General Atomics Awarded Army Contract Supporting Hypersonic Glide Body Prototype Development

Sur le même sujet

• 

  22 juin 2018 | International, Naval

  Upgrading US Navy ships is difficult and expensive. Change is coming

  By: David B. Larter WASHINGTON ― The U.S. Navy is looking at extending the life of its surface ships by as much as 13 years, meaning some ships might be 53 years old when they leave the fleet. Here's the main problem: keeping their combat systems relevant. The Navy's front-line combatants ― cruisers and destroyers ― are incredibly expensive to upgrade, in part because one must cut open the ship and remove fixtures that were intended to be permanent when they were installed. When the Navy put Baseline 9 on the cruiser Normandy a few years ago, which included all new consoles, displays and computer servers in addition to the software, it ran the service $188 million. Now, the capability and function of the new Baseline 9 suite on Normandy is staggering. The cost of doing that to all the legacy cruisers and destroyers in the fleet would be equally staggering: it would cost billions. So why is that? Why are the most advanced ships on the planet so difficult to keep relevant? And if the pace of change is picking up, how can the Navy stay relevant in the future without breaking the national piggy bank? Capt. Mark Vandroff, the current commanding officer of the Carderock Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center and former Arleigh Burke-class destroyer program manager, understands this issue better than most. At this week's American Society of Naval Engineers symposium, Vandroff described why its so darn hard to upgrade the old ships and how future designs will do better. Here's what Vandroff had to say: “Flexibility is a requirement that historically we haven't valued, and we haven't valued it for very good reasons: It wasn't important. “When you think of a ship that was designed in the ‘70s and built in the ‘80s, we didn't realize how fast and how much technology was going to change. We could have said: ‘You know what? I'm going to have everything bolted.' Bolt down the consoles in [the combat information center], bolt in the [vertical launch system] launchers ― all of it bolted so that we could more easily pop out and remove and switch out. “The problem was we didn't value that back then. We were told to value survivability and density because we were trying to pack maximum capability into the space that we have. That's why you have what you have with the DDG-51 today. And they are hard to modernize because we valued survivability and packing the maximum capability into the minimum space. And we achieved that because that was the requirement at the time. “I would argue that now as we look at requirements for future ships, flexibility is a priority. You are going to have to balance it. What if I have to bolt stuff down? Well, either we are going to give up some of my survivability standards or I'm going to take up more space to have the equivalent standards with an different kind of mounting system, for example. And that is going to generate a new set of requirements ― it's going to drive design in different directions than it went before. “I suppose you could accuse the ship designers in the 1980s of failure to foresee the future, but that's all of us. And the point is they did what they were told to do. Flexibility is what we want now, and I think you will see it drive design from this point forward because it is now something we are forced to value.” https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/06/21/upgrading-us-navy-ships-is-difficult-and-expensive-change-is-coming/

