31 juillet 2018 | International, Aérospatial

The US Air Force’s top acquisition exec talks hypersonic prototypes and more

By:

FARNBOROUGH, England — Will Roper took the job of assistant secretary of the U.S. Air Force for acquisition, technology and logistics in February, but he's likely better known for his prior gig as head of the Pentagon's Strategic Capabilities Office.

As the first-ever director of the new SCO, Roper drew attention for projects that used off-the-shelf tech to prototype new capabilities like swarming drones.

Now he's turning his eye toward making sure the Air Force quickens the pace in which it acquires new weapons, focusing especially on prototyping as a method to push the service toward a solution on a faster timeline, he told Defense News in a July 16 interview at Farnborough Airshow.

What current programs involve prototyping?

We've got a whole set of programs that we're accelerating, and what I love about our acceleration is that there's no rhyme or reason to what type of program they are. Some of them are sustainment programs like putting a new engine on the B-52. Others are more traditional prototype efforts like hypersonics where we're doing an advanced weapon acceleration. Others are software, where we're accelerating F-22 software drops, our protected [satellite communications] delivery.

The good news about this is it doesn't appear that there is [only] one type of program that's able to be accelerated. The difference is that we're not using traditional [Department of Defense] 5000 [acquisition principles]. Instead we're using the new authorities from Congress, and all they encourage us to do is to tailor the way that we acquire the system to the specific needs of what we're buying.

And that sounds completely obvious. You ought to do something specific to the needs of what you're buying. But if you look at the 5000 process, which is traditional acquisition, it has more of a generic approach. And in that generic approach, there are a lot of steps that don't make sense for all systems. So we're just cutting those out, and that's where the acceleration is coming in.

How are you prototyping new B-52 engines? Aren't there off-the-shelf systems already available?

There are. That's what we want to use. The question is: How do you go out and do that acquisition? If you do it a traditional way, you'll spend years doing studies, [with] the government pretending it knows enough about those commercial engines to make a decision to pick one and go field it. If we were a company, we would know that we don't know enough about those engines without getting our hands dirty, without getting some grease on our hands and sleeves.

So they would go out. They would downselect to a top set of vendors, have each one create a digital twin of their engine, do the digital representation of its integration on their aircraft, fly them off against each other, determine which one will give you the most fuel savings and then pick the engine based on the one that saves you the most money overall.

By: Valerie Insinna

So, a simulated flyoff?

Exactly. So in the accelerated acquisition paradigm, which uses the 804 authority, we don't have to go the 5000 route of doing years of study. We can do it like a commercial company. And what I love about this example is that it's not just faster, it's about three-and-a-half to four years faster in total time. It's also better because we'll be making the decision with a lot more data than we would if we were staring at a wad of paper that was analysis but not actual simulation.

This is an example of what tailoring means and what it gets you. This approach may not apply to other programs, but it makes a ton of sense for this one. So that's what we're developing right now, is buying a commercial engine the way a company would. Buying and integrating it the way a company would, not a military.

What's the schedule?

We're working the acquisition plan right now. I've approved it for one of our 804 accelerations, so we'll use the new authorities. I've given this guidance to the program office. Let's go do a digital twin flyoff the way that industry would, and I'm just letting them work the details before we approve and get started. But it's a great example; a digital twin flyoff is pretty cool. You wouldn't think putting a new engine on the B-52 would be a cool program. You would expect the hypersonics program would be where all the cool kids would go. But in my view, there's a lot of great engineering and great acquisition to be done in all programs, and what's been awesome about being in this job is I'm seeing innovation across the Air Force, not just in the high-tech programs you'd expect.

The light-attack experiment is obviously one example where you're doing this prototyping and experimentation. Some in Congress want to give you money in fiscal 2019 to buy planes, but the Air Force hasn't even figured out whether to turn this into a program of record. Do you have the contractual authorities to make that happen?

I think we can do it using new authorities that Congress gave us in the last National Defense Authorization Act. Light attack is a great example of being able to move into an authority called “middle-tier rapid procurement fielding.” The requirement is that it's something that you need to be able to buy off the shelf with only a little upfront development in six months total. And light attack is a great example of doing experiments to make sure that you understand the ability of existing planes to do a mission we need to do, and then moving into an acquisition decision which is based on buying a currently available product.

