F-35: What The Pilots Say

Sur le même sujet

• 

  24 janvier 2019 | International, Aérospatial

  Change of plans: Seoul decides to start from scratch with helo competition

  By: Jeff Jeong SEOUL — It looked like Italy's aerospace group Leonardo was going to be an easy winner for South Korea's second batch of anti-submarine helicopters. The procurement program would seek 12 more AW-159 “Wildcat” helicopters, with no other competitors for the $840 million program. But the Defense Acquisition Program Administration, or DAPA, threw a curveball, deciding to accept a U.S. proposal for alternate option and to begin the competitive bidding process from the scratch. The plan for the maritime operational helicopter, or MOH, was originally to sign a direct commercial deal with a foreign helicopter maker, with three bidders — Leonardo, Lockheed Martin and NH Industries — showing interest. The two latter contenders failed to submit their proposals by the Oct. 31 deadline, leaving Leonardo seemingly as the only remaining bidder. According to sources from DAPA, however, the U.S. government in November sent a letter of price and availability of Lockheed Martin's MH-60R Seahawk, causing South Korea's arms procurement officials o rethink the acquisition approach. “We've decided to consider the U.S. FMS option,” DAPA spokesman Park Jung-eun told Defense News. “We're going to weigh in on both options of commercial and FMS contracts.” As dictated by acquisition regulation, two successive failed biddings mean that the agency can make a private contract with a sole bidder, but that's not mandatory. The agency is expected to issue a renewed request for proposals as early as March, according to DAPA officials. Leonardo would be a direct buy, while the Sikorsky bid would be a foreign military sale. Leonardo said in a statement that it would still pursue the South Korean naval helicopter program “in a fair and transparent manner.” A Leonardo spokesman said the AW-159 is optimized for the Korean theater of operations, pointing to an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar for detecting North Korea's coastal weapon system and a missile firing range that is more than three times longer than Seahawk. “We do not really know about the details of the U.S. Navy's latest proposal,” a Lockheed Martin communications official said, declining to elaborate. “After an RFP is issued, we could be able to discuss with the service.” Pundits here expressed different reactions to the renewed MOH bidding process. Shin In-kyun, head of Korea Defense Network, a Seoul-based private defense think tank, said it's a better opportunity to acquire state-of-the-art naval helicopters with better performances. “The Seahawk is estimated to be more expensive by 20 to 30 percent than the Wildcat, but the former has performances about two times better than the latter,” said Shin. “The unit price of the MH-60R could be lowered through the FMS, as the U.S. and Indian Navies are also said to be procuring more than 40 MH-60Rs.” Shin Jong-woo, a senior analyst at the Korea Defense & Security Forum, said an FMS deal may not guarantee economic benefit for South Korea. “You give up offset programs should an FMS deal be made,” he said. “I'm not really sure how much the unit cost of the MH-60R could be lowered. If lowered, we may have to lose some optional functions of the helicopter.” Moreover, a possible MH-60R selection will bring more work to change the designs of warships, he added. “The Navy's existing warships, including the KDX-III Aegis destroyer, are not able to accommodate the MH-60R, so it's inevitable to change the design should the American helicopter be chosen.” The South Korean Navy currently operates eight AW-159s acquired under a 2012 deal. The helicopters fly missions aboard KDX-series destroyers and Incheon-class guided-missile frigates. The service plans to commission at least 12 more new frigates fitted with a flight deck and a hangar that can accommodate one Lynx helicopter. https://www.defensenews.com/2019/01/23/change-of-plans-seoul-decides-to-start-from-scratch-with-helo-competition

