31 mars 2020 | International, Aérospatial

FVL: The Army’s 10-Year Plan For FARA Scout

The Army's urgently developing new air-launched drones, long-range missiles, and electronic architecture to go on the Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft that Bell and Sikorsky are vying to build.

By

WASHINGTON: The Army's Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft program is much bigger than the two ambitious high-speed helicopters that Bell and Sikorsky will now get more than $1 billion to build. At least five other major moving pieces must come together on time to turn the final aircraft, whoever makes it, into a working weapon:

The Army is “not just focused on the air vehicle, but focused on the weapon system,” said Brig. Gen. Walter Rugen, Future Vertical Lift director at Army Futures Command, in a call this morning with reporters.

Here's the current schedule for everything to come together:

2019

  • April: The Army awarded five contracts for “initial designs” of the FARA aircraft itself.

2020

  • March: The Army assessed the five initial designs – including each company's ability to deliver on budget and schedule. Yesterday, they chose Bell and Sikorsky to build prototypes.
  • Each company has already received a “digital model” of how their design must conform to the Modular Open Systems Architecture (MOSA), which will allow the government to plug-and-play MOSA-compliant components from any company, not just the manufacturer, over the life of the program, program manager Dan Bailey said: “We, the government, will control the interfaces internal to the aircraft so we can efficiently upgrade.”
  • December: The Army will conduct a Final Design Review of both designs to confirm “that they are postured for success and risk is acceptable,” Bailey said. “After that, they will begin to build the aircraft.”
  • 2021

  • Bell and Sikorsky build their prototypes. Despite their very different designs, each company must incorporate certain common Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) provide by the Army. That includes a 20mm cannon; the GE T909 Improved Turbine Engine, which will also be retrofitted to existing Apache and Black Hawk helicopters; and the Integrated Munitions Launcher (IML), which will use MOSA interface standards to connect missiles and ALE mini-drones to the aircraft – without having to modify the aircraft each time a new weapon is developed.
  • If the Army's 2021 budget request is approved, this year the service will buy $152 million of Spike NLOS (Non-Line-Of-Sight) missiles from Israel armsmaker Rafael as an interim Long Range Precision Munition.
  • 2022

  • Bell and Sikorsky begin ground testing of their prototypes.
  • The Army fields Spike-NLOS missiles on existing aircraft across three Combat Aviation Brigades (CABs), providing both immediate combat power and hands-on experience with the technology to refine either the Spike or a competitor into the full-up LRPM.
  • November: The Bell 360 Invictus and Sikorsky Raider-X fly for the first time. Flight testing begins.
  • 2023

  • Summer: The prototype aircraft move from their builders' test sites to Redstone Arsenal to begin Army flight testing with all-government crews. The Army finalizes its formal requirements for FARA based on how the prototypes actually perform.
  • Fall: The Army conducts a Weapons System Preliminary Design Review – that is, not of the aircraft alone, but of how all the pieces work together – and, in context of that holistic assessment, selects either Bell or Sikorsky to build the aircraft.
  • By December 31st: The Army launches an official Program Of Record (POR) to acquire FARA. While the first few aircraft will cost more, the service's long-term goal is to spend no more than $30 million per FARA, the same price as the current AH-64 Apache gunship.
  • 2024-2025

  • The Air-Launched Effects (ALE) mini-drones begin to enter service on existing Army aircraft. As with the Spike missile, this early deployment provides both immediate military benefit and the necessary experience to refine the technology for FARA.
  • 2028-2030

  • The first FARA aircraft enter operational service. The Army hasn't specified how many it ultimately plans to build or for what price. But the Army's Program Executive Officer (PEO) for Aviation, Patrick Mason, told reporters today that “I have no reason to disagree with” widely circulated independent estimates of 300-400 aircraft for $15-20 billion.
  • “We've got a series of gates” over the years, Mason said. “This is a constant assessment as we go through, and this is really the beauty and benefit of the prototyping design of this program: We will get to see both vendors as they go to their final designs and they build their prototype air vehicle, as we simultaneously carry forward [with] the other elements that are part of the FVL ecosystem.”

    “We're going to see very, very clear indication of the technology maturity, the readiness, and the ability of the prototype aircraft to meet the requirements,” he said.

Novel Contracts, Novel Technology, Tight Schedule

It's worth delving into some detail on what happened yesterday, when the Army announced that Bell and Sikorsky would get the chance to build competing prototypes of FARA – the Bell 360 Invictus and the Sikorsky Raider-X – while designs from AVX, Boeing, and Karem were rejected. Each of the five companies had received up to $15 million for design work, while Bell and Sikorsky will each get up to $735 million more to build and test their prototypes. The exact figures are competition-sensitive, and each vendor has invested much of its own money in any case. The contracts call for one-third private funding and two-thirds government funding over the design and prototyping phases combined, but the companies have almost certainly outspent the government so far.

