18 septembre 2019 | International, Aérospatial, C4ISR

Virtual reality training — for pilots, maintainers and more — expands in 2020

By: Stephen Losey

One of the top priorities of Lt. Gen. Brad Webb, the newly minted head of Air Education and Training Command, will be expanding the Air Force's experiment with virtual reality training.

So far, the Air Force has had success with Pilot Training Next, which uses VR, biometrics and artificial intelligence to better teach aspiring pilots how to fly.

Webb is eyeing similar technologies, under the name Learning Next, to improve other forms of technical training. This could include teaching airmen how to maintain aircraft, fly remotely piloted aircraft or perform other technical tasks.

These programs allow students' education to proceed more at their own pace, since they are based on competency and are not tied to a timetable, Wright said. A student who already has the fundamentals down can skip the basics and go right to what he or she needs to learn.

AETC is now in the process of broadening Pilot Training Next, which has been a demonstration, to the next phase of wider experimentation, Webb said. He and Maj. Gen. Craig Wills, commander of the 19th Air Force, are working on plans to expand Pilot Training Next.

By next summer, Webb wants to have set up Pilot Training Next elements at several squadrons, though it wouldn't be across all undergraduate pilot training bases. A few classes after that, Webb expects, Pilot Training Next will be expanded to all UPT bases.

The Pilot Training Next expansion will likely be done methodically, at one base first, Webb said, though he would not say which base AETC is looking at. “What has happened in our last couple of years with Pilot Training Next has been an explosion, out of the box, of innovation,” Webb said.

“Make no mistake, the Air Force wants this inculcated as fast as we can go,” he said.

AETC is already in the “nascent stages” of testing VR and other technology-enhanced training for maintenance and other technical training as part of Learning Next, Webb said. Maintenance Next is a particular priority and is happening on an experimental basis at Kelly Field at Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland in Texas, he said, and using VR for RPA training is also proceeding.

As the VR pilot training shows, such programs can accelerate in a hurry, he said.

Ethics

Webb also wants to cultivate an “environment of excellence, professionalism, ethics and character development” during his time at AETC.

Webb, who was previously commander of Air Force Special Operations Command, pointed to the ethical clouds that have fallen over parts of the special operations community in recent years. For example, the Navy relieved the entire senior leadership team of SEAL Team 7 earlier this month over what it described as leadership failures that resulted in a breakdown of good order and discipline while deployed.

AFSOC took a hard look at itself, Webb said, to make sure it doesn't allow similar lapses to fester.

“For a leader, you can never ... talk about core values enough,” Webb said. “If I had to look myself in the mirror from my last command, I can tell you my team knew our mission and vision of priorities backwards and forwards.”

But while airmen at AFSOC understood Air Force core values, he acknowledged he didn't always articulate those values in his everyday “walk-around, talk-around” encounters. That can create problems if leaders assume airmen already know about the core values, he said.

When a unit starts to feel the pressure from high operations tempos and a lack of resources, Webb said, that “get-'er-done” mentality can lead to bad decisions if airmen don't have a firm foundation of the Air Force core values.

“If you don't have a firm foundation, you can go to a dark place with that ... ‘find a way to yes' mentality,” Webb said. “We've got to always talk about professionalism and ethics, and also always talk about our core values. That will be a capstone” of his time at AETC.

Webb said he plans to continue with AETC's recent improvements in how special warfare airmen are recruited and trained, which included standing up the new Special Warfare Training Wing and the special warfare-focused 330th Recruiting Squadron. More work needs to be done to “normalize” and fine-tune those units, and more firmly fold them into AETC's everyday culture, he said.

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2019/09/16/virtual-reality-training-for-pilots-maintainers-and-more-expands-in-2020/

