F-35 Mod Adds New Missiles To Weapons Bay

Sur le même sujet

• 

  3 août 2023 | International, Aérospatial

  Here’s how Air Force special ops ‘power projection wings’ will work

  The move is part of AFSOC’s attempt to reimagine what its airmen can do after decades at war in U.S. Central Command.

• 

  2 mai 2019 | International, Aérospatial, C4ISR

  These are the five areas where the Air Force wants to see an explosion of technology

  By: Valerie Insinna WASHINGTON — The Air Force has a new science and technology strategy, and it's built around the idea that the service needs to generate leap-ahead capabilities like the 1950s-era Century Series that spawned six new fighter jets in five years. To do that, the service wants to restructure about 20 percent of its S&T efforts into “vanguard programs” that will tie together different developmental efforts across the Air Force's research institutions and experiment with them to see whether it shows promise. “If you're playing hockey, you shouldn't be shooting where the goalie is. You should be shooting where the goalie isn't,” Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson said Wednesday. “So the idea with part of this strategy is to assess where our adversaries can't easily go and get there first and fastest. That's a winning strategy.” Among the new strategy's biggest changes is the addition of a new position, the Air Force's chief technology officer, who will be charged with coordinating efforts across the S&T enterprise and making strategic decisions about the direction of the service's development efforts, to include the vanguard programs. This yet-to-be-named official will work directly with the Air Force Warfighting Integration Capability team, which is defining future concepts of operation and helping the service understand what technologies it needs to meet advanced threats. Wilson wasn't sure exactly when the CTO will be named, but she's already signed a memorandum that makes Will Roper, the service's acquisition executive, responsible for hiring a “design agent” that will figure out how to best structure the CTO office within the Air Force and help select the new official. “One of the things that this design agent will do is start to look in at acquisition, how will we change both possibly the organizational reporting lines for research, but [also] how will we manage that and change that over time,” she said. “This is not something where we're going to flip a switch today, but it does mean over time we're going to change the way we manage our research dollars.” Still unknown is whether the new strategy will impact the size or makeup of the S&T budget, which runs about $2.8 billion per year. The Air Force also hasn't identified any potential vanguard programs yet, officials said. “For some things, if it's smaller, that could be really quick” and result in an experimentation program similar to the light attack program, said Lt Gen. Arnold Bunch, the service's top uniformed acquisition official. “Or it could be a big project that we align a lot of dollars to” so that it can transition quickly to a program of record. The service also wants to use vanguard programs to fuse together emerging technologies in their early stages of development, which are usually developed in a more stovepiped manner, said Air Force Chief Scientist Richard Joseph. “If it doesn't work well, then we know at a very early stage the kinds of things we have to work on and change,” he said. “This is probably a less expensive vanguard, but it's one that's really vital and important.” Although no specific vanguard projects have been announced, the S&T strategy identifies five technology areas where it wants to see “transformational” growth: Complexity, Unpredictability and Mass The military has talked for years about the need for swarms of autonomous drones and space systems that can be purchased on the cheap, and the Air Force continues to see a need for such assets in the future to augment their legacy fleet of exquisite platforms. “Progress will rely heavily on a wide range of robotics and autonomy technologies, along with sensors and wireless communications,” the strategy states. “The growing autonomous vehicle market provides an industrial and applied research base that the Air Force can leverage, but military research is needed well beyond what can be expected from the commercial sector.” Speed and Reach of Disruption and Lethality The Air Force needs a more diverse inventory of weapons that are faster and have longer endurance. Although hypersonic weapons — and enabling technologies like scramjet propulsion and high-temperature materials — might be the most visible program for such investment, the S&T strategy notes several others such as low-cost cruise missiles and guided munitions. Microwave and laser-directed energy weapons hold potential for decreasing the cost of shooting down a target. The service also sees promise in “advanced penetrating kinetic weapons combined with new effects from the electromagnetic spectrum and the space and cyberspace domains to create new offensive and defensive options.” Global Persistent Awareness The platforms the Air Force uses for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance — everything from the U-2 spyplane to its missile warning satellites to the cameras on an MQ-9 Reaper — have given the service unparalleled access to information. But those assets are too expensive, can't stay long enough on station, and lack the survivability needed to stand up against more advanced threats. Further, it takes far too long to process the information from these legacy systems, and too much manpower is needed to turn that data into actionable intelligence. The strategy posits a move toward distributed, low-cost sensors where information can be fused together to “provide resilience through numbers and redundancy and complement more exquisite sensors on standoff platforms.” Small satellites and low cost launch can help enable this architecture, as can “edge computing” that “autonomously analyzes sensor data at the source” and reduces the burden on legacy communications nodes. The strategy also recommends investment in new sensing technologies — such as laser and multistatic radar, hyperspectral sensing and quantum field sensing—as well as the microelectronics, photonics and other materials that are used to build sensors. Resilient Information Sharing The Air Force relies on its battle networks in order for fighter jets to get accurate targeting information, to share intelligence across platforms, and to conduct close air support of troops on the ground. But despite huge advances in commercial communications technologies, the Air Force “cannot rely” on the private sector for information sharing capabilities that are able to resist electronic attacks, cyberattacks and GPS jamming. “The military's demands on these capabilities exceed the limits of current wireless network technology, even under favorable circumstances,” the S&T strategy reads. “In future conflicts, the challenge will be far beyond any of those encountered in the commercial sector.” As such, the Air Force will need to field more flexible and survivable battle networks that can autonomously reconfigure itself when threatened. The service sees promise in areas such as software-defined systems, more resilient satellites, encryption and alternate position, navigation and timing systems. Rapid, Effective Decision Making Air Force Chef of Staff Gen. Dave Goldfein has spoken at length about the need for the Air Force to move the right information to users more quickly. To do that, the serviced will need to continue investments in areas such as artificial intelligence, predictive data analytics, data fusion and visualization, and autonomous electronic warfare and cyber. “Automation is especially important in electronic and cyberwarfare where contests occur at far-beyond-human speeds,” the strategy states. “Where possible, automation can assist electronic warfare, cybersystems, and other means to hinder the adversary's decision-making by introducing uncertainty.” https://www.defensenews.com/industry/techwatch/2019/04/17/these-are-the-five-areas-where-the-air-force-wants-to-see-an-explosion-of-technology