• 

  18 novembre 2020 | International, Aérospatial

  US Air Force chief’s top modernization priorities aren’t what you think they are

  By: Valerie Insinna WASHINGTON — The U.S. Air Force is spending tens of billions of dollars every year to buy new aircraft, including F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, KC-46 tankers, the T-7A trainer jet and more. But none of those platforms makes the list of Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown's top three modernization priorities. “In some cases, I'm not so much enamored with airplanes, although, you know, I flew airplanes,” Brown said during a Nov. 12 interview where Defense News asked him to list his top three weapons priorities for the Air Force. “It's really the capability” that matters, he said. "And as we look at, you know, future conflicts, we may be fighting differently. I don't know that for a fact. But when I came in, cyber wasn't a thing. Now it is. Space was a benign environment. Now, not as much. Here's what Brown put on his list: 1. Nuclear modernization Brown pointed to the recapitalization of the Air Force's nuclear weapons and delivery systems as his No. 1 modernization priority. “Nuclear modernization is there at the top,” Brown said. “That's important.” The Air Force plans to field new ICBMs and develop a new stealth bomber, almost concurrently, through the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent and B-21 Raider programs. During Brown's four years as chief of staff, both efforts will hit critical milestones. The B-21 program is further along, having completed a critical design review in 2018. The first B-21 bomber is currently under construction by Northrop Grumman at the company's facilities in Palmdale, California. In August, Maj. Gen. Mark Weatherington, commander of Eighth Air Force, said the aircraft would fly in 2022. The Air Force plans to buy at least 100 B-21s, though it is considering a larger program of record. Meanwhile, the Air Force awarded Northrop a $13 billion contract for the GBSD program in September. Although the legacy Minuteman III ICBMs won't begin to be retired and replaced until 2029, it will be Brown's job to ensure the program stays on track and gets the funding it needs during the pivotal early days of its engineering and manufacturing development stage. Aside from major delivery systems, the Air Force is also pursuing a dual-capable air-launched cruise missile: the Long Range Standoff Missile. The Air Force is responsible for two legs of the nuclear triad — intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear bombers — with the Navy responsible for ballistic missile submarines. With the Navy currently replacing its current Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines with the Columbia class, all of the nation's major nuclear modernization bills will be coming to a head around the same time. That may create pressure on the Air Force's and the Navy's budgets in the coming years, especially as spending is projected to flatten. But the services have contended there is no time to waste when it comes to nuclear modernization — all programs must stay on schedule. 2. Advanced Battle Management System Like his predecessor, now-retired Gen. Dave Goldfein, Brown wants the Air Force's shooters and sensors to be able to instantaneously share data with the joint force — a concept the military has termed Combined Joint All-Domain Command and Control. Brown's second priority, the Advanced Battle Management System, is the Air Force's effort to field a series of technologies that will make CJADC2 a reality. “I look at ABMS [as critical] because that's going to help us enable our decision-making and how we contribute to Joint All-Domain Command and Control,” Brown said. (The “C” in the concept's name was recently added.) However, Brown acknowledged the service has more work to do to convince lawmakers of the viability of the ABMS program. The Air Force envisions ABMS as a family of systems — think everything from cloud computing technologies, artificial intelligence algorithms and smart devices alongside traditional communications gear like radios. Instead of issuing exact requirements, the service wants to test what industry has available in a series of “on ramp” exercises, eventually buying what works after technologies are customized to meet user needs. Congress, however, has been skeptical. While the Air Force requested $302 million for the program in fiscal 2021, the House and Senate Appropriations committees would subtract anywhere from $50 million to almost $100 million from that sum, citing concerns about the service's acquisition strategy and lack of detailed requirements. “That's feedback to me, feedback to the Air Force that something is maybe being lost in the translation,” Brown said. “We're doing this a bit different than we have done a traditional acquisition program. ... And for us, for the Hill, it is a bit different. I think it's an area that we, as an Air Force, do need to do a little bit better job of how we talk it up.” 3. Cutting-edge acquisition methods Brown's third modernization priority isn't a program at all: He wants to see continued advancements in new acquisition methods that allow the Air Force to more quickly buy new equipment at lower prices. Currently, “by the time [new technology] gets to the hands of the war fighter, the software that's in it is a decade or two decades or 15 years old. How are we able to do things a bit faster in that regard?” Brown said. He pointed to advanced manufacturing processes like digital engineering, which employs detailed data and models during the design of a product, and simulates how it will be manufactured, tested, operated and sustained throughout its life cycle. Air Force acquisition executive Will Roper has heralded techniques like digital engineering for enabling the rapid development and recent first flight of a full-scale demonstrator aircraft, which was tested as part of the service's Next Generation Air Dominance program. Roper told Defense News in September that it will be up to Brown and other Air Force leaders to decide whether it's worth buying into the Digital Century Series plan for NGAD, which would involve the service more rapidly purchasing small batches of aircraft from various manufacturers. While Brown didn't comment on whether the Air Force has committed to the Digital Century Series model for purchasing future combat jets, he cited the approach as one that could potentially speed up the fielding of new technologies. “If we keep doing the same approach we have since I've been in the Air Force and expect a different result, then we're not going to do very well,” Brown said. “We have to change our approach. And this drives change in our thinking, change about how we think about acquisition, it changes how we as an Air Force engage with and collaborate with [the Office of the Secretary of Defense], with [the Pentagon's Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office], with the Hill, with industry. And, you know, I think we've gotten some traction in certain areas, but it's going to require constant dialogue and collaboration and transparency.” https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/11/17/the-air-force-chiefs-top-modernization-priorities-arent-what-you-think-they-are/

