US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Just for laughs.

You'll love the comments. LoL
Hehehe...now that is funny.

"Supersized himself...Middle Age spare tire"...LOL!

We will go see it in a couple of weeks and I will report on the Movie thread.

BWT, Samurai, any pics of the second Izumo carrier yet, or the new DDGs? If so, please post in the Japanese Military News thread. Thanks!
 
On Ground-Based Midcourse Defense:

Posted on InsideDefense.com: May 2, 2014

Last year's Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system's setbacks, which included a test failure and the deferment of a high-stakes intercept attempt, compounded the program's cost growth, raising the tab to demonstrate and fix already-produced Capability Enhancement-II interceptors to $1.3 billion, according to congressional investigators.

The Government Accountability Office disclosed the new figure in an April 30 report to Congress on testing options for the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system. The report concludes that accelerated testing of the interceptor -- designed to defend against limited ballistic missile threats from Iran and North Korea -- is unlikely given the program's track record and the increasing complexity of planned tests.

The cost increase, up from last year's $1.1 billion estimate, is largely attributed to $145 million in additional costs associated with a test failure review, according to GAO. MDA originally forecast the cost to demonstrate the CE-II interceptor at $236 million.

The total cost of the GMD system is estimated to be $41 billion, according to GAO.

In March 2013, the Obama administration announced a new homeland defense hedging plan that is contingent on, among other things, making the new version of the GBI weapon -- the CE-II --work. The plan calls for increasing the number of deployed GBIs from 30 to 44.

At the same time MDA began developing the CE-II interceptor, the agencyt initiated production, acquiring 13 of the guided missiles before halting procurement after its first two intercept attempts failed in January and December of 2010. In January 2013, MDA conducted a non-intercept test of the CE-II to prove the reliability of redesigned components linked to the 2010 failures.

The plan to proceed with restarting CE-II production and procuring the additional 14 interceptors is contingent on a successful intercept test.

That test, which was considered pivotal to the 2013 plan to bolster the reliance of the Ground-Based Interceptor, was scheduled for last fall and then postponed until this spring following a July test failure of an earlier GBI variant in an assessment that was designed to demonstrate the effectiveness of the deployed CE-I interceptor.

Following the July 2013 failure, MDA spokesman Rick Lehner told InsideDefense.com the decision to delay the CE-II intercept test -- dubbed FTG-06b -- was not linked to the CE-I miss, an assessment dubbed FTG-07, during which the kill vehicle failed to separate from the booster (DefenseAlert, July 23, 2013). Lehner at that time said the delay "was driven by the need to implement new firmware for the CE-II [exoatmospheric kill vehicle] to further mitigate issues" stemming from the December 2010 failure.

GAO, however, challenges MDA's claim, stating the two events are directly linked: "The July 2013 CE-I test has further delayed FTG-06b to third quarter of fiscal year 2014 in order to implement corrective actions based on an ongoing failure review of the CE-I test," the report states.

Lawmakers asked GAO to audit a statutorily required Pentagon report delivered to Congress last fall that explored the feasibility of accelerating the testing pace of the GMD segment of the Ballistic Missile Defense System. DOD reported it had no plans to do so, but said it could increase the pace of GMD flight testing to three tests over two years pending adequate funding and the availability of interceptors and targets beginning in FY-18 (DefenseAlert, Feb. 11). That would be a 50 percent increase over current plans.

"In our view, it is unlikely that DOD could successfully accelerate GMD's testing given its testing track record and the increasing complexity of planned tests," GAO found. DOD's report "provided insufficient information to assess whether accelerating GMD's testing pace is prudent because the potential full cost, benefits, and risks are not provided in the report."

GAO's report to Congress was delayed by a month as a result of erroneous claims by MDA that a draft report by congressional auditors contained classified information.

"DOD initially identified classified and sensitive information in our draft report but subsequently reversed its determination after we referred DOD to several publicly released documents that included the same information," the GAO report states.
 

