18 septembre 2020 | International, Aérospatial

Air Force needs more data before making a decision on enhanced KC-46 vision system

and

WASHINGTON — Within a few weeks, the Air Force will have the data it needs to make a decision on whether to install an interim version of the KC-46′s troubled remote vision system, the head of Air Mobility Command said in a Sept. 10 interview.

In April, the Air Force and KC-46 manufacturer Boeing signed off on an agreement to replace the tanker's Remote Vision System — the series of cameras that provide imagery to the boom operator during refueling operations — with a newly designed system, called Remote Vision System 2.0.

Boeing has agreed to develop and install RVS 2.0 on its own dime, but it has also proposed installing an enhanced version of the original system, eRVS, before then. But AMC commander Gen. Jacqueline Van Ovost, who viewed a demonstration of the eRVS system during a Sept. 4 visit to Boeing Field in Washington state, isn't sold on the upgrade just yet.

“The most important thing is, we cannot slow down getting RVS 2.0 into the airplane. So eRVS can't slow us down if we were to accept parts of that,” she told Air Force Times.

“And then we want to make sure if we're going to put it on the airplane, that it actually gives us some tangible capabilities with respect to boom operator workload and capability with respect to opening up the envelope for actually doing operational air refueling, or it gives us a great enhancement getting ready for 2.0.”

The Air Force and Boeing began flight testing the eRVS this summer. The demonstration shown to Van Ovost, which compared the original RVS to the enhanced version, revealed “some sharpening of the picture with respect to how the boom operator saw the airplane” in day and nighttime conditions, she said.

But those improvements in image quality need to be weighed against the time it will take to retrofit the existing KC-46 planes in service with the new eRVS components.

“Do we have to ground airplanes for a while to put the put the modifications in?” Van Ovost said. “What's the worth of the modifications compared to the operational envelope it's going to open up for our boom operators?”

The Air Force is set to receive the full set of test data within the next few weeks. Once it has the answers to those questions, the service will be ready to decide whether to field eRVS.

If the Air Force decides to incorporate the enhanced system, Boeing can start making those upgrades in the second half of 2021, said Mike Hafer, Boeing's global sales and marketing lead for KC-46.

Boeing also remains on track to incorporate RVS 2.0 on KC-46s coming off the production line in late 2023 or early 2024, he said.

The Air Force intends to purchase 179 KC-46s during the program of record. The first tanker was delivered to the service in January 2019.

Boeing is locked into paying any costs associated with the KC-46 that exceed the $4.9 billion firm fixed-price ceiling on its 2011 contract with the U.S. Air Force. So far, Boeing will have spent more than $4.7 billion in company funds on the KC-46 program — almost equivalent to the Air Force's own investment in the program.

The deal on RVS 2.0 capped a yearslong dispute over the original system, which the Air Force argued did not provide enough fidelity to boom operators in certain lighting conditions, resulting in incidents of operators accidentally scraping the boom against the receiver aircraft.

Van Ovost said the main goal of the trip to Boeing Field was to better understand the progress on RVS 2.0 and whether the final design specifications agreed to in April would meet the needs of tanker operators in the field.

Van Ovost described the performance of the original RVS as something the Air Force “couldn't live with” but said she “was pretty encouraged about the collaboration of the team, and how far they've gotten with the requirements of RVS 2.0.”

“I'm encouraged that we are on a path to get a fully qualified tanker,” she added.

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/afa-air-space/2020/09/16/air-force-needs-more-data-before-making-a-decision-on-enhanced-kc-46-vision-system/

Sur le même sujet

  • Florence Parly visite le site d’Airbus Helicopters à Marignane et doit annoncer des commandes d’équipement

    15 avril 2021 | International, Aérospatial

    Florence Parly visite le site d’Airbus Helicopters à Marignane et doit annoncer des commandes d’équipement

    DÉFENSE Florence Parly visite le site d'Airbus Helicopters à Marignane et doit annoncer des commandes d'équipement La ministre des Armées, Florence Parly, se rend, ce jeudi 15 avril, sur le site d'Airbus Helicopters de Marignane, dans les Bouches-du-Rhône. Elle visitera la chaîne d'assemblage des H225 Caracal et rencontrera les salariés et apprentis œuvrant sur ces sites. « A cette occasion, la ministre annoncera des commandes d'équipements dans le cadre du plan de soutien gouvernemental à l'aéronautique, présenté en juin 2020 », indique le ministère des Armées. La ministre devrait annoncer, selon le journal La Provence, que la commande par l'État de huit hélicoptères Caracal, dans le cadre du plan de relance aéronautique, est finalisée. La Provence du 15 avril