• 

  26 janvier 2021 | International, Terrestre

  Infantry Squad Vehicle is a cramped ride, but US Army says it meets requirements

  By: Jen Judson WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army's new Infantry Squad Vehicle is a cramped ride and offers limited protection from certain threats, according to a recent report from the Pentagon's chief weapons tester, but it still meets the service's requirements in tests and evaluations, the product lead told Defense News. The ISV “key requirements are being met and we are increasing soldier operational readiness by providing an operationally relevant vehicle that can transport small tactical units to a dismount point faster and in better physical and mental condition for the fight,” said Steven Herrick, the Army's product lead for ground mobility vehicles within the Program Executive Office Combat Support and Combat Service Support. The vehicle was designed for easy transport to operational environments with the infantry's current rotary and fixed-wing transport platforms. The key performance parameters required that the vehicle's weight not exceed 5,000 pounds and that it fit inside a CH-47 Chinook cargo helicopter. Those requirements “force dimensional requirements only allowing the vehicle to be a certain height, width and length,” he said. The requirements led to a vehicle that makes it hard for soldiers with all their gear needed for a 72-hour mission to comfortably fit inside and be able to access rucksacks on the move. The Army assessed three vendors in developmental testing from December 2019 through January 2020. The service chose General Motors Defense to supply the vehicle to the force, with the company beating out an Oshkosh Defense and Flyer Defense team as well as an SAIC and Polaris team. All offerings were capable of carrying a nine-soldier infantry squad with weapons and equipment during movement, the director of operational test and evaluation said in the report. But the Pentagon also noted the ISV “has not demonstrated the capability to carry the required mission equipment, supplies and water for a unit to sustain itself to cover a range of 300 miles within a 72-hour period.” The Army, however, has assessed the ISV requirement and solution set is in alignment, Herrick said. The DOT&E report, he said, “indicates a desire to include more equipment than a standard nine-soldier squad would carry on a 72-hour mission.” This lack of space, the report stated, “may create a logistics and operational burden” and might limit the type of missions and duration for ISVs. The soldiers that participated in the touch point evaluating the vehicles were asked to bring their Advanced Combat Helmet and Improved Outer Tactical Vest with plates; individual weapon; night vision devices; and ruck with three days' worth of supplies, Herrick said. “All vendors' ISVs are cramped and soldiers cannot reach, stow, and secure equipment as needed, degrading and slowing mission operations,” the report explained. During tests “soldiers on all ISVs could not readily access items in their rucksacks without stopping the movement, dismounting, and removing their rucksacks from the vehicle.” The soldier touch point took into account soldier comfort, visibility and ability to execute the mission, Herrick said. This was all factored into the Army's decision to choose GM Defense's vehicle. “Additionally, no current or planned combat or tactical vehicle allows access to rucksacks while moving to support operator safety,” Herrick noted. “Crew spaces on the ISV are designed to allow mission performance of specific duty tasks.” Units also lacked reliable communication capability, according to the report, using hand-held or manpack radios between 62 and 300 miles. The ISV does not have a mounted radio requirement. “Communication between the squad leader, soldiers, and the platoon leader was intermittent and not reliable,” the report found. Because of the concept of the ISV providing an effective aid to insert soldiers into combat operations, the requirements support just what the soldier carries, so there is no mounted requirement yet, Herrick said. That requirement could be added as a growth capability later. The DOT&E report also noted that the ISV doesn't have an underbody and ballistic survivability requirement, which could mean the unit would be susceptible to certain threats, but the ISV's speed as well as its small, low profile might help deal with those issues. Adding protection to the vehicle would sacrifice the speed the squad needs to rapidly inject itself into operations. Overall, GM Defense's vehicle had the highest reliability among the three vendors, demonstrating 585 mean miles between operational mission failures. The Army's user requirement is 1,200 mean miles for that situation. Herrick noted that reliability and maintainability testing was not scheduled or conducted by Army Test and Evaluation Command or the program office, so the calculations used in the DOT&E report were “not supported by traditional [reliability and maintainability] RAM elements, such as scoring conferences and time for the vendor to implement changes.” The mileage accumulated and referenced in the report was “not meant to evaluate RAM by the Army, but rather to provide the program office and contractor an initial insight on the capability of the system over 500 miles,” Herrick added. The vehicle's RAM testing is scheduled to begin this month, he added.. The service wasn't able to evaluate every aspect of the vehicle before moving into production, but it plans to test the vehicle's ability to be carried by a Chinook during its initial operational test and evaluation this year. Now that the Army has chosen the GM Defense vehicle, it has already initiated developmental testing that will lead to an initial operational test and evaluation in August 2021 at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. That testing began in November 2020. https://www.defensenews.com/land/2021/01/25/infantry-squad-vehicle-is-a-cramped-ride-but-army-says-it-meets-requirements/