I'm confident as we go through all of the light experiment data — we're doing that right now — that any of the options we look at, I'm confident none of them will be 100 percent perfect, but that's exactly what's wrong with acquisition today. We pursue 100 percent solutions until we get them. Light attack is a great example of realizing that we can get 90 to 95 percent today at a lower cost, and since we've gone out and flown before we bought, I think we have a much better chance of doing this acquisition with confidence, that what we give the operators will do the mission and be sufficient.

By: Valerie Insinna

You mentioned hypersonics as another area that involves prototyping. Can you say more about that?

Hypersonics is an area that I'm very passionate about. I feel like we need to not fall behind any country in this domain. And it was an area, coming in from SCO, I really wanted to dive into these prototyping efforts and see is there anything that we can do to speed them up.

And in fact, there is. This is another example of another program where the rapid authorities appear to make a big difference on how quickly you can go. But the big difference is really shifting the program so that it embraces the potential for failure. You saw this a lot from me at my last job. Failure is very much an option, and as a matter of fact, if we're going to fail and we do it early in a program, we've probably learned something valuable that we need to understand before progressing.

Hypersonics is a program where I would expect us to get out and learn a lot as we test. So rather than taking time to ensure that your tests are checking the box of something you're confident you can do, you compress the schedule to go out and make the test focused on learning something.

Just that difference in mindset takes years out of our hypersonics program. We're hoping to [get to initial operational capability] within three to four years, and all of that is due to doing it as an experimental test program vice a long compliance period.

Are you speaking of the hypersonic weapons program that Lockheed Martin recently won?

We just awarded a contract to Lockheed, and that will be the vehicle that we use to fund this.

Are you relying on digital prototyping or physical demonstrators?

It will be all [of them]. Hypersonics is a new regime for weaponry, so we very much want to have digital models that we believe. So getting in the wind tunnel so that we can go out and simulate flights before we do them.

But because this is a pretty exotic domain of physics in terms of pressures and temperatures, we're going to need to get out and fly and test [real prototypes]. [Information technology is] very important that we're instrumenting our flight bodies so that we're collecting data. There's nothing that I'm telling you that's peculiar to this program — this is pretty common for any envelope-pushing program.

I think the big difference in hypersonics now versus a couple of years ago is just shifting to a test focus and embracing the potential for failure as a spectacular learning event or whatever word you want to use as a good name for failure. It's a great failure of our English language that there's no word that means “good failure.” We say we need to embrace failure. We don't often do it because it still comes with a stigma, and that's one of the things I'm really hoping to do in this job. I'm looking for those people to take smart risks, to go out to be daring, and my job is going to be to give them top cover, applaud them and reward them when they do because we're going to need that across the Air Force if we're going to speed up.

Can you give me a status update on T-X?

On T-X, we're going through source selection, so we're hopeful we'll get through that — should be in the fall.

The fall? We had been hearing summer.

I guess, if September is summer — I guess September is technically summer. End of summer is still fair based on where we are now.

With JSTARS, I understand the Air Force is still doing source selection as Congress figures out the path forward. Will it be ready to announce in short order if you are forced to move forward on the program?

We're hoping that we can shift to the new [advanced battle management system] ABMS program because if we're going to deal with a contested environment, we are going to have to learn to take things that used to be integrated, complicated system that are high-value targets, and break them up into less contestable targets that can work together. I don't view that as particular to JSTARS; it's something we need to learn how to do writ large.

I view it as an architecture challenge that the Air Force has to pick up if we're going to learn how to do distributed systems. I would like to be able to do it for JSTARS because I think it's a great candidate. If Congress does require us to do the recap, we're making sure that we have not dropped the ball on doing that. But we are hoping to be able to shift to the future concept. As an SCO director and former program manager, I would love to manage that program. I think there will be a lot of things to learn and tryn and it definitely needs to be a program where we embrace failure up front and prototype because there's going to be a lot of learning to do about how do you make things work together as a team. We get a sense of how commercial industry is solving it, and I imagine we can use a lot of their lessons learned, but probably not all of them.

It sounds like the ABMS architecture is still being worked through as far as what will fit in that and how.

I'd say it's an architecture at this point. And that's unusual for a program when, if you were in my job, you're getting tasked like, “I need a new airplane, I need a new sensor pod,” and you get a list of how well it has to perform. ABMS is more [like], you're given a mission and your can choose how to allocate the requirements for that mission across a system of systems.