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Hmmm 7 B-2 at Whiteman :p

I don 't have ever seen on GE, they are in the hangar to preserve their coat. Hangar at temperature-controlled, there are mobile hangars for overseas deployments at Guam or Diego Garcia.

In peacetime the 509th BW ( 325, 393 BS ) get about 10 B-2 operationnal on 19, it is difficult to maintain with its stealth coating, in more 1 at Edwards for test.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

no_name

Colonel
Even by today's standards the B-2 looks quite techno and futuristic. They could be kept operational with upgrades for a long time still.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
LCS Will Miss World's Largest Naval Exercise
May. 4, 2014 - 10:28AM | By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS
WASHINGTON — It’s the biggest naval exercise in the world, and it happens only every other year. This summer, nearly 50 ships from at least 16 navies will gather at Pearl Harbor for the Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercises, hosted by the US Navy.

Ships from as far away as India, France and even Norway will participate, and the highlight is expected to be the first-ever participation of a Chinese naval squadron.

Nearly every kind of US warship will take part. But notably absent — again — will be the newest type of US warship, the littoral combat ship.

In fact, although this will be the third RIMPAC since the type entered service in late 2008, an LCS has appeared only once in the exercises, even though all littoral combat ships are based in not-too-far-away San Diego.

Bryan Clark, a naval analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment in Washington and a former member of the Navy staff, noted the Navy is “missing a huge opportunity by not deploying LCS and not using it in RIMPAC.”

In 2010, the Freedom, first of the type, broke away from scheduled tests to carry out a demonstration deployment, cruising in the 4th Fleet’s Central American operating area and spending about six weeks operating from Hawaii for that year’s RIMPAC.

The appearance of the Freedom during the exercises was widely publicized and continues to be one of the most oft-cited cases in point when Navy leaders discuss the type’s accomplishments. Rear Adm. Tom Rowden, now director of surface warfare at the Pentagon and soon to become commander of Naval Surface Forces, was a carrier strike group commander during RIMPAC 2010, and frequently references the time he operated at sea with LCS.

“Properly introducing LCS to the fleet is one of my top priorities, and it was foremost in my mind when I had tactical control of the Freedom during RIMPAC 2010,” he wrote in the January 2013 issue of the US Naval Institute’s Proceedings magazine — one of many occasions when he and other leaders cited their brief at-sea RIMPAC experience with the LCS.

But since 2010, no LCS has ventured to take part in RIMPAC, and Freedom remains the only one of four ships in commission to take part in any at-sea exercises.

Although the second ship, Independence, was commissioned in January 2010, it has spent the past four years either in refit or conducting systems tests, with the mine countermeasures mission package.

Fort Worth, the third ship, was commissioned in September 2012, and is preparing to deploy to the Western Pacific this fall.

The fourth LCS, Coronado, was commissioned only a month ago, and is to take part in RIMPAC — but only at a distance. The ship will remain in Southern California, the Navy said, dialed in to some exercises but not physically present.

While the program is steadily recovering from the cost overruns and delays that plagued its early years, its reputation as a problem child continues to fester.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has lost confidence in the type — in January he reduced buys of the current designs from 52 to 32 ships and ordered the Navy to conduct a review of its small surface combatant needs and make changes with the next budget cycle.

Longtime LCS critic Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., while citing largely old information, continues to bash the program, and did so again from the Senate floor on April 9.

“The LCS program faces a daunting combination of capability failures and strategic confusion,” he said during an a harangue about the type’s perceived shortcomings. “The program is still clearly riddled with uncertainty about what the ships will be used for and what they will be capable of.”

An unexpected blow came April 29, when the House Seapower subcommittee, a bastion of support for defense programs, rejected the Navy’s 2015 budget request for three littoral combat ships to provide only two.

“The committee is concerned about the survivability, lethality and endurance of the LCS,” the subcommittee said in its markup. One source familiar with the body’s deliberations said the internal debate had been whether to approve the request for three ships, or zero it out altogether.

In this atmosphere, where the LCS is as controversial as ever, the Navy is again passing up an opportunity to get the ship to sea in a fashion where it can be seen and demonstrate some of its abilities.