• 

  3 février 2021 | International, Aérospatial

  Russia Researching Future Interceptor Technologies, New Light Fighters

  Piotr Butowski On Jan. 22, Russian state development agency Rostec Corp. published a story on its website about the MiG-31 Foxhound interceptor in which it mentioned that the aircraft's successor, PAK DP or MiG-41, is currently under development. A few days later, the designation MiG-41 was removed from the text. The program for PAK DP, an acronym that roughly translates to Future Air Complex of Long-Range Interception, deserves close attention, as the conceptual work on it has been commissioned and is financed by the Russian defense ministry. The sums allocated to this program so far are small. The PAK DP is a research project, which aims to develop an initial concept of the aircraft and formulate requirements for a subsequent development effort. Available documents show that the main contractor for the PAK DP research work is the United Aircraft Corp. (UAC), which on Dec. 25, 2018, secured a contract from Russia's defense ministry. In May 2019, UAC ordered Russian Aircraft Corp. (RSK MiG) and Sukhoi to develop the aircraft concept. It is not clear whether each company is developing its own concept or if Sukhoi has a section of work under the RSK MiG project. That Sukhoi received the order directly from UAC, and not through RSK MiG, suggests the former. RSK MiG and Sukhoi have commissioned individual parts of the work to subcontractors. In 2020, RSK MiG ordered airborne missile designer and manufacturer GosMKB Vympel to conceptualize arming the PAK DP with air-to-air missiles. At the request of RSK MiG, part of the research work carried out in 2020—though it is not known what work specifically—was undertaken by the Moscow Institute of Thermal Technology (MITT). The engineering school deals with intercontinental and tactical ballistic missiles, as well as hypersonic technologies. Even before the contract from the defense ministry, RSK MiG had requested the Central Aerohydrodynamic Institute (TsAGI) perform tests of the PAK DP model in the T-102 wind tunnel in 2017 and 2018. The T-102 is a low-speed tunnel; the research concerned the characteristics of the PAK DP in various configurations of the wing high-lift devices at speed Mach 0.2 and at angles of attack from -7 deg. to 36 deg. A total of 246 measurements of the model were made. Judging by the meager value of these contracts so far—2.5 million rubles ($33,000) for Vympel, 3 million rubles for MITT and 8.9 million rubles.for TsAGI, the project remains in its early stages. In 2019, as part of the PAK DP program, Sukhoi commissioned the development of instructions for counteracting foreign intelligence. With the launch of any military equipment development program in Russia, an accompanying document is developed in which it is determined what features of the new design must be hidden, as well as ways to hide them—including disinformation. The PAK DP program was broadly referenced by representatives of the Russian aviation industry and the air force in previous years. In August 2017, Ilya Tarasenko, then the director general of RSK MiG, said that PAK DP will implement all the technologies that the company has to offer. In November of that year, Sergey Korotkov, UAC vice president and general designer, said that PAK DP will fight against hypersonic targets. “We will have to deal with hypersonic carriers and their weapons, which are also hypersonic,” Korotkov said. People involved in the PAK DP project have publicly used the designation MiG-41 several times. In the above-mentioned RSK MiG order for PAK DP's wind-tunnel tests, the airplane is called “izdeliye,” or “product” 41. The PAK DP project dates back to the days of the Soviet Union. In the 1980s, MiG was designing MDP, a multifunction long-range interceptor that was developed to achieve a range of 7,000 km (4,350 mi.) while flying at a cruising speed of Mach 2.35. Summing up the available information, it can be said that the purpose of the PAK DP is to fight the most demanding air targets, including hypersonic ones as well as low-orbit spacecraft. The aircraft would also fight against threats similar to those targeted by the current MiG-31, such as heavy bombers and strategic cruise missiles. PAK DP is to achieve the same cruising speed