2 décembre 2019 | International, Aérospatial

Japan Could Pick And Choose Components From Tempest

Bradley Perrett

Japan says it wants international collaboration in developing its Future Fighter for the 2030s, but it wants to lead the project despite limited experience in fighter development. And it aims at a fighter much larger than any operated by a western European country ; the U.S. is not offering a possible joint project.

That seems to leave only the choice of indigenous development, perhaps with help from a foreign technical partner. 

Nevertheless, participation in the UK’s Tempest program may also be feasible. The Tempest project—which includes the Royal Air ForceBAE SystemsRolls-Royce and MBDA—has a cooperation concept that leaves scope for Japan and other partners to use their own systems, weapons, propulsion and even airframes, says Air Commodore Daniel Storr, head of combat aircraft acquisition at the UK Defense Ministry

The model described by Storr gives Japan the flexibility to choose the size of its own fighter. Though evidently not an objective, this mix-and-match approach also creates an opportunity for Japan to continue to claim development leadership—but also to save money by sharing systems.

The policy goal of running its own fighter program, stated in 2018, has looked like a big obstacle to Japan’s participation in the Tempest or the Future Combat Air System (FCAS) project initiated by France and Germany. But if the Future Fighter shared only some features with Tempest, Japan could reasonably say it was leading its own program.

BAE Systems promoted the Tempest program at the DSEI Japan exhibition held in Tokyo fromNov. 18-20. Prospective FCAS prime contractors, such as Airbus, did not show their concept. Storr outlined the flexible model of cooperative development at an exhibition conference, but Japanese speakers at that event did not comment on the prospect of Japan joining Tempest.

In a Nov. 1 interview with The Financial Times, newly appointed Defense Minister Taro Kono seemed to play down the possibility of participation in a European program, saying Japan should explore all possibilities but needed to maintain interoperability with U.S. forces. Storr addressed that point, emphasizing that working with the U.S. was a high priority for the UK too.

Japan’s alternative to international cooperation is developing a fighter by itself with the technical help of a foreign company. Lockheed Martin is supporting the Korea Aerospace Industries KF-X and BAE is helping the Turkish Aerospace Industries TF-X in such an arrangement.

By working with Lockheed Martin, Boeing or Northrop Grumman, Tokyo would partially compensate the U.S. for its expenditures in defending Japan. But the U.S. would gain little from technical support fees, and Japan is already committed to buying 147 Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightnings as the aircraft to precede the Future Fighters.

The defense ministry has asked for the development of the Future Fighter to be launched in the fiscal year beginning April 2020. It is not clear whether that means mobilizing resources to commence full-scale development or taking some lesser step to firm up the commitment to create the aircraft. 

For the past year, the government’s policy has been to launch no later than March 2024. However, Japanese companies, especially fighter builder Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI), are pushing for a launch as soon as possible. They want to transfer knowledge to young engineers from the older generation that developed Japan’s last fighter, the MHI F-2, which the Future Fighter will replace.

The UK does not want to commit to launching full-scale development of the Tempest before 2025, but its date for entry into service in 2035 meets Japan’s objective, which is sometime in the 2030s. Meanwhile, the FCAS program is aiming at 2040.

Sweden and Italy are cooperating with the UK during the current early stage of Tempest research, while Spain has joined France and Germany for FCAS work.

Like Storr, BAE has stressed the advantages of partners taking only as much of the Tempest as they want. “There is a range of different partnership models that can be considered,” says Andy Latham, who is working on the program.  “Japan has some great technology that any partner can benefit from. Their avionics industry is pretty effective.”

The cooperation concept replaces the standard model, one in which partners spend years negotiating and compromising to define a design that all of them must accept. Instead, according to Storr, they can save time and money by agreeing to disagree—to the extent that each is willing to pay the extra cost of independent development and manufacturing of design elements.

The Japanese defense ministry’s studies point to a need for a very big fighter with an empty weight well above 20 metric tons (40,000 lb.), larger than the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor. Superior endurance and internal weapon capacity are the key factors behind this choice.

No western European country has operated a fighter more than about two-thirds as big, but Storr said a large configuration for the Tempest cannot be ruled out. The mockup exhibited at the 2018 Farnborough International Airshow was bigger than the F-22.

Still, the UK and other European partners might want a much smaller fighter; concept designs that have not been shown are not as big as the mockup. But the concept for cooperation would allow for Japan to devise its own airframe while, for example, using the same engine and some weapons, software and avionics as other partners. The architecture of the software is intended to be open, accepting different programs easily.

Tempest researchers will consider which systems and capabilities will go into the fighter and which will be incorporated into the ammunition or an accompanying drone, which could be fully reusable or optionally expendable, Storr says. The FCAS program is taking a similar approach.