The responsibility for assigning an LCS to RIMPAC crosses numerous command jurisdictions, including Pacific Fleet, 3rd Fleet, Fleet Forces Command, Naval Surface Forces and Naval Sea Systems Command. Cmdr. Steve Curry, a spokesman for the US Pacific Fleet in Pearl Harbor, spoke for all.

“All four LCS ships are conducting testing, trials and mission package certifications, which preclude their participation in the Hawaii portion of RIMPAC 2014,” he said May 2 in response to questions. “The aforementioned activities can be delayed, but that would delay testing, trials and mission package certifications, which remain the Navy’s priority.”

“Integrating LCSs into the fleet is the first priority, and there are more LCSs of both variants being built, commissioned and sent to new homeports at an increasing rate,” Curry said.

“There is a comprehensive program to ensure each platform successfully completes the long list of requirements. Delays in any phase of that program complicates the process for follow-on ships.”

Asked if the Navy planned for any LCS to take part in an upcoming exercise, Curry cited the Coronado’s long-distance RIMPAC participation, and noted that the Fort Worth is to take part in a multinational task group exercise in the fall.

Not going, Clark said, “continues to foster this perception among the defense establishment that this ship doesn’t have a utility and is too fragile to be used operationally. Testing is important, but let’s keep in mind this ship actually transitions into full operational use, and part of that is actually using it.

“Not deploying it to RIMPAC, especially in the middle of these controversies in Washington, is very bad messaging by the Navy,” he said. ■

defensenews.com.
With Lawsuits and Mergers, US Space Market Primed for Changes
May. 3, 2014 - 03:45AM | By AARON MEHTA | Comments
A
A
An Atlas V rocket is launched from Cape Canaveral, Fla. The United Launch Alliance, which builds the rocket, is facing competition from two US competitors.
An Atlas V rocket is launched from Cape Canaveral, Fla. The United Launch Alliance, which builds the rocket, is facing competition from two US competitors. (Patrick H. Corkery/US Air Force)
FILED UNDER
World News
Americas
WASHINGTON — A series of aggressive moves from two major space companies in the past two weeks is a sign that the military space launch sector is ripe for change, according to analysts and former US Defense Department officials.

SpaceX, Orbital Sciences and ATK have been eyeing the military launch market for years, with a plan for certification in the US Air Force’s Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program, the service’s effort to make military satellite launches affordable. That market has been dominated by the United Launch Alliance (ULA), a joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed Martin that has recently celebrated 100 successful launches in a row.

Proponents have praised its run of success and the venture’s stability, while critics say it represents a monopoly that takes advantage of taxpayers.

Unchallenged for years, ULA now finds itself having to fend off a legal attack from SpaceX, industrial base challenges from Russia and the merger of two competitors in Orbital and ATK.

The first move came April 25, when Elon Musk, CEO of SpaceX, announced his company was filing a protest against the Air Force for its decision to award a block-buy contract for 36 launches to ULA, a sole-source deal that Musk derided as wasteful for taxpayers.

“The general rule of thumb is don’t sue your customer, and so the fact that SpaceX has chosen to do it says to me that they either think they have a good case, and/or they’ve concluded that if they’re ever going to get into the EELV business, there’s no other alternative,” said Steve Grundman, a Lund Fellow at the Atlantic Council and principal of Grundman Advisory.

“The simple facts of the matter — 36 of 40-some launches have already been awarded to the incumbent — probably substantiate the second half of this and/or proposition; the strength of their argument is harder to know from where I sit.”

“I think SpaceX is going to look to structure a solution, one way or the other, that gives them a reasonable path to compete,” said Jeff Bialos, former US deputy undersecretary for defense for industrial affairs.

Finding a middle ground or settlement could work for SpaceX in the long term. Bialos pointed out that an agreement could contain language allowing SpaceX to avoid operating under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requirement.

