Cyber Command will get a new version of its training platform this fall

Sur le même sujet

• 

  15 juin 2021 | International, Aérospatial

  Airbus Helicopters anticipe des commandes sur le segment militaire

  DÉFENSE Airbus Helicopters anticipe des commandes sur le segment militaire Avec les conséquences de la crise sanitaire les commandes militaires ont pallié l'effondrement des commandes civiles. En avril, le gouvernement français a notifié́ à Airbus Helicopters une commande anticipée de huit hélicoptères lourds, de type Caracal pour 300 millions d'euros. Il a également accéléré le développement et l'achat de drones aériens pour la Marine nationale. Mais les négociations principales sont autour du H160. L'appareil a vocation à remplacer une demi-douzaine de modèles anciens utilisés par les trois armées. Déjà certifié par l'Agence européenne de sécurité aérienne, le H160 attend sa certification américaine pour débuter les livraisons à ses clients. Pour les armées françaises, Airbus évoque désormais une conclusion possible « avant la fin 2021 » en vue de premières livraisons en 2026. « Comme les versions militaires seront livrées après nos modèles civils, elles bénéficieront du rodage et de toutes les opérations de dérisquage menées pour les versions civiles », explique Matthieu Louvot, Executive Vice-President Programs chez Airbus Helicopters en charge des programmes militaires. Au total, 169 appareils dont 80 pour l'armée de Terre, 40 pour l'armée de l'Air et de l'Espace, et 49 pour la Marine nationale doivent être livrés. La Marine nationale attend d'ailleurs la livraison d'un premier H160 civil en mai 2022. En dehors de la configuration civile de base, celui-ci disposera d'une boule Euroflir 410, un treuil, une capacité corde lisse, un bac d'égouttement, un interrogateur AIS, une « capacité jumelles de vision nocturnes », un goniomètre et un aménagement intérieur pour prendre en compte des patients. Le contrat final pour dix H160 au profit de la Gendarmerie nationale est toujours en négociation, et ne devrait pas se nouer avant la fin de l'année. Les Echos et Air & Cosmos, 15 juin

• 

  26 juin 2018 | International, Naval

  Future US Navy weapons will need lots of power. That’s a huge engineering challenge.

  David B. Larter WASHINGTON ― The U.S. Navy is convinced that the next generation of ships will need to integrate lasers, electromagnetic rail guns and other power-hungry weapons and sensors to take on peer competitors in the coming decades. However, integrating futuristic technologies onto existing platforms, even on some of the newer ships with plenty of excess power capacity, will still be an incredibly difficult engineering challenge, experts say. Capt. Mark Vandroff, the current commanding officer of the Carderock Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center and the former Arleigh Burke-class destroyer program manager who worked on the DDG Flight III, told the audience at last week's American Society of Naval Engineers symposium that adding extra electric-power capacity in ships currently in design was a good idea, but that the weapons and systems of tomorrow will pose a significant challenge to naval engineers when it comes time to back-fit them to existing platforms. “Electrical architecture on ships is hard,” Vandroff said. Vandroff considered adding a several-megawatt system to a ship with plenty of power to spare, comparing it with simultaneously turning on everything in a house. “When you turn everything on in your house that you can think of, you don't make a significant change to the load for [the power company],” Vandroff explained. “On a ship, if you have single loads that are [a] major part of the ship's total load, [it can be a challenge]. This is something we had to look at for DDG Flight III where the air and missile defense radar was going to be a major percentage of the total electric load ― greater than anything that we had experienced in the previous ships in the class. That's a real technical challenge. “We worked long and hard at that in order to get ourselves to a place with Flight III where we were confident that when you turned things on and off the way you wanted to in combat, you weren't going to light any of your switchboards on fire. That was not a back-of-the-envelope problem, that was a lot of folks in the Navy technical community ... doing a lot of work to make sure we could get to that place, and eventually we did.” In order to get AMDR, or SPY-6, installed on the DDG design, Vandroff and the team at the DDG-51 program had to redesign nearly half the ship — about 45 percent all told. Even on ships with the extra electric-power capacity, major modifications might be necessary, he warned. “We're going to say that in the future we are going to be flexible, we are going to have a lot of extra power,” Vandroff said. “That will not automatically solve the problem going forward. If you have a big enough load that comes along for a war-fighting application or any other application you might want, it is going to take technical work and potential future modification in order to get there.” Even the powerhouse Zumwalt class will struggle with new systems that take up a large percentage of the ship's power load, Vandroff said. “Take DDG-1000 ― potentially has 80-odd megawatts of power. If you have a 5- or 6-megawatt load that goes on or off, that is a big enough percentage of total load that it's going to be accounted for. Electrical architecture in the future is still an area that is going to require a lot of effort and a lot of tailoring, whatever your platform is, to accommodate those large loads,” he said. In 2016, when the Navy was planning to install a rail gun on an expeditionary fast transport vessel as a demonstration, service officials viewed the electric-power puzzle as the reason the service has not moved more aggressively to field rail gun on the Zumwalt class. Then-director of surface warfare Rear Adm. Pete Fanta told Defense News that he wanted to move ahead with a rail gun demonstration on the JHSV because of issues with the load. “I would rather get an operational unit out there faster than do a demonstration that just does a demonstration,” Fanta said, “primarily because it will slow the engineering work that I have to do to get that power transference that I need to get multiple repeatable shots that I can now install in a ship.” https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/06/24/future-navy-weapons-will-need-lots-power-thats-a-huge-engineering-challenge/

