30 juillet 2019 | International, Aérospatial

RAF Retiring Reaper In 2024, Paving Way For Protector

By

LONDON—Britain is planning to retire its General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aircraft systems in 2024 as the Royal Air Force transitions to its new Protector platform.

Although Royal Air Force (RAF) officers have not detailed when the first of the new Protector aircraft will arrive, there will be a transition as crews retrain from Reaper onto Protector, with the Reaper complementing the Protector on operations, Wing Commander Judith Graham, the RAF's Protector Program Manager, told Aerospace DAILY at the Royal International Air Tattoo earlier this month.

“Reaper is an extraordinarily valuable capability for the UK government, so we don't want there to be a capability gap,” Graham said.

The plan for avoiding a capability gap between Reaper and Protector suggests that a significant number of Protectors will have entered service by the time the Reaper is retired.

The UK currently has 10 MQ-9 Reapers that it purchased as an urgent operational requirement for operations in Afghanistan. Today, they operate over Iraq and Syria, but none are destined for use in UK airspace.

Work also is underway to select the site for a new facility at RAF Waddington, UK, from which the Protector fleet and the UK's new E-7 Wedgetail airborne early warning aircraft will be operated. Graham said the facility needs “to be ready for Protector by the end of 2021,” suggesting that first Protector deliveries could take place in 2022. Britain plans to centralize its Protector operations from Waddington, resulting in the UK presence at Creech AFB, Nevada being scaled down.

Because of the Protector's ability to self-deploy and perform autonomous landing and take-off, there also is a significantly reduced need for forward-based personnel to land the aircraft at forward-operating locations, further reducing the personnel burden.

The UK currently is planning to buy 16 Protectors, a derivative of General Atomics' self-developed, certifiable SkyGuardian platform, which has been redesigned to pave the way for it to meet military airworthiness requirements. As a result, the aircraft now features an all-weather capability with an electro-expulsive de-icing system that blows the ice off the leading edges of the wings and Y-stabilizers. General Atomics also has increased the fatigue life and damage tolerance of the aircraft and produced flight-critical software certifiable to the DO-178 standard.

British Protectors will be armed with the Raytheon Paveway IV laser-guided-bomb and MBDA Brimstone air-to-ground missile. There also are plans to fit it with Leonardo's Sage Electronic Support Measures system. The aircraft will also be equipped with General Atomics' Lynx synthetic aperture radar, but there are studies to look at installing a larger radar, such as Leonardo's Seaspray surface-search radar. Work on the integration of such a radar, which could allow the Protector to support the UK's new P-8 Poseidon in the maritime patrol role, is being scoped but is not yet funded.

RAF officers are working alongside General Atomics at its San Diego, California, facility as part of a combined test team to pave the way for the platform's certification by the UK Military Aviation Authority, which the RAF hopes will allow the aircraft to fly in non-segregated airspace for training and support to national authorities. They are hoping to do this even without the immediate installation of General Atomics internally developed sense-and-avoid radar.

The RAF's Protectors will be compatible, but not immediately equipped, with the active electronically scanned array radar, but Graham said work was underway with the UK's newly renamed Strategic Command (formerly Joint Forces Command) to understand the requirement for the radar, and test and evaluation work was underway.

Officials state that the radar likely will be introduced as part of the full operational capability for the platform.

The UK also will use the General Atomics Advanced Cockpit ground control station, which uses a similar flight management system to the Beechcraft King Air 350. Under current plans, the British Protectors will be flown by a crew of three—a pilot, a sensor operator and a mission intelligence coordinator. Rather than flying the aircraft from inside transportable containers, the seven ground control stations will occupy a permanent building with room for expansion. There also will be scope to add an additional mission specialist, should a particular mission require it, officials say.

https://aviationweek.com/defense/raf-retiring-reaper-2024-paving-way-protector

Sur le même sujet

  • KC-46: What's Happened So Far?

    17 octobre 2019 | International, Aérospatial

    KC-46: What's Happened So Far?

    The KC-46 Pegasus is a U.S. air-refueling tanker that is expected to reach initial operating capability (IOC) around 2017. It is produced by Boeing. The KC-46 is intended to replace the first third of the U.S. Air Force (USAF) KC-135 fleet in the primary role of air-refueling, as well as in secondary roles of transport and aeromedical evacuation. Compared to the KC-135, the new aircraft can deliver more fuel at all ranges; operate from shorter runways; and carry three times as many cargo pallets, twice the number of passengers and over 30% more aeromedical evacuation patients. https://aviationweek.com/kc-46-whats-happened-so-far

  • Timeline on returning Ospreys to flight remains murky, Air Force says

    14 février 2024 | International, Terrestre

    Timeline on returning Ospreys to flight remains murky, Air Force says

    Air Force Special Operations Command wants to fly its Ospreys again, but doesn't have the information it needs to do so.