Technically, FARA program manager Dan Bailey told reporters, “we actually aren't awarding anything at this time.” Instead, last April, all five contenders got Other Transaction Authority Prototyping (OTAP) contracts for both the design and prototyping phases, but with clauses allowing the Army to cut any vendor at any time. It's that option they've just exercised.

Rather than making an award, Bailey said, “yesterday, we notified two that we would continue to fund them into Phase 2 and we notified three that we would stop funding them.” (Emphasis ours).

This novel approach, among other benefits, is nigh-impossible for losing bidders to appeal against, Rugen said: “There really is no ability to protest per se with the GAO [Government Accountability Office]. There is legal recourse potentially through the courts but, again, our legal team has advised us the risk is low.”

That's helpful because – as the JEDI cloud computing contract proves – legal battles can delay Defense Department programs for months. The Army has a tight timeline for FARA, which it sees as essential to fill the gap in its aerial reconnaissance capability left by the retirement of the aging and much-upgraded Bell OH-58 Kiowa.

While the competing designs are very different, Army simulations so far show that either would meet the military needs

“Both are advanced rotorcraft configurations,” Brig. Gen. Rugen said. “Both did very well with speed, range, endurance at range, in our European scenario.... The power [for] takeoff with payload out of ground effect was also, again, leap-ahead.”

The Bell 360 Invictus is basically a conventional helicopter with small wings for added lift, using fly-by-wire and rotor technology developed for the civilian Bell 525. The Sikorsky Raider-X is a compound helicopter with coaxial rotors and a pusher propeller for added thrust, derived from Sikorsky's S-97 Raider – which is a real, flight-testing aircraft – and ultimately the award-winning X2.

“The X2 technology continues to impress,” Rugen said. While Bell's design may not have struck some observers as revolutionary, he said, “the efficiency” with which Bell's engineers stripped out every possible bit of drag – allowing much higher speeds – “was truly innovative. “We've got two great competitors ... on a program that we must deliver for the Army,” Rugen said.

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/03/fvl-the-armys-10-year-plan-for-fara-scout

Sur le même sujet

  • Navy Inks Deal For New Unmanned Fleet

    14 juillet 2020 | International, Naval

    Navy Inks Deal For New Unmanned Fleet

    The $34 million deal marks the service's first real thrust to get unmanned ships into the water, despite Congressional worries the service is moving too fast. By PAUL MCLEARYon July 13, 2020 at 5:37 PM WASHINGTON: Despite deep and bipartisan skepticism from Capitol Hill over its plans to build three new classes of unmanned warships, the Navy went ahead today with its plans to begin building as many as 40 Medium Unmanned Surface Vessels. The service awarded L3 Technologies Inc. a $34.9 million contract for a prototype MUSV, along with an option for up to eight additional ships. If the company builds those eight unmanned ships, the contract will be worth $281 million through June 2027. Overall, the Navy wants to build about 40 MUSVs in coming years, which will clock in at between 45 to 190 feet long, with displacements of roughly 500 tons. The medium ships are thought to skew more toward mission modules revolving around intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance payloads and electronic warfare systems. In their versions of the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act, however, both the House and Senate told the Navy to slow down on its acquisition of some unmanned ships, specifically the Large Unmanned Surface Vessel. Both documents boost Congressional oversight over the LUSV, an ambitious new ship the Navy hoped to begin building in 2023. While the MUSV will focus on gathering intelligence, the LUSV will act as a forward-deployed missile launcher, bristling with missile tubes and other weapons, Navy planners have said. Lawmakers are looking to ensure the Navy finalizes its design and operational plans before building the larger ship, something the service has struggled with as it built other classes such as the Littoral Combat Ship, the Ford class of aircraft carriers, and the Zumwalt destroyers, all of which fell behind schedule, went over budget and struggled with new technologies. “USVs are one of the centerpieces of distributed maritime operations,” Rear Adm. Casey Moton, head of the Unmanned and Small Combatants office, said last month at a U.S. Naval Institute event. The ships will act as platforms to enable the fleet to spread out and counter China's ambitions in the Pacific either as a forward screen for a carrier strike group or as vessels pressed forward with an acceptable risk of attrition. The Navy hasn't yet fully prepared to deploy or sustain a new fleet of unmanned vessels, Capt. Pete Small, program manager for unmanned maritime systems said in May. “Our infrastructure right now is optimized around manned warships,” Small said. “We're gonna have to shift that infrastructure for how we prepare, deploy, and transit” over large bodies of water before the navy begins churning out unmanned ships in greater numbers, he added. https://breakingdefense.com/2020/07/navy-inks-deal-for-new-unmanned-fleet

