3 mars 2024 | International, Aérospatial
30 janvier 2020 | International, Aérospatial
By Lt. Col. Johnny Duray
When an MQ-1 Predator fired an AGM-114 Hellfire missile in the opening stage of Operation Enduring Freedom over Afghanistan, the world discovered a new form of power projection: kinetic force delivered from unmanned, remotely piloted aircraft (RPA). That proof of concept drove exponential growth in RPA usage, with combat air patrols (CAPs) swelling from just four in 2004 to 65 simultaneous, worldwide CAPs every day in 2014.
Yet there is still more work to be done to fully realize the power of RPA technology. As the new US national defense strategy focuses on an era of great power competition, RPAs will provide valuable capabilities and capacity to address the persistent threat posed by violent extremist organizations. In doing so, RPAs will also allow other portions of America's air arsenal to focus on near-peer competitor challenges.
Achieving this goal requires a new vector for the use of RPAs, as illustrated in the vignettes that follow. Though details have been obscured for operational sensitivity, the narratives and lessons remain largely intact.

The Camp Strike. Graphic: Mike Tsukamoto and Dash Parham/staff
View or download this infographic
In one recent RPA mission, intelligence sources helped the US military discover a remote jihadi training facility. Plans called for eliminating the radicals with airpower.
Leaders initially sought bomber aircraft for the strike, which required scheduling and positioning refueling aircraft, obtaining overflight clearances, and coordinating for personnel recovery—all time- and resource-intensive factors that didn't apply to the RPAs already providing persistent ISR overhead, as explained in RAND publication Armed and Dangerous? UAVs and US Security.
When bombers proved unavailable, a four-ship formation of fighter aircraft was requested. This option necessitated an even more robust support structure, as the fighters needed to forward deploy closer in theater. This also required a massive undertaking involving the movement of support personnel and equipment, despite the fact that multiple armed MQ-9 aircraft were already conducting daily surveillance and intelligence missions in the vicinity of the camp.
Two environmental factors introduced further complexity into this mission. First, the camp was embedded deep inside a canyon with a valley floor only 15 feet wide. Any air-launched weapons would need to be precisely aimed to strike the narrow space between the canyon walls. Second, the jihadis were broken up into two distinct groups, two to three miles apart. A first-run attack would require delivery of simultaneous effects. Re-attacks on survivors would need to be conducted expeditiously.
Once the bomber and fighter options proved unavailable, leaders finally selected four MQ-9 Reapers to execute the mission. Reaper One, Reaper Two, and Reaper Three were flown by squadrons in the same location, while Reaper Four was flown by a squadron at a separate location. The first three Reaper crews planned, briefed, and executed as a formation, or flight, bringing the geographically separated Reaper Four into the planning as much as possible before execution.
The four Reapers were equipped with two 500-pound GBU-12 laser-guided bombs and 16 air-to-ground Hellfire missiles. Reaper One teamed with Reaper Four to make a run on the first target group, dropping the 500-pound bombs. Once established inbound, Reaper One passed an estimated “bombs-on-target” time to Reaper Two and Reaper Three, which targeted the second group of terrorists-in-training with four Hellfire missiles in order to achieve simultaneous effects.
The synchronicity was near perfect. Weapons impacts from the bombs on the first group and the Hellfires on the second group were within a second of each other. The four MQ-9s hit two separate target sets with six munitions on four different aimpoints with a time on target calculation formulated as the mission progressed, based on outside clearance authority.
Reaper Two and Reaper Three teamed up to immediately re-attack the survivors. Prior planning, internal communication, and near-real-time data sharing enabled an unprecedented display of efficiency. RPA pilots physically located together can speak into each other's headsets without delay on an intercom channel, for example. Reaper Three rifled off all four of its Hellfires on three separate re-attacks in under seven minutes. In one instance, Reaper Three fired a Hellfire on a group of terrorists without ever having even seen it, since Reaper Two had tracked the group and provided final weapons guidance for Reaper Three's missile. Reaper One and Reaper Four were left to conduct re-attacks as solo aircraft, since they lacked the prerequisites for the seamless integration enjoyed by Reapers Two and Three. As such, they were only able to employ three of their available eight Hellfires in the first 16 minutes following the initial strike.
