10 décembre 2020 | International, Aérospatial

Three Generations Of Fighters Compete For Limited Resources

Steve Trimble December 10, 2020

Fateful decisions loom in the next 12 months for a global fighter market caught up in a pivotal debate over how much to invest in each of three generations of aircraft designs now in production or development.

As next-generation fighters continue to take shape on industry drawing boards—and in one case, a secret flying demonstrator—a final decision in 2021 over whether to buy another batch of aircraft with a Cold War legacy or Lockheed Martin's 20-year-old-design F-35A stealth fighter confronts Canada, Finland, Israel, Switzerland and, perhaps most surprisingly, the U.S.

  • Internal U.S. Air Force fighter road map capped the F-35 at 1,050

  • Canada, Finland and Switzerland contract awards expected in 2021

With 13 purpose-built fighter types now in production globally for export customers (excluding about half as many modified training jets), military buyers are spoiled with competitive options and motivated sellers. But a series of contract awards planned for the next 12 months could induce a long-awaited reckoning, especially among production lines for fighters produced in Europe and the U.S.

Multiple decisions in favor of so-called fifth-generation capabilities could nearly complete the F-35's dominance over European and American fighter demand for the next decade. Alternatively, if the balance of new contracts falls to fourth-generation rivals, the F-35 is likely to continue to face intense competition from the same aircraft it was designed to replace.

For now, pressure from F-35 competitors is surging, including from within the type's biggest customer. The U.S. Air Force's program of record for the F-35A stands at 1,763 total aircraft, a figure that has not budged in nearly two decades, despite changes to the assumptions that determined the original number.

The pressure on the Air Force's orderbook for F-35As has been building for at least six years. Speaking on condition of anonymity in November 2014, a senior Air Force official said the service internally was considering a purchase of 72 new Boeing F-15s, Lockheed Martin F-16s or even the Navy's Boeing F/A-18E/Fs. Hindsight suggests the disclosure may have been intended as a negotiating ploy with Lockheed over F-35 prices, but the idea clearly never died.

Indeed, the Air Force signed an order in July 2020 for the first eight of “at least” 144 Boeing F-15EXs, replacing an aging fleet of F-15C/Ds.

By 2018, those F-15C/Ds already had outlived their original service-life estimates as victims of the Defense Department's decision in 2010 to truncate production of the Lockheed F-22 after 185 deliveries. With only a longeron replacement necessary to maintain structural integrity, the Air Force still was planning to keep the F-15 C/D fleet in service for at least another decade until a next-generation fighter became available. But then the Air Force discovered another major structural flaw: The entire fleet required new wing skins to remain airworthy.

Rather than invest in a major structural refit, the Air Force announced plans in 2019 to retire the fleet. But the manner of the F-15C/D replacement plan came as a shock. Breaking from a two-decade-old strategy to buy only stealthy fighters, the Air Force decided to bypass the F-35A and order F-15EXs instead.

With cockpit, flight-control and wing upgrades mostly funded by Qatar and Saudi Arabia, the Air Force developed a new, long-term role for a fourth-generation fighter.

Such a role already had been envisioned behind closed doors by a new organization on the Air Staff. Created in January 2018 as an internal think tank, the Air Force Warfighting Integrating Capability (AFWIC) office had torn up the long-standing assumption that only stealthy fighters could perform a useful role.

By the end of 2018, the AFWIC's team of analysts had adopted a new fighter road map, according to a source. The road map envisioned a “great power” war. The principal role for each F-35A was to launch two stealthy cruise missiles—Lockheed AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles (JASSM)—from just inside defended airspace. That “kick-down-the-door” pairing would be combined with mass launches of multiple JASSMs each from F-15Es and F-15EXs, the source said. Other missions—namely, defensive counter-air and homeland defense—could be performed by the F-35. But other aircraft such as F-15EXs and F-16s also could be used.