• 

  20 juin 2019 | International, Autre défense

  House passes $983 billion spending package 226-203, bucking White House

  By: Joe Gould WASHINGTON ― The Democratic-controlled House passed a $985 billion appropriations package for fiscal 2020 that aims to fund national security at $17 billion less than the White House requested, end the post-2001 war authorizations after eight months, pull military support in Yemen and defund the W76-2 nuclear warhead. The vote was 225-203, with seven Democrats voting with the Republican minority. Zero Republicans voted for the bill. It's a salvo from Democrats in FY20 budget negotiations with the GOP-controlled Senate and White House, and the White House has threatened that President Donald Trump would veto the massive bill. Beyond the above provisions and others, the administration strongly objected to language meant to block Pentagon funds being applied to a wall on the southern border. The threat foreshadows pushback from the Senate and the White House, in part because both advocated for a $750 billion national defense budget, while the House-passed bill is consistent with a $733 billion national defense budget. (The House bill would fund the Pentagon alone at $8 billion less than the White House request.) The four-bill “minibus” contained the two largest of the 12 annual appropriations bills; the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies bill and the Defense bill. For the defense, it totaled $645.1 billion in base-defense funding, and $68.1 billion in the budget-cap-exempt wartime funding account. House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., emphasized the package's investments outside the Pentagon, including a 4 percent increase in State Department funding. “This bill rejects the administration's unacceptable budget request and irresponsible policies and, rather, strives to uphold many bipartisan congressional priorities,” Lowey said when the bill was introduced. “America's foreign policy is strongest when diplomacy, development and defense are well-funded and equally prioritized, as many of today's global challenges cannot be addressed by military intervention alone.” Republicans have opposed the minibus as an empty exercise because Congress lacks a bipartisan deal to ease spending caps and avoid across-the-board sequestration cuts. Nor does the bill contain border wall funding sought by conservative Republicans. “Moving these bills as-is is a wasted opportunity because the bills are far from what the president has requested and will support,” said the House Appropriations Committee's ranking member, Rep. Kay Granger, R-Texas. “Defense spending does not meet the request while nondefense spending greatly exceeds the request in current levels. This could lead to a veto and another government shutdown, something both [parties] agree would be devastating ― in addition to these funding concerns.” The White House issued a veto threat last week that spelled out its objections to provisions in the bill that would end the post-2001 war authorizations after eight months and pull military support in Yemen―and because the House parked less defense spending in the budget-cap skirting war fund. The language surrounding the authorization for the use of military force, Granger said, could jeopardize the Pentagon's ability to conduct military operations worldwide. “It's a bad policy that will force the DoD to unwind counterterrorism operations overseas if the Congress and the president cannot agree on a new authorization,” she said. To avoid another government shutdown, 12 appropriations bills must pass Congress and get the president's signature by Oct. 1. Negotiations between the White House and lead lawmakers on a deal to ease budget caps has been ongoing, according to a statement last week by Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala.. (The Senate Appropriations Committee hasn't yet moved any of its bills.) Another likely sticking point in budget talks with the GOP-controlled Senate and the White House is the minibus' bill's prohibition on the Defense Department spending funds to implement its policy on open transgender service. The vote to approve an amendment that contained the prohibition broke mostly along party lines, 234-183. The amendment targets a March 12 memo that would largely bar transgender troops and military recruits from transitioning to another gender, and require most individuals to serve in their birth sex. The House defeated Republican amendments that would have added back $19.6 million for the W76-2 low-yield submarine-launched nuclear warhead and would have added back $96 million for “conventional missile systems” in the range of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. However, it also defeated a Democratic amendment that would have barred funding for research on the Long Range Standoff weapon. The bill was passed out of committee with language to restrict the Pentagon's authority to transfer money between accounts to $1.5 billion ― a response from Democrats to the administration's use of defense funds for Trump's proposed border wall. Next week, the House is expected to take up a separate minibus that contains the Department of Homeland Security spending bill, which was at the heart of last year's 35-day government shutdown. https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2019/06/19/house-passes-983-billion-spending-package-226-203-bucking-white-house/

• 

  12 mars 2019 | International, Aérospatial

  US Air Force’s new trainer jet could become its next light-attack or aggressor aircraft

