29 septembre 2020 | International, Aérospatial

KC-46 Progress Revives Next-Generation Tanker Talks

Steve Trimble

Proposals for a next-generation tanker that would come after the last Boeing KC-46 delivery in fiscal 2029 have popped up every few years since 2006, only to get sidetracked by yet another acquisition process misstep or technical problem afflicting the program's frustrating development phase.

As a fresh sense of optimism gathers among senior U.S. Air Force leaders about the direction of the KC-46 program, a new discussion has started between Defense Department officials and the Air Mobility Command (AMC) about the future of the air-refueling mission. Some proposals in the discussions include revived versions of various older concepts for weaponized larger tankers and smaller stealth tankers. But this time, discussions involve

taking a wider view of the overall need to defend and deliver fuel to aircraft in combat, with implications for base defenses, the size and range of future fighters and next-generation tanker designs.

A perceived turnaround in the fortunes of the KC-46 program allows the Air Force to reopen the next-generation discussion. Since at least 2016, a heated dispute over Boeing's original design—and, later, proposed fixes—for the KC-46's remote vision system (RVS) sidetracked planning for a next-generation tanker. Air Force officials complained that Boeing's original RVS design fell short of operator requirements, especially when the receiver aircraft was backlit by the Sun. In addition, the canted layout of the belly-mounted, panoramic cameras created subtle distortions in the displayed video that proved bothersome to some RVS operators, Air Force officials say.

The Air Force and Boeing finally agreed to a redesign plan in January 2019. The Air Force is finalizing a test report on an enhanced RVS, which was formerly known as RVS 1.5. AMC officials have committed to review the test data but offered no promises on whether they would approve the enhanced

RVS to be installed in the KC-46. The installation would require parking a fleet of more than 36 delivered KC-46s to complete the retrofit, and the AMC remains unsure whether the improvement is worth the delay.

The enhanced RVS offers only software updates to the current system, but the AMC clearly wants more. Boeing has committed to a more dramatic upgrade called RVS 2.0. Including hardware and software changes, this Boeing-funded, second-generation RVS system is expected to meet the image-resolution standards demanded by the Air Force and create a path to inserting the software algorithms necessary to give the KC-46 an optional autonomous-refueling mode.

Boeing is scheduled to deliver the first 12 RVS 2.0 shipsets by the end of 2023 and begin the retrofit process on delivered KC-46s, says Gen. Jacqueline Van Ovost, the AMC commander. The AMC expects a production cutin for RVS 2.0 starting in 2024, although Boeing's KC-46 global sales and marketing director, Mike Hafer, says the first RVS 2.0-equipped aircraft could start rolling off the assembly line in late 2023.

Will Roper, the Air Force's assistant secretary for acquisition, technology and logistics, says the progress toward fielding the RVS 2.0 makes him feel “excited” about the KC-46 program. “I think we've turned a new page,” he says.

In mid-September, Roper and Van Ovost met to discuss what will follow the KC-46. The next-generation tanker discussion comes after a series of dramatic acquisition decisions surrounding Air Force aircraft. Most visibly, Roper led a push in 2018 to cancel the Joint Stars recapitalization program, which was replaced with the Advanced Battle Management System (ABMS). More quietly, Roper also drove the Air Force to rethink the acquisition strategy for the Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program. The ABMS and NGAD are now characterized by an architecture of multiple systems, with no single-aircraft

silver bullet solution.

Roper acknowledges that the nature of tanker operations does not immediately lend itself to a distributed multiplatform solution.

“We can break up a J-Stars [replacement into multiple systems],” Roper says. “We may be able to break up an [E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System] in the future, but we can't break up fuel easily.”

Still, Roper prefers to address the future air-refueling problem in an era of great power competition with a similar architectural approach as ABMS and NGAD.

“When there's a solvable problem and you need to turn multiple knobs, the Pentagon likes to turn one and only one,” Roper says. “And [aerial refueling] sounds like a really good architectural question that you'd want to have an architected solution for—[rather than] design a one-solution candidate in the form of a platform.”

Roper's turnable knobs for a future air-refueling system cover a wide range of options, including two with only indirect impacts on a tanker aircraft design. To Roper, the problem of air refueling includes defending the bases closest to an adversary where aircraft can be refueled on the ground. Likewise, another part of the solution is to move away from relatively small fighter aircraft that lack sufficient range for a Pacific theater scenario.

“Maybe having small, currently sized fighters is not the way to go in the future,” Roper says. “Thinking about bigger fighters is a natural question to lay alongside the question, ‘How does your future tanker force look?'”