Driven by this new appreciation for a portfolio of fighter capabilities, the AFWIC team also reconsidered how many of each type would be needed. No fighter program escaped scrutiny, including the long-standing Air Force commitment to acquire 1,763 F-35As. AFWIC's fighter road map by the end of 2018 had capped F-35A deliveries at about 1,050 jets, the source said.

Although that cap implies a 40% cut to the original plan for the F-35A, no change to the program of record was necessary, the source said. The Air Force has ordered 451 F-35As so far, according to the Aviation Week Network Military Fleet database. If new aircraft orders are maintained at a rate of 2-2.5 squadrons a year—48-60 jets—for the foreseeable future, the Air Force is at least 10 years away from hitting the 1,050 cap in AFWIC's fighter road map.

In the meantime, the Air Force faces other decisions about whether to invest in more fourth-generation fighters, F-35As or next-generation aircraft. The Air Force still operates 232 Block 25 and Block 30 F-16C/D jets, which were delivered in the mid-1980s, according to the Military Fleet database. Air Force officials have said they expect to make a fleet replacement decision for these so-called “pre-block” F-16s in 4-7 years.

When the Air Force established the program of record for buying 1,763 F-35As, the plan assumed replacing all of those pre-block F-16s. As a replacement decision enters the Pentagon's five-year budgeting horizon, however, Air Force officials have been more flexible. Last February, the head of Air Combat Command, who was then Gen. Mike Holmes, said low-cost, attritable aircraft would be considered for the pre-block F-16 replacement in the 2024-27 time frame.

The fighter road map completed by AFWIC in 2018 considered the F-16 Block 70/72 and a potential fighter version of the Boeing T-7 as candidates for light-fighter sales to foreign militaries, the source said.

“The trade space in the fighter road map is real, and the trade space is a combination of payload, range, speed and survivability,” the source said. “And I don't need all of one thing. I need a portfolio of things.”

Over the past decade, the same debate has raged within the air forces of other countries, particularly for those that cannot afford to operate more than one type of fighter. The F-35 has fared well in those decisions. Among countries that have been offered the F-35, only Germany has rejected the stealth-fighter option so far.

That record will be put to the test next year against a backdrop of national economic pressures imposed by the costs of the COVID-19 pandemic. Switzerland, Finland and Canada are evaluating proposals.

A year-long political crisis in Israel delayed plans to order either F-15EXs or more F-35As, or both. A resolution to the country's presidential election was not reached until after the COVID-19 pandemic arrived in Israel, to consume the attention of decision-makers.

In other countries with a fighter aircraft-design capability, the debate over spending on tactical aviation includes a third dimension. Following several years of study and analysis, the next generation of designs is beginning to assume a tangible form.

This is especially true in the U.S. defense industry. In a startling, mid-September announcement, Will Roper—assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition, technology and logistics—declared the service had developed, built and flown a flight demonstrator for the Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program. Roper's announcement was light on details, including the time frame of the flight, details of the aircraft design and the status of the program now.

But the concept of the need for an NGAD flight demonstrator was suggested in September 2019 by Gen. David Goldfein, who was then chief of staff of the Air Force.

Several months before, the Air Force released a five-year budget plan that included a $6.6 billion funding cut for the NGAD program, a roughly 50% reduction compared to spending levels over the same period from only a year before. The spending cut made it unclear what had become of a notional concept popularized in 2015 and 2016 by U.S. defense contractors of a “sixth-generation fighter,” featuring a supersonic aircraft design lacking vertical tails and carrying advanced weapons such as an embedded high-energy laser for shooting down incoming missiles.

Instead, the Air Force's leaner spending plan for the NGAD in 2019 supported a different concept for a next-generation fighter. Rather than a standalone aircraft that could, much like the F-35 and F-22 design requirement, prosecute a mission by itself with a diverse array of sensors to detect and identify targets in the air or on the ground in any weather, along with all of the munitions necessary to destroy those targets, the Air Force increasingly has emphasized adopting a family of systems to “close the kill chain.” The sensing and munition capabilities would be distributed among multiple aircraft that often must collaborate to complete a mission.

