operations 2028” is both a revision to ongoing warfighting plans and an invitation for input from across the force. “The American way of war must evolve and adapt,” Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley wrote. “It describes how U.S. Army forces, as part of the Joint Force, will militarily compete, penetrate, dis-integrate, and exploit our adversaries in the future.” And while it has been formed by commanders at Army Training and Doctrine Command, Army leaders know it needs more. “Every one of you is part of our evolution and the construction of our future force,” Milley wrote, addressing soldiers, “and we want your critical feedback.” The main task of this new battle concept is to get after “layered stand-off,” in which adversaries have created ways to deny historical U.S. dominance of domains such as air-land-sea, and new ones such as information and electromagnetic spectrums to keep U.S. and allied military units at bay. In the newly released document's preface, Gen. Stephen Townsend, TRADOC commander, focused on how the Army will operate and enable the joint force in future conflicts. “If deterrence fails, Army formations, operating as part of the Joint Force, penetrate and dis-integrate enemy anti-access and area denial systems; exploit the resulting freedom of maneuver to defeat enemy systems, formations and objectives and to achieve our own strategic objectives; and consolidate gains to force a return to competition on terms more favorable to the U.S., our allies and partners,” he wrote. To reach those goals, the Army will need some new functions, new equipment and advanced processes to select, train and retain capable soldiers. Some of that was evident this past summer in the Pacific, where fires soldiers found novel approaches to integrating traditionally land-focused Army assets and networks to link up with partner forces and U.S. Navy and Marine Corps teams to share information and strike ships at sea in simulated, contested environments. The director of the Army's Capabilities Integration Center, Brig. Gen. Mark Odom, in an Army release, highlighted key factors in the new concept's importance. The concept focuses on operational problems with competitors such as Russia and China, as opposed to the counterinsurgency and counterterrorism focus in recent decades. This means it returns the Army to a focus on threats rather than capabilities-based approaches, he wrote. https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2019/01/04/new-in-2019-the-armys-new-way-of-warfighting-will-continue-to-evolve

  • What the Pentagon should (and should not) get in the next stimulus bill

    28 avril 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

    What the Pentagon should (and should not) get in the next stimulus bill

    By: Mackenzie Eaglen As Washington begins to draft another stimulus spending bill to combat coronavirus, the Pentagon needs a new plan to articulate its needs to lawmakers. Simply submitting unfunded lists whole cloth comes across as tone deaf and opportunistic. A better plan would be to focus on the health, safety and continuity of all the Pentagon's workforce: uniformed, civilian and contractor. Capitol Hill is (virtually) busy as ever these days, completing another injection of funds into the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act last week. Congress and the White House will now begin formulating a phase 4 bill. President Donald Trump and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have indicated they would both like to see domestic infrastructure spending inside. Negotiations are just beginning, but this bill will open the spending aperture compared to the CARES Act. For national defense, this legislation must focus on taking care of people and protecting jobs. Even as the U.S. military mobilizes to support the fight against COVID-19, the disease is hitting the Defense Department and its workforce much the same as the rest of America. The first order of business is for the Pentagon to ensure health and wellness for service members, their families, civilians and contractors by encouraging safe and flexible work policies. The Pentagon will need additional funding to pay for COVID-19 support deployments, mitigate the effects of stop-movement orders, increase the availability of personal protective equipment and sanitation, and expand its IT infrastructure for telework. Second, Congress and the Pentagon should provide financial assistance to the thousands of small businesses, subcontractors and suppliers to defense contractors building weapons, conducting maintenance or developing classified software. The defense-industrial base is built for maximum efficiency, not resiliency. Even seemingly minor production pauses of weeks are combining with broader quarantine restrictions to wreak havoc on program schedules. While the Pentagon has many tools at its disposal — accelerating awards and progress payments as well as lifting contracting restrictions — the acquisition team simply cannot respond to this crisis without more resources available. Absent additional liquidity, contractors face the impossible choice between letting workers go or facing the reality that they will have no jobs to return to. Small businesses and subcontractors are particularly vulnerable, as they have far less slack to respond to crises. Many live contract to contract, as indicated by a 2018 Department of Defense report on industrial base fragility. These small firms providing needed materials, labor and technology to companies designated as “essential” are struggling with COVID like everyone else. Their employees are either afraid to come to work out of fear of contraction and contagion, or they're sick with the virus. The vicious cycle — where people want to work but can't — means schedules slip. If there is no work, there is no revenue, which means layoffs. Already around the country, a major defense contractor had to shut down two plants; a shipbuilder is struggling to get employees to show up; another defense firm has laid off employees; and still others can't get to work because classified spaces are off limits. To ensure workforces remain intact, lawmakers need to move quickly to pay contractors who cannot work because of COVID-19 effects, as delays are now averaging three months. Fixing this is as simple as measuring the impact of COVID-19 on contracts and ensuring a reasonable payment for that delay, which will be billions of dollars, according to acquisition czar Ellen Lord. It's no different than legal remedies for “acts of God.” Also, the DoD can consider a subset of its unfunded priorities list to get projects on contract that are executable very quickly and inject liquidity into the defense contractor workforce. These unfunded priorities run the gamut, from weapons production to software development. Similarly, there are always “incremental” projects that can be accelerated, like facilities sustainment and depot maintenance. Using unfunded priorities to inject liquidity into the defense-industrial base isn't the ideal tool, but all options must be brought to bear to deal with this crisis. The majority of defense dollars allocated to the big prime contractors go back out the door to their suppliers and vendors — many of which are small businesses. While many of the easiest financial levers to pull involve getting contracts to primes, Congress and the Pentagon need to emphasize that this money — whether it be new contracts, accelerated contracts or increased progress payments — must be passed on to major suppliers and subcontractors. If the behemoths of defense industry don't share the wealth and take care of their supply chain, there won't be more money, contracts or authority for additional progress payments from Congress. Contractor leadership must take care of workers — including those of its vendors. Lastly, Congress can provide Defense Production Act Title III funding to directly target injections of cash to the emergent needs of small businesses and subcontractors, including many up-and-coming innovative firms and single-source suppliers. So far, DPA funding has been focused on contracting for additional personal protective equipment, but the DPA was equally built to protect the defense-industrial base. The industrial base was already hurt by the Budget Control Act, and it's been busy rebuilding under Trump, only to get whacked again by COVID-19. Employees need to know the work is there, their safety is a priority and their jobs are safe. If the Pentagon and primes don't take care of their suppliers and subcontractors, the defense-industrial base will contract again, losing crucial skills and talents permanently — and possibly seeing those companies bought up by China. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/04/27/what-the-pentagon-should-and-should-not-get-in-the-next-stimulus-bill/

Toutes les nouvelles