Trump promises to launch Space National Guard if elected

Sur le même sujet

• 

  16 octobre 2018 | International, Aérospatial

  Most F-35s return to flight operations after fuel tube problem

  By: Valerie Insinna WASHINGTON — After a fuel tube problem sidelined all operational F-35 aircraft last week, more than 80 percent of jets have been cleared to return to flight, the F-35 joint program office stated Monday. In a Oct. 15 statement, the JPO confirmed that the U.S. services and international partners have completed inspections of their F-35 inventories for faulty fuel tubes. The aircraft that are not impacted by the bad tubes — which are a component in Pratt & Whitney's F135 engine — are back in flying status. “The F-35 Joint Program Office continues to work closely with the military services to prioritize fuel tube replacements using the current spares inventory,” the JPO said. “Pratt & Whitney is rapidly procuring more parts to minimize the overall repair timeline for the remaining jets. Current inventory will restore about half of the impacted jets to flight operations, and the remaining aircraft are expected to be cleared for flight over the coming weeks.” Last week, all U.S. and international F-35s were momentarily grounded to allow for an enterprise-wide fuel tube inspection. The review began as a result of an investigation into a Sept. 28 Marine Corps' F-35B crash near Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort in South Carolina — the first F-35 crash in the jet's history. It is still unclear exactly how the defective fuel tubes impact the jet's performance or how serious a safety threat they pose during flight operations. Joe DellaVedova, a spokesman for the JPO, declined to discuss the specific problems that led the program office to call for a fleetwide inspection, saying that details could not be released until the Marine Corps completes its accident investigation. Also still up in the air is whether the Pentagon or Pratt & Whitney will be stuck paying the tab for retrofitting the fleet. Spokesmen from the U.S. Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy declined to lay out exactly how many of their aircraft had been impacted by the faulty fuel tubes. However, as Lockheed Martin delivered its 300th F-35 in June, 20 percent of the operational F-35 fleet can be estimated to be about 60 aircraft across the U.S. and international operators. The JPO called the fuel tube problem an “isolated incident” that would not impact F-35 deliveries. A total of 91 F-35s are planned to be delivered to the U.S. military and foreign customers this year. “The primary goal following any mishap is the prevention of future incidents,” the office said. “We will take every measure to ensure safe operations while we deliver, sustain and modernize the F-35 for the warfighter and our defense partners.” The problem with the defective fuel tubes is the latest in a string of recent supply chain issues that have plagued F-35 prime contractor Lockheed Martin and engine manufacturer Pratt & Whitney, and comes as Defense Secretary Jim Mattis sent a memo directing the Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy to boost the F-35′s mission capable rate to 80 percent. The Pentagon halted F-35 deliveries in March amid disagreements over whether the department or Lockheed should foot the bill for retrofitting part of the fleet that had not received corrosion-preventing primer in certain fastener holes. Deliveries resumed in May once the parties hammered out an agreement — although it was never revealed to the public exactly how the expenses would be paid off. In 2016, certain F-35As were grounded after it was found that coolant lines inside the jets' fuel tanks were rimmed with faulty insulation, which was prone to disintegrating. https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/10/15/most-f-35s-return-to-flight-operations-after-fuel-tube-problem

