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

  • Tribune : « Préservons l'industrie de Défense »

    26 janvier 2022 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

    Tribune : « Préservons l'industrie de Défense »

    Dans une tribune publiée par Les Echos, des élus locaux, dont, notamment, Xavier Bonnefont, maire d'Angoulême, Yann Galut, maire de Bourges, et François Cuillandre, maire de Brest, appellent à « préserver l'industrie de Défense ». Ils alertent sur le risque que représente le manque de financements : au-delà du rôle de l'Etat, le financement de l'innovation de Défense « repose aussi sur le financement bancaire, qui se réduit du fait de l'accumulation de normes internationales qui conduisent les banques et les fonds d'investissement à exclure certains secteurs, comme celui de la Défense ». Cette exclusion touche les grands groupes, mais surtout les startups, ETI et PME, observent-ils. Ils soulignent qu'« à côté de quelques groupes d'envergure internationale qui font la fierté de notre pays », la base industrielle et technologique de défense (BITD) française repose essentiellement sur des milliers de PME, ETI et TPE sur l'ensemble du territoire : « Chaque département accueille des entreprises du secteur de la Défense, soit un tissu de plus de 200 000 emplois de haute technicité, non délocalisables, qui contribuent positivement à la balance commerciale. Dans plusieurs régions, la Défense représente plus de 7% des emplois industriels ». Les élus appellent à « veiller impérativement à ne pas exclure des entreprises stratégiques qui bénéficient d'une avance technologique et sont le terreau de notre souveraineté nationale ».

  • Un rapport critique l’absence de solidarité européenne en termes de défense

    1 février 2021 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

    Un rapport critique l’absence de solidarité européenne en termes de défense

    Le rapport d'information sur la Coopération structurée permanente (CSP) des deux députées Natalia Pouzyreff (LREM) et Michèle Tabarot (LR) critique les insuffisances de cette structure, censée mutualiser les moyens de la défense européenne. La France reste le pays le plus actif, à l'inverse de nombreux pays, et beaucoup d'Etats-membres font encore trop souvent appel aux Etats-Unis pour leur équipement militaire, au détriment des entreprises européennes. « L'implication des États-membres dans les projets est très variable, reflet pour l'essentiel de capacités militaires très différentes. La France participe ainsi à 38 projets, coordonnant 10 d'entre eux. C'est le pays le plus actif, écrivent les auteures du rapport. Tous les États-membres ne sont pas aussi impliqués dans la CSP que la France et nombre d'entre eux, notamment l'Allemagne, ne la voit pas comme une priorité. C'est le cas également des pays d'Europe de l'Est pour lesquels la priorité en matière de défense est et restera l'OTAN ». Par ailleurs, poursuivent les deux députées, « il apparaît que, pour de nombreux États-membres, l'augmentation des budgets de défense ait surtout été utilisée pour acquérir des armements auprès d'entreprises américaines, qui sont les concurrentes directes des entreprises européennes de défense, au point que l'Europe représente 53% des exportations d'armes américaines (2018) ». La Tribune du 1er février 2021

  • Opinion: How New ‘Predators’ Are Reshaping Aerospace Landscape

    16 mars 2020 | International, Aérospatial

    Opinion: How New ‘Predators’ Are Reshaping Aerospace Landscape

    By Antoine Gelain Behind the big aerospace and defense (A&D) primes like Boeing and Airbus and the “Super Tier-1s” such as United Technologies (UTC) and GE, a very different type of company is shaping the global A&D industrial landscape in a way that may be even more impactful than high-profile UTC-Raytheon-type mergers. Companies such as Teledyne, TransDigm and Heico are the spearheads of a breed of A&D players dedicated to “components and subsystems,” with explicit and perfectly executed “horizontal” external growth strategies. Their track records are impressive: These three companies—with combined revenues of more than $10 billion—have collectively made close to 200 acquisitions and delivered more than 20% average annual growth rate in either profitability or share value over the last 20 years. Thanks to such returns and skyrocketing market valuations, they are able to outbid most other contenders when going after an acquisition target by leveraging the so-called “accretive effect.” This effect boosts the acquiring company's earnings per share, as long as the price paid for the target as a ratio of the enterprise value (EV) over its earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) is lower than that of the acquiring firm. As it happens, the current EV/EBITDA ratio of the three above-mentioned companies stands at more than 18 (see graph). By comparison, most other A&D companies have an EV/EBITDA ratio in the 9-13 range. Such “buying power” is enhanced by operational synergies (for instance, in corporate overheads, sales and marketing), which immediately boost the profitability of the acquired company and can therefore be factored in the offer price. This gives them an additional edge against pure financial investors like private equity (PE) funds, which have historically been strong buyers of such component and subsystem businesses. Two recent deals in Europe (one still ongoing) illustrate this new balance of power. The first concerns Souriau-Sunbank, a $360 million-revenue specialist in interconnection technology for harsh environments. After being owned successively by two PE funds and bought by Esterline (now TransDigm) in 2011, it was again put up for sale last year. While expectations were that a PE fund would grab it, another industrial buyer, Eaton Corp., won the contest, paying the hefty price of $920 million (an EV/EBITDA multiple of 12). The second deal relates to a French company called Photonis, a world leader in night-vision technology for defense and space applications, for which Teledyne is apparently bidding—and offering a price 30% higher than the highest PE bid! These deals highlight the limits of the traditional private equity model (too short-term and too short-sighted) and why the “new predators”—all publicly listed companies—are in a much better position to continue to thrive. In fact, by combining “private equity-like growth in value with liquidity of a public market,” as TransDigm puts it, they are not only beating PE players at their own game, but they are also capturing a significant share of the A&D capital market by offering investors an attractive alternative to the traditional vertically integrated groups such as UTC, Thales or Safran. These groups are typically too busy focusing on large systems and equipment to realize that they would actually benefit from articulating a proper “component and subsystem” strategy. They would benefit not only because their portfolios are still full of such businesses, but also because their long-term competitiveness largely depends on their ability to nurture a strong network of strategic suppliers, in terms of both criticality for their own systems and national sovereignty. As it happens, Photonis seems to be such a strategic supplier, since the current French government just announced it would veto the Teledyne deal, hoping to give other French or European companies or investors time to make a competitive offer for the business. But because PE funds, at least in Europe, are somewhat faint-hearted when it comes to ambitious sector-specific “horizontal” portfolio strategies, and because Europe has no industrial player able to compete with the likes of Teledyne, the outcome of the process is still highly uncertain. In any case, Teledyne, Heico, Transdigm and similar companies are surreptitiously reshaping the A&D industrial landscape by buying technological nuggets and component businesses left and right, on both sides of the Atlantic. In the process, they are boosting their shareholders' returns and changing the balance of power with both traditional private equity investors and large vertically integrated A&D groups. As the saying goes: One man's meat is another man's poison. https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/manufacturing-supply-chain/opinion-how-new-predators-are-reshaping-aerospace-landscape

Toutes les nouvelles