17 juin 2020 | International, Naval

With the future of the US Navy’s carrier air wing murky, Congress demands a plan

WASHINGTON – The US Navy will need to develop a roadmap for developing future fighter aircraft years after it became apparent that the Navy's mainstay F/A-18 Super Hornet would struggle to keep the carrier outside of range to be effective against Chinese anti-ship missiles.

A provision in the Senate Armed Services Committee's mark of the National Defense Authorization Act told the Navy to come up with a concrete plan for fielding next generation fighter aircraft, a move that comes months after congressional appropriators gutted 2020 funding for the Navy's next-generation air dominance program, taking the requested $20.7 million and slashing it to $7.1 million.

By way of comparison, the Air Force requested $1 billion in funding for its Next Generation Air Dominance program, but saw a relatively minor 10 percent cut from appropriators that was cited as a “classified adjustment.”

The SASC mark “requires the Navy to create a fighter aircraft force structure acquisition strategy and report on aircraft carrier air wing composition and carrier-based strike fighter squadrons to better prepare for potential conflicts envisioned by the National Defense Strategy,” according to a summary posted on the Committee's website.

The Navy likely upset the congressional apple cart by zeroing out a planned buy of at least 36 Super Hornets that would have spanned FY22 through FY24. That move that should save $4.5 billion that the service plans to redirect to its sixth-generation fighter program, known as Next Generation Air Dominance or F/A-XX.

So, what's F/A-XX?

The Navy has tried to address the range issue with fielding an unmanned tanker, the MQ-25 Stingray, but that program could face delays if the Navy's operational schedule doesn't align to allow testing.

But what exactly the F/A-XX will be is anyone's guess. The Navy finished an Analysis of Alternatives in June of last year and the spokesman for the Navy's assistant secretary for research, development and acquisition told Defense News earlier this month that the program was in the concept development phase.

But some experts believe that given the Navy's budgetary constraints for the foreseeable future, the F/A-XX should be a derivative of a current aircraft.

Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a retired submarine officer, said in recent testimony before the House Armed Services Committee that it would make sense to keep buying the F/A-18s to keep the line hot for a potential F/A-XX.

“I think the F/A-XX is going to need to be probably a derivative of an existing airplane rather than some complete new clean sheet design given the fiscal constraints we're under,” Clark said. “Therefore, keeping production lines going for both of our existing strike fighters is a good idea to allow both to be an option for this future F/A-XX.”

In 2019, formed Deputy Secretary of Defense Bob Work told Defense News that the next fighter should really be unmanned, and that going that route would help save some money.

“The focus should be on the F/A-XX. If you really want range, that has to be the platform you are shooting for,” Work said. “Because with the Navy buying the F-35Cs, and the Marine [Corps] buying the F-35Bs and the Navy buying the Block III Super Hornet, you are not going to be able to afford two or three programs. So, the F/A-XX is the one you need to focus on. And if the analysis shows you need range, that points to unmanned.”

But naval aviation has shown very little appetite for fielding an unmanned long-range fighter, and the Navy more generally has been tepid on unmanned technologies, according to former Chief of Naval Operations retired Adm. Garry Roughead, who testified at HASC alongside Clark.

“I reflect that we flew an unmanned aircraft off of an aircraft carrier in 2012,” Roughead said. “2012! That has not happened again. Eight years, in my mind, of a hiatus in trying to advance this new technology is not aggressive by any stretch of the imagination.”

Valerie Insinna contributed to this report from Washington.

https://www.defensenews.com/2020/06/15/with-the-future-us-navys-carrier-air-wing-murky-congress-demands-a-plan/