Sur le même sujet

  • Mettre en place un Conseil de sécurité européen ? Une idée à travailler

    18 février 2019 | International, Sécurité

    Mettre en place un Conseil de sécurité européen ? Une idée à travailler

    (B2) Berlin insiste régulièrement sur un point souvent oublié dans la rhétorique sur l'armée européenne : la mise en place d'un « Conseil de sécurité de l'UE ». Un point qui mérite un peu d'attention Avec mes amis de ‘La faute à l'Europe‘ (J. Quatremer, Y. A. Noguès, K. Landaburu, H. Beaudoin), qui reçoivent ce week-end Michèle Alliot Marie, alias MAM, l'ancienne ministre de la Défense (sous Jacques Chirac) et ministre des Affaires étrangères (sous Nicolas Sarkozy), nous parlons ‘défense', ‘Europe puissance' et notamment de ce Conseil de sécurité européen (video). @bruxelles2 pèse le pour et le contre d'un Conseil de sécurité européen à l'image de @ONU_fr pic.twitter.com/JfbkGh4Kot Une proposition franco-allemande Cette proposition ne nait pas de nulle part. Elle figurait en dernier lieu dans la déclaration de Meseberg adoptée par les deux dirigeants Emmanuel Macron et Angela Merkel en juin 2018. L'objectif est d'avoir un « débat européen dans de nouveaux formats » et « d'accroitre la rapidité et l'efficacité de la prise de décision de l'Union européenne [en matière] de politique étrangère » (lire : Défense, Sécurité, Migrations, Développement, l'accord franco-allemand de Meseberg). Une explication merkelienne Au Parlement européen, en novembre 2018, la chancelière Angela Merkel souligne l'importance d'« une enceinte au sein de laquelle des décisions importantes pourront êtres prises », avec une « présidence tournante » (lire : « Une armée (européenne) montrerait au monde qu'entre (nous) il n'y aurait plus de guerre » (Angela Merkel). Le format serait limité précise-t-on du côté allemand : « un petit cercle d'États se relayant et représentant l'ensemble de l'UE [pour] travailler plus promptement et intensément au règlement des crises en cours. » (1) Une certaine réserve française Du côté français, on ne peut pas dire que le projet suscite une grande mobilisation. A l'Élysée, la prudence est de règle : « C'est une idée [de] la Chancelière. Ce pourrait être une proposition commune, mais cela mérite encore [d'être travaillé] » l'che en ‘off' un Élyséen, à quelques journalistes (dont B2) en novembre 2018. Et d'ajouter : « Nous n'avons pas de détails proposés par le gouvernement allemand : est-ce un forum pour discuter ou pour décider des questions de politique étrangère ? Ce n'est pas encore une position qui est mûrie. » (3) Une idée mal perçue dans les milieux européens Dans les couloirs européens, cette idée est à peine commentée. « Je suis un peu sceptique sur la création d'une nouvelle structure. Est-elle vraiment nécessaire. N'a-t-on pas déjà pas assez de structures » s'interroge un bon connaisseur des questions sécuritaires interrogé par B2, résumant assez bien le sentiment à Bruxelles, perplexe et qui a, à peine, réfléchi sur l'idée. Un vide béant de réflexion stratégique Cette proposition répond pourtant à un réel besoin. L'Union européenne souffre aujourd'hui d'un vide béant d'absence de direction politique au plus haut niveau, d'anticipation stratégique et de réactivité en cas de crise majeure. Parler d'autonomie stratégique ou de réflexion sans avoir une instance capable de décider est un leurre. Des leaders européens absents collectivement Certes, en théorie, le Conseil européen doit se pencher une fois par an au minimum sur les grandes questions de sécurité. Mais cette disposition du Traité de Lisbonne est restée plutôt lettre morte. Force est de constater que ces dernières années, sur toutes les crises majeures — Libye, Syrie, Irak, Ukraine, crise migratoire, coup d'état en Turquie, etc. — les Chefs d'État et de gouvernement européens, collectivement, ont été ‘à la ramasse'. Un manque d'anticipation certain Pour en attester, il suffit de reprendre la liste des crises récentes. Les 28 ont-ils à la veille de signer l'accord d'association avec l'Ukraine clairement évalué les conséquences de cet acte sur les relations avec