The Tempest will need great capacity for generating electricity, he says, and the weapon bay should be regarded as a payload bay, perhaps for holding additional fuel that would extend endurance on surveillance missions.

The Japanese finance ministry is insisting upon private investment in the Future Fighter program, in part to ensure contractors are fully incentivized to prevent failure. Contractors will be able to make money in civil programs from technology developed for the fighter, says the ministry, which is highly influential but does not have a final say.

“Judging from past program examples, it is clear that the Future Fighter program would bring a risk of a budget overrun and schedule slippage, but would also benefit the private sector,” the finance ministry said in an October presentation to the Council on Fiscal Policy, an advisory body.

“The government and private sector should invest funds and resources to build a failure-proof framework.”

Noting that MHI used technology from the F-2 program in its development and manufacturing of the outer wing boxes of the Boeing 787, the ministry says contractors can expect to gain similar opportunities for civil applications of technology from the Future Fighter program—so they should invest in it.


Sur le même sujet

  • Rafale jets won’t save India’s air force

    13 août 2020 | International, Aérospatial

    Rafale jets won’t save India’s air force

    The first five of India’s new Rafale fighter aircraft touched down in country on July 29. According to the terms of a 2016 contract with the French manufacturer Dassault, 31 more will follow. They will go some way toward filling India’s larger requirement of 126 such jets. The Indian Air Force has long needed refurbishing, but it has been perennially delayed both by New Delhi’s infamous bureaucratic red tape and by budgetary issues. Now, the arrival of the new fighters—the first in over 20 years—in the middle of an unprecedented border face-off against China, will be a boost for Indian military capability as well as morale. But it won’t do much to change the hard reality that, as an air power, India is falling far behind, foreign media report.   The Indian Air Force has historically been one of the best-equipped air forces in the region, but it has seen its advantage, both qualitative and quantitative, against China and Pakistan narrow dramatically over the past two decades. Even worse, it now faces the challenge of mustering enough aircraft to tackle any possible collusion between the Pakistani and Chinese air forces. Related to tensions in Ladakh, China seems to be activating air platforms in its Tibetan airfields. And along the border with Pakistan, the Pakistan Air Force recently conducted an air exercise out of the Skardu base in Gilgit-Baltistan. Taken together, those are tough challenges for an underequipped air force to take on. The Rafale may help somewhat. After decades of fielding upgraded legacy fighters and struggling to develop contemporary jets, the Rafale finally provides the Indian Air Force with a comprehensive combat craft that requires very little further tinkering. Unlike any previous procurements, the Rafale fighters’ capabilities are already up to par, and small enhancements will be relatively easy and cheap via the so-called India-specific enhancements. These India-specific changes are being carried out under a concurrent design, modification, testing, and certification program carried out by Dassault. The modifications involve a mix of hardware and software changes, including an improved infrared search-and-track capability, the addition of an Israeli helmet-mounted display and sight system, changes to the electronically scanned radar, a new device for jamming low-band radio frequencies, integration of an Israeli-created decoy system, an upgraded radar altimeter, expanded navigation aids, and a more robust cold start system for the engines to make them suitable for winter operations from the Air Force’s Himalayan bases. Once all changes are tested and certified in 2021, the entire Indian Rafale fleet will be updated. This allows Dassault to keep producing fighters at an economical rate and the Air Force to induct jets and train personnel in an organized manner, while still ensuring that the final aircraft does not compromise on the original capability requirements. https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/699521-rafale-jets-won-t-save-india-s-air-force  