• 

  22 juillet 2020 | International, Aérospatial

  F-35 Propulsion Upgrade Moves Forward Despite Uncertainty

  Steve Trimble July 21, 2020 An F-35B completed the first landing at sea on the USS Wasp in 2013. The Joint Program Office is considering thrust upgrades to increase the F-35B's “bring-back” payload to a carrier. Credit: MCSN Michael T. Forbes II/U.S. Navy Stabilizing the production system and securing a funded, long-term upgrade plan are now the main objectives for Pratt & Whitney's F135 propulsion system for the Lockheed Martin F-35. Although first delivered for ground--testing 17 years ago, the F135 remains a lifeline in Pratt's combat aircraft engines portfolio for new-development funding. The U.S. military engines market is entering an era of transition with great uncertainty for the timing of the next major combat aircraft program. Enhancement Package replaces “Growth Option” New F-35 propulsion road map due in six months The transition era begins with the likely pending delivery of Pratt's most secretive development project. In 2016, the U.S. Air Force named Pratt as one of seven major suppliers for the Northrop Grumman B-21 bomber. The Air Force also has set the first flight of the B-21 for around December 2021. That timing means Pratt is likely to have delivered the first engine for ground-testing. At some point within the next year, Pratt should be planning to deliver the first flight-worthy engine to Northrop's final assembly line in Palmdale, California, to support the Air Force's first B-21 flight schedule. As the bomber engine development project winds down, the propulsion system for the next fighter aircraft continues to be developed, but without a clear schedule for transitioning to an operational system. The Air Force Research Laboratory's Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP) is sponsoring a competition to develop an adaptive engine that can modulate the airflow into and around the core to improve fuel efficiency and increase range. The AETP competition is between Pratt's XA101 and GE's XA100 designs, with the first engines set to be delivered for ground-testing by the end of this year or early next year. As 45,000-lb.-thrust-class engines, the first AETP designs are optimized for repowering the single-engine F-35, but the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) has established no requirement to replace the F135 for at least another five years. A follow-on effort within the AETP is developing a similar engine for a next-generation fighter, but neither the Air Force nor the Navy have committed to a schedule for transitioning the technology into an aircraft-development program. That leaves Pratt's F135 as the only feasible application for inserting new propulsion technology for a decade more. After spending the last decade focused on completing development of the F-35 and upgrading the software, electronics and mission systems, the JPO is developing a road map to improve the propulsion system through 2035. As the road map is being developed, program officials also are seeking to stabilize the engine production system. Pratt delivered about 600 F135s to Lockheed through the end of last year, including 150—or about 25%—in 2019 alone. The JPO signed a $7.3 billion contract with Pratt last year to deliver another 509 engines in 2020-22, or about 170 a year. Although Pratt exceeded the delivery goal in 2019 by three engines, each shipment came an average of 10-15 days behind the schedule in the contract. The fan, low-pressure turbine and nozzle hardware drove the delivery delays, according to the Defense Department's latest annual Selected Acquisition Report on the F-35. Lockheed's production schedule allows more than two weeks before the engine is needed for the final assembly line, so Pratt's late deliveries did not hold up the overall F-35 schedule, says Matthew Bromberg, president of Pratt's Military Engines business. F135 deliveries finally caught up to the contract delivery dates in the first quarter of this year, but the supply chain and productivity disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic have set the program back. About five engines scheduled for delivery in the second quarter fell behind the contractual delivery date, Bromberg says. The pressure will grow as a loaded delivery schedule in the second half of the year adds pressure on deliveries, but Pratt's supply chain managers expect to be back within the contract dates in the first quarter of next year, he says. The F-35 program's political nature also has caused program disruptions. The Defense Department's expulsion of Turkey from the F-35 program last year also banished the country's supply chain, which contributed 188 parts to the F135. In particular, Alp Aviation produces the Stage 2, 3, 4 and 5 