Cyber Resilient 911 Symposium Blog Post | CISA

Sur le même sujet

• 

  14 juin 2019 | International, Aérospatial

  KC-46 refueling system flaws will take years to fix and cost hundreds of millions, GAO says

  By: Stephen Losey New designs will be required to fix some of the issues with the refueling boom and the remote vision system on the Air Force's new KC-46 Pegasus tanker, and that could take years to fix, the Government Accountability Office said in a report released Wednesday. The refueling boom on the Pegasus could inadvertently scratch fighter jets' stealth coatings, or otherwise damage aircraft, according to the GAO. The good news is that the cost of delivering all 179 KC-46 tankers is now expected to come in at $43 billion, or nearly $9 billion cheaper than originally estimated in 2011, GAO said in the report. More, the KC-46 is ultimately expected to meet all 21 of its performance goals. But delays in the program mean that Boeing will not be able to make good on its most significant delivery requirement — delivering nine sets of wing aerial refueling pods — until mid-2020, or nearly three years later than originally expected. In addition to previously reported foreign object debris problems, the GAO report details deficiencies with the tanker's remote vision system and refueling boom — which could damage aircraft, especially stealth coatings. As has been previously reported, the remote vision system's cameras sometimes had problems with glare when the sun shone at certain angles, GAO said. This caused the display screens to be washed out or blacked out during some test flights, and the aerial refueling operators had a hard time seeing the receiving aircraft's receptacles to guide in the boom. The system also doesn't provide enough depth perception in some lighting conditions, GAO said. Boeing said it has already made changes, such as adjusting the contrast on the display screen and allowing operators to more quickly switch between different viewing options. However, GAO responded that those changes didn't fix the underlying problem: KC-46 operators need to be able to refuel aircraft in all conditions, with sufficient visual clarity in all lighting conditions. Boeing has agreed to redesign the vision system to do so, but the redesign could take three or four years, plus several more years to install it in the planes. That vision problem also caused the boom nozzle to bump into the receiving aircraft, without the knowledge of the refueling operators. This could damage the antenna or other structures near the refueling receptacle, GAO said. This especially presents a problem for low-observable planes such as the F-22 fighter, because inadvertent boom nozzle contact could scratch or damage special stealth coatings, and make them visible to radar. GAO also said the Pegasus' telescoping boom is stiffer than expected, which means lighter aircraft — such as the A-10 and F-16 — must use more power to move the boom forward while in contact to compress it and stay in refueling position. The need for additional force can create a problem when the receiving planes disconnect from the boom. When they disconnect, their additional power can cause them to lunge forward back into the boom, which could damage the plane and the boom itself. For the A-10, because the receptacle is located on its nose, a collision with the boom could damage the windshield and put the pilot at a greater risk. Boeing said that fixing that problem will require a hardware change, which could take three or four years to be designed and certified by the Federal Aviation Administration. But because the contract didn't specify how much force should be needed to compress the boom, and because the Air Force signed off on Boeing's original proposed specifications, program officials said the Air Force will have to foot the bill. The total cost for designing and retrofitting roughly 106 KC-46s? More than $300 million, GAO said. https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2019/06/13/kc-46-refueling-system-flaws-will-take-years-to-fix-and-cost-hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars-gao-says/

• 

  10 octobre 2018 | International, Terrestre

  US Army triggers start of possible ground mobility vehicle competition after long delay

  By: Jen Judson WASHINGTON — The Army seemed geared toward holding a rapid competition to buy a Ground Mobility Vehicle in 2016, but the plan was delayed without much explanation in favor of buying an interim vehicle already in use by special operations forces. Buying the GMV was a top priority following the fall 2015 release of the Army's Combat Vehicle Modernization Strategy, which called for such a vehicle in future and current operations. After a competition never materialized, however, rumors began to swirl that the Army may decide to buy more of the U.S. Special Operations Command's GMV — General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems' Flyer 72 — even after the service had spent several years prior testing a wide variety of commercial off-the-shelf options. But Congress spurred the effort in its fiscal 2018 defense policy bill, mandating the Army hold a competition and move forward with a program. The Program Executive Office Combat Support and Combat Service Support's product lead for the GMV has quietly stated on its website that the Army plans to pursue a competition for the GMV — calling it an Infantry Squad Vehicle — as a formal program of record. The office states that it is projected to enter into a production contract in fiscal 2020 to procure 2,000 vehicles, roughly a year later than originally planned. The Army took a big step forward on Sept. 24, releasing a market survey to industry, via the Federal Business Opportunities website, soliciting offerings for an Infantry Squad Vehicle. The notice states the service is looking for a vehicle that provides mobility for a nine-soldier infantry squad as well as its associated equipment to “move around the close battle area.” The vehicle should be lightweight, highly mobile and transportable “by all means” to include CH-47 Chinook cargo helicopters, UH-60 Black Hawk utility helicopters and by Low Velocity Air Drop. Responses to the solicitation are due on Oct. 26. While the Army has already bought quantities of the SOCOM vehicle for five airborne infantry brigade combat teams, other companies have continued to wait in the wings for the possibility to compete. And the pool of readily available ultralight vehicles is deep. In addition to GD's Flyer, these vehicles all participated in vehicle demonstrations at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, in 2014: Boeing-MSI Defense's Phantom Badger. Polaris Defense's air-transportable off-road combat vehicle DAGOR. Hendrick Dynamics' Commando Jeep. Vyper Adamas' Viper. Lockheed Martin's High Versatility Tactical Vehicle, which is a version of the British Army's HMT-400 Jackal. The Army launched its new-start GMV program in 2017 as planned, based off the service's new combat vehicle modernization strategy released in 2016, which called for the capability. The Army planned to reach a full-rate production decision on a vehicle by the end of FY19. But then it decided to split GMV procurement into two phases in the FY18 budget request and, in the first phase, planned to exclusively buy 295 of GD's Flyers through a previously awarded contract with U.S. Special Operations Command. The second phase would open up into a competition to build 1,700 more GMVs. Procuring the GMV vehicles from SOCOM raised the unit cost of the vehicle higher than the unit cost of ones that would have been procured through competition, according to FY18 budget documents. https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/ausa/2018/10/09/us-army-triggers-start-of-possible-ground-mobility-vehicle-competition-after-long-delay

