IcePeony and Transparent Tribe Target Indian Entities with Cloud-Based Tools

Sur le même sujet

• 

  16 mars 2020 | International, Aérospatial

  Possible New 'Engine War' Recasts Pratt As Champion Of Competition

  By Steve Trimble Pratt & Whitney's F100 (pictured) is designed to be interchangeable with GE Aviation's F110 as the engine for the Boeing F-15 fleet. A jet engine maker is pressuring the U.S. Defense Department to scrap a plan to award a sole-source contract to a rival for a fleet of new fighters and investigate the opportunity for performance and cost improvements yielded by a competitive selection process. If that narrative sounds familiar, it is because it echoes a role GE Aviation played for more than 40 years, which included a successful bid in the 1980s to launch the “Great Engine War” over the F-15 and F-16 fleets and a failed campaign that ended almost a decade ago to establish the F136 as the alternate engine for the F-35. This time, however, the roles are reversed. Pratt & Whitney, which waged fierce lobbying campaigns against competitive engine policies for the F-15, F-16 and F-35, has switched sides in the debate. In response to the U.S. Air Force's decision to field the F-15EX into production powered solely by GE F110 engines, Pratt has filed two protests with the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which is scheduled to render judgments on both cases by early July. The Air Force sided with GE during the Great Engine War in 1984. Seeking to lower costs and motivate Pratt to resolve stall-stagnation problems with the original F100, the Air Force decided that year to split the engine contract for the F-15 and F-16 between GE's F110 and Pratt's F100. Thirty-six years later, the Air Force now worries about the schedule impact if the GAO sustains either or both of Pratt's protests of the F-15EX engine. Service officials decided to acquire the F-15EX after concluding the F-15C/Ds were too costly to sustain and because it would take too long for the Pratt F135-powered F-35A to replace all of them. Pratt's protests threaten to disrupt that schedule and erode the Air Force's original business case for the F-15EX. “If we have to do an engine competition, it will add time—2-3 years,” said Will Roper, assistant secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, testifying before the House Armed Services Committee on March 10. Only a decade ago, Pratt welcomed a vote by Congress in 2010 to cancel funding for the F-35 program's alternate engine, along with a decision by GE and Rolls-Royce a year later to abandon a plan to self-fund the certification of the F136. But Pratt now embraces the potential benefits of an engine competition for the F-15EX. “Our government supports competition at all levels, and we're interested in providing the F100 as a competitive alternative,” Pratt Military Engines President Matthew Bromberg told Aviation Week. “If we're not competitive in terms of capability, schedule [and] price, I get it. But after the U.S. government spent all this money creating two engines for the F-15 and F-16 platforms, why would it then not compete a 450-engine program?” Asked if the existing F100 would require additional development to meet the Air Force's requirements for the F-15EX, Bromberg replied that he cannot answer that question in the absence of a competitive process that allows Pratt access to the specifications. He also noted that the F100 exclusively powers the Air Force's existing fleet of F-15Es. The F100 and F110 were designed to fit interchangeably in the F-15, although the heavily modified Saudi Arabian F-15SA and the Qatari F-15QA from which the F-15EX was derived are exclusively powered by GE's engine. The GAO does not release complaints filed by protesters up front, but it does release the full text of decisions. It is not clear why Pratt filed two separate protests on the sole-source decision for the GE engine on the F-15EX, but Bromberg advised not reading too much into it. “I'd like to obviously be able to discuss them, but I can't because it's a legal process,” Bromberg said. “I would really view them as a single protest on a single procurement action, and that is a lack of competition.” https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/aircraft-propulsion/possible-new-engine-war-recasts-pratt-champion-competition

• 

  10 août 2020 | International, Aérospatial

  US Air Force tests electronic warfare capabilities with fighter, recon and bomber aircraft

