M-Code GPS and inertial navigation for F-22 and E-2D finishes critical design review

Sur le même sujet

• 

  31 juillet 2018 | International, Aérospatial

  GAO backs use of commercial satellites to host military payloads

  by Sandra Erwin “Using hosted payloads may help facilitate a proliferation of payloads on orbit, making it more difficult for an adversary to defeat a capability." WASHINGTON — The Pentagon should use commercial satellites as host platforms for military sensors and communications packages, says a new Government Accountability Office report released on Monday. GAO auditors investigated the pros and cons of “hosted payloads” and agreed with what private satellite operators have been saying for years: The military can save money and get capabilities on-orbit faster by hitching rides on commercial satellites. The industry has been building huge spacecraft that have extra carrying capacity, and hosting national security payloads is viewed as a profitable business that also helps the military fill a need. The report says there are national security benefits to deploying military payloads on commercial satellites. “Using hosted payloads may also help facilitate a proliferation of payloads on orbit, making it more difficult for an adversary to defeat a capability.” Since 2009, DoD has used three commercially hosted payloads, with three more missions planned or underway through 2022. In 2011, the Air Force created a Hosted Payload Office to provide expertise and other tools to facilitate matching government payloads with commercial hosts. GAO found that defense programs using hosted payloads are not required and generally do not provide cost and technical data, or lessons learned, to the Hosted Payload Office. Having that information would “better position DoD to make informed decisions when considering acquisition approaches for upcoming space system designs.” The Pentagon has not been too keen on hosted payloads for several reasons, GAO noted. There is a perception among some defense officials that matching government payloads to commercial satellites is too difficult. Another concern is that DoD's knowledge on using hosted payloads is “fragmented, in part because programs are not required to share information.” DoD officials who spoke with GAO identified “logistical challenges to matching government payloads with any given commercial host satellite.” For example, they cited size, weight and power constraints as barriers to using hosted payloads. Some individual DoD offices have realized cost and schedule benefits, but “DoD as a whole has limited information on costs and benefits of hosted payloads,” said the report. Officials at the Office of the Secretary of Defense told GAO that “matching requirements between government payloads and commercial satellites is typically too difficult for programs to overcome.” DoD's Hosted Payload Office is “developing tools designed to help address these challenges,” said the report. Defense officials also argued that budget and planning processes are a hurdle. “This can complicate alignment with commercial timelines because the development of a government sensor would need to be underway well in advance of a decision to fund a commercially hosted payload approach.” Officials told GAO that it is possible to align government and commercial timelines. For example, the Missile Defense Agency adopted the commercial host's schedule to ensure its Space Based Kill Assessment payload was ready for integration and launch without delaying the host satellite or missing its ride to space. Similarly, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has been able to align acquisition and development schedules with the commercial host. In its written comments in the report, DoD concurred with GAO's recommendations and noted that the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center had initiated a major reorganization and that under the new organization, the Hosted Payload Office had changed and may not be the appropriate office for centralizing DoD-wide hosted payload knowledge. Language in the Fiscal Year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act directs the Pentagon to seize oversight of military investments in hosted payloads. https://spacenews.com/gao-backs-use-of-commercial-satellites-to-host-military-payloads/