la Russie, donné leur accord en bonne et due forme ? Ont-ils planifié un dispositif de gestion de crise soit diplomatique, soit militaire en cas d'intervention russe (largement prévisible) ? Lors de la déroute du printemps arabe en Syrie, ont-ils anticipé la crise des réfugiés et des migrants à venir ? Après l'intervention franco-britannique en Libye, qui laisse un pays déchiré et un État failli, ont-ils envisagé et débattu de la solution à apporter à la crise, en commençant par résoudre leurs différends ? Lors du coup d'Etat en Turquie, y-t-a-il eu une réunion de crise par rapport à un pays le plus proche ? Non, non ! Des questions posées trop vite abordées Au mieux, les ‘Leaders' ont discuté une ou deux heures pour s'accorder sur les traitements collatéraux de la crise (rupture des liens diplomatiques, aide humanitaire, sanctions...). La plus longue discussion au cours de ces dernières années a été consacrée à définir l'intensité des sanctions mises en place sur la Russie. Mais rarement pour tenter de résoudre leurs différends, trouver des solutions ou b'tir des feuilles de route. Au pire, ils ont préféré ne pas trop se pencher sur la question. Une réforme facile à mettre en place Si l'on met de côté certains aspects proposés par A. Merkel, avoir un Conseil de sécurité de l'Union européenne est possible dans le cadre existant. Pas de modification de traité Ce projet ne nécessite pas de modification des traités constitutifs. Il suffit juste de changer les usages. On peut décider (par exemple) de consacrer une demi-journée lors de chaque Conseil européen aux grandes questions internationales ou (autre exemple) dédier une de ses quatre réunions annuelles aux questions internationales. Il serait même possible de tenir une ou deux fois par an un Conseil européen informel dans un pays tournant (permettant à un chef de gouvernement de coprésider la réunion). Juste changer les usages Rien n'empêche d'ailleurs quelques pays plus proches en matière d'approche sécuritaire — France, Allemagne, Belgique, Espagne, Italie — de tenir régulièrement des conciliabules préparatoires à l'image des réunions G6 des ministres de l'Intérieur (un petit cercle conjoint). Rien n'empêche aussi de joindre à ces réunions des Chefs, une réunion parallèle des ministres de la Défense ou des Affaires étrangères, voire des ambassadeurs, pour mettre en musique immédiatement les mesures décidées par les Chefs. Toutes ces dispositions, tout à fait possibles dans les traités existants, permettraient de se rapprocher du modèle prôné par A. Merkel. Un dispositif diplomatique et technique prêt à répondre Au-dessous du niveau politique, le dispositif européen en cas de crise est plutôt complet et prêt à travailler. On a ainsi des ambassadeurs des 28 (le Comité politique et de sécurité), qui siègent en permanence à Bruxelles, avec au minimum deux réunions par semaine (sans compter les petits déjeuners, goûters et autres dîners informels) permettant d'échanger et affiner des positions communes. En cas d'urgence, une réunion du COPS peut être improvisée. Ces diplomates, discrets mais parfaits connaisseurs de leurs sujets, sont tenus d'être là, 24h/24 sur le pont. J'en ai été témoin à plusieurs reprises. Des réunions ont eu lieu le dimanche, au mois d'août, à 6 heures du matin ou à 22 heures le soir. Un dispositif de veille et d'analyse On a aussi un dispositif de veille du renseignement (l'IntCen) (dirigé aujourd'hui par un Allemand ancien des services de renseignement) qui produit régulièrement des notes d'analyses. Ces notes — environ 1400 par an — sont plutôt bien appréciées de leurs destinataires, selon mes informations. On peut ajouter à cela des dispositifs de réaction de crise — cellule de protection civile à la Commission européenne, état-major militaire de l'UE (EUMS), commandement des missions civiles (CPCC) etc. — qui existent et ne demandent qu'à produire des résultats. Tous ces dispositifs peuvent au besoin être renforcés et rendus plus performants. (Nicolas Gros-Verheyde) https://www.bruxelles2.eu/2019/02/16/mettre-en-place-un-conseil-de-securite-europeen-une-idee-du-futur/

