5 juin 2020 | International, Aérospatial

U.S. Air Force 'Arsenal Plane' Revival Sparks Intense Debate

Steve Trimble June 02, 2020

An "Arsenal Plane" has rapidly emerged as a short-term priority for the U.S. Air Force, but an internal debate continues over the type of aircraft to use, potentially affecting the service’s existing command structure and the Northrop Grumman B-21 program.

A proposal to modify Lockheed C-130s and Boeing C-17s to air-drop existing and new long-range munitions is now favored as a short-term solution by the Air Force Warfighting Integration Capability (AFWIC) office, which is charged with developing new operational concepts by the Air Staff.

Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC), which has responsibility for the bomber fleet and inventory of intercontinental ballistic missiles, prefers developing a new aircraft optimized for the mission, rather than seeking to borrow strike capacity from an already overburdened air mobility fleet.

Neither proposal is endorsed by the Mitchell Institute, the think tank arm of the Air Force Association (AFA). In a prepublication report obtained by Aviation Week, Col. (ret.) Mark Gunzinger, the institute’s director of Future Aerospace Concepts and Capability Assessments, argues that the most cost-effective solution is to buy more B-21 bombers rather than invest in more long-range munitions to support the Arsenal Plane concept.

All the parties involved agree that the airborne component of the Air Force’s long-range strike capability is inadequate, even after Northrop Grumman delivers at least 100 B-21s, which are expected to replace a fleet of 20 Northrop B-2s and 62 Rockwell B-1Bs and operate alongside about 75 Boeing B-52s.

“What we see is that no matter how big our bomber force is, the capacity that the Joint Force needs is always more and more,” says Maj. Gen. Clinton Hinote, deputy director of the AFWIC, which develops new operational concepts on the Air Staff.

The Air Force’s latest estimate of the requirement calls for a fleet of at least 220 bombers, Gen. Timothy Ray, the head of AFGSC, told reporters in early April.

According to a fleet forecast in the Mitchell Institute report, the Air Force inventory could decline to about 120 bombers by 2032 as the B-2 and B-1B fleets are retired.

Gunzinger, a former bomber pilot, forecasts the Air Force will order about 120 B-21s by 2040. Combined with 75 B-52s, however, the fleet would still be about 30 aircraft short of the minimum deemed required by the Air Force today. Closing that gap—either by loading long-range munitions on existing airlifters, developing a new aircraft for that purpose or buying more B-21s—is driving the internal debate.

At its core, the debate is over cost-effectiveness and capacity. A stealthy bomber, such as the B-21A, is more expensive than an Arsenal Plane but needs less expensive, unpowered munitions because they can be released closer to the target. On the other hand, the B-21A remains early in the development phase, so Northrop may need more than a decade to deliver a significant number of aircraft.

Various forms of the Arsenal Plane concept have been discussed since the 1970s. As former President Jimmy Carter’s administration considered options to the Rockwell B-1A, the Defense Department briefly proposed the Cruise Missile Carrier Aircraft—a Boeing 747 modified to launch cruise missiles.

The idea reemerged nearly 30 years later as the program that led to the B-21A began taking shape. In 2006, the Congressional Budget Office considered an Arsenal Aircraft based on a Boeing C-17 loaded with a supersonic cruise missile and concluded that it would be less effective than a penetrating bomber and require an extra $3.5 billion to order more C-17s.

As the Pentagon locked in requirements for the B-21A program four years later, an Air Force-funded study by Rand compared the costs of a penetrating bomber versus an Arsenal Plane concept. If the U.S. military engages in at least 20 days of airstrikes over a 30-year period, the 2010 study concluded a penetrating bomber would be more affordable than the required investment in the Arsenal Plane.

Even though the Air Force awarded Northrop a contract to develop the B-21A in October 2015, however, the debate has continued. Will Roper, then director of the Strategic Capabilities Office within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, unveiled an Arsenal Plane concept in February 2016, showing a Lockheed C-130-like aircraft dispensing palletized munitions.

A year later, Roper became assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition, technology and logistics, and the Arsenal Plane moved to the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL). In January, the AFRL completed the first test of a new palletized munition dropped by an MC-130J. A picture of the new weapon—the Cargo Launch Expendable Air Vehicles with Extended Range (Cleaver)—showed six munitions on each pallet. A follow-up test involving an airdrop from C-17s was scheduled in April.

The Cleaver testing satisfied AFRL that C-130s and C-17s could adapt one of the core capabilities for both aircraft: airdrop. The C-17 also has demonstrated the capability of releasing air-launched rockets from the cargo bay. In 2006, a C-17 was used to air-drop a launcher for a hypersonic boost-glide missile. The aircraft also is used by the Missile Defense Agency to test interceptors by dropping surrogates of medium-range ballistic missiles.

The AFRL completed the tests weeks before the Defense Department completed plans for the fiscal 2022 budget proposal. 

“We are in discussions right now about how we proceed to prototyping and fielding,” Hinote says.

For AFWIC, arming C-130s and C-17s with long-range weapons is attractive because it can increase munition capacity significantly in the near term.

“It’s all about capacity and that you’ve got to create enough capacity so that long-range punch is really a punch,” Hinote says. “This is why we think that there’s a real possibility here for using cargo platforms to be able to increase the capacity of fires.”

Not everyone agrees with that approach. As the commander of the Air Force’s bomber fleet, Ray told reporters in early April that he does not want a commander to have to choose between using a C-17 for either weapons or airlift capacity.

“When you think about using a cargo plane, you’re in competition for other airlift requirements,” Ray said. “I think the Arsenal Plane concept is probably better defined as more of a clean-sheet approach to a platform that can affordably and rapidly fill the gap.”