Air-refueling capacity also is partly a function of the vulnerability of the tanker aircraft. Fewer and perhaps smaller tankers may be possible if existing tanker aircraft could operate closer to the battlefield. The Air Force now uses fighters on combat air patrols to defend high-value assets, such as tankers, surveillance and command-and-control aircraft. Those fighters conducting the patrols also add to the refueling burden. A possible solution is to weaponize tankers such as the KC-46 and KC-135. The Air Force is developing podded defensive lasers and miniature self-defense munitions.

“We don't put weapons and sensors on tankers to shoot down aircraft, but the current KC-46 is a big airplane with the ability to mount sensors and weapons on the wings,” Roper says. “We're going to look at all those [options].”

The Air Force also believes a new tanker aircraft is necessary. As far back as 2002, research began on stealthy mobility aircraft under the Air Force Research Laboratory's Speed Agile program. As the KC-X acquisition program kicked off, the Air Force released a tanker road map in 2006 that called for launching a KC-Y acquisition program in 2022 and a KC-Z program by 2035. By 2016, AMC leaders openly discussed proposals for leapfrogging the KC-Y requirement, which sought to buy a larger version of a commercial derivative. Instead, AMC officials began investigating concepts for an autonomous stealthy aircraft. By 2018, Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works had defined a concept for such an aircraft, which featured an undisclosed refueling technology that could dock with a receiver aircraft without compromising radar stealth.

As discussions have reopened in September, the Air Force is again considering the acquisition of a mix of larger and smaller aircraft to fulfill the demand for in-flight refueling in the 2030s and 2040s.

“One trade we can do is having bigger tankers that stand off a lot farther,” Roper says, “[and] having smaller, microtankers that do that last mile, the dangerous mile—and we expect to lose some of them.”

The Air Force's budget justification documents suggest research on a next-generation tanker will continue at a low level: Nearly $8 million was requested in fiscal 2021 to “assess promising configurations in high- and low-speed wind tunnels.” The Air Force also is designing a small, pod-mounted tactical air-refueling boom, according to budget documents. The latter suggests that one option for increasing refueling capacity for aircraft equipped with boom receivers is to integrate a podded fuel-delivery system on tactical aircraft, such as a Lockheed Martin C-130.

“I expect that as we really look at airpower in the truly contested environment, we'll be looking at fuel very strategically,” Roper says. “We may have a different solution for outside [a threat area] versus inside. And I think we will value, increasingly, aircraft that have range for the last mile.”

https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/aircraft-propulsion/kc-46-progress-revives-next-generation-tanker-talks

Sur le même sujet

  • Contract Awards by US Department of Defense - November 27, 2018

    28 novembre 2018 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

    Contract Awards by US Department of Defense - November 27, 2018

    ARMY Oshkosh Defense LLC, Oshkosh, Wisconsin, was awarded a $1,698,639,588 modification (P00163) to contract W56HZV-15-C-0095 to exercise available options for 6,107 vehicles and 22,166 kits. Work will be performed in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, with an estimated completion date of Sept. 30, 2019. Fiscal 2017, 2018 and 2019 other procurement, Army funds; and 2018 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $1,698,639,588 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Warren, Michigan, is the contracting activity. Harris Corp., Colorado Springs, Colorado, was awarded a $217,670,998 hybrid (cost, cost-plus-fixed-fee and firm-fixed-price) contract for monitoring, configuring, and maintaining of the wideband satellite communications operational management system network. Bids were solicited via the internet with three received. Work will be performed in MacDill Air Force Base, Florida; Fort Meade, Maryland; Fort Detrick, Maryland; Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado; Wahiawa, Hawaii; Fort Buckner, Japan; and Landstuhl, Germany, with an estimated completion date of July 31, 2027. Fiscal 2019 operations and maintenance, Army funds in the amount of $7,912,428 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, is the contracting activity (W91260-19-C-0001). Northop Grumman, Herndon, Virginia, was awarded a $37,235,028 modification (P00108) to contract W911S0-11-C-0014 for support services at Fort Leavenworth's center of excellence in combined arms education, doctrine, and leadership training. Work will be performed in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, with an estimated completion date of May 31, 2019. Fiscal 2019 operations and maintenance, Army funds in the amount of $37,235,028 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Mission and Installation Contracting Command, Fort Eustis, Virginia, is the contracting activity. Barrett Firearms Mfg. Inc., Christiana, Tennessee, was awarded a $7,952,249 firm-fixed-price contract for the procurement of M107, Caliber .50 Long Range Sniper Rifle systems with scope, suppressor and spare kits, M82A1M Caliber .50 Rifle and M107A1. Bids were solicited via the internet with one received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of Nov. 26, 2023. U.S. Army Contracting Command, New Jersey, is the contracting activity (W15QKN-19-D-0009). NAVY Rockwell Collins Simulation & Training Solutions, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, is awarded $21,118,233 for modification P00001 to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract (N6134018C00051) to procure four E-2D Advanced Hawkeye Integrated Training System Distributed Readiness Trainers. These medium fidelity tactics trainers focus on interoperability for distributed training that is required to stay concurrent with the aircraft, and will be delivered with E-2D Delta Software System Configuration 2 (DSSC-2) and with future DSSCs to be integrated into the system later. Work will be performed in Sterling, Virginia (60 percent); the Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni, Japan (20 percent); Naval Base Ventura County Point Mugu, California (10 percent); and Naval Air Station Norfolk, Virginia (10 percent), and is expected to be completed in January 2022. Fiscal 2019 aircraft procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $21,118,233 will be obligated at the time of award; none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division, Orlando, Florida, is the contracting activity. AIR FORCE Apogee Research LLC, Arlington, Virginia, has been awarded an $8,335,013 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for a software systems. This contract provides for developing techniques and software systems that will substantially accelerate software vulnerability research. The Computers and Humans Exploring Software Security program will develop computer-human software systems and capabilities to rapidly discover all classes of vulnerabilities in complex software in a scalable, timely, and consistent manner. Work will be performed in Arlington, Virginia, and is expected to be completed by May 26, 2022. This award is the result of a competitive acquisition and 50 offers were received. Air Force Research Laboratory, Rome, New York, is the contracting activity (FA8750-19-C-0010). WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICES Didlake Inc., Manassas, Virginia, was awarded a $7,806,079 firm fixed-price contract. The contract provides custodial services at the Pentagon. Work performance will take place at the Pentagon and Pentagon Reservation in Arlington, Virginia. Pentagon Reservation Maintenance Revolving Fund funds in the amount of $7,806,079 are being obligated on this award. The expected completion date is Nov. 30, 2019. Washington Headquarters Services, Arlington, Virginia, is the contracting activity (HQ0034-15-C-0028). *Small business https://dod.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/1699233/