  By: Valerie Insinna ORLANDO, Fla. — The U.S. Air Force's new T-X jets could be more than just trainers, with aggressor or light-attack missions now on the table for the Boeing-made plane, the head of Air Combat Command said Thursday. Although buying new T-X trainers to replace the more than 50-year-old T-38 fleet still remains a top priority for that program, the service is beginning to explore whether the T-X could be procured for other uses, Gen. Mike Holmes said at the Air Force Association's Air Warfare Symposium. “You could imagine a version of the airframe that could be equipped as a light fighter. You can imagine a version that is equipped as an adversary air-training platform,” he told reporters during a roundtable. "At the informal level, I have some guys that work for me that are thinking through what the requirement might be for those different versions. When or if that transitions and becomes something more formal will depend on a lot of things,” he said, adding that one of those variables is the budget. So what T-X variants could the Air Force pursue? A light-attack T-X The Air Force still hasn't made clear its path forward on the light-attack experiment, but leaders have said they want to broaden the effort to include aircraft beyond the turboprop planes, which were the focus of the first experiments. The T-X, or a low-cost jet like it, could have a role, said Holmes, who declined to get into specifics until the fiscal 2020 budget is released with more details. "An airplane like that, like all the airplanes that competed in the T-X category, an airplane like that at that size and cost per flying hour and capability is something I think we should definitely look at as we go forward in the experiment,” he said. In the first round of light-attack experiments in 2017, the Air Force evaluated one light fighter —Textron's Scorpion jet — but ultimately eschewed it in favor of turboprops like the A-29 and AT-6. While the Scorpion brought with it some added capabilities that the turboprops couldn't replicate — like increased speed and maneuverability, and an internal bay that can host a variety of plug-and-play sensors — the AT-6 and A-29 had two major advantages over the Scorpion. Both are cheaper to buy and already have existing production lines, while the Scorpion has not been purchased by any country. Boeing's T-X won't be grappling with those same challenges. For one, the T-X trainer program gives it a built-in customer dedicated to buying at least 350 planes, covering the cost of setting up a production line and pushing down the price per plane. Holmes also noted that Boeing incorporated its Black Diamond production initiative into the T-X design process. Black Diamond aims to drastically cut production costs by pulling in new manufacturing techniques and technologies from the company's commercial side. “Then if you look at the size of the fleet, if you have more airplanes that are based on a common platform, that almost always brings economies of scale that make it cheaper to operate those airplanes and sustain them for a long time,” Holmes added. Still, an upgunned T-X may be more expensive from a cost standpoint, and it will have to be something that international militaries are interested in buying — and can afford. “We don't have any conclusion about whether that would fit for what we're looking for at a cost point,” Holmes acknowledged. “And as [Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Dave Goldfein] talks about, the primary or at least one of the primary components of anything we're going to look at with light attack is going to be how our partners feel about it.” An ‘aggressor' T-X to play the baddie The Air Force plans to award contracts this year to a number of companies that provide “red air” training that simulates how an adversary fights in air-to-air combat, but the service believes its requirement could grow even larger, necessitating the purchase of a new aggressor plane. When the T-X program was still a competition between multiple companies, the Air Force downplayed the T-X as an option for a future aggressor aircraft. However, now that a contract has been awarded, the service is taking a look at whether the new trainer could fit requirements, Holmes said at the conference. The Air Combat Command head spelled out his idea in more depth in a January article in War on the Rocks. The T-X is slated to replace the T-38 Talon, but because flying the Talon is more like operating a 1950s-era fighter than a modern one, only the most very basic fighter tactics can be learned in the seat of that trainer. A T-X, with its flying and sensor capabilities, is much closer to a modern day fighter, and Holmes hypothesized that much of the training that occurs once a pilot starts flying an F-15, F-16, F-22 or F-35 could actually be done inside the T-X. It could also take over “some of or all of the adversary aircraft training requirements for nearby fighter units,” he wrote. “This accelerated seasoning and increased adversary air sortie generation is possible because the T-X's lower operating cost — presently expected to be less than half the cost per hour of a fourth-generation fighter, and perhaps a fifth the cost of a fifth-generation fighter — allows the pilots to train more for the same, or less, cost.” https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/afa-air-space/2019/03/06/air-forces-new-trainer-jet-could-become-its-next-light-attack-or-aggressor-aircraft/