“That’s a very complex cost accounting system, and the company has to give the Pentagon all its cost data,” Bialos said. “The big primes are set up for that. SpaceX has not been operating under that system, and maybe its costs aren’t allowable; maybe they’re fearful if they have to go under that system, the price they would need to charge would be higher. A lot of companies don’t want to be under the FAR and try to avoid it.

“They’re going to have to fight that issue at some point, so why not now?” he said. “I don’t know that you get that out of the lawsuit, but I think it’s part of a potential resolution.”

Whether the company’s protest is successful, it has shone a light on an issue that those in the space community have been debating for some time: Stick with a proven, successful commodity for the nation’s most sensitive launches, or move in the direction of new entrants?

“I don’t know if they have a good legal case. I do think they have an important, almost moral case, about competition and the need in declining budgets to have as much competition to reduce costs while preserving capabilities,” said Brett Lambert, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for manufacturing and industrial base policy.

“I think there’s an important principle at stake with their case about the introduction of innovation and new entrants into what many perceive as a very stale supply base in the heritage launch industry,” Lambert added. “Even if the potential financial savings are half of what the company claims over [DoD’s future years defense program], think about what the department could fund that they need, but can’t fund under the current plan.”

One of the Air Force’s top space officials agrees there would be major benefits to opening up the market.

“We really do believe competition in the launch market is good for the industry,” said David Madden, executive director for the Air Force’s Space and Missile Systems Center. “It really is a good thing, and we believe that and we’re pushing really hard to move forward to get new entries certified so we can have a competitive launch market.”

At the same time, Madden emphasized the need for dependability.

“Access to space is expensive, and that’s the bottom line, and assured access is even more expensive,” he said. “We’re not launching commercial [intelligence satellites]. If something happens in their business, it’s money that gets lost. In our business, it’s lives.

“Having assured space capability is critical to make sure that when we put one of our payloads on there, they’re going to get to where they need to.”

Balancing that tension — wanting to find new entrants while not risking billion-dollar satellite programs at launch — is key to the future of the space market, Lambert said. “I think the key is to find an appropriate balance.”

Russian Engines Blocked
The Air Force and ULA may be forced to look for innovation one way or another, following an April 30 injunction, issued by US federal Judge Susan Braden, that blocks the joint venture and service from purchasing any more RD-180 engines used in ULA’s Atlas V rocket.

The injunction rests on the fact that the RD-180 is produced by Russian company Energomash, under the control of Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin. He’s one of the Russian individuals put under sanction by the US government in response to the growing crisis in Ukraine.

Rogozin’s involvement in the RD-180 program also was highlighted by Musk in his news conference announcing the lawsuit as a major reason the block buy should be halted.

“It seems pretty strange,” Musk said. “How is it we’re sending hundreds of millions of US taxpayer money at a time when Russia is in the process of invading the Ukraine? It would be hard to imagine some way which Dmitry Rogozin is not benefiting closely from the dollars that are being sent there.”

A SpaceX spokeswoman called the injunction a “prudent step toward understanding whether United Launch Alliance’s current sole-source contract violates US sanctions by sending taxpayer money to Russia for the RD-180 engine.”

In a statement, ULA called the judge’s ruling “deeply troubling,” and referred to SpaceX’s lawsuit as “opportunistic.”

Lambert called the questions around the RD-180 “one of many major issues in the launch arena.

“We’re talking about billions of dollars to build a new liquid motor, and there aren’t billions floating around right now,” he said. “We’re going to continue to be dependent on the RD-180 for some time. Fortunately, we do have quite a large stockpile of them, but at some point, you need to come up with a new system, and I think that is the desire of the Pentagon — along with lowering the cost of existing systems.”

ULA has said it has a two-year backlog of RD-180s, but at a certain point, it will need to procure new rocket engines. As of now, there simply isn’t an alternative for the Atlas V.

The House Armed Services Strategic Forces subcommittee requested $220 million in fiscal 2015 to begin the development of a US-based alternative engine as part of its budget markup, with a 2019 deadline for completion. Even if that program is funded and completed on schedule, ULA would have run out of RD-180s by that time.