• 

  17 juin 2020 | International, Naval

  With the future of the US Navy’s carrier air wing murky, Congress demands a plan

  By: David B. Larter WASHINGTON – The US Navy will need to develop a roadmap for developing future fighter aircraft years after it became apparent that the Navy's mainstay F/A-18 Super Hornet would struggle to keep the carrier outside of range to be effective against Chinese anti-ship missiles. A provision in the Senate Armed Services Committee's mark of the National Defense Authorization Act told the Navy to come up with a concrete plan for fielding next generation fighter aircraft, a move that comes months after congressional appropriators gutted 2020 funding for the Navy's next-generation air dominance program, taking the requested $20.7 million and slashing it to $7.1 million. By way of comparison, the Air Force requested $1 billion in funding for its Next Generation Air Dominance program, but saw a relatively minor 10 percent cut from appropriators that was cited as a “classified adjustment.” The SASC mark “requires the Navy to create a fighter aircraft force structure acquisition strategy and report on aircraft carrier air wing composition and carrier-based strike fighter squadrons to better prepare for potential conflicts envisioned by the National Defense Strategy,” according to a summary posted on the Committee's website. The Navy likely upset the congressional apple cart by zeroing out a planned buy of at least 36 Super Hornets that would have spanned FY22 through FY24. That move that should save $4.5 billion that the service plans to redirect to its sixth-generation fighter program, known as Next Generation Air Dominance or F/A-XX. So, what's F/A-XX? The Navy has tried to address the range issue with fielding an unmanned tanker, the MQ-25 Stingray, but that program could face delays if the Navy's operational schedule doesn't align to allow testing. But what exactly the F/A-XX will be is anyone's guess. The Navy finished an Analysis of Alternatives in June of last year and the spokesman for the Navy's assistant secretary for research, development and acquisition told Defense News earlier this month that the program was in the concept development phase. But some experts believe that given the Navy's budgetary constraints for the foreseeable future, the F/A-XX should be a derivative of a current aircraft. Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a retired submarine officer, said in recent testimony before the House Armed Services Committee that it would make sense to keep buying the F/A-18s to keep the line hot for a potential F/A-XX. “I think the F/A-XX is going to need to be probably a derivative of an existing airplane rather than some complete new clean sheet design given the fiscal constraints we're under,” Clark said. “Therefore, keeping production lines going for both of our existing strike fighters is a good idea to allow both to be an option for this future F/A-XX.” In 2019, formed Deputy Secretary of Defense Bob Work told Defense News that the next fighter should really be unmanned, and that going that route would help save some money. “The focus should be on the F/A-XX. If you really want range, that has to be the platform you are shooting for,” Work said. “Because with the Navy buying the F-35Cs, and the Marine [Corps] buying the F-35Bs and the Navy buying the Block III Super Hornet, you are not going to be able to afford two or three programs. So, the F/A-XX is the one you need to focus on. And if the analysis shows you need range, that points to unmanned.” But naval aviation has shown very little appetite for fielding an unmanned long-range fighter, and the Navy more generally has been tepid on unmanned technologies, according to former Chief of Naval Operations retired Adm. Garry Roughead, who testified at HASC alongside Clark. “I reflect that we flew an unmanned aircraft off of an aircraft carrier in 2012,” Roughead said. “2012! That has not happened again. Eight years, in my mind, of a hiatus in trying to advance this new technology is not aggressive by any stretch of the imagination.” Valerie Insinna contributed to this report from Washington. https://www.defensenews.com/2020/06/15/with-the-future-us-navys-carrier-air-wing-murky-congress-demands-a-plan/

• 

  18 février 2022 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

  Un rapport parlementaire évoque l’idée de porter le budget de la Défense à 2,5% du PIB

  DÉFENSE Un rapport parlementaire évoque l'idée de porter le budget de la Défense à 2,5% du PIB Dans un contexte où un conflit de haute intensité n'est plus considéré comme une hypothèse d'école, les députés Jean-Louis Thiériot et Patricia Mirallès estiment que la remontée en puissance des forces françaises doit se poursuivre et garantir la hausse annuelle prévue de +3 Md€ jusqu'en 2025. Et encore, il ne s'agit que du minimum. « Sous réserves de rester avec les mêmes ambitions, il y a un besoin complémentaire de 20 à 30 Md€ sur la prochaine LPM. Ce qui mène, grosso modo, à un effort de 2,5% du PIB (...) pour avoir notre modèle d'armée complet », a expliqué Jean-Louis Thiériot, lors de l'examen d'un rapport sur la préparation à la haute intensité, co-écrit avec Patricia Mirallès. Les deux députés ont livré quelques déficits capacitaires dont souffrent actuellement les forces françaises. S'agissant de l'Armée de l'Air et de l'Espace, le nombre de ses avions de combat est insuffisant ; ses capacités en matière de transport aérien médian devront être renouvelées (les C-235 n'étant pas éternels). Et la question des hélicoptères de transport lourd reste posée. Pour Jean-Louis Thiérot, porter le budget des armées à 2,5% du PIB aurait un réel bénéfice pour l'économie française : « un euro investi dans la défense rapporte davantage. (...) c'est un secteur industriel vital pour la France, réparti sur tout le territoire (...) permettant à la fois d'avoir l'outil de défense dont on a besoin mais aussi de développer des technologies qui nous servent sur d'autres marchés », a plaidé le député. Opex360 du 16 février