Sur le même sujet

10 septembre 2020 | International, Aérospatial

GBSD, B-21 Spending Could Top $10B In 2027: Cowen Group
B-21 production costs, the Cowen analysis finds, will ramp up fast, from $202 million in 2022 to $4 billion in 2027. By THERESA HITCHENSon September 09, 2020 at 6:05 PM WASHINGTON: The Air Force's combined spending on the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) and the B-21 bomber is likely to triple by 2027 to some $10.2 billion annually, as production begins to ramp up under both programs, the Cowen Washington Research Group estimates. The $13.3 billion GBSD contract, announced yesterday by the Air Force, covers engineering, manufacturing and development (EMD) of the new ICBMs through 2029. The Cowen analysis, out today, notes that while the contract announcement does not explain whether LRIP is included, it can be assumed. This is because Air Force budget justification documents detail plans for “five option years” under the contract to include “early production and deployment,” author Roman Schweizer explains. GBSD, which will replace the aging LGM-30G Minuteman III missiles that first became operational in 1970, represents one third of DoD's top priority nuclear modernization effort. The third leg of the modernization program is the Navy's planned buy of 12 new Columbia-class nuke-launching submarines, which the Pentagon's 2021 budget documents estimate to cost $110 billion to buy. The Congressional Budget Office in 2019 estimated the price tag for the total DoD triad modernization effort at $234 billion through 2028. This ginormous price tag does not include spending by the Energy Department to build the nuclear warheads that would be carried by DoD's ICBMs, bombers and subs. Northrop Grumman was the sole bidder for the GBSD program following Boeing's decision last year to drop out over concerns about Northrop's acquisition of one of the two makers of solid rocket motors in the country, Orbital ATK. Cowen estimates that research and development spending for GBSD will jump from $1.5 billion in 2021, peaking at $3.07 billion in 2024, and decreasing to $1.9 billion in 2027. Production, the analysis says, will begin in 2027 with a budget of $2 billion. The Air Force's press release yesterday says that it expects to begin deploying GBSD in late 2020. For the B-21, the analysis estimates that R&D spending will steadily decline from the $2.8 billion in the Air Force's 2021 request to $1.2 billion in 2027. But production costs, the analysis finds, will ramp up: from $202 million in 2022 to $4 billion in 2027. The analysis is largely based on Air Force budget estimates through 2025, and Schweizer's own projections. Of course, this means the numbers are squishy. That's especially true for the B-21, whose program is highly classified. Indeed, the number of B-21 bombers the Air Force intends to buy, originally set at 100, remains unclear. As Breaking D readers know, senior service officials have been hinting loudly that they need more. In addition, unit costs for the stealth bomber's production are also classified. Way back in 2015, when the Air Force awarded Northrop Grumman the B-21 contract, it put a cap on the Average Production Unit Cost per aircraft of $550 million in 2010 dollars. “The APUC from the independent estimate supporting today's award is $511 million per aircraft, again in 2010 dollars,” the release added. No updated assessments have been released. Several high officials have said the program is on budget and on schedule, without providing any details. Finally, the production schedule and the count of how many are to be built each year, is classified, along with the planned annual procurement costs. That said, our colleagues at Bloomberg reported in February that internal Air Force budget documents show procurement starting in 2022 budgeted at $193 million. That jumps to $4.3 billion in 2025. Schweizer said in an email that his estimates are based on those numbers, and that the projections for 2026 and 2027 are his own. Cowen's analysis notes that Congress is by and large supportive of both efforts. While some have fretted that presidential candidate Joe Biden might reconsider building the GBSD, the document says that is not likely. After all, the Obama administration, during which Biden served as Veep, actually started the program. https://breakingdefense.com/2020/09/gbsd-b-21-spending-could-top-10b-in-2027-cowen-group
18 mars 2020 | International, Aérospatial

Army selects companies to continue in long-range assault aircraft competition
By: Jen Judson WASHINGTON — The Army has selected Bell and Sikorsky to enter into a competitive demonstration and risk reduction effort ahead of the start of the Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft, or FLRAA, program of record. The service is on a tight timeline to field a new long-range assault aircraft by 2030. The CDRR will consist of two phases that will last roughly one year each. The companies will deliver initial conceptual designs, an assessment of the feasibility of requirements and trade studies using model-based systems engineering. The competition for the program of record will begin in 2022 with a plan to field the first unit equipped in 2030. Congress added $76 million in funding to the aircraft program's top line in fiscal 2020 to drive down technical risk and speed up delivery. The money, which Congress approved as part of its FY20 appropriations bill signed into law in December, will fund the CDRR effort. The Army completed its Joint Multi-Role Technology Demonstration, or JMR TD, for which Bell and the Sikorsky-Boeing team each built aircraft to help the service understand what is possible for a future aircraft — mainly to replace the UH-60 Black Hawk. “These agreements are an important milestone for FLRAA,” Patrick Mason, the Army's aviation program executive officer, said in a statement issued March 16. “The CD&RR continues to transition technologies from the JMR-TD effort to the FLRAA weapons system design. We will be conducting analysis to refine the requirements, conceptual designs, and acquisition approach. Ultimately, this information and industry feedback are vital to understanding the performance, cost, affordability, schedule risks and trades needed to successfully execute the FLRAA program.” Bell has flown its V-280 Valor tilt-rotor demonstrator for two years in the JMR-TD and has logged more than 160 hours of flight time on the experimental aircraft. Sikorsky and Boeing's SB-1 Defiant coaxial demonstrator had a more difficult time getting off the ground due to issues in manufacturing its rotor blades. Its first flight was in March 2019. Even though Defiant has flown for a significantly reduced amount of time, the Army has determined it has enough data to move forward on its FLRAA program rather than extend the JMR TD to wait for the Sikorsky-Boeing team to log flight time. Brig. Gen. Wally Rugen, who is in charge of the service's future vertical lift modernization efforts, said last spring that because of the data collected through the JMR TD process as a well as additional studies and modeling, the service now thinks it has enough information to move more quickly into a full and open competition for FLRAA. Lt. Gen. Paul Ostrowski, the military deputy to the acquisition chief, said in a Senate Armed Services Airland Subcommittee hearing around the same time that the Army is presenting an acquisition strategy to the Pentagon's acquisition chief focusing on a nondevelopmental item approach to procuring FLRAA. That route, Ostrowski said, could lead to a competitive downselect by FY22. The extra funding provided by Congress will give the service the ability to continue to fly and burn down that inherent risk in developing a new helicopter. “What [that] may do as we hit those gates, is allow us to take what was going to be a primary budget, really a starting budget for the Army in ‘23 and ‘24, and potentially move that selection back to ‘23,” Rugen said recently. “We are not going to go to selection if, number one, we don't have requirements stable, we don't have resources stable, and, number two, the technology is not there.” The Army already has had a robust technology demonstrator program, including an extension, Rugen said, but that type of effort doesn't garner the same data as a prototype demonstration or a full-up weapon system. “In the CDRR [competitive demonstration and risk reduction], we're really trying to develop a weapons system, not the tech demonstrator,” Rugen said. “So we're trying to take it to the next level.” The CDRR will assess a laundry list of technologies identified through an Office of the Secretary of Defense-conducted independent technology readiness assessment, which would require additional evaluation to reduce risk, according to Rugen. Some of these technologies include the powertrain, drivetrain and control laws of the aircraft. “When we look at the software involved in flight controls, we have to really reduce risk there,” Rugen noted. The CDRR will also allow the Army to work on the integration of its mission systems. https://www.defensenews.com/land/2020/03/16/army-selects-companies-to-continue-on-in-long-range-assault-aircraft-competition/
23 avril 2020 | International, Aérospatial