ATK-Orbital Merger
While SpaceX has gathered the most attention as a competitor to ULA, it’s not the only player in town. Orbital Sciences has been eyeing the military launch sector for some time, and it took a giant step toward achieving that goal when it announced plans to merge with ATK to create a new company.

ATK is the 29th largest defense company in the world, according to the 2013 Defense News Top 100 contractors list. The new entity, Orbital ATK, will be able to draw on the resources of both companies as it bids on the military launch market.

“It’s interesting,” the Air Force’s Madden said when asked about the merger. “It will be an interesting opportunity because it will make a good company.”

“Businesses will do what they think is rational, and from a business perspective, it’s a rational decision,” Lambert said. “It moves ATK into the launch business and gives Orbital breadth and depth they didn’t have through some vertical integration.”

A spokesperson for Orbital declined to comment.

defensenews.com.
ATK manufactures small arms rounds, M25 Punisher, Bushmaster series cannons, precision guidence kits for Mortars and Artillery Threat warning systems and in Rocket industry Athena 1C, Athena 2C, Taurus I, Antares, Minotaur and Pegasus launch vehicles, as well as Trident II D-5 and Minuteman III propulsion system.

Airbus Helicopters promotes cost savings of Lakota trainer as competitors line up
By: JON HEMMERDINGERWASHINGTON DC Source: Flightglobal.com 20:54 2 May 2014
As competitors surface, Airbus Helicopters continues to stress the merits of the US Army’s plan to use UH-72A Lakota utility helicopters as the service’s trainer aircraft.

Company officials tell reporters on 2 May that twin-engined, glass-cockpit Lakota trainers can help reduce the army’s training costs and better prepare aviators to fly other advanced army helicopters.

The army’s fiscal year 2015 budget proposal, which still requires Congressional approval, calls for the service to purchase 100 Lakotas over two years, including 55 in fiscal year 2015 and 45 the following year.

That’s in addition to funding for 20 aircraft approved under the fiscal year 2014 budget.

At the same time, the army would retire its fleet of single-engined Bell Helicopter TH-67 Creek trainers, replacing them with Lakotas, which are non-militarised versions of Airbus’ EC145 civil model.

Airbus says the planned order reflects the versatility of the Lakota.

“The training mission was going to be a another extension of the natural role that the Lakota was playing for the Army,” Airbus tells Flightglobal.

The army has some 300 of the aircraft and has operated them since 2006, primarily on logistics and support missions.

An Airbus Helicopters LUH-72A Lakota with a security and support battalion. Airbus Helicopters.

Airbus also says the army’s decision may have been influenced by Airbus’ history of delivering Lakotas, which have a starting cost of about $5.5 million, within budget and on schedule.

“I think [that] made it easier for them to argue the case of why a programme like the Lakota made sense to fund,” says John Burke, Airbus Group’s UH-72A Lakota program manager.

Although the army currently trains pilots on single-engined aircraft, Airbus says using the twin-engined Lakota will “eliminate a transition step later in the training pipeline.”

That’s because pilots will need less training to move to other twin-engined aircraft in the army’s fleet, saving money and simplifying the training programme, says Airbus.

Burke says pilots training in Lakotas may initially need “more intense training”, but says “the payoff is much better.”

Bell, however, questions whether the army’s strategy will actually save money.

Mike Miller, Bell’s director of military business development, calls the Creek “a better value for initial entry training than the UH-72 Lakota.”

He notes that the army already has all the simulators, course materials and maintenance and instructor support it needs for Creeks, and says Creeks cost $1,000 to $1,500 less per flight hour than Lakotas.

“Fielding the Lakota to support initial entry training will cost hundreds of millions of dollars in transition costs that can be avoided by retaining the TH-67,” Miller says.

The army’s Creeks have an average age of 16 years and the aircraft have an "unlimited service life", Miller adds.

Airbus isn’t alone in the trainer market.

AgustaWestland announces in a 1 May media release that it will “leverage the AW119Kx’s commercial success and compete for potential US military training programs.”

