15 février 2024 | International, Terrestre
12 juin 2020 | International, Naval
If the US Navy isn’t careful, its new unmanned tanker drone could face a 3-year delay
By: David B. Larter
WASHINGTON — The US Navy could face a three-year delay in testing of the MQ-25 Stingray carrier-based tanking drone if it doesn't get its designated test ships through the required modernizations on time, a possibility the Navy said was remote.
Two carriers — Carl Vinson and George H.W. Bush — have limited windows to complete the installation of unmanned aircraft control stations, and if operational commitments intervene it could create significant issues for the program, according to Navy officials and a government watchdog report.
“Program officials stated that, among other things, the Navy's potential inability to maintain its schedule commitments could require modifications to the contract that would impact the fixed-price terms,” the Government Accountability Office reported. “Specifically, the Navy faces limited flexibility to install MQ-25 control centers on aircraft carriers.
“If the Navy misses any of its planned installation windows, the program would have to extend MQ-25 development testing by up to 3 years. According to officials, such a delay could necessitate a delay to initial capability and result in a cost increase.”
Navy officials say a three-year delay is “extremely unlikely,” however the Navy has struggled in recent years to balance its modernization schedules with operational commitments, a problem that its “Optimized Fleet Response Plan” deployment rotation scheme was supposed to address. Ultimately, a delay would further push back the Navy's ability to extend its carrier air wing's range through unmanned tanking, critical to keeping the service's powerful strike arm relevant against long-range guided munitions.
The Navy believes it can avoid a schedule delay and is working toward keeping the program on track, said Jamie Cosgrove, a spokesperson for Naval Air Systems Command.
“The Navy is still planning to achieve [initial operating capability] in 2024,” Cosgrove said. “A three-year extension of development testing and a delay to IOC is extremely unlikely and represents improbable scenarios where both aircraft carriers currently designated to support MQ-25 testing are unavailable due to operational requirements, or the program misses the planned periods to install the MQ-25 test equipment on those two carriers.
“Should either of these unlikely scenarios occur, the program will reevaluate the schedule and determine how to best mitigate schedule impacts to deliver the mission-critical MQ-25 to the Fleet ASAP.”
Unmanned control
The specific alternations needed to operate the MQ-25 Stingray include special control and network equipment, Cosgrove said.
The program of record is the Unmanned Carrier Aviation Mission Control System and installing it will include setting up a control room known as the Unmanned Aviation Warfare Center on the ship. The equipment in the UAWC will include control stations, network interfaces and routing equipment, commanding and control equipment and network infrastructure, Consgrove said.
The Navy awarded Boeing an $805 million contract to build the first four MQ-25 aircraft, with options for three additional aircraft. In April, the Navy announced it had exercised the option to the tune of $84.7 million, bringing the total number of Stingrays under contract to 7.
Ultimately the Navy plans to buy 69 additional aircraft as part of the its full production run, according to the GAO report.
The Navy's former air boss Vice Adm. Mike Shoemaker told USNI Proceedings in a 2017 interview that the MQ-25 would extend the carrier air wing's range by up to 400 miles.
Juggling maintenance
The Navy has struggled to maintain its carrier schedules in recent years as the problems have arisen with carriers during their availabilities. For example, last year, the carrier Abraham Lincoln was extended on its deployment because its relief, the carrier Harry S Truman, was stuck in maintenance to repair unforeseen issues.
That can throw a monkey wrench into the Navy's overstretched deployment rotation scheme, meaning that other carriers have their deployments extended while still others have their maintenance availabilities truncated to play catch up. But that can lead to even more problems down the road with differed maintenance and worn-out equipment that ultimately adds up to a significant readiness hole that is tough to dig out from.
All of this is exacerbated by crushing demands from Combatant Commanders for Navy forces overseas, which ultimately is driving the vicious cycle.
That means the Navy will have to manage the risk of impacting the Vinson and Bush's upcoming maintenance availabilities to not set back the MQ-25 development cycle.