  • Les États-Unis accélèrent le développement des missiles hypersoniques

    22 novembre 2021 | International, Aérospatial

    Les États-Unis accélèrent le développement des missiles hypersoniques

    Les groupes Raytheon, Lockheed Martin et Northrop Grumman vont développer des missiles pour aider les États-Unis à mieux se défendre contre des attaques hypersoniques, a indiqué le Pentagone, vendredi 19 novembre. Les trois contrats, à hauteur de plus de 60 M$ au total, ont été conclus pour le développement de missiles intercepteurs. Les missiles hypersoniques sont plus manœuvrables que les missiles balistiques et peuvent évoluer à basse altitude, ce qui les rend plus difficilement détectables. Selon Washington, Pékin a testé en août dernier un missile hypersonique avec charge nucléaire très difficile à intercepter. Les États-Unis estiment que Pékin développe cette technologie beaucoup plus rapidement que prévu. Le Figaro du 20 novembre

  • How COVID-19 Is Affecting The Defense Industrial Base

    6 novembre 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

    How COVID-19 Is Affecting The Defense Industrial Base

    Jen DiMascio The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated some of the risks that have always existed in the defense industrial base. Although government assistance and a robust Pentagon budget have helped offset initial trials, more challenges are looming. One of the biggest risks to the defense industrial base is that some companies serving the military are too heavily leveraged toward the commercial sector or too reliant on international companies, financial analysts told Aviation Week's DefenseChain Conference. “Some of these places are two weeks from bankruptcy,” says Chris Celtruda, managing principal at Destiny Equity Partners, says. Suppliers are beginning to falter because of a combination of factors, including the need to comply with cybersecurity standards, the pressure that prime contractors such as Boeing and Lockheed Martin have applied to them and their reliance on commercial business. A prime example is the recent bankruptcy of Impresa Aerospace, a Wichita-based company that made parts using computer numerical control machines as well as sheet metal parts and assemblies for Boeing and Lockheed military aircraft but was highly dependent on its work for the commercial Boeing 737 MAX. The U.S. federal Paycheck Protection Program helped delay some business failures, but others are inevitable, says Rick Nagel, managing partner of Acorn Growth. “The Impresa bankruptcy is an example of a lot more insolvencies we may see,” he adds. Weakness among niche companies could pose a problem for the Defense Department in the future. “I'm always amazed at how many critical systems have multiple single points of failure on major programs,” he says. At the Pentagon, officials have been working to keep essential suppliers afloat and to keep production moving through its sprawling international industrial base. For the U.S. Army, that has meant initial disruptions to Apache fuselage production in India and to the flow of generators from Mexico. The Pentagon and the State Department helped ease the stoppage, but the incident has caused them to review the full range of risks to its international supply chain. “I think that we can navigate through this, though it's certainly always going to be complex in today's global economy,” says Patrick Mason, deputy program executive officer for U.S. Army Aviation, adding that he is in the position of putting pressure on vendors to reduce cost, particularly to provide savings on multiyear aircraft contracts. One trend emerging along with the pandemic is a movement toward onshoring or reshoring overseas business for reasons of cybersecurity and the protection of the U.S. industrial base. As that happens, and as the commercial aviation market sags, Raanan Horowitz, president and CEO of Elbit Systems of America sees opportunity. “We are trying to position ourselves around some of those discontinuities,” Horowitz says, adding that the company likes going after opportunities that are not necessarily glitzy but hold value. “We are intensifying efforts toward looking at licensing, taking over orphan product lines and positioning ourselves to be part of the long-term solution.” Horowitz says Elbit is investing in U.S. infrastructure to capture new business. Industry officials see broad support for bringing more of the defense supply chain back to the U.S. The shift stems in part from the COVID-19-related economic downturn but also from longstanding concerns about China. In the fiscal 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, Congress passed restrictions on contracting with companies that use Chinese telecommunications equipment. Though companies first look for the best value, the threat posed by Chinese parts that either do not work or could transmit classified information back to China is an ongoing concern, says John Luddy, vice president for national security policy at the Aerospace Industries Association. “The concept of reshoring of supplies to better connect our allies and friends, both from a production standpoint and from an operational functionality and alliance standpoint, I think the volume is getting turned up on that a little bit,” he says. “There's also a strong impetus in Congress to look at exactly how vulnerable we are. That's going to be a more intense discussion in the year to come than it has been.” And that trend toward reshoring could have unintended consequences, warns Steve Grundman, founder and principal of Grundman Advisory. “I'm genuinely concerned that benign moves to secure our supply chain to prevent nefarious supplies and code [coming] into particularly our defense supply chain or commercial aerospace supply chain could slip very easily into protectionism,” Grundman says. “If you want to really put pressure on the defense budget, ask the defense industry to reshore the supply chain. https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/supply-chain/how-covid-19-affecting-defense-industrial-base

Toutes les nouvelles