  • Le futur avion de combat européen franchit une étape décisive

    13 février 2020 | International, Aérospatial

    Le futur avion de combat européen franchit une étape décisive

    Les députés allemands ont validé, ce mercredi 12 février, le décollage du futur avion de combat européen, censé remplacer à terme Rafale et Eurofighter et donner une nouvelle dynamique à l’Europe de la défense. Mais avec certaines conditions. Les députés allemands ont validé mercredi le projet du futur avion de combat européen, censé remplacer à terme Rafale et Eurofighter et donner une nouvelle dynamique à l'Europe de la défense, mais avec certaines conditions. Au terme de plusieurs mois de rivalités politico-industrielles entre l’Allemagne et la France, les membres de la commission du Budget du Bundestag ont donné leur aval au déblocage de 77 millions d'euros de crédits pour lancer la première grande étape du projet franco-allemand, auquel s'est joint l'Espagne. Les élus de la majorité - conservateurs et sociaux-démocrates- ont voté pour, de même que l'extrême droite. Ecologistes, extrême gauche ont voté contre. Cette manne doit permettre de financer des études en vue de la construction d'ici 2026 d'un démonstrateur de l'avion de combat européen de nouvelle génération (dit NGF ou « New Generation Fighter »).Les montants en jeu sont certes limités par rapport à l'enveloppe globale du programme mais l'étape de mercredi était essentielle, un vote négatif risquant de tout remettre en cause.   « Nous ne voulons pas détériorer les relations franco-allemandes » Selon plusieurs sources parlementaires, la commission va majoritairement approuver malgré des réticences les crédits. « Nous allons le faire car nous ne voulons pas détériorer les relations franco-allemandes, et ce juste avant la venue du président français Emmanuel Macron ce week-end en Allemagne pour la Conférence sur la sécurité de Munich », a expliqué le rapporteur du projet à la commission du Budget, Rainer Brandl.   Mais les élus allemands, qui depuis le début craignent que les partenaires industriels français soient trop dominateurs dans le projet, comptent poser des conditions. Ils veulent en particulier qu’un autre projet militaire franco-allemand d’envergure, le programme de char MGCS (Main Ground Combat System), dont les Allemands doivent être chefs de file, progresse au même rythme que celui de l’avion du futur.   L’avion doit entrer en action vers 2040 Les deux projets doivent avancer « en parallèle », indique leur projet de résolution, obtenu par l’Agence France Presse (AFP). « Le programme de l’avion de chasse, piloté par les Français, progresse vite, alors que celui du char est à la traîne », décrypte un parlementaire allemand sous couvert de l’anonymat. En cause notamment : les difficultés des industriels allemands du secteur de l’armement à se mettre d’accord entre eux sur la répartition du « gâteau ». Les députés demandent aussi des garanties pour que les intérêts des entreprises allemandes du secteur technologies soient mieux pris en compte dans le développement du projet.   L’avion, qui doit entrer en action vers 2040, est la pièce maîtresse du programme SCAF (Système de Combat Aérien du Futur) associant en outre des drones et de futurs missiles de croisière. Le vote positif attendu ouvrira la voie à la notification des contrats aux industriels impliqués dans le projet, notamment Dassault, Airbus ou encore Thales. Et relancera un programme qui patinait. La ministre française des Armées, Florence Parly, a mis la pression le 5 février à Strasbourg sur les parlementaires allemands. Paris et Berlin ont la « responsabilité » de « construire cette Europe de la Défense », a-t-elle lancé, en soulignant que le vote des députés du Bundestag aura une importance décisive et enverra un « signal politique fort ».   Un accord entre le Français Safran et l’Allemand MTU Le projet avait déjà franchi une étape importante en décembre. Un accord avait été trouvé entre les motoristes français Safran et allemand MTU sur la répartition industrielle des travaux de développement du moteur du futur avion. Les deux sociétés étaient notamment convenues de la création d’une société commune 50/50. Depuis la répartition des tâches entre Safran et MTU, plusieurs acteurs côté allemand, dont des membres du Bundestag, ont cherché à revenir en leur faveur sur cet accord.   « Derrière le nom barbare de 'SCAF' se cache le projet qui conditionne le futur de l’aéronautique de combat française et européenne, ainsi que l’affirmation d’une politique de défense pour renforcer la sécurité du continent », soulignait récemment Jean-Pierre Maulny, directeur adjoint de l’Institut des relations internationales stratégiques (Iris). Le sujet devrait être abordé samedi à Munich par Emmanuel Macron, qui vient de proposer que les Européens, Allemagne notamment, soient associés à la force de dissuasion nucléaire française, en participant par exemple à des exercices. https://www.ouest-france.fr/economie/le-futur-avion-de-combat-europeen-suspendu-au-vote-des-deputes-allemands-6732554