The final attack was conducted two hours later when Reaper Three found a group of eight enemy combatants hiding in a small ravine. Out of munitions, Reaper Three talked the crew of Reaper Four on to the group. The terrain only allowed a window of approximately 20 seconds for an MQ-9 to provide final guidance onto the target before becoming masked by rocks. Reaper Four shot a Hellfire into the ravine, target unseen, while Reaper Three came in from the opposite direction, crested the terrain, and timed the aircraft's positioning so that final guidance was placed on the enemy group in the last 10 seconds of the missile's flight. By the conclusion of the mission, some 85 percent of the combatants were killed with the other 15 percent wounded.
Some of the lessons from this operation:

The 15-Second Window. Graphic: Mike Tsukamoto and Dash Parham/staff
As part of global counterterrorism operations, US and coalition forces tracked a senior terrorist leader several years ago. After extensive study, a concept of operations (CONOPS) developed to facilitate a strike on this individual within an incredibly tight window—the time it took for him to ride his motorcycle to his home, after departing from a main road but before entering a courtyard near his residence. This strike window lasted only about 15 seconds.
This broke down into two problems: First, successfully positioning a shooting aircraft within a 15-second engagement window within seven seconds of the target departing the main road, and second, planning around a fork in the main road that afforded the target two options. Route A was simple—there were no further intersections before the target left the main road and entered the engagement window. Route B was more nuanced, with one additional intersection before the target left the main road. The shooting aircraft would need to maneuver to get into position before the target hit the additional intersection. If the target was held up for even a few seconds, it could throw off timing and negate all previous planning.
Three MQ-9s were allocated for the strike. Reaper One took the lead and began timing calculations to maneuver into position. Reaper Two followed the target motorcycle as it traveled toward the engagement site. Data sharing allowed Reaper One to position itself within the 15 second window at precisely the time the motorcycle turned off the main road and came into the field of view (FOV). Reaper Three stared at the additional intersection along Route B. Reaper One was able to view Reaper Three's feed to determine the possibility of the target getting held up at that intersection should he travel along Route B.
As events unfolded, the target chose to continue down Route B. Updates on the target's distance and speed from Reaper Two and the intersection traffic from Reaper Three enabled Reaper One to successfully maneuver the aircraft into the 15-second window, fire, and eliminate the target with no collateral damage.
The success of this strike was made possible by a flight-focused operations approach, paired with an intensive training program, and truly decentralized execution. It also introduced three new areas to reflect on.

The Attempted Rescue. Graphic: Mike Tsukamoto and Dash Parham/staff
On one calm, moonless night a few years ago, a small group of US special operations forces parachuted from a transport aircraft on a hostage rescue mission. Overhead, three MQ-9s and a U-28 manned ISR aircraft provided support to the SOF team from insertion, through the rescue operation, and the exfiltration. The three MQ-9s were co-located and operated out of the same RPA operations center, where a small staff stood up to support the three flying crews.
As the SOF team worked its way toward the hostage's reported location, it became apparent to the RPA operations center director that key real-time intelligence was taking too long to get to the ground forces via the joint operations center (JOC)—the main mission hub. The MQ-9 elements overhead had direct radio contact with ground forces and, more importantly, instant access to the intelligence as well. After a quick discussion about transferring responsibility from JOC leadership to the MQ-9 pilots, the time frame for essential intelligence processing to ground forces went from a minute to under five seconds. A U-28 aircrew member was prepositioned inside the ROC to provide subject-matter expertise on the ISR aircraft, as well as techniques, tactics, and procedures to the MQ-9 crews and ROC staff.