integrally bladed rotors (IBR) for the F135. As of early July, about 128 parts now made in Turkey are ready to transition to other suppliers, of which about 80% are based in the U.S., according to Bromberg. The new suppliers should be requalified to produce those parts in the first quarter of 2021 and ready to meet production rate targets for Lot 15 aircraft, which will begin deliveries in 2023. “The overriding objective was to move with speed and diligence along the transition plan and ensure we are ready to be fully out of Turkey by about Lot 15,” Bromberg explains. “And we are on track for that.” As Pratt transfers suppliers, the company also has to manage the effect on potential upgrade options. Alp Aviation, for example, had announced a research and development program to convert the finished titanium IBRs to a more resilient nickel material. For several years, Pratt has sought to improve the performance of the F135 above the baseline level. In 2017, the company unveiled the Growth Option 1.0 upgrade, which is aimed at delivering modular improvements that would lead to a 5% or 6% fuel-burn improvement and a 6-10% increase in thrust across the flight envelope. The Marine Corps, in particular, was seeking additional thrust to increase payload mass for a vertical landing, but the proposed package did not go far enough to attract the JPO's interest. “It missed the mark because we didn't focus our technologies on power and thermal management,” Bromberg says. A year later, Pratt unveiled the Growth Option 2.0. In addition to providing more thrust at less fuel burn, the new package offered to generate more electrical power to support planned advances in the aircraft's electronics and sensors, with the ability to manage the additional heat without compromising the F-35's signature in the infrared spectrum. Last fall, the JPO's propulsion management office teamed up with the Advanced Design Group at Naval Air Systems Command to analyze how planned F-35 mission systems upgrades will increase the load on the engine's thrust levels and power generation and thermal management capacity. In May, the JPO commissioned studies by Lockheed and Pratt to inform a 15-year technology-insertion road map for the propulsion system. The road map is due later this year or in early 2021, with the goal of informing the spending plan submitted with the Pentagon's fiscal 2023 budget request. As the studies continue, a name change to Pratt's upgrade proposals reveals a fundamental shift in philosophy. Pratt's earlier “Growth Option” terminology is gone. The proposals are now called Engine Enhancement Packages (EEP). The goal of the rebranding is to show the upgrades no longer are optional for F-35 customers. “As the engine provider and the [sustainment] provider, I'm very interested in keeping everything common,” Bromberg says. “The idea behind the Engine Enhancement Packages is they will migrate into the engines or upgrade over time. We don't have to do them all at once. The [digital engine controls] will understand which configuration. That allows us again to be seamless in production, where I would presumably cut over entirely, but also to upgrade fleets at regularly scheduled maintenance visits.” Pratt has divided the capabilities from Growth Options 1 and 2 into a series of EEPs, with new capabilities packaged in increments of two years from 2025 to 2029. “If you go all the way to the right, you get all the benefits of Growth Option 2, plus some that we've been able to create,” Bromberg says. “But if you need less than that and you're shorter on time or money, then you can take a subset of it.” Meanwhile, the Air Force continues to fund AETP development as a potential F135 replacement. As the propulsion road map is finalized, the JPO will decide whether Pratt's F135 upgrade proposals support the requirement or if a new engine core is needed to support the F-35's thrust and power-generation needs over the long term. Previously, Bromberg questioned the business case for reengining the F-35 by pointing out that a split fleet of F135- and AETP-powered jets erodes commonality and increases sustainment costs. Bromberg also noted it is not clear the third-stream technology required for the AETP can be accommodated within the roughly 4-ft.-dia. engine bay of the F-35B. Now Bromberg says he is willing to support the JPO's decision if the road map determines a reengining is necessary. “If the road map indicates that they need significantly more out of the engine than the Engine Enhancement Packages can provide, we would be the first to say an AETP motor would be required,” Bromberg says. “But we think a lot of the AETP technologies will make those Engines Enhancement Packages viable.” https://aviationweek.com/ad-week/f-35-propulsion-upgrade-moves-forward-despite-uncertainty