  • Northrop to upgrade DIA systems in ‘Neptune Phoenix’ deal worth $700M

    17 décembre 2023 | International, Terrestre

    Northrop to upgrade DIA systems in ‘Neptune Phoenix’ deal worth $700M

    The DIA is revamping itself as the Pentagon shifts its geographic focus away from the Greater Middle East to confront Russian and Chinese ambitions.

  • Five burn-in’ questions on ‘the real robotic revolution’

    27 mai 2020 | International, C4ISR

    Five burn-in’ questions on ‘the real robotic revolution’

    Chiara Vercellone A future where artificial intelligence controls Washington D.C. may not be far off, according to a new book from Peter Singer and August Cole: “Burn-In, a Novel of the Real Robotic Revolution.” Like the authors' previous book, “Ghost Fleet: A Novel of the Next World War,” “Burn-In” is a blend of fiction and facts that explore how technology will shape the future. The science fiction thriller showcases over 300 technological trends that the authors believe will push the United States into a new industrial revolution. The story revolves around an FBI agent and its robot partner working to stop a cyber-terrorist who has taken control over the nation's capital. Singer, a strategist and senior fellow at the non-partisan think tank New America, spoke with Chiara Vercellone about what inspired the book, the response from officials how the duo researched it. This interview has been edited for brevity. C4ISRNET: This novel blends fictional characters with extensive research on what technology might be like in the future. You show how AI might have an effect on everything, from politics and economy to our society. Why is this realistic in such a short amount of time? SINGER: We conducted research on everything from compiling the reports on which jobs will be automated, to Amazon patent applications, to interviews with AI scientists, but also people who worked on the water system of Washington D.C. We even did site visits to inside the White House. We used that to essentially project forward not just how AI and robotics are going to be used in your city, your business and your home, but also some of the, frankly, scary new vulnerabilities and trends that they are going to introduce. What are some of the security threats that we're going to be wrestling with, whether it's in your home or how you think about it for an entire city? C4ISRNET: The book is set 20 years from now. Is that the right time frame for the development of all encompassing AI ? SINGER: We had a “no vaporware” rule. Every single technology, every single trend, every single scene in the book had to be pulled from a technology project that is already in motion right now: A technology that already exists or a research project that is already happening, a cyberattack that may not have happened in the U.S. but has happened somewhere else, or has been something that researchers have proved is possible. And, honestly, that kind of grounding, frankly, makes it even more compelling and scarier. C4ISRNET: As artificial intelligence can be used for good to help defend against cyberattacks, it can also be used to carry out these attacks. As the book shows, the FBI uses AI to solve cases more efficiently but D.C. has been taken hostage by a cyberterrorist using the same technology. Are there any risks that officials are taking today in funding the development of this technology? SINGER: I think of when we got computers and they've move to a point where we don't even kind of notice them around us anymore. When you go into your kitchen, there are tons of little red lights of different things that are computerized, but we don't think of them as computers anymore. Relative to AI, so much of the attention has been on this revolt of the robots. But one of the things that we play with in the book is that we're seeing all these applications, but we're also not preparing our economy and our society for these changes that will come. Industrial revolutions are really traumatic: We're going to see everything from job displacement to new political ideologies, even extremist ones, and we're not preparing for that. Even more directly related to the development of AI, we're recreating almost all the mistakes that we made with the regular Internet a generation ago. Even if the internet brought a lot of incredible things, we didn't think about security and the development of it, and that created a lot of consequences. And we're doing the very same thing right now, as we wire up our cities, our homes, into what is now an Internet of Things and an increasingly AI-fueled Internet of Things. C4ISRNET: You and August Cole have been invited to brief the book's lessons to officials at the White House, Congress, CIA and at the Pentagon. What were those conversations like? SINGER: For our past book, “Ghost Fleet,” we got to do everything from White House briefings to go to the Joint Chiefs conference room inside the Pentagon, and the Navy now has a $3 billion shipbuilding program that's called Ghost Fleet. And the same thing has happened with “Burn-In.” Even