Unfortunately, as the team arrived at the location, it discovered that the hostage had been moved from the village just prior to the raid. However, the event offered a real-world opportunity to explore several underutilized capabilities that RPAs and the operations center could apply to future missions.
These three vignettes provide substantial food for thought about how RPAs expand the flexibility and capability of air component commanders. This leads to four critical implications that policy makers, DOD leaders, and Air Force officials should consider:
In current combat operations, the Air Force's MQ-9 is as different from its Operation Enduring Freedom-era 2001 MQ-1 forbearer as an F-16 is from a P-51. However, this transformation has collided with cultural differences rooted in traditional notions of force employment—both in the air and on the ground. This has led to sub-optimal utilization and investment considerations.
Today, fighters and bombers are no longer the only option for mass strike, and RPAs are no longer just airborne sniper rifles. RPAs can effectively conduct CAS, particularly with small ground team elements like SOF units. These two considerations alone should cause US military leaders to rethink American force posture for the fight against violent extremist organizations.
Remotely piloted aircraft operations are ripe for exploitation with centralized execution, yet “mission-type tactics”—where operational outcomes are emphasized more than any specific means of achieving them—are a central tenet to maximizing RPA potential. Continued investment in the RPA community is crucial to building on the momentum these assets are gathering in operations around the world. This will require harnessing information-sharing through open system architectures.
The United States' continued prosecution of low-intensity conflicts around the world, and the need to prepare for potential near-peer military confrontations, both benefit from an agile, decentralized, and well-connected RPA force whose lethality is intelligently incorporated into joint force operational planning. Military leaders with a commanding grasp on RPA capabilities and a willingness to think beyond traditional aircraft mission sets, will be best positioned to take full advantage of every capability RPA can bring to bear in future combat.
Air Force Lt. Col. John D. Duray is a senior pilot with more than 3,200 flight hours in the MQ-9 and U-28 and extensive experience in combat and combat support missions. He has supported Operations Iraqi Freedom, Enduring Freedom, Inherent Resolve, and Freedom's Sentinel, and deployed to four different areas of responsibility. The opinions and assessments expressed in this article are the author's alone and do not reflect those of the Department of Defense or the US Air Force. This article is adapted from a forum paper published by the Mitchell Instititue for Aerospace Studies.
https://www.airforcemag.com/article/remotely-piloted-aircraft-implications-for-future-warfare/
 
					3 mars 2024 | International, Aérospatial
 
					3 décembre 2021 | International, Aérospatial
Le gouvernement fédéral confirme que l’avion de chasse « Super Hornet » de Boeing n’est plus en lice pour remplacer les CF-18 du Canada.
 
					13 juin 2019 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité, Autre défense
NAVY Huntington Ingalls Industries' Newport News Shipbuilding division, Newport News, Virginia, is awarded a maximum-value $687,090,000 cost and cost-plus-fixed-fee, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for early service life period work on USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78). The purpose of this contract is to support ship repair and modernization during continuous incremental availabilities, planned incremental availabilities, full-ship shock trials and continuous maintenance and emergent maintenance during the ship's early service life period. This contract includes five ordering periods totaling 60 months, with a maximum order value of $687,090,000. Work for the initial delivery order will be performed in Newport News, Virginia, and is expected to be completed by June 2020. Work under all five delivery orders is expected to be completed by June 2024. Fiscal 2019 operation and maintenance (Navy) funding in the amount of $1,719,107 will be obligated at time of award and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured, in accordance with 10 U.S. Code 2304 (c)(1) - only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, District of Columbia, is the contracting activity (N00024-19-D-4306). The Whiting-Turner Contracting Co., Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, is awarded a $62,596,317 firm-fixed-price contract for construction of a Submarine Propulsor Manufacturing Support Facility located at the Philadelphia Navy Yard. Work will be performed in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and is expected to be completed by February 2022. Fiscal 2019 military construction (Navy) contract funds in the amount of $62,596,317 are obligated on this award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online website, with two proposals received. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Mid-Atlantic, Norfolk, Virginia, is the contracting activity (N4008519-C-9057). The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Missouri, is awarded not-to-exceed $41,000,000 for delivery order N6833519F0442 against a previously issued basic ordering agreement (N68335-15-G-0022) to procure 2,763 pieces of peculiar support equipment, support equipment spares and test equipment for the maintenance and repair of F/A-18E/F aircraft for the government of Kuwait. Work will be performed in St. Louis, Missouri, and is expected to be completed in June 2022. Foreign Military Sales funds in the amount of $20,500,000 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the fiscal year. The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Lakehurst, New Jersey, is the contracting activity. Risk Mitigation Consulting, Destin, Florida, is awarded a $10,278,694 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for methodology and field research for evaluating cybersecurity of Navy control systems effort. Works will be performed at places unknown at this time. Places will be defined at a later date based on needs at U.S. naval installations outside and inside the U.S. Work is expected to be completed May 30, 2020. Fiscal 2019 research, development, test and evaluation (Navy) funds in the amount of $4,808,000 will be obligated at the time of award. No funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured under N00014-18-S-B001 “Long Range Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) for Navy and Marine Corps Science and Technology.” Proposal will be received throughout the year under the BAA, therefore, the number of proposals received in response to the solicitation is unknown. The Office of Naval Research, Arlington, Virginia, is the contracting activity (N00014-19-C-1015). Curtiss-Wright Defense Solutions Division, Fairborn, Ohio, is awarded a $9,999,999 firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for removable media cartridges (RMC). This procurement is in support of the Trident Ballistic Missile Submarine (SSBN) program. A system upgrade is incorporating requirement changes to increase performance and address obsolescence. Work will be performed in Fairborn, Ohio, and is expected to be completed by October 2024. This contract includes foreign military sales to the United Kingdom. Fiscal 2019 other procurement (Navy) funding in the amount of $3,351,024; and Foreign Military Sales (United Kingdom) funding in the amount of $1,186,376 will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This was a sole-source procurement under statutory authority 10 U.S. Code 2304(c)(1) - only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements. The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division, Crane, Indiana, is the contracting activity (N00164-19-D-GP55). AIR FORCE LinQuest Corp., Los Angeles, California, has been awarded a $562,302,987 cost-plus-incentive-fee base plus six option years contract for systems engineering, integration and test (SEIT) support. The initial base period award is valued at $118,363,040. This contract provides for SEIT support for the Space and Missile Systems Center, Military Satellite Communications Systems directorate. Work will be performed in El Segundo, California, and is expected to be complete by December 2026. This award is the result of a competitive acquisition and two offers were received. Fiscal 2019 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $13,523,792; fiscal 2019 operations and maintenance funds in the amount of $3,377,304; and fiscal 2017 procurement funds in the amount of $3,770,745 are being obligated at the time of award. Space and Missile Systems Center, Los Angeles Air Force Base, California, is the contracting activity (FA8808-19-C-0006). U.S. SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND The Boeing Co., Ridley Park, Pennsylvania, was awarded a $194,224,723 cost-plus-fixed-fee type delivery order modification (P00001) under a current contract (W91215-16-G-0001) to procure six renew-build and one new-build MH-47G rotary wing aircraft. This action is required to sustain U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF) heavy assault, rotary wing aircraft and to mitigate the impact of the MH-47G aircraft availability in light of increased SOF operational demands. Fiscal 2019 procurement, defense-wide appropriations in the amount of $77,360,723; and fiscal 2019 aircraft procurement, Army funds in the amount of $116,864,000 were obligated at the time of award. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The majority of the work will be performed in Ridley Park, Pennsylvania. U.S. Special Operations Command headquarters, Tampa, Florida is the contracting activity. DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY KBRwyle Technology Solutions LLC, Columbia, Maryland (SP4702-19-D-0003); BAE Systems Technology Solutions & Services Inc., Rockville, Maryland (SP4702-19-D-0004); and ENGlobal Government Services Inc., Tulsa, Oklahoma (SP4702-19-D-0005), are sharing a maximum $124,000,000 firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract under solicitation SP4702-18-R-0510 for Automated Fuel Systems Installation. This was a competitive acquisition with three responses received. These are five-year contracts with no option periods. Locations of performance are worldwide, with a June 11, 2024, performance completion date. Using customers are Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Defense Logistics Agency, National Guard and Coast Guard. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2019 through 2024 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Contracting Services Office, Columbus, Ohio. CORRECTION: The contract announced on May 31, 2019, for CACI Inc.-Federal, Chantilly, Virginia (SP4701-19-C-0024), for $10,760,666 was announced with an incorrect award date. The correct award date is June 3, 2019. ARMY L3 Fuzing and Ordnace Systems Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio, was awarded a $51,600,000 firm-fixed-price contract for Fuze Munition Unit (FMU)-153 A/B Point Detonating/Delay (PD/DLY) fuzes. Bids were solicited via the internet with two received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of June 12, 2019. U.S. Army Contracting Command, New Jersey is the contracting activity (W15QKN-19-D-0067). Tetra Tech Inc., Marlborough, Massachusetts, was awarded a $46,000,000 firm-fixed-price contract for architect-engineer services within the Transatlantic Middle East District (TAM) areas of responsibility/mission boundaries. Bids were solicited via the internet with nine received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of June 12, 2019. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Louisville, Kentucky, is the contracting activity (W912QR-19-D-0029). Stanley Consultants Inc., Muscatine, Iowa, was awarded a $46,000,000 firm-fixed-price contract for architect-engineer services within the Transatlantic Middle East District (TAM) area of responsibility/mission boundaries. Bids were solicited via the internet with nine received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of June 22, 2024. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Louisville, Kentucky, is the contracting activity (W912QR-19-D-0031). ICF Inc., Fairfax, Virginia, was awarded a $32,216,823 modification (P00026) to contract W911QX-17-C-0018 for the ARL Cyber Security Service Provider (CSSP) program. Work will be performed in Adelphi, Maryland, with an estimated completion date of June 15, 2020. Fiscal 2017 research, development, test, and evaluation, Army funds in the amount of $3,500,000 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Adelphi, Maryland, is the contracting activity. Massman Construction Co., Leawood, Kansas, was awarded a $30,000,000 firm-fixed-price contract for floating plat. 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 June 12, 2019. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis, Missouri, is the contracting activity (W912P9-19-D-0008). Bristol Design Build Services LLC,* Anchorage, Alaska, was awarded an $18,687,206 firm-fixed-price contract for an F-35A missile maintenance facility. Bids were solicited via the internet with three received. Work will be performed in Eielson, Alaska, with an estimated completion date of Nov. 8, 2020. Fiscal 2019 military construction, Army funds in the amount of $18,687,206 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska, is the contracting activity (W911KB-19-C-0009). Frazier Engineering Inc.,* Melbourne, Florida, was awarded a $13,157,500 firm-fixed-price contract for building renovation. Bids were solicited via the internet with two received. Work will be performed in Orlando, Florida, with an estimated completion date of March 16, 2020. Fiscal 2019 developmental test and evaluation, Defense funds in the amount of $13,157,500 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile, Alabama, is the contracting activity (W91278-19-C-0020). IBM Corp., Bethesda, Maryland, was awarded a $9,500,000 firm-fixed-price contract for a containerized machine learning system. Four bids were solicited with three bids received. Work will be performed in Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, with an estimated completion date of Dec. 2, 2024. Fiscal 2018 and 2019 other procurement, Army funds in the amount of $9,500,000 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Huntsville, Alabama, is the contracting activity (W912DY-19-F-0396). *Small business https://dod.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/1874073/source/GovDelivery/