While Hinote and Ray debate whether an existing or clean-sheet design is better for an Arsenal Plane, some airpower experts still reject the idea that anything less than a stealthy bomber is adequate.

Instead of lobbing long-range missiles, the B-21 is designed to get close enough to a target to use short-range, direct-attack weapons. Such munitions do not need to carry fuel and propulsion systems and so they can be smaller in proportion to the size of their warhead.

“Size matters, since the number of weapons that can be delivered per aircraft sortie decreases as weapon size increases,” Gunzinger wrItes in the Mitchell Institute report.

In addition to capacity, Gunzinger also questions the cost of an Arsenal Plane’s required inventory of long-range munitions versus a bomber’s more affordable, precision-guided bombs. A conflict with China or Russia could generate a massive list of targets.

“Using tens of thousands of very long-range standoff weapons that cost a million dollars or more each is simply not affordable,” Gunzinger writes.

https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/aircraft-propulsion/us-air-force-arsenal-plane-revival-sparks-intense-debate

Sur le même sujet

  • Skilled worker, parts shortages still hurting Hornet and Growler maintenance, government watchdog finds

    17 septembre 2018 | International, Aérospatial

    Skilled worker, parts shortages still hurting Hornet and Growler maintenance, government watchdog finds

    By: David B. Larter A shortage of skilled workers and repair parts is causing backlogs in maintenance depots for Hornets and Growlers, creating headwinds in the Navy’s efforts to put more aircraft in the air, the Government Accountability Office found. The Navy, which is chipping away at a readiness crisis among its fighters and electronic attack aircraft, is being hampered by a lack of skilled workers and capacity, specifically at depots on the West Coast at Whidbey Island, Washington, and Lemoore, California. Furthermore some parts needed to repair the Hornets and Growlers were manufactured by suppliers who have gotten out of the business, significantly slowing the process and forcing the Navy to cannibalize parts on aircraft to offset the delays, the September report found. One challenge pointed out by the GAO is the distance between where aircraft are based and maintained and where parts are repaired for the E/A-18G Growlers. The Growlers, largely based at Whidbey Island, many of the components that need fixing must be repaired at the depots in Lemoore. “However, according to officials, Lemoore’s depots have limited capacity to repair these aircraft, creating a maintenance backlog,” the report found. The issue of manufacturers getting out of the business was at least in part caused by the Navy’s shorting of repair parts accounts during Obama-era budget cuts. A recent study found that between 2011 and 2015, as many as 17,000 suppliers left the defense industry. The Vice Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Bill Moran discussed the supplier issues with Defense News in April, saying stable funding should get suppliers to come back into the pool. Full article: https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/09/15/skilled-worker-parts-shortages-still-hurting-hornet-and-growler-maintenance-government-watchdog-finds

  • Lockheed Martin claims both USAF hypersonic programmes

    8 août 2018 | International, Aérospatial

    Lockheed Martin claims both USAF hypersonic programmes

    BY: STEPHEN TRIMBLE The US Air Force has selected Lockheed Martin to rapidly develop and field both new hypersonic missiles launched as a response to surprise developments in high-speed weapons by China and Russia, newly-released acquisition documents confirm. The service already announced a $928 million award in April deal for Lockheed’s Missiles and Space company to develop the Hypersonic Conventional Strike Weapon (HCSW, pronounced “Hacksaw”). But a new document reveals that the USAF awarded a separate deal to Lockheed’s Missiles and Fire Control division in July 2017 to rapidly develop and field the Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW, pronounced “Arrow”). The ARRW, now assigned the designation AGM-183A, evolves from the Tactical Boost Glide (TBG) programme launched in 2014 by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). By using a rocket to boost the missile to very high altitudes, the unpowered ARRW then glides down to lower altitudes at speeds up to Mach 20. Full Article: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-martin-claims-both-usaf-hypersonic-programm-450968/

  • The Army wants new tools to sense, disrupt and protect signals

    24 décembre 2018 | International, C4ISR

    The Army wants new tools to sense, disrupt and protect signals

    By: Mark Pomerleau  The Army will be hosting members of industry in 2019 to discuss opportunities on signals intelligence and electronic warfare, according to a December 2018 notice. The Signals Intelligence/Electronic Warfare (SIGINT/EW) Future Opportunities and Terrestrial Layer System (TLS) Industry Day will be hosted Jan. 23 at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. The Army has charted a path forward that includes integrating signals intelligence and electronic warfare systems into a single tool for greater synergy between the two disciplines. One of the first systems the Army is building on this front is the Terrestrial Layer System, an integrated EW and signals intelligence system that will provide a much-needed jamming capability to formations. The Army is taking a multitiered approach to TLS, leveraging assessments, exercises and even deployments of quick-reaction capabilities to inform how the service will move forward on prototyping and providing much-needed capabilities, such as this one, to units. Officials have noted that this approach differs from acquisition processes of the past. “We hope to go faster, but with the authorities granted by Congress ... we think this rapid prototyping using the buy, try, decide method is going to be great for this rapid acquisition process,” said Col. Jennifer McAfee, director of the Training and Doctrine Command’s capabilities manager for terrestrial and identity at the Intelligence Center of Excellence. “Are we going to field this next week? Not necessarily, but we’re talking fielding to the force in the next two to three years, not seven to 10 years.” Industry’s role will be to help provide prototypes that will reduce the risk of flaws in the final solution. https://www.c4isrnet.com/electronic-warfare/2018/12/21/the-army-wants-new-tools-to-sense-disrupt-and-protect-signals

Toutes les nouvelles