before it was published, we were able to brief some of its lessons to groups like the Joint Special Operations Command to the NSA and Cyber Command and as you and I are speaking right now, there's a new government report called the Cyber Solarium Commission. It's a bipartisan commission, and they issued a major report of ways to reset U.S. cybersecurity strategy for the future. And it actually begins with a scene written by August Cole and I. So, in many ways, Congress has taken the world of “Burn-In” and moved it into official government reports. They wanted a way to share real cyberthreats, and what they didn't want to happen is what happened to the various reports before 9/11 that warned about the attack but that nobody listened to until after the fact. So, they asked us to help with visualizing that world with the idea that it might emotionally compel them to not make the same mistake. C4ISRNET: What was the process of deciding which technology was developed enough to think it could become a threat in the future? SINGER: We would first build up a baseline of understanding and try and draw upon the wisdom of the crowd. For example, when we were looking at the question of which jobs are likely to be automated, we actually built, as far as I'm aware, the first data set that brought together every job prediction report, around 13 different predictions in total. It included everything from what the World Bank says to what consulting companies say. That gives you that factual grounding, and then you have to put your fiction hat on and you say, “okay, of all of these, which ones are not just the most important to talk about, but are the most interesting and compelling to talk about.” So the husband of the main character is a way that we use to illustrate that many people when they think about automation, they think about a factory worker or losing their job or maybe a truck driver, something blue collar but the data shows that it cuts across not just blue collar, but also white collar. So, we chose to make the character, a contract lawyer who's been automated, and that's not just to show that white collar jobs are at risk here, but it allows you to have that character hit some more compelling human themes. t's really interesting what happens when you read the reports and plans but also talk to not just the Silicon Valley engineers, but all the way up to the billionaires, is there's this incredible and rightful excitement at the world that they're creating. But there's also sometimes a failure to appreciate that their Utopian visions can sometimes seem very dystopian to other parts of society. And you can see this for example, with facial recognition, where they'll talk excitingly about how you're going to use it in a restaurant and use it in a train station, and all the money that's going to be made. And then you pull back and think through everything, from how will the government use this? How do people with a different point of view that the police think about mass scale of face recognition? How does this change on our personal relationships? You think it's great that the greeter to the store will have automated face recognition, and that they'll be able to call me by name as I enter. But how am I going to think about that person? Am I going to think of them as friendlier or is it just the fact that I know the computer gave them my name? The visions of the future can be Utopian, but it can also feel really creepy in other ways. C4ISRNET: How long has this book been in the works? SINGER: The timeline from when you provide the final version of the book to the publisher, and then when it actually comes out in the stores is about nine months. So, we turned in “Burn-In” in fall of 2019 and it's coming out in summer 2020, and that's just the way the book business works. The challenge of this blend is that there are so many things that that were happening, that are actually a scene or a moment from the book. We would start tweeting them out, calling him a #BurnInbookmoment. And sometimes they were something that was cool and exciting maybe a robot that we write about in the book actually being deployed. But sometimes it was something rather scary, a certain kind of attack that had been researched now actually starting to happen. In the longer term, there might be a problem with the technology in the book. I'll give you a an example: In one of the scenes, there is a drone, and it's pretty clear it's an Amazon drone that flies overhead but we don't name if by company, but we describe it and it has a footnote it's Amazon's patent for the drone. We didn't dream up that it had this number of rotors, but this is Amazon's literal plan for it. Now, five to ten years from now, Amazon might change that plan, and they may plan for it to be a six-rotor trial and it turns out it's a four-rotor trial or something. That's where the technology could be thrown off in time, but we were pretty careful. https://www.c4isrnet.com/artificial-intelligence/2020/05/25/five-burn-in-questions-on-the-real-robotic-revolution/

Toutes les nouvelles