as the MiG-31 at 20 km altitude, Mach 2.35, but with a much longer radius of action. When speaking about the timing of the PAK DP program, UAC President Yury Slyusar said in August 2018 that the creation of the new interceptor “has to be synchronized with exhaustion of the MiG-31's lifetime.” In other words, the 2030s, Slyusar added. For Russia, however, the date is so distant that it is difficult to forecast anything. Current trends in the Russian economy and the aviation industry indicate that Russia will not be able to afford such an aircraft. It is possible that the tasks currently planned for PAK DP will be partially moved to an intercepting variant of the Su-57 fighter, especially after arming it with the new very-long-range missile “izdeliye 810.” In addition, the Russians may again extend the service life and upgrade the current MiG-31 fleet in order to keep it in service well beyond 2030. Light Strike Aircraft, With or Without Pilot RSK MiG, and Sukhoi too undoubtedly, are conducting conceptual work on variants of lightweight tactical combat aircraft. They all have a lower status than the PAK DP project, given there is no procurement or government financing for the variants under study. Sergey Chemezov, the CEO of Rostec, to which UAC, RSK MiG and Sukhoi belong, told reporters in early December 2020 that the corporation is developing the concept of a fifth-generation fighter “in the light- and medium-weight class.” “This could be a universal platform in manned and unmanned versions,” he added. On Dec. 16, 2020, Andrei Yelchaninov, deputy chairman of the Military-Industrial Commission board, told the Izvestia newspaper that “MiG is working on the creation of a light strike aircraft, which can be either manned or unmanned.” Both Chemezov and Yelchaninov underlined that the work “is conducted on an initiative basis and is not funded by the state.” They also emphasized the export orientation of this project and possible cooperation with a foreign partner. One of Russia's possible partners is the United Arab Emirates (UAE). In February 2017, during the IDEX 2017 exhibition, Chemezov announced that Russia and the UAE had agreed to jointly create a new-generation lightweight fighter. Chemezov proclaimed the signing of an appropriate contract later that year. The aircraft would be produced in the UAE and was intended for the UAE Air Force and neighbor services. In the following years, apart from a few general declarations that the project is up to date, details were not available. There are three known acronyms for Russia's new lightweight fighter project. The official strategy of UAC for 2016-2035 was published in December 2016. That document interchangeably uses “LFI,” an acronym translated as Lightweight Tactical Fighter, or “PLIB,” translated as the Future Lightweight Fighter-Bomber, as the names of this program. In 2018, the United Engine Corp. (UEC) said in a presentation that the LFI/PLIB's powerplant could be a single “izdeliye 30” turbofan developed for the Su-57 fighter. According to the same presentation, two modified “izdeliye 30” engines would be used to provide propulsion for the PAK DP. The RSK MiG uses the acronym “LMFS” for its lightweight fighter project. In December 2019, RSK MiG ordered TsAGI to “calculate the aerodynamics of a lightweight multifunction tactical aircraft (LMFS) in a twin-engine configuration” and compare it with foreign counterparts. One of the known RSK MiG LMFS designs is a canard that has a large delta wing, with small control surfaces at the rear and on the sides of the engine nacelles. It has a maximum takeoff weight of 24,500 kg (54,000 lb.) and is designed to reach speeds of up to Mach 2. The ferry range with additional fuel tanks will be 2,160 nm, and the basic weapon load is to be carried inside the fuselage. The current conceptual work on the RSK MiG LFMS is a continuation of the LFI lightweight tactical fighter program launched by MiG as early as 1986. The LFI fighter was later refreshed in the form of the E-721 project for the purposes of the PAK FA stealth fighter program. In 2002, the MiG E-721 lost the PAK FA competition for the Sukhoi T-50 project, the present Su-57. https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/budget-policy-operations/russia-researching-future-interceptor-technologies-new-light