At the same time, the Air Force is investing in several new technologies related to air dominance. A Next-Generation Adaptive Propulsion program aims to deliver an advanced new turbofan engine in fiscal 2025, with GE Aviation and Pratt & Whitney developing rival designs. A new family of unmanned aircraft systems designed to augment or operate independently of crewed fighters is being developed under the Air Force Research Laboratory's Skyborg program.

In his remarks in September 2019, Goldfein said the NGAD program now is focused on maturing five different technologies that the Air Force does not intend will come together on a single platform. A prototype aircraft, he said, was necessary to demonstrate those technologies in flight.

In Europe, progress is being made toward a next-generation fighter. By August 2021, France, Germany and Spain expect to conclude Phase 1A of the Future Combat Air System (FCAS) demonstrator program, with the goal of defining a wide range of technologies that will be carried into a flight demonstration scheduled to begin under Phase 1B at the end of 2026.

A collaboration among the UK, Sweden and Italy under the Team Tempest consortium will enter 2021 with renewed support. A long-awaited defense review in London finally was published in November showing support for the Future Combat Air System Technology Initiative under a £1.5 billion ($2 billion) fund for military research over the next four years.

Tens of billions more will be needed to complete development of the NGAD, FCAS and Tempest over the next two decades, even as Western governments continue to split modernization investments among three fourth-generation fighters—the Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter and Saab JAS 39E/F Gripen—and the F-35. Maintaining the right balance of spending in each category will consume the debate over fighter aircraft decisions on the horizon.

https://aviationweek.com/aerospace-defense-2021/defense-space/three-generations-fighters-compete-limited-resources

Sur le même sujet

  • USAF’s Future Fighter Plan May Limit Growth, Study Says

    30 octobre 2019 | International, Aérospatial

    USAF’s Future Fighter Plan May Limit Growth, Study Says

    By Jen DiMascio The U.S. Air Force's plan for acquiring future fighter aircraft may crimp the service's ability to grow in the future, a study of the USAF's force structure plans indicates. The study, “The Air Force of the Future,” compares the service's force structure plans during times of peak budgets—in fiscal 2020 and fiscal 1985. In fiscal 2020, a budget of $205 billion could support 5,300 aircraft. This is a little more than half of the number that the same amount of money, adjusted for inflation, could support in 1985—9,400. The same holds true for the number of personnel, the report says. It was released Oct. 29 by Todd Harrison, director of the Aerospace Security Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, which examined three different studies of the size of the future force. As part of the report, Harrison drills further into the Air Force's spending habits to find that one factor underlying the inability to afford a larger force is the increase over time in operation and maintenance costs. “The average O&M cost per plane is 74% higher today in real terms than in fiscal 2001,” the report says. Looking more closely at maintenance costs, he finds that the most expensive aircraft to operate are the smallest fleets, such as the Boeing E-4 Advanced Airborne Command Post aircraft, the Northrop Grumman E-8 Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System and Northrop's B-2 bomber. “This is because the fixed costs of operating the fleet are distributed across more aircraft in large fleets, which brings down the overall ownership cost per plane,” the report says. “The data suggest that the Air Force could reduce operating costs by divesting aircraft that are maintained in small numbers in the current inventory and consolidating the capabilities they provide into common multimission platforms.” Air Force acquisition chief Will Roper is recommending an acquisition strategy dubbed the “digital century series.” It aims to build new fighter aircraft designed to last 3,500 flight hours in batches of hundreds, rather than the current model of pursuing advanced technology for an aircraft type that will last for decades. But Harrison estimates that the operation and sustainment cost of sustaining five different aircraft types of 72 aircraft, or 360 total aircraft, would cost about the same as sustaining 1,800 aircraft of the same type. “That's something the Air Force has got to consider,” Harrison said. “With the digital century series approach, they may end up with a bunch of small fleets and may limit the ability of the Air Force to grow in the future.” https://aviationweek.com/defense/usaf-s-future-fighter-plan-may-limit-growth-study-says