  • The defense industry needs new entrants, and a supportive government during crises

    5 mai 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

    The defense industry needs new entrants, and a supportive government during crises

    By: Venture capital community leaders The COVID-19 health crisis is quickly leading to an economic meltdown, throwing millions of Americans out of work and forcing strategic reevaluations across industries. The defense industry is no exception. We are praying for a swift end to the crisis, but its effects will linger, shaping the Pentagon's priorities, organizational structure, military operations, logistics, supply chains and interactions with the defense-industrial base for years to come. In the past few weeks, we have had numerous conversations with government officials about our venture and growth equity investments in the defense sector. These discussions have centered on the eligibility rules of the CARES Act's Paycheck Protection Program and the risk of foreign capital seeking entry into defense technology startups desperate for investment in these trying times. But these are secondary questions. The primary question is this: How can the Pentagon best preserve its innovation base and develop the most competitive and advanced technologies? The answer is simple: Buy commercial. New and emerging defense startups — and our men and women in uniform — don't need symbolic gestures. What they need is concerted action to bring the latest and most advanced technologies — many of which are routinely used in industry — to dangerously antiquated defense weapons systems and internal IT infrastructure. This was true before COVID-19, it is true now and it will be true when the next crisis strikes. All too often the government has responded to crises by circling wagons around incumbent firms — the large prime contractors, whose political connections afford them bailouts in the name of “ensuring ongoing competition.” This process is already underway. After announcing its hope for a $60 billion relief package for the aerospace manufacturing industry, Boeing successfully lobbied for $17 billion worth of loans for firms “critical to maintaining national security.” The CARES Act also announced provisions to streamline the Defense Department's contracting process, which sounds promising, except for the fact that these provisions apply only to contracts worth over $100 million. This discriminates against smaller, more nimble innovators and providers of cutting-edge technology. This isn't how things have always been. After complaints about large horse dealers monopolizing military contracts during the Civil War, the government allowed quartermasters to purchase horses and mules from any dealer on the open market. In World War II, Congress created the Smaller War Plants Corporation, which awarded tens of thousands of contracts to small, competitive firms. Today, through innovative use of Small Business Innovation Research money, other transactional authorities, rapid work programs and the like, the Pentagon is certainly signaling interest in emerging technologies. But let us be clear: We are not advocating continuing to invest larger dollar amounts into never-ending, short-term pilots and prototypes. The key to sustaining the innovation base through this crisis and any future crises is transitioning the best of these companies and products into real production contracts serving the day-to-day needs of the mission. Host tough, but fair competitions for new innovations, and then rapidly scale the winners. America's technological supremacy has afforded our country nearly a century of military hegemony, but it is not a law of nature. Sovereign states and peer competitors like Russia and China will quickly outpace us if we take our prowess for granted. We need new entrants into the defense industry more than ever, but without government support through crises like this one, the talent and capital simply won't be there. Why do investors say defense isn't a safe bet? As the Department of Defense readily acknowledges, its mission is fundamentally changing. Breakthroughs in technological fields like artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, robotics, resilient networks and cyberwarfare mean that future conflicts will look nothing like those we have seen before. The DoD of tomorrow needs a fresh wave of technical expertise to understand and respond to these new kinds of threats. That is not to say that legacy defense contractors are not needed; their expertise in large air and sea vehicles is currently unparalleled. But the expertise to build these new technologies resides in pockets of talent that the big and bureaucratic incumbents, who made their names with 20th century technology, lost access to decades ago. The DoD has publicly exalted the importance of innovative defense startups for years. That is partly why we are so excited to invest capital into the defense sector at this moment in history. Silicon Valley has a chance to live up to its oft-ridiculed but sincere ambition to make the world a better place by investing in American national security. However, we as venture capitalists and growth equity investors also have a duty to our limited partners who have entrusted us to invest and grow their capital. If we see the same old story of the government claiming to support small businesses but prioritizing its old incumbents, those investment dollars will disappear. Times of rapid and unprecedented change, as COVID-19 has precipitated, also provide opportunities. The DoD and Congress can reshape budget priorities to put their money where their mouths have been and support innovative defense technologies. Each dollar awarded to a successful venture capital and growth equity-backed defense startup through a competitively awarded contract attracts several more dollars in private investment, providing the DoD significantly more leverage that if that same dollar was spent on a subsidy or loan to a large legacy contractor. This leverage of private capital means that every contract a startup receives accelerates by up to 10 times their ability to build technology and hire talent to support the DoD's mission. The bottom line is this: There's no reason to let a health crisis today become a national security crisis tomorrow. The DoD has an opportunity to not only sustain but grow its innovation base, and give contracts, not lip service, to innovators. We, the undersigned, hope they do. The contributors to this commentary are: Steve Blank of Stanford University; Katherine Boyle of General Catalyst; James Cham of Bloomberg Beta; Ross Fubini of XYZ Capital; Antonio Gracias of Valor Equity Partners, who sits on the boards of Tesla and SpaceX; Joe Lonsdale of 8VC, who also co-founded Palantir; Raj Shah of Shield Capital, who is a former director of the U.S. Defense Innovation Unit; Trae Stephens of, Founders Fund; JD Vance of Narya Capital; Albert Wenger of Union Square Ventures; Josh Wolfe of Lux Capital; Hamlet Yousef of IronGate Capital; and Dan Gwak of Point72. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/05/04/the-defense-industry-needs-new-entrants-and-a-supportive-government-during-crises/

Toutes les nouvelles