L'impact du Coronavirus pour l'Europe
Au-delà du plan sanitaire, la crise du Coronavirus impacte l'ensemble des projets des Etats et vient questionner l'Europe. L'Europe questionnée. Le Sénat, à travers la commission des affaires étrangères et de la défense et des sénateurs Hélène Conway-Mouret et Ronan Le Gleut, a présenté les impacts de la crise du coronavirus sur l'Europe, sous l'angle de la défense et de la sécurité. Et le constat semble sans appel : la coopération entre les Etats européens doit être renforcée. « Le bilan de la coopération européenne est pour le moment nuancé : des coopérations bilatérales ont permis des transferts de patients du Grand Est vers des pays frontaliers [...] mais le Conseil européen du 26 mats a donné le spectacle d'Etats membres divisés, incapables de répondre rapidement à l'urgence de la situation », rapporte les deux sénateurs, en rappelant par ailleurs que des mécanismes existants permettraient une coopération accrue, à l'instar de l'article 222 du TFUE qui met en avant le principe de solidarité. Surveiller le contexte international. Cette nécessité de coopération est à analyser à la lumière du contexte international précédent la crise et renforcé par l'événement sanitaire qui touche actuellement le monde. « La crise risque en effet d'accentuer les évolutions stratégiques en cours : l'effritement de l'Europe, le désengagement américain et l'affirmation de puissance de certains Etats qui ne manqueront pas de s'emparer de la faiblesse de l'Europe pour faire avancer leurs propres intérêts », expliquent les deux sénateurs. En effet, on ne manquera pas de noter que si la crise touche violemment la grande majorité des Etats du monde, certains restent épargner, à l'instar de la Corée du Nord qui profite de l'occasion pour démontrer ses capacités militaires et mener des essais de missiles. De même, certains Etats profitent de l'absentéisme de réponse européenne pour nouer des liens précieux avec des pays du vieux continent en leur apportant une aide cruciale face à la crise. « Plusieurs acteurs et observateurs estiment aujourd'hui que la Chine et la Russie utilisent la crise sanitaire pour faire avancer leurs intérêts et renforcer leur influence. [...] Le déploiement de militaires russes en Italie, dans les zones les plus touchées par l'épidémie (Bergame) suscite des interrogations », rapportent les deux sénateurs. Rester présent en OPEX. Une autre préoccupation liée à la crise sanitaire actuelle réside dans la gestion des opérations extérieures. Une préoccupation qui touche d'autant plus la France, qui est aux premières loges au niveau européen. L'Europe « ne doit pas se détourner du reste du monde car la pandémie, si elle mobilise les esprits, ne fait pas disparaître les autres crises, et risque même de les aggraver », soulignent les auteurs. Une attention particulière doit être donnée à l'Afrique, qui souffre déjà d'importants déséquilibres économiques et d'inégalités sociales majeures, souvent à la racine des conflits qui sévissent actuellement sur le continent. Or cette situation pourrait se trouver largement accentuée par la crise du coronavirus, touchant massivement les économies des pays à travers le monde. Une accentuation des problèmes économiques et sociaux en Afrique pourrait aboutir à des désaccords internes pouvant mener à des affrontements. Retour à la case départ ? https://air-cosmos.com/article/limpact-du-coronavirus-pour-leurope-22957

Toutes les nouvelles