  • DoD SBIR/STTR Quarterly Newsletter

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

    DoD SBIR/STTR Quarterly Newsletter

  • Navy Buys Tech that Can Land F-35s on Carriers with Pinpoint Accuracy

    25 juin 2019 | International, Aérospatial

    Navy Buys Tech that Can Land F-35s on Carriers with Pinpoint Accuracy

    By Hope Hodge Seck When the Navy's F-35C Joint Strike Fighter embarks on its first carrier deployment in 2021, it's expected to take with it a pinpoint-accurate landing system that purports to make the terror of night approaches and high sea-state traps all but a thing of the past. Raytheon announced this week that the Navy awarded a $234.6 million contract for a low-rate initial production of 23 of its Joint Precision Approach and Landing Systems, or JPALS -- enough to outfit every carrier and L-class amphibious assault ship with the technology. The contract also will include retrofitting three earlier systems that had been installed, a Raytheon executive said. Delivering to the Navy will start late next year, and installation will begin shortly thereafter, retired Navy Rear Adm. C.J. Jaynes, Raytheon's JPALS technical executive, told Military.com this week. The work is expected to be completed by August 2023, according to a published contract announcement. The system, which uses shipboard-relative GPS to guide planes in for landings and communicates with the aircraft from the deck of the carrier up to 200 nautical miles out, is accurate within 20 centimeters, or about 8 inches, Jaynes said. "It hits the third wire every time," she said. "It's [reliable in] all-weather and all sea states, including Sea State 5 (waves of roughly 8 to 12 feet)." For Navy pilots, catching the third of four wires on tailhook landings (or the second of three wires) has historically been a game of skill and precision that becomes orders of magnitude more difficult in the dark or in low-visibility weather conditions. Marine Corps F-35B pilots, who use the aircraft's vertical-landing configuration to put it down on the smaller flight decks of amphibious ships, face the same problems. And those issues may actually be exacerbated by a number of F-35-specific issues pending resolution. The custom-made, $400,000-per-unit helmet that F-35 pilots wear -- a piece of technology that allows them to "see through" the plane via a display for better situational awareness -- features symbology that emits a green glow, interfering with pilots' vision in low-light conditions. A video that emerged in 2017 showed an F-35 pilot landing "in a fog" on the amphibious assault ship America at night, his vision obscured by the helmet display. A recent Defense News report highlighted another issue with the helmet display at night that obscures the horizon. JPALS, which has already deployed in an early-development version with F-35Bs aboard the amphibious assault ships Wasp and Essex, would decrease reliance on visibility for accurate landings. Another F-35C-installed tool, Delta Flight Path, will keep aircraft on a steady glide slope for carrier landings, reducing inputs and corrections required from pilots. Early reports from the JPALS deployments with the Marines have been extremely positive, Jaynes said. "The pilots absolutely love it. It's been 100 percent accuracy, always available, they haven't had any issues at all," she said. "We know they have not had to abort any missions due to weather or due to sea state." Raytheon is now pitching an expeditionary version of JPALS, easily transportable and designed to guide aircraft to safe landings on bare airfields. The whole system can fit in five transit cases, be transported by C-130 Hercules, and be assembled within 90 minutes, Raytheon says. The Navy's future tanker drone, the MQ-25 Stingray, will also be JPALS-equipped; Jaynes said Raytheon is in talks with the service now about selling expeditionary JPALS for the MQ-25 program for shore-based tanker landings at locations like Norfolk, Virginia, or Point Mugu, California. Meanwhile, she said, the Marine Corps is considering buying a single expeditionary JPALS system for testing in order to develop a concept of operations to employ it. But "the closest customer outside of MQ-25 is actually the U.S. Air Force," Jaynes said. "They'd be able to move their aircraft possibly every 24 to 48 hours and do island-hopping in the Pacific. We're going over to [United States Air Forces in Europe -- Air Forces Africa] in July to talk with them about the system," she said. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/06/21/all-navy-carriers-amphibs-get-f-35-precision-landing-system.html

Toutes les nouvelles