So it's not the mission requirements — you're doing the design requirements. And you can just imagine one designer saying: “I'm going to collect a lot of data from nose to the edge. I'm going to do a massive amount of processing at the middle.” I bet you'd get high performance that way, but you'd have huge communication challenges.

Another designer might say: “I'm going to put my processing on the edges themselves, so I'm not dependent on getting to that central node.” You probably have more graceful degradation if you have one of those nodes taken out. But you might give up performance.

This is a real architecture problem, and acquisition historically does not do architecture. When we need to build something, we don't allocate it across systems of systems. In the future, it looks like we're going to have to start doing that.

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/farnborough/2018/07/27/the-us-air-forces-top-acquisition-exec-talks-hypersonic-prototypes-and-more/

Sur le même sujet

  • U.S. Air Force Contracts Lockheed Martin To Continue GPS Ground Control System Sustainment

    10 janvier 2019 | International, C4ISR

    U.S. Air Force Contracts Lockheed Martin To Continue GPS Ground Control System Sustainment

    COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo., January 9, 2019 – The U.S. Air Force awarded Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) the GPS Control Segment Sustainment II (GCS II) contract to continue to sustain and further modernize the Global Positioning System (GPS) satellite constellation's ground control system through 2025. This is the follow-on contract to Lockheed Martin's current GCS contract awarded in 2013. Under the GCS II contract, the continued upgrade of the GPS Architecture Evolution Plan Operational Control Segment (AEP OCS) will allow GPS' legacy ground control system to support GPS III satellite on-orbit operations, developed under the GPS III Contingency Operations (COps) program. COps will enable the AEP OCS to support the positioning, navigation and timing missions of the Air Force's new GPS III satellites, which began launching in 2018. In addition, GCS II will sustain the operational M-code capability being deployed in 2020 that is in development under the M-code Early Use (MCEU) contract. Operational M-code is a critical warfighter capability to support missions in contested environments. Under the GCS contract, Lockheed Martin executed numerous engineering modifications to the OCS, including the COTS Upgrade 3(CUP3)/Ground Antenna Air Force Satellite Control Network (AFSCN) Interface Technology Refresh (GAITR) upgrade, the Remote Site COTS Network (RSCN) project, the GPS Information Protection Reinforcement (GIPR) project, the COTS Upgrade #2 (CUP2) project, and Red Dragon Cybersecurity Suite (RDCSS). These projects modernized the infrastructure, improved the cyber posture and added mission capability. The GCS II contract continues that commitment to evolving the OCS to address today's mission needs. Under GCS II, LM will continue to manage the technical baselines for the OCS and GPS Information Network (GIN) and regularly procure, develop, fabricate, integrate, test, and install software and hardware modifications into the GPS operational baseline. Focus areas will be performing a technical refresh of the GIN and increasing the resiliency of the OCS. “Lockheed Martin's experience integrating GCS projects as well as the system engineering and software integration performed on GPS III Contingency Operations (COps) and M-Code Early Use (MCEU) position us well to deliver GCS II,” says Maria Demaree, VP/GM Mission Solutions for Lockheed Martin Space. “We look forward to supporting the Air Force as it deploys the next generation GPS III satellites and their new capabilities for our warfighters.” For additional GPS Ground Control System information, photos and video visit: https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/gps.html. About Lockheed Martin Headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland, Lockheed Martin is a global security and aerospace company that employs approximately 100,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. https://news.lockheedmartin.com/news-releases?item=128657

  • Turkey seeks repeat of drone success story for land systems

    5 octobre 2023 | International, Aérospatial

    Turkey seeks repeat of drone success story for land systems

    Several local companies are already developing unmanned ground vehicles in the hopes their products will be combat-proven by the Turkish military.