• 

  6 mai 2020 | International, Aérospatial

  Expand missile defenses during the pandemic, don’t cut them

  By: Rebeccah L. Heinrichs Rogue states are taking advantage of the American preoccupation with the COVID-19 pandemic. North Korea may test another long-range missile according to the head of U.S. Northern Command, Gen. Terrence O'Shaughnessy. He warned Congress in March that the North Korean regime is still a serious threat and is improving its missile program. And last week, Iran's Revolutionary Guard successfully launched a satellite into space. This was the first for the terrorist paramilitary group, though not the first for the regime. The pandemic is likely to prompt Congress to reassess, cut and redirect spending, but safeguarding the American people from missile attack is an essential service the government cannot afford to scale back. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Rob Soofer said at a recent Hudson Institute event: “[T]oday we are in an advantageous position vis-a-vis North Korea. Forty-four ground-based interceptors. Gen. O'Shaughnessy has complete confidence that the system will work and we can address the threat. Then the question is: Can we wait until 2028?” The Trump administration intends to deploy in 2028 the Next Generation Interceptor, or NGI, meant to handle far more complicated missile threats than what the Ground-based Midcourse Defense, or GMD, system was initially designed to do. Still, as Dr. Soofer explained, threats develop at an unpredictable pace, and so the Pentagon is pushing for initiatives to bolster defense in the meantime. Those initiatives will require serious bipartisan cooperation while concurrently developing the NGI and pursuing other advanced capabilities meant to dramatically increase the ability of the missile defense architecture. It's a tall order, but critical, nonetheless. First, and to be clear, the Pentagon has not yet embraced this step due to its determination to focus on NGI. But Congress should invest in more than just sustaining the current GMD system; it should improve it by adding 20 GBIs to the already fielded 44. The silos will be prepared for the additional numbers since, in 2017, President Donald Trump called for adding more deployed GBIs considering the heightened North Korea missile threat. The Pentagon began work on preparing for their delivery but never emplaced GBIs into those silos because Pentagon officials canceled the Redesigned Kill Vehicle. The Pentagon had anticipated the Redesigned Kill Vehicle for the nation's new GBIs. After evaluating the resources and time it would take to restart the production line of the Capability Enhancement II interceptors or to rapidly develop an improved kill vehicle that leverages new technology, the Pentagon should choose the most cost-effective solution. Recall, the Capability Enhancement II was the kill vehicle that performed well in the last complex flight test, which was the first salvo engagement of a threat-representative intercontinental ballistic missile target by GBIs. Regardless of the option the Pentagon would choose, the result would be a near-term enhanced capability by either increased capacity at a minimum, or an increased capacity with improved kill vehicles on 20 of the 64 at best. Either would be a much better scenario than keeping the backbone of homeland defenses stagnant while we anticipate the NGI in 2028. But that is not all the country should do. It should also move forward with steps the Pentagon has embraced. Those steps include improving the discrimination radar capability in the next few years so GMD can better detect and characterize the evolving threat, and deploying other existing systems to bolster GMD. Utilizing current systems with impressive testing records against missiles shorter than ICBM range as part of a layered homeland defense is called the “underlay.” As a key component of the underlay, Congress has directed the Pentagon to test the Aegis SM-3 IIA interceptor against an ICBM target. Unfortunately, because of the pandemic, the Missile Defense Agency's planned flight tests will be delayed, including for the SM-3 IIA. The threats facing the country will not wait for the end of the pandemic, and the Pentagon should reconsider that delay. As soon as the country can test the system, and if it is a success, it would be wise to prepare to deploy Aegis SM-3 IIA as the threat requires. If there is an ICBM attack against the U.S. homeland, a GBI would have the first shot at the incoming missile while it's in its midcourse phase of flight; and if an enemy missile gets through, and the Aegis SM-3 IIA is positioned correctly, it could have another shot at the missile as it begins its descent. There has been some concern about whether Russia or China have legitimate claims that bolstering homeland defense in this way is destabilizing. But no evidence supports these claims, and, as Dr. Jim Miller, an Obama-era undersecretary of defense for policy, said at a recent Hudson event: “We cannot and must not give Russia or China a veto over the United States' ability to defend ourselves from North Korea and Iran. That is an absolute no-go for any administration.” Another system that is a natural candidate for the underlay is the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense air defense system. Embracing that concept as well, Dr. Miller said: “It makes sense for certain contexts. And if you're looking at a shorter-range missile and a relatively small footprint of coverage, THAAD has a real chance to contribute in that. To me, that's certainly the case for Guam and Hawaii.” But what about cost? That's the $10 billion question — a question that happens to be valued at more than the current president's budget requires for the Missile Defense Agency. The budget request that Congress is currently considering for the MDA is roughly $9.2 billion, noticeably less than previous years, even as the role of missile defense is supposed to be expanding in the country's National Security Strategy. There is no margin for cutting the budget. Congress should rally around this mission and budget, and it should increase funding to sufficiently make these necessary improvements in the near term without paying for them by sacrificing investments like NGI for the not-so-distant future. It can do that without tipping the scale much more than $10 billion this year. That is eminently reasonable given the pressure every government department will feel after the sudden spending splurge due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Rebeccah L. Heinrichs is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute where she specializes in nuclear deterrence and missile defense. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/05/05/expand-missile-defenses-during-the-pandemic-dont-cut-them/

• 

  22 juillet 2020 | International, Aérospatial

  Lockheed Martin May Go Shopping if Defense Budgets Fall Next Year

  July 21, 2020 | By John A. Tirpak If defense spending goes down in the coming year—expected because of large COVID-19 bailout packages—it could be an opportunity for Lockheed Martin, company President and Chief Executive Officer James D. Taiclet said July 21. In a second-quarter results call with investors and financial reporters, Taiclet—in his first such call after succeeding Marillyn A. Hewson in the job—said the company isn't betting on defense budgets to go up or down. But Lockheed is sitting on so much cash—nearly $8 billion—it could go shopping for other companies in distress if budgets fall, he said. “If there is a downturn, we're going to look for silver linings that may be there,” Taiclet said. Given the company's strong backlog and balance sheet, “there could be opportunities for us to act in a period where asset prices are depressed, for things we may want to bring into the company.” Acquisition targets “we really wanted ... might be even more available at attractive prices.” He did not discuss large possible acquisition interests, and only broadly mentioned looking at small companies able to build Lockheed's vertical integration in some technology areas. Taiclet declined to speculate on whether budgets will rise or fall. “We're just getting the company ready for either scenario, frankly,” he said. “If it's stable or slightly rising, ... we know how to handle that. But if it's declining, we're planning for that, too.” In case of a downturn, he's asked business area managers to do “a ‘Red Team' kind of exercise ... We would offer our customers ... ‘this is what we think you should do with our products and programs for extending'” the life of existing platforms. With a $150 billion backlog in hand, though—a new company “high water mark,” Taiclet said—“it's going to be two to three years” before any defense budget cuts “actually go into the defense industrial base production lines, so we have time to work with the customer ... They can have their contingency plan and we're behind them 100 percent.” Taiclet said international customers may also see budget declines, but doesn't expect Lockheed to be hit hard by that. While some requests for proposals are “moving to the right,” the planned in-service dates of prospective customers are not, he noted. Taiclet and Kenneth R. Possenriede, vice president and chief financial officer, said the company expects 90 total new F-16 orders from Taiwan and another country; C-130s for Indonesia; Aegis systems for Japan; and MH-60R helicopters for India, as well as increasing orders for missile defense systems. They also said the chief competitors to the U.S. are spending lavishly on defense systems and the threat is not diminishing, despite COVID. China is “aggressive and ... aspirational,” Taiclet said, while Russia is “back in the game,” making strategic investments in long-range systems to make up for its diminished ground forces. Production of the F-35, Lockheed's marquee aeronautics program, will likely be 40 percent for foreign users in the coming years, Possenriede said. Of the aeronautics division's $9 billion in orders, $7 billion is accounted for by the F-35, with a backlog of 411 airplanes. Taiclet noted that Lockhed has hired 9,000 new employees since the COVID-19 pandemic began, and is seeking to hire 3,000 more in this calendar year. https://www.airforcemag.com/lockheed-martin-may-go-shopping-if-defense-budgets-fall-next-year