  • A Closer Look At European Aerospace And Defense Programs

    13 juillet 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

    A Closer Look At European Aerospace And Defense Programs

    Tony Osborne July 10, 2020 https://aviationweek.com/ad-week/closer-look-european-aerospace-defense-programs

  • Army’s Shift To FVL Poses Big Risks For Small Suppliers

    7 mai 2020 | International, Aérospatial

    Army’s Shift To FVL Poses Big Risks For Small Suppliers

    After decades of building traditional helicopters in traditional ways, contractors must get ready for the Army's new high-speed Future Vertical Lift aircraft. Small makers of key parts need help. By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR.on May 06, 2020 at 2:14 PM WASHINGTON: What worries the Army's aviation acquisition chief as he helps industry get ready to build a revolutionary new generation of aircraft in the midst of a global pandemic? “It's the mom and pop shops,” Patrick Mason said today. “It's the Tier 3 suppliers, typically on the hardware side.” “Those are the ones we remain focused on, because those are those are the ones that can end up in a single point failure,” the program executive officer for Army aviation continued. “That's what we're doing right now through COVID and we're going to continue to do that as we look ...to Future Vertical Lift.” While the big Tier 1 prime contractors should be fine, they depend on smaller Tier 2 suppliers for key components, and they depend on yet smaller Tier 3 suppliers. As you trace the provenance of a crucial component down that supply chain, you all too often find a single point of failure. That's some tiny, easily overlooked company that happens to have the only people who know how to build a particular part, like an actuator or a valve, or the only one who can apply a particular heat treatment or protective coating to someone else's part so it can survive the stresses of flight. It would be easier if the Army was just winding down production of one kind of traditional helicopter and ramping up another. Then industry could build any new parts required in the old way. But Future Vertical Lift is about building new kinds of aircraft in new ways. Even the most traditional-looking competitor, Bell's proposal for the FARA scout helicopter, is being designed, built, and tested using new digital tools. Those tools allow much greater precision and efficiency than traditional blueprints, but only for facilities that have the necessary technology installed. Bell and its rivals, Sikorsky and Boeing, are also all eager to use 3D printing and other advanced manufacturing techniques to improve the performance and reliability of key parts while reducing their cost. That's another set of new technologies that small firms can't easily afford. Will increasing sales of drones help make up the revenue? In addition to the optionally manned FARA scout and FLRAA transport, which will have human crews aboard for most missions, FVL is also building a whole family of completely unmanned aircraft. The major companies can get in on much of that business, Mason said, but some of their smaller suppliers can't. If you build electronics or write flight control software, then. you can work on either manned or unmanned aircraft. But, Mason said, if you specialize in building a particular kind of hardware for manned aircraft, most drones are so much smaller that they use entirely different systems, such electric actuators instead of hydraulics. So for small manufacturing shops, he said, “there's less synergy.” Mason's concerns were well supported by a study of the FVL industrial base by the Center for Strategic & International Studies, released today. “The primes are all in,” said Andrew Hunter, director of defense industrial studies at CSIS, who hosted yesterday's call, “[but] it's a big challenge for those Tier 3 and lower suppliers to make this transition.” During months of workshops with industry, “the concern that we heard expressed repeatedly was lower down the supply chain, [with] Tier 3 and lower suppliers,” Hunter said. “It's an expensive investment that they may be challenged to raise the capital to do, [and] it certainly will involve retraining their workforce to use these new manufacturing techniques.” “Industry has to see they're going to get a return on that investment,” he said. “Even optimistic management who are true believers and think they are definitely going to get a return on this investment because they're going to win [FVL contracts], they've still got to justify it to the banks. They've still got to justify it to their corporate boards.” Changing The Rules What complicates the business case for contractors is that the Army wants a new approach, not just to building the new aircraft, but also to how it keeps them flying. Over an aircraft's decades in service, the long tail of operations, maintenance, and upgrades dwarfs the up-front cost of research, development, and acquisition. While the CSIS study calculated that the Army could afford to build the Future Vertical Lift if budgets remain near historical averages – not guaranteed in the wake of the pandemic – the bigger risk is whether or not the service can control those Operations & Sustainment costs in the long term. Army Futures Command's director for aviation modernization, Brig. Gen. Walter Rugen, said he was confident that extensive physical prototyping and digital modeling would help the service get a handle on those costs. “Our requirements... are still in draft form, so if we need to trade one away to maintain our budgets, we will do that,” he said. “We are going to understand to the greatest degree possible what our O&S costs are and make sure that it's within our budget.” For helicopters, Hunter said, O&S is typically 65 percent of the total cost over the lifetime of a program. Now, not all that money goes to aerospace contractors, since sizable chunk goes to pay military maintenance personnel, buy fuel, and so on. But contracts to sustain existing aircraft are a more important revenue stream for most contractors than actually building new ones. While projected spending on R&D (blue) and procurement (red) rise and fall, remaining under $2.5 billion a year, Operations & Sustainment costs (green) remain largely constant at over $7.5 billion — a crucial source of cash for industry. (CSIS graphic) So any Army effort to economize on operations & sustainment hits contractors where they live. What's more, the Army isn't just trying to squeeze savings out of the existing process; it's changing the rules of the game. Historically, companies could bid low to build a new weapons system because, once they got the contract, they had a de facto monopoly on maintaining and upgrading that system for decades. Now the Defense Department is pushing hard to break this “vendor lock” in two main ways: It's increasingly requiring companies to hand over their intellectual property and technical data. The government can then give that data to potential competitors trying to build cheaper alternatives, as on the Army-run Joint Light Tactical Vehicle program. Second, it's requiring companies to make their products compatible with government standards for how different components fit together physically and connect electronically, with the aim of creating Modular Open System Architectures where you can swap out one company's component and replace it with another vendor's. Developing a common MOSA for all manned and unmanned aircraft is a top priority for the Army's Future Vertical Lift initiative. “Part of what we're doing [over] the next year, year and a half, is the strategy associated with the operational availability, that we want out of these platforms, the intellectual property we want to obtain,” Mason said. “What's the valuation of the IP, the intellectual property? Because intellectual property drives their ability to control the aftermarket, and the aftermarket is where you see the year over year cash flow [that's] critical to most of their business models.” “As you look at Modular Open System Architecture...the business case and the business model associated with it is something that we're working through with industry right now,” Mason said. “It is critical that we have the right incentive structure, it is critical that we provide the right framework so that industry continues to invest and they continue to see a return on that invested capital.” To prevail in future conflicts, “we can't afford not to do Future Vertical Lift,” Brig. Gen. Rugen said. “What this report talks to is national interest we have in preserving the rotorcraft industrial base as we go forward.” https://breakingdefense.com/2020/05/armys-shift-to-fvl-poses-big-risks-for-small-suppliers/

Toutes les nouvelles