  Mark Pomerleau WASHINGTON — The U.S. Air Force has concluded a two-day, $1.4 million exercise that evaluated the F-35 fighter jet's ability to provide its electronic warfare capabilities to other stealthy reconnaissance and bombing platforms. The event, which took place Aug. 4-6 at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, tested the ability for the F-35 to provide Suppression of Enemy Air Defense, or SEAD, support for other stealthy platforms such as the B-2 and the RQ-170 reconnaissance drone, according to an Aug. 6 news release from the Air Force. Maj. Theodore Ellis, chief of 53rd Wing Weapons, said the exercise focused on demonstrating stealth platform effectiveness against advanced threats using emerging technology and capitalizing on joint capabilities. Other platforms that participated included the F-22, the F-15 and the Navy's E/A-18G aircraft. Some aspects of the scenario tested these fourth- and fifth-generation platforms' joint and coalition SEAD integration. Other scenarios focused on how the latest fourth-gen electronic capabilities could increase fifth-gen freedom of maneuver, and vice versa, in contested environments, the Air Force said. U.S. adversaries over the past several years have developed advanced radars to detect incoming aircraft, pairing them with long-range missiles that in many cases outgun U.S. military weapons. The event allowed the Air Force to explore the integration of tactics, techniques and procedures that have never been tested together. “Through events like these, we continue to improve our joint 4th and 5th generation tactics, which enhances our abilities in an advanced threat environment,” Ellis said. Events like this are the prime movers to test and evaluate emerging capabilities and technologies — as opposed to training and readiness — with an operationally realistic scenario. “The investment and trust in our team allowed the 53 Wing to evaluate the interoperability of leading-edge capabilities and develop [tactics, techniques and procedures] that will ultimately strengthen our nation's air dominance,” said Col. Bill Creeden, commander of the 53rd Test and Evaluation Group. “We fight as an integrated force which means we need to test and evaluate our latest capabilities as an integrated force. Put simply, our job is to inform, develop, and deliver, from idea to premeditated violence, an integrated tactical advantage to the Combat Air Force for both tonight, and tomorrow's potential fight. [Large Force Test Events] are a primary enabling effort to make this happen.” https://www.c4isrnet.com/electronic-warfare/2020/08/07/us-air-force-tests-electronic-warfare-capabilities-with-fighter-recon-and-bomber-aircraft/

• 

  1 septembre 2020 | International, Aérospatial

  New and old aircraft programs could get axed as top US Air Force general seeks ‘ruthless prioritization’ of capabilities

  By: Valerie Insinna WASHINGTON — With stagnant budgets on the horizon, the U.S. Air Force is hurtling toward “the most difficult force structure decisions in generations” and must cancel programs and sacrifice some of its existing aircraft inventory to prepare for a potential fight against Russia or China, the service's top general said Monday. A future war with either country could entail combat losses on par with those of a major conflict like World War II, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles “CQ” Brown wrote in a paper titled “Accelerate Change or Lose,” which outlines his vision as the service's new top uniformed leader. Brown became chief of staff of the Air Force on Aug. 6. Although the Defense Department has focused on war with an advanced, near-peer nation since 2016, Brown raised concerns that the Air Force's sense of urgency is not strong enough and warned of potential mission failure unless the service accelerates the pace of change. A “ruthless prioritization” of the service's requirements is in order, he said. “We must reframe platform-centric debates to focus instead on capabilities to execute the mission relative to our adversaries,” he wrote. “Programs that once held promise, but are no longer affordable or will not deliver needed capabilities on competition-relevant timelines, must be divested or terminated. Cost, schedule, and performance metrics alone are no longer sufficient metrics of acquisition success.” The Air Force must be responsive to the actions of its adversaries, pivoting when necessary to stay ahead and creating technologies that can be cost-effectively operated and maintained, Brown added. “Capabilities must be conceived, developed, and fielded inside competitors' fielding timelines — knowing we will need to adapt and adjust over time. Innovative ideas from our Airmen need viable sustainment pathways. If we are to beat our competitors in conflict, we must also beat them in development and fielding of capability,” he said. It's unclear what existing capabilities could be on the chopping block, but more details on the Air Force's path forward are expected. During a Aug. 31 roundtable, Brown told reporters that the service is working on action orders associated with his strategic vision that will be unveiled at the Air Force Association's conference during the week of Sept. 14. Brown's call for rapid change could pave the way for another bloody budget rollout when the Air Force's plan for fiscal 2022 is revealed next year. During its FY21 budget deliberations, service leaders alluded to “controversial changes” such as fleetwide divestments, but ultimately the Air Force proposed retiring handfuls of older platforms rather than entire aircraft types. Congress has attempted to curtail some of those changes, putting strict limits on the amount of tankers and bombers permitted to be retired each year. Brown acknowledged that if he's to make radical changes to force structure, he will need to have tough conversations with other Air Force and Pentagon leaders, Congress, and industry to determine where risk can be taken. “When we work in various silos, we're all trying to make our particular program or platform as capable as we can be. But we can't afford all of those,” he said. The difficulty is getting “the right set of full programs” and not “a number of broken programs” that “balance the checkbook at the expense of our capability.” Brown's priorities for the Air Force extend beyond changes to existing force structure and modernization plans. Like his predecessor, Gen. Dave Goldfein, Brown stressed the importance of the military's Joint All-Domain Command and Control concept, as well as increased interoperability and data sharing with allies. Brown also hinted that a restructure of the Air Force could be forthcoming, and that the creation of the Space Force provides an opportunity to review the roles and missions of his service. “Sometimes the model we use in the deployed environment is different than the model we use at home,” he said. “You want to train like you're going to fight. From that aspect, we've got to take a look at ourselves.” https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/08/31/new-and-old-aircraft-programs-could-get-the-ax-as-top-us-air-force-general-calls-for-a-ruthless-prioritization-of-its-capabilities/