“Integrating the AW119Kx into the military’s fleet of training aircraft is a common-sense solution from both a cost and operational standpoint, allowing the next generation of military aviators to train using helicopters that are more in line with those they will use in real-world military missions,” AgustaWestland North America CEO Robert LaBelle says in the release.

The AW119k is assembled in Philadelphia and has a glass cockpit with Garmin G1000 avionics.
This makes a lot of sense.
CH-53K Ground Tests Advance Ahead Of Rollout

Aviation Week & Space Technology
Graham Warwick
Mon, 2014-05-05 23:41
Formal rollout of Sikorsky’s CH-53K brings new visibility to the U.S. Marine Corps’ closely held heavy-lift replacement program
One look at the massive steel columns anchoring the CH-53K to the ground here at Sikorsky’s development test center makes clear the sheer power of this heavy-lift helicopter, which has more than three times the lifting capability of the aircraft it will replace.

Rotor blades began turning on the ground-test vehicle (GTV) on April 17 and the first of four YCH-53K flight-test aircraft will be rolled out formally on May 5. First flight is planned for late this year. After a slow start that saw the program rebaselined and initial operational capability pushed back to 2019 from 2015, the U.S. Marine Corps’ heavy-lift helicopter replacement is gaining momentum.

Although it resembles the CH-53E it will replace, the CH-53K is an all-new aircraft. The helicopter still has to fit the same ships and be air-transportable by the Lockheed C-5 and Boeing C-17, but the requirement for greater hot-and-high lifting capacity, increased survivability and supportability, and improved affordability drove the new design, says Mike Torok, CH-53K program vice president.

In an industry dominated by upgrades to existing designs, the CH-53K is the U.S.’s largest new-rotorcraft program, with the Marine Corps planning procurement of 200 helicopters. Sikorsky was awarded the system development and demonstration contract, now worth $3.5 billion, in April 2006. “We had a slow start early in the program so we rebaselined, and are holding with that schedule,” says Col. Robert Pridgen, Marine Corps program manager for heavy-lift helicopters.

“There are no significant technical issues, nothing without a clear path to being resolved,” says Torok. “Where there are challenges, we have technical solutions that we are implementing. And we are managing cost consistent with the budget.” Pentagon-wide spending cuts have impacted the program, “but we have traded off when things are done to create our own runway,” says Pridgen.

“Bare-head light-off” of the GTV in December-—in which the rotor hubs were turning without blades—marked the beginning of the transition from component qualification to full-aircraft testing. It took longer than expected to achieve “shakedown light-off,” with blades installed, because of “discoveries” during initial runs, but the GTV has now embarked on 200 hr. of ground testing that will clear the way for first flight.

Among the new features of the CH-53K are a new elastomeric rotor hub, split-torque transmission, General Electric GE38 engines, composite airframe, glass cockpit, digital fly-by-wire (FBW) flight controls, integrated vehicle health management, palletized cargo handling, triple-hook external loads and self-protection systems including laser missile jammer. “This is not a derivative of the CH-53E,” emphasizes Torok.

The key performance requirement for the new helicopter is to lift a 27,000-lb. external payload 110 nm in high/hot conditions (3,000 ft./91.5F). As the diameter of the seven-blade main rotor is the same as the CH-53E’s, at 79 ft., the additional lifting capacity comes from aerodynamic improvements to the blades and increased power to drive the rotor from the three 7,500-shp GE38-1B turboshafts.

“The extra lift is basically aerodynamic performance,” says Torok. “We are saying it has three times the lift of the E, but there is margin built into our performance calculations. If we apply that margin to the E, the CH-53K has closer to four times the lift capability.”

Gross takeoff weight is increased to almost 85,000 lb., from 73,400 lb. for the CH-53E, and maximum weight with internal load to 74,000 lb., from 69,000 lb. But while the CH-53K is wider inside than the CH-53E, it is slightly narrower outside. The cabin is 14 in. wider and slightly taller to accommodate 463L cargo pallets, with floor rollers for loading and unloading.