  • DoD ‘Office’ Functions Move To Cloud In Multi-Billion-Dollar Contract

    3 septembre 2019 | International, C4ISR

    DoD ‘Office’ Functions Move To Cloud In Multi-Billion-Dollar Contract

    By BARRY ROSENBERG WASHINGTON: Overshadowed by the dispute with DoD's planned single-award JEDI cloud contract is another multi-billion-dollar single-award cloud contract awarded today that will actually determine the software that military personnel and civil servants use every day. Under the $7.6 billion 10-year Defense Enterprise Office Solutions (DEOS) cloud contract, the Pentagon will use Microsoft productivity tools such as word processing, spreadsheets, email, collaboration, file sharing, and storage — Office 365. Those applications presently reside mostly on legacy desktop computers, and will transition to a cloud-based solution across all military services. The result should be improved cybersecurity, for one thing. “The notion is that if you have it professionally and centrally managed it should be better patched and configured than having hundreds of individually managed servers,” said David Mihelcic, former chief technology officer at the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) and now a consultant with DMMI. “This seems reasonable, but I don't think there is any cyber magic in DEOS either.” The joint General Services Administration/Defense Department DEOS blanket purchase agreement was awarded to CSRA (acquired by General Dynamics in April 2018 for $9.7 billion) and its subcontractors Dell Marketing (a wholesale distributor of computers, peripherals, and software) and Minburn Technology (a value added reseller that specializes in Microsoft enterprise software agreements). The award includes a five-year base period with two two-year options and one one-year option. “DOD's cloud strategy includes both general purpose and fit-for-purpose clouds (and) DEOS is a great example of a fit-for-purpose cloud that supports our multi-cloud strategy,” said DOD Chief Information Officer Dana Deasy in a statement. “DEOS will streamline our use of cloud email and collaborative tools while enhancing cybersecurity and information sharing based on standardized needs and market offerings. “The journey to the cloud has been, and will continue to be, an iterative learning process. All lessons learned from pilot programs and the department's early cloud adopters have been rolled into this solution. DEOS takes advantage of technical, security and contractual lessons from these ongoing pilots, while military services are leveraging them to assess the readiness of their infrastructure to support migration to DEOS.” DEOS includes voice, video, and text collaboration capabilities, which the DoD already has with capabilities under enterprise services like: Defense Collaboration Services (DCS), which provides secure web conferencing and instant messaging services on the Non-secure Internet Protocol Router Network (NIPRNet) and Secure Internet Protocol Routing Network (SIPRNet), and Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) chat. “Will it be an improvement over the current capabilities? I guess we will see,” said Mihalcic. “I can't say I found the collaborative capabilities of O365 better than what we had in DoD.” While DEOS on the surface appears to provide a back-office function, it can also be considered a weapon system given that it will provide common enterprise applications at local base, post, camp, and station levels — including deployed and afloat organizations — over the sensitive but unclassified NIPRNet and the secret SIPRNet, to include operations in Denied, Disconnected, Intermittent, and Limited Bandwidth (D-DIL) environments. “I would say almost certainly (DEOS is a warfighting capability), especially the SIPR instance,” said Mihelcic. “DoD uses email, chat, and DCS collaboration in support of warfighting today and this will now take on those needs. “As for DIL environments, DISA had threshold requirements for deployable instances in the draft RFP. The vendor most likely will satisfy with existing MS Exchange and Sharepoint software on deployable servers. To be honest, I think that most tactical units, including deployed Marines and Navy afloat, will stick with what they have.” https://breakingdefense.com/2019/08/dod-office-functions-move-to-cloud-in-multi-billion-dollar-contract/