  • US Air Force ready to test tech for new battle management system

    9 juillet 2020 | International, Aérospatial

    US Air Force ready to test tech for new battle management system

    Valerie Insinna WASHINGTON — The Air Force is ramping up its efforts to test and field a suite of new hardware and software that will become the military’s command and control backbone. Since February, the Air Force has published three separate broad area announcements seeking technologies that could be funneled inside the Advanced Battle Management System, the service’s effort to seamlessly connect all of the Department of Defense’s equipment and pool together its data to form a complete picture of the battlespace. Then, in May and July, it awarded the first two mega-batches of ABMS contracts, with 46 companies in total winning $1000 and a chance to compete for more money down the road. “We want a wide variety of companies, and we definitely want fresh blood in the ABMS competition,” Will Roper, the Air Force’s acquisition executive, told reporters on May 14. “There is a lot that can be contributed from companies that are commercially focused, that know a lot about data, that know a lot about machine learning and AI and know a lot about analytics. Those are going to be the most important parts of the Advanced Battle Management System.” ABMS is the Air Force’s piece of the military’s fledgling Joint All Domain Command and Control concept. The vision involves networking every shooter and sensor to a cloud computing environment and using artificial intelligence to ensure that relevant information is immediately sent to whichever platform needs it. In practice, that could look like compiling data from a Global Hawk drone and a naval destroyer to help cue a fighter jet to lock its missile on a nearby target. While the Air Force has some big picture ideas of the products that will comprise ABMS — such as cloud computing tools, machine learning technologies and apps — it hasn’t set firm requirements or laid out exactly what products it needs to build out the system. Through the BAAs, the government plans on bringing in companies using different styles of contracts and agreements, which Roper said will allow startups, commercial tech firms and other nontraditional players to “find their fit with this mission.” Those companies will then bring their products and technologies for week-long field tests, held three times a year. The next phase of experiments is planned to start on Aug. 31. While the service had already performed one experiment with technologies that could become part of ABMS and had put several dozen companies on contract prior to May, the Air Force sees the broad area announcements as vehicles to capture a wider array of technology firms that may not already do business with the government, Roper said. Each BAA has multiple rolling deadlines, with the Air Force hoping to award contracts anywhere from four to six weeks after a company submits a proposal. The first announcement seeks out proposals for traditional indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contracts. The second solicits ideas and technologies through a two-step process, where industry would submit information about the concept before being invited to submit a formal proposal, which the service says will allow participation from contractors “who are unsure about how they want to proceed but want to share their idea.” The third announcement invites companies with existing products to join ongoing ABMS technology demonstrations — at no cost to the government — through cooperative research and development agreements. The service also held a series of industry days, starting May 13, to help answer questions about the effort, especially from businesses that don’t usually work with the Defense Department. “We had over a hundred companies just in the first day, and we are expecting more than 300 before the end of this first event,” Roper said. “Three hundred companies for the first industry day … is a good start. That’s certainly broader than the number of defense primes that we have or even the major suppliers.” Each of the announcements specify seven broad areas where the service is seeking new technologies or ideas: Digital architecture, standards and concepts: The Air Force is looking for digital modeling and simulation technologies, trade studies and other standards development tools and processes that it can use to map out the entire ABMS architecture virtually and test how it would work in practice. Sensor integration: In essence, the service wants any hardware or software that will allow different equipment to share data. “A key interest of ABMS is the compatibility and interoperability capabilities through the use of open interfaces to enable improved control of systems and the processing of their data,” the service said in the BAA. Data: The Air Force is also interested in “cloud-based data repositories” that could pass information across domains to the different services. These libraries of data points will be “meta tagged,” analyzed and then fused using AI algorithms to help inform military decision makers. Secure processing: The service needs technologies that will be able to move the appropriate data across technologies with different security levels, ensuring that classified information stays protected while sharing what is feasible. It also includes deployment, training and support services for all devices and processing environments. Connectivity: These tools include line-of-sight and beyond line-of-sight communications networks, as well as technologies that can turn a platform into a data node, reduce latency, provide improved anti-jamming capabilities or other functions that improve the speed and breadth of communications gear. Applications: iPhone analogies have become Defense Department clichés at this point, but the Air Force is hoping to commission the design and development of apps to process, fuse and help present data to different audiences across domains. Effects integration: These involve networked weapons that can be integrated with existing platforms for a greater combined effect. “This includes, but is not limited to smart munitions and low-cost autonomous platforms” that can carry out functions such as data relay. The Air Force is slated to spend $300 million on the Advanced Battle Management System through fiscal year 2021, according to the Government Accountability Office, which has also warned that the nontraditional structure of the program could put it “at greater risk for schedule delays, cost growth, and integration issues.” Preston Dunlap, the Air Force’s chief architect charged with overseeing the ABMS effort, said the the price of technologies will undeniably be an important criteria, and the service will try to reduce costs by using affordable and readily available commercial products whenever possible. “That’s one of the core principles that we have to manage costs,” he said during a May 7 event hosted by the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies. “We’re able to take advantage of the commercial pressures and marketplace to keep the costs down. That’s different. Normally it’s flipped. If we’re the primary customer here, we’ve got to be very concerned about cost growth associated with that. Right now, in some sense, we’re the small buyer.” While the Air Force will better be able estimate the total cost of ABMS as experiments go on, the current focus of the effort is figuring out how to inject innovative commercial tech into the military system as quickly as it becomes available, Dunlap said. “I’m less worried at the moment about some of those cost issues because if we’re in that cycle we’re probably not doing it right,” he said. https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/c2-comms/2020/07/08/us-air-force-ready-to-test-tech-for-new-battle-management-system/

Toutes les nouvelles