Outside width is 5-6 in. less because the enlarged sponsons carry the same amount of fuel as the sponsons and “bat wing” auxiliary tanks on the CH-53E. Self-contained and bolted on, each sponson houses two self-sealing bag tanks holding 2,300 gal. of fuel, for a total of 15,500 lb.

The fuselage has titanium frames under the gearbox to carry the lift loads, but all skins and beams are carbon-fiber composite for lower weight. The cockpit, cabin and tailboom are manufactured by Spirit AeroSystems, aft transition section by GKN Aerospace, sponsons and tailrotor pylon by Exelis and main rotor pylon by Aurora Flight Sciences. Development and initial production aircraft are being assembled at West Palm Beach. Sikorsky has yet to name the eventual location for final assembly.

The critical technologies that drive the CH-53K program are the rotor system, split-torque transmission and fly-by-wire controls. “The balance is state of the art, and the challenge is integration,” says Torok.

Oil bearings in the CH-53E’s main rotor hub are a major driver of maintenance costs, so the CH-53K has an elastomeric hub developed from that used on Sikorsky’s S-92. Made from layers of elastomer and metal, the fail-safe bearings accommodate blade lead, lag, flap and pitch movement without requiring lubrication.

The “fourth-generation” composite blades have a wider chord, new airfoils, twist, taper and tip shape optimized to increase performance in hover and forward flight. The main rotor has automatic blade fold. The tail rotor is 20 ft. in diameter, generating the same thrust as an S-76 main rotor, with four individual blades attached to the hub via flexbeams; stiff torque tubes transmit pitch changes to the blades.

Scaling up the CH-53E’s planetary gearbox design to the power levels required for the CH-53K would have resulted in a main transmission that was too heavy to fly, says Torok, so Sikorsky went to a split-torque design originally developed for the RAH-66 Comanche. “The new design keeps high speeds longer, and splits the loads, so it has redundancy and lighter parts,” he says. With a 19,000-shp. design capacity, the gearbox has a 30-min. run-dry capability.

The transmission has three input modules, each of which takes the power from one engine and divides it between four shafts that drive the output gear turning the main rotor. Each of these quill shafts is flexible in torsion to accommodate small differences in loads. “The transmission self-balances,” says Torok. This reduces the maximum load any one shaft must be able to carry to 103% torque, versus 120% if the shafts were rigid, which also lowers weight.

The latest in a line of FBW rotorcraft developed by Sikorsky that includes an S-92 demonstrator, CH-148 Cyclone maritime helicopter and upgraded UH-60MU Black Hawk, the CH-53K introduces sidestick cyclic controllers with tactile cueing. The goal is to improve on the CH-53E’s handing qualities and provide stability and control in degraded visual environments with enhanced FBW modes including autolanding, Torok says.

The glass cockpit is a derivative of Rockwell Collins’s Common Avionics Architecture System, used in the special-operations MH-60M, with five liquid-crystal flight displays. Where the CH-53E has been retrofitted with a health and usage monitoring system (HUMS), the CH-53K has a more-comprehensive installation aimed at improving fault detection and isolation so as to reduce the unwarranted removals that are a driver of maintenance costs.

The ground-test vehicle is putting all these systems and their integration through their paces ahead of first flight. “The GTV is a step improvement over previous programs,” says Torok. “It is an aircraft—an exact duplicate of the flight-test aircraft—with full-up cockpit, mission system, data concentrator, hydraulics, controls, rotor brake, etc.” A handful of equipment is not on the GTV because it is not required, he says, including a refueling probe and directed infrared countermeasures system.

The purpose of the GTV is to find and fix things before flight testing begins. “The sooner we find anything, the quicker we can fix it,” he says. Ground runs are planned and executed as if they were flight tests, with a crew on board, a test card and data being transmitted to the control room in real time. The steel columns that pass through the cabin floor and anchor the GTV to its concrete pad are attached to the gearbox mountings to carry the lift loads from the massive rotor as it spins.