  • Airpower Demands Drive Air-Launched Cruise Missile Evolution

    11 février 2021 | International, Aérospatial

    Airpower Demands Drive Air-Launched Cruise Missile Evolution

    Tony Osborne Thirty years ago, news cameras shot shaky imagery of long tubular missiles flying across the Baghdad skyline. They were a mix of Raytheon Tomahawks launched from U.S. Navy warships in the Arabian Sea and Boeing AGM-86 Air Launched Cruise Missiles, released from Boeing B-52s in the final moments of their flights, closing in on targets in the city center with a precision never seen in previous conflicts. The missile firings were the opening shots of one of the most successful air campaigns in history. Within 39 days the air assault had rendered Iraq's armed forces ineffective, ruined the country's economy and helped prevent the conflict from drawing in neighboring states. Advanced seekers drive greater autonomy in engagement endgame More than 20 countries have air-launched cruise missiles Weapons use low-observability tech to increase survivability Operation Desert Storm almost certainly secured the role of the cruise missile for future air campaigns, with the weapons providing the opening salvos for attacks in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Libya and more recently Syria. Today, nearly 20 countries have an air-launched cruise missile capability and others are aspiring toward it as the technology proliferates. Nations such as Brazil, India and Pakistan are developing their own. Increasingly, the missiles no longer are seen as just an offensive capability in the hands of the superpowers, but also as a defensive one—a long arm that can hold adversaries at bay. Neutral Finland has equipped its Boeing F/A-18 Hornets with the Lockheed Martin Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM), Sweden is considering the integration of a long-range missile for its Saab Gripens later in the 2020s, and Taiwan has developed an air-launched cruise missile for use from its AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-Kuo indigenous combat aircraft. “The significantly increased effective range of air-defense and anti-ship missiles since the end of the Cold War has allowed these nominally defensive systems to be used for offensive political purposes in various parts of the world, by threatening air and maritime assets far outside the territory on which they are based,” says Justin Bronk, a fellow for airpower and technology at the London-based Royal United Services Institute. “Cruise missiles are a necessity for any nation or coalition which needs the capability to threaten or destroy targets protected by modern ground-based air-defense networks.” At the same time, the definition of a cruise missile is being blurred. Loitering munitions and attritable UAVs—including those being developed as additive capabilities for future combat aircraft—use similar technologies, as do air-launched decoys such as Raytheon's Miniature Air-Launched Decoy and proposed systems from MBDA and Saab. The term “cruise missile” also has been hijacked and associated with shorter-range standoff weapons and even anti-ship missiles, although some have a limited land-attack capability. Even the UK's new MBDA Spear 3 weapon recently was described by the company as a mini cruise missile. The cruise missile's precursors date back more than a century. Curtiss-Sperry's Aerial Torpedo took a converted biplane, fitted it with remote controls and filled it with explosive, although it was never used in anger. Then just 25 years later, during World War II, Hitler's Germany launched thousands of V-1 pulsejet-powered flying bombs against the Allies, including more than 1,000 launched from modified Heinkel He.111 bombers. Fast-forward to today: Modern cruise missiles are capable of flying thousands of kilometers across land and sea, their positions guaranteed by satellites. Then, in the final moments of an attack, onboard sensors seek out the objectives before the missiles' penetrating warheads defeat even hardened targets. Development of a cruise missile will be bound up in the requirements stipulated by the sponsoring nation, but among the most prominent will center on the weapon's launch platform. This will generate its own constraints including the physical size and weight of the weapon, particularly if it needs to be fitted inside an aircraft's internal bay-—like that of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Platform legacy is another factor, as the weapon might end up being in service longer than the carrier aircraft. For example, carriage of the UK's MBDA Storm Shadow had to be transferred from the Panavia Tornado to the Eurofighter Typhoon when the Tornado exited service in 2019. That means consideration also is needed for future platforms. This is a particular issue in cases where missile companies have not had input into aircraft development programs and is being addressed in Europe through initiatives such as the UK-led Tempest and German/French/Spanish Future Combat Air System. As with all weapons, range has a major influence on design, not only for the amount of fuel carried onboard, but also how close to the target the carrying platform needs to be before launch. A longer-range weapon permits planners to undertake more circuitous routes, reducing exposure to detection. It also can allow for attacks to be conducted from several different directions to overwhelm air defenses, or alternatively, several targets can be struck simultaneously in different parts of a country by multiple weapons to achieve a particular effect. In addition to fuel, designers also must consider the type of warhead as commanders would like to ensure the weapon can deal with any target it strikes once it gets there. Both the Storm Shadow/Scalp Taurus KEPD 350 and Lockheed JASSM, arguably the most commonly exported air-launched cruise missiles, are kitted with penetrating warheads to deal with hardened targets such as command-and-control bunkers and hardened aircraft shelters. Other factors in cruise missile design include responsiveness. Missile experts suggest planners need to be able to take advantage