  • Contract Awards by US Department of Defense - January 29, 2019

    30 janvier 2019 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité, Autre défense

    Contract Awards by US Department of Defense - January 29, 2019

    AIR FORCE Honeywell International Aerospace, Albuquerque, New Mexico, has been awarded an $85,676,969 contract for C‐5 Honeywell software and engineering support services. This contract provides hardware and software support for the C-5 aircraft. Work will be performed at the following locations: Warner Robins, Georgia; Phoenix, Arizona; Aguadilla, Puerto Rico; Redmond, Washington; and Albuquerque, New Mexico, and is expected to be completed Jan. 30, 2025. This award is the result of a sole-source acquisition. A combination of fiscal 2019 Transportation Working Capital funds; and operations and maintenance funds in the amount $9,359,960 are being obligated at the time of award. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Robins Air Force Base, Georgia, is the contracting activity (FA8525‐19‐D‐0002). Diligent Consulting Inc., San Antonio, Texas, has been awarded a $17,490,000 cost-plus-incentive-fee, firm-fixed-price and cost-reimbursable modification (P00003) to contract FA8770-18-F-1009 for undefinitized contract action against the maintenance, repair and overhaul initiative task order. The modification will better align capabilities with user needs by realigning the fielding strategy to match the needs of individual units through the use of agile methods, and incorporate two financial processes necessary to be compliant with Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness and the Federal Information System Controls Audit Manual. Work will be performed in at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio; and San Antonio, Texas, and is expected to be completed Jan. 28, 2023. This contract is being funded with fiscal 2019 research, development, test and evaluation funds, and total cumulative face value of the contract is $49,257,000. Air Force Life Cycle Management center, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, is the contracting activity. DEFENSE HEALTH AGENCY SeKON Enterprise Inc., Arlington, Virginia, is being awarded a $32,696,823 modification to previously awarded cost-reimbursable task order HT0011-14-F-0030 to exercise an option for engineering, cybersecurity, and configuration management support services. The cumulative maximum value of the task order is $144,344,198. HT0011-14-F-0030 provides services in support of the Program Executive Office (PEO) - Defense Healthcare Management Systems (DHMS) in its efforts to provide systems engineering processes, cybersecurity processes, data management and governance, synthetic test data, process and software tool support, and enterprise solutions architecture for PEO DHMS programs. The period of performance for the option is 12 months with an estimated completion date of Jan. 28, 2020. Work location is at the contractor's facility in Arlington, Virginia. The modification is funded with fiscal 2018 and 2019 research, development, test, and evaluation funds; and fiscal 2019 operations and maintenance funds. The original task order was issued on a competitive basis, with fair opportunity being provided to contract holders under the National Institutes of Health Chief Information Officer – Solutions And Partners 3 (CIO-SP3) Small Business Government-Wide Acquisition Contract. The Defense Health Agency - Contracting Office - Defense Healthcare Management Systems, Arlington, Virginia, is the contracting activity. MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY Lockheed Martin Rotary and Mission Systems Division, Moorestown, New Jersey, has been awarded a $13,113,482 cost-plus-incentive-fee modification (P00314) under contract HQ0276-10-C-0001. This modification increases the total cumulative contract value from $2,917,816,118 to $2,930,929,600. Under this modification, the contractor will provide installation; test and training; logistics and material planning; and additional program planning, technical coordination and scheduling for Aegis BMD 4.x aboard AEGIS destroyers for the AEGIS BMD program office. The work will be performed in Moorestown, New Jersey, with an expected completion date of June 30, 2021. Fiscal 2019 defense wide procurement funds in the amount of $7,127,611 are being obligated at the time of award. This contract modification is the result of a sole-source acquisition. The Missile Defense Agency, Dahlgren, Virginia, is the contracting activity. NAVY General Dynamics Mission Systems, Pittsfield, Massachusetts, is awarded $13,067,576 for contract modification P00006 to a previously awarded cost-plus-incentive-fee, firm-fixed-price contract (N00030-18-C-0005) for sustainment of the U.S. and United Kingdom SSBN Fire Control System; and the U.S. SSGN Attack Weapon Control System, including training and support equipment and research and development. The work will be performed in Pittsfield, Massachusetts (97.50 percent); and other various locations less than one percent each (2.50 percent), with an expected completion date of December 2020. Fiscal 2019 other procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $10,004,025; United Kingdom funds in the amount of $2,240,000; and fiscal 2019 operations and maintenance (Navy) funds in the amount of $823,551 are obligated on this award. Funds in the amount of $823,551 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Strategic Systems Programs, Washington, District of Columbia, is the contracting activity. ARMY MedTrust LLC, San Antonio, Texas, was awarded a $12,939,322 firm-fixed-price contract for registered nursing services. One bid was solicited via the internet with one bid received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of May 31, 2019. U.S. Army Medical Research Acquisition Activity, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, is the contracting activity (W81K04-19-D-0009). https://dod.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/1743253/source/GovDelivery/

Toutes les nouvelles