Sur le même sujet
-
-
7 novembre 2018 | International, Naval, C4ISR
The chief of naval research on AI: ‘If we don’t all dogpile on this thing, were going to find ourselves behind’
By: Jill Aitoro Most of us are comfortable with Suri, or Alexa, or “Hey, Google.” But many will tell you artificial intelligence and autonomy in the context of military operations is a whole a different animal. That said, if you ask Rear Admiral David Hahn, one factor remains the same: the need for trust. Understand the algorithm and the consequences, he argues, but then relinquish (some) control. He shared his vision of AI in the military in an interview following the Defense News Conference in September. Much of the discussion around artificial intelligence and autonomy involves the proper role of machine versus human. Where do you stand? We're at an inflection point for what technology will allow us to do. For artificial intelligence that could be brought to bear in the military context, there has been anexpectation that the human is always going to be in control. But as the sophistication of these algorithms and the sophistication of the application of the tools now out there mature, and are brought into the operational space, we need to get at a place of trust. [We need trust] between the algorithm, what's behind that curtain, and our ability as the humans to agree that the decision or the space that it's going to operate in – the context in which its making that decision – is understood by us. And that more and more is going to have to happen at machine speed, because when machines are interacting with machines, we're going to have to comfortably move from a human in the loop to a human on the loop. That doesn't mean it's an unsupervised act; it means we understand it well enough to trust it. So, there is relinquishing of control? There is, but there are clearly pieces of our system today where we do that. That happens when you let your car park itself – you relinquish that control and trust that the machine is not going to run into the grocery cart behind you or the car next to you. That's already part of the conversation. And as we get more used to machines performing, and performing accurately over and over and over, our ability to trust these machines [increases], if we understand the algorithm and the consequence. It's not ‘I just ran into a shopping cart' if the consequence we're talking about is the release of weapons, or something along those lines; but we've gotten to the point where we're comfortable [because of our understanding of the technology]. We had similar conversations in recent years on cybersecurity, in terms of confidence in the technology, whether we could be sure networks are properly protected, and accepting a degree of risk. Has progress there helped with progress in AI? I think it's helping and it will continue to drive us toward this human-machine teaming environment that we all see coming. There are clearly pieces of our system that make us uncomfortable. But we see more and more, that if we don't take the action to allow it to occur, we might as well have not even created the tool. It's a shift in culture, beyond policy. Is that happening yet? Or is it too soon to expect that? I don't think we're too early, and I think it's happening. And it's going to be one of those things where we didn't know it was happening, then we find ourselves there. Ten years ago, the App Store opened. Can you imagine a world without the App Store and what that's enabled you to do in your daily life with your smartphone? The young people today are almost at a point where there was never a world without a smartphone, there was never a world without an App Store. If you start at that point, this is not a big leap. It's happening around us, and we just need to find a way to keep up. Looking ahead, 5 or 10 years, how do you see AI being used in an operational capacity? The limiting factor is not going to be the tools. To borrow a phrase, the ‘democratization' of the tools that are associated with developing AI capabilities will allow anybody to work on the data. Our challenge will be whether we have harnessed our own data and done it in a way where we can make the connections between relevant data sets to optimize the mission effect we could get by applying those tools available to everybody. That's our challenge. And it's a challenge we'll need to figure out within each service, amongst the services in the joint environment, from that joint environment into the same space with partners and allies, from the DoD or military into the industrial base, all while moving seamlessly across academia, and [keeping in mind how] the commercial industry plays. If we don't all dogpile on this thing, were going to find ourselves behind in this great power competition in a very important space. So, establish a playbook so to speak? And recognize that as soon as we've established that playbook, it will change. https://www.c4isrnet.com/it-networks/2018/11/06/the-chief-of-naval-research-on-ai-if-we-dont-all-dogpile-on-this-thing-were-going-to-find-ourselves-behind
-
3 juin 2024 | International, Aérospatial
El Al must make Airbus, Boeing order decision soon, CEO says