of windows of opportunity, such as the movement of air defenses to different sites, opening a gap through which the missile can fly. The missile itself also must be survivable; many of the new-generation, modern air-defense systems have been developed to track and shoot down cruise missiles. One of the primary roles of Russia's Mikoyan MiG-31 Foxhound is to intercept and down air-launched cruise missiles and, if possible, their carrying aircraft. “Survivability [of the cruise missile] is not a military capability requirement,” an industry expert on air-launched cruise missiles tells Aviation Week. “But clearly without it, you can't go somewhere, meet the range or achieve the effect that the military planners want.” The push for survivability has driven manufacturers to incorporate more low-observability design aspects and materials to reduce the radar cross-section of the weapon, as can be seen with the Storm Shadow/Scalp and JASSM. The basic cruise missile configuration is dominated by the warhead, fuel and engine. Each has its own trade-offs, so missile engineers are faced with balancing the requirements of range over warhead size—particularly as cruise missiles' strategic targets are often large, sometimes even hardened fixed structures. More efficient, small turbofan engines, rather than turbojets, have helped to boost range while the remaining missile fuel can enhance the explosive power when combined with the warhead. Perhaps one of the biggest challenges of cruise missile use is the mission planning process. Most cruise missiles will have undergone an extensive planning process prior to launch, with the path of flight often defined by a set of waypoints in the sky—and with more advanced weapons, the construction of 3D digital models of the target so onboard seekers can recognize it. The process can be quite granular, down to the height at which the weapon will cruise during most of its flight, attack angles and when to switch on seekers. Imperfect geographic data means some latitude has to be built in to ensure the weapon comfortably avoids crashing into high ground when using onboard terrain databases. Nearly all cruise missiles will have a basic capability to fly to a GPS coordinate. More advanced weapons can operate in GPS-denied environments, recognizing their targets using imaging onboard seekers so the weapon can pick out the target structure in cluttered terrain. “The seeker on the front of the missile provides more flexibility,” a missile industry expert states. “In some cases a target can be difficult to differentiate, so we may need to use a target basket to locate a target in a certain area of engagement.” Such seekers include electro-optical and infrared types, but future developments could include the use of laser-based Lidar and even radio-frequency seekers that could allow the weapon to pick out and identify its target earlier. During the Cold War, such accuracy was less important. The missiles could hit within tens of meters of the desired hit points and, when equipped with nuclear warheads, their kilotons of destructive power could comfortably knock out most targets. “High accuracy today means that commanders have confidence you can do the damage you need to with conventional warheads,” says Douglas Barrie, senior fellow for military aerospace at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies. But the slow process of mission planning means cruise missiles are less effective against potentially fleeting targets of opportunity, a concern that is prompting development of speedier planning and faster missiles. “High speed is a way forward for cruise missiles,” says the missile expert. “It lends itself to responsiveness, it is a simpler activity to plan and it increases the element of surprise.” But high speed comes with its own challenges. Such a weapon can be difficult to design and will need to be finely tuned, with little room to make changes, say experts. Most supersonic cruise missiles are either anti-ship types with a limited land-attack capability such as the Indian/Russian BrahMos, or more specialized weapons such as France's nuclear-roled ASMP-A—which Paris plans to replace with an even faster, possibly scramjet-powered weapon called the ASN4G, in the 2030s. Experts believe there is a role for both high-speed and subsonic weapons. The subsonic missile, on the other hand, is more of a “bomb truck,” says the missile industry expert. With their big boxy airframes, such weapons “are quite resilient to changing things inside, so it supports a flexible future. “For high speed, we [industry] are still grappling with developing technologies for propulsion and . . . for controlling the airframe. . . . There's still a lot of technology growth to take place.” Governments increasingly desire such capabilities, particularly in the new era of great-power competition. But while sales are lucrative, cruise missiles are not easy to export. Transfers continue to be governed by the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) whose 35 signatories aim to prevent the proliferation of technology that could lead to long-range nuclear-weapon delivery systems. Many of the countries' weapons with ranges of over 300 km (190 mi.) are considered in Category 1 and face the greatest restraint in terms of transfers, while controls on weapons with a range of less than 300 km are less strict, with decisions often based on national discretion. However, the MTCR rules seem likely to evolve, particularly as the U.S. looks to export more unmanned air systems, which were previously covered by the regime. But even if the weapons are not being exported, more nations than ever are achieving the technical prowess to develop indigenous cruise missiles, and not all are MTCR signatories. So as the threat to airpower from ground-based defenses grows, the desire for such weapons is turning to necessity, as it seems likely such weapons will play an even bigger role in future conflicts beyond the opening salvos. https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/missile-defense-weapons/airpower-demands-drive-air-launched-cruise-missile-evolution

Toutes les nouvelles