• 

  1 octobre 2018 | International, Aérospatial

  Boeing’s big month capped off with hat trick of new contracts

  By: Valerie Insinna WASHINGTON — Boeing is the biggest aircraft manufacturer in the world, but the losses of the joint strike fighter program and Air Force's long range strike bomber still weigh heavily on the company's defense unit, and had prompted some in industry to wonder if the company's days of making cutting edge combat aircraft were numbered. Conventional wisdom held that Boeing needed to win either the Navy's unmanned tanker drone or the Air Force's next-generation trainer aircraft contract to keep its St. Louis, Mo.-based facility building tactical aircraft into the 2030s. a contract for the Air Force's Huey replacement helicopter was seen as out of reach as the service had formerly expressed a preference for sole-sourcing Black Hawks. But in a matter of weeks, Boeing racked up all three contracts, shocking the defense establishment. First came the MQ-25 Stingray award for the Navy's unmanned tanker drone on Aug. 30. An initial $805 million contract covers the design, development, fabrication, test and delivery of four Stingray drones, but Navy acquisition boss James Geurts said the entire program could be worth up to $13 billion for 72 aircraft. “It is a big win on a high-visibility competition/program and gives Boeing a franchise unmanned program,” wrote Roman Schweizer of Cowen Washington Research Group on Sept. 4. Boeing defeated Lockheed Martin and General Atomics to win the program — and that victory allows Boeing to cement its own status as the Navy's premier manufacturer of fixed-wing aircraft. “A Lockheed Martin win would have cemented its position as the builder of ‘next-gen' naval aviation platforms while Boeing would have been relegated to manufacturing fleet workhorses,” Schweizer said in his assessment of the award. “General Atomics would have a been a one-off, but we thought they would been a favorite for a low-cost, low-risk design.” Then on Monday, Boeing won another big competition — this time worth up to $2.38 billion — for the Air Force's UH-1N replacement helicopter. Boeing and Leonardo were immediately obligated $375 million for the initial four MH-139 helicopters, which will be built at Leonardo's commercial AW-139 production plant in Philadelphia. It was huge news for Leonardo, a large Italian defense contractor that had been attempting to break into the U.S. market with a major program for about a decade. But for Boeing, it was still a relatively small aircraft procurement program, with Byron Callan, an analyst with Capital Alpha Partners, writing that there were probably few opportunities for Boeing-Leonardo to sell the MH-139 to other users in the U.S. military. However, Boeing on Thursday won the major opportunity it had been seeking: the Air Force's T-X program. Boeing's clean sheet design beat out Lockheed and Leonardo to win a contract worth up to $9.2 billion. It's likely the actual program will be worth considerably less — Boeing would be obligated a total of $9.2 billion over time if the Air Force decides to execute all options on the contract for 475 training jets, and the services' program of record sits at 350 jets. But its importance to Boeing extends past the award's total contract value. Winning T-X was “possibly critical” for Boeing's St. Louis plant and for its defense business to remain a competitive player in tactical aircraft design, said Callan. “The MQ-25 win helps sustain production at that facility, which now builds F/A-18s and F-15s,” he wrote after the Sept. 27 announcement. “However, the F/A-18 and F-15 lines may end by the mid-2020s. T-X enables Boeing to keep that facility humming and therefore in the hunt for Penetrating Counter Air and other new military aircraft programs.” Analysts like Callan and Schweizer had speculated that Boeing would bid very aggressively to try to win the contract, but the question was whether the company could possibly offer a new purpose-built design at a significantly lower price point than competitors Lockheed Martin and Leonardo, which both proposed aircraft designs already in production and use by foreign militaries. It appears Boeing may have been able to do just that. Richard Aboulafia told Defense News in 2017 that the Lockheed and Leonardo trainers came with a price tag of about $25 million, although both companies were expected to bid lower than that to be competitive. Meanwhile, Jim McAleese of McAleese & Associates pegged the unit cost of Boeing's T-X at an “eye-watering” $19 million, far below the Air Force's $45 million per plane expectation. That low price “establishes an extremely high burden for disappointed offerors of Lockheed or Leonardo” to launch a successful protest with the Government Accountability Office, he stated in a Sept. 28 email, although Lockheed and Leonardo could potentially argue that the Air Force's cost and schedule risk assessments are too optimistic, given that Boeing offered a new airframe. Callan also pointed out that the MQ-25 and T-X wins could be advantageous to Boeing's commercial business. In the past, the defense sector has developed new materials that have later been adapted for use by the airline industry. With Boeing acquiring autonomy-focused businesses like Liquid Robotics and Aurora while investing in startups through its HorizonX organization, it is possible advances in military unmanned tech could give way to autonomous commercial cargo planes or other future concepts. https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2018/09/28/boeings-big-month-capped-off-with-hat-trick-of-new-contracts