The plan for the GTV is to complete 100 hr. of shakedown testing, bringing on systems one at a time and checking their integration. This is to be followed by 50 hr. of dedicated rotor testing to measure thrust and balance. A final 50 hr. of pre-flight acceptance tests—five runs each lasting 10 hr.—is required to clear the new helicopter for its first flight. GTV testing will continue, with a total of 800 hr. planned, including blade- and tail-fold endurance evaluation and maintenance demonstrations.

Sikorsky is finalizing assembly of the four YCH-53K engineering development models. Because of development issues encountered with the main gearbox, the flight order has been changed. While EDM-1 waited for a flightworthy gearbox, EDM-2 was first to be delivered, but with a ground-test gearbox. This is sufficient to enable overspeed testing to check for driveshaft vibration during autorotation, and ground-resonance and shake testing ahead of first flight.

EDM-1 will be first to fly, followed by EDM-3, then EDM-2 and finally EDM-4. Each is expected to complete around 500 hr. of flying. A static test article has begun trials in Connecticut. The fatigue test article is complete and in storage, with lead-the-fleet testing to begin once flight data has been collected.

Sikorsky received a $435 million contract in 2013 for four system demonstration test articles, production-representative CH-53Ks for operational evaluation. Final assembly will begin late this year at West Palm Beach, for delivery in 2016-17. There are four positions on the final assembly line here. At Station 4, the cockpit, cabin and tail from Spirit are stuffed with systems, and the sponsons are attached and landing gear installed. At Station 3, the main rotor pylon is fitted, hydraulic and fuel systems are installed and power turned on. At Station 2, the drive system, avionics and 13 ft.-dia., 4,650-lb. rotor hub quick-change assembly are installed. Station 1 conducts check-out tests and installs the pylon fairings ready for roll-out.

Planning for the first flight is underway already, using the engineering flight simulator and system integration laboratory. “We are doing dry runs for all testing, to get the crew coordination ready,” says Torok. In addition to completing 200 hr. on the GTV, before it can fly the CH-53K Sikorsky must also obtain flight clearance on all of the gearboxes, with the main transmission still to complete rigorous preliminary military qualification testing and less-severe qualification testing of the final production configuration.

Although designed around the principal external-lift mission of today’s CH-53E, Sikorsky suspects the increased capability could lead to new ways of using heavy-lift helicopters—particularly the ability to transfer cargo pallets directly to the CH-53K from intra-theater airlifters. “With the pallets and three hooks, it’s about throughput—how quickly you can get a large amount of materiel in the right place at the right time,” says Torok. “I think there will be a gee-whizz effect on logistics.”

But, for now, the Marine Corps is curbing its appetite for more and keeping the requirements stable for the sake of affordability. “When we went into design, we looked at future growth, but did not want to add too much upfront. I think we struck a good balance,” says Pridgen. “We started out with the whole idea of affordability and not paying lip service at the beginning.”

Acknowledging that the CH-53E “is a very expensive aircraft to fly,” Pridgen says supportability is key for the CH-53K. The Marine Corps has established the Fleet Common Operating Environment (FCOE) to reduce ownership cost. Modeled on Sikorsky’s S-92 fleet management operations center, the FCOE collects and analyzes aircraft data to enable predictive maintenance decisions. The capability was established at the end of 2012, initially using data from the CH-53E HUMS, and will be expanded for the CH-53K.



Sikorsky CH-53K Key Specifications

Main rotor diameter 79 ft.

Overall length (rotors turning) 99 ft.

Cabin length 30 ft.

Cabin width 9 ft.

Powerplant 3 X 7,500-shp General Electric GE38-1B

Max. gross weight (internal load) 74,000 lb.

Max. gross weight (external load) 84,700 lb.

Design mission 27,000-lb. payload, 110-nm radius

Max. cruise speed 170 kt.

Hover ceiling (out-of-ground effect) 3,180 ft.

Source: Sikorsky
 

Miragedriver

Brigadier
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



nimitz74-01.jpg


There is more fire power on that one vessel than in most nations Air Forces! All on a mobile air base.
 
Top