US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
On F-35B Depot:

Posted on InsideDefense.com: May 23, 2014

FLEET READINESS CENTER EAST, NC -- Under tremendous pressure to deliver 10 modified jets to the Marine Corps in time to meet the service's desired initial operational capability schedule, the Navy's F-35B depot in North Carolina is fighting to adapt to the complexity of the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft and a number of program-level issues as it comes close to finishing work on its very first Marine F-35.

JSF depot-level repairs and modifications are being performed at two Pentagon-run locations: the Ogden Air Logistics Complex, UT, which will service conventional-model F-35As and carrier-variant F-35Cs, and Fleet Readiness Center East (FRC East) at Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, NC, responsible for the F-35B short-takeoff-vertical-landing version of the aircraft. Those depots are largely staffed by civilians and operate like businesses, with the same strengths and weaknesses as private-sector industrial centers. Inside the Navy visited FRC East on May 19 and spoke with three depot employees directly involved in modifying those B-model jets, and they described the many challenges they have been presented with in the roughly 10 months since the depot began accepting JSF aircraft.

FRC East is currently performing what are called Group 1 modifications -- a package of structural upgrades meant to replace or reinforce life-limited parts, problems with which were discovered in flight testing as a result of the F-35 program's concurrent development and production. The depot has one Marine Corps jet and a British aircraft in work, program office spokesman Joe DellaVedova said, and the Marine aircraft is about 30 days late, said Don Jeter, the F-35 task manager at the depot. The Group 1 modification is scheduled to take 120 working maintenance days, according to DellaVedova.

Falling behind on the first F-35 is not unique to FRC East -- the same occurred at Ogden ALC, as InsideDefense.com reported late last year. In a May 22 email, that depot's chief of F-35 sustainment, Lt. Col. Dave Moreland, said the facility wrapped up its first prototype jet in March and is on track to finish its second by July.

Jeter said that first Marine aircraft should be ready for delivery back to the F-35 unit in Yuma, AZ, on June 6, once it is finished with its low-observable coating restoration -- a challenging process under any circumstances, but especially so for FRC East personnel who are experienced aircraft technicians but have never had to develop expertise on stealthy materials. That fighter has been referred to as a validation/verification aircraft and is not one of the 10 that will count toward Marine IOC, which the service has adamantly stated it will achieve in the summer or fall of 2015.

Jeter's team will need to learn quickly from its initial experiences on the aircraft, as the depot will fill up with F-35Bs within the next several months. He said the facility was on track to induct a third jet on May 22 and will receive additional aircraft every four to six weeks until it hits its capacity of six Joint Strike Fighters at any one time. Those will generally go to MCAS Yuma or the Marine Corps' second operational squadron at Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort, SC.

Jerry Bennett, the depot's F-35 overhaul and repair supervisor, acknowledged the pressure the group is under but urged F-35 leadership to better understand the challenge of standing up a depot in a very short time frame, staffing it with technicians who have never worked on a Joint Strike Fighter, holding them to arbitrary time frames driven by Marine Corps IOC, and the sheer complexity of the aircraft. In recent months, F-35 Program Executive Officer Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan has repeatedly cited the need to get airplanes through the depot and equipped with needed modifications as the primary driver of meeting the Marines' and Air Force's program schedules.

"On this jet, if you make a mistake, it might not cost you a day. It might cost you a month on your schedule," Bennett said. "So you have to take the time to do it right the first time or you will miss your schedules. Everybody has to understand that if you rush something, that's what you're going to get. You're going to get a rush job, and this aircraft is not forgiving."

Bennett and Jeter said depot artisans are routinely working 40 to 80 hours of overtime each pay period and they both said they have worked close to 14 consecutive days at a time.

Program problems

The depot staff expressed excitement at the challenge of working on an airplane as cutting-edge as the F-35, which will probably sustain business at the facility for decades. They also went out of their way to praise the Lockheed Martin employees on site for sharing their JSF expertise and working very well with depot personnel. But the FRC East team voiced its frustration at a number of issues that need attention and improvement.

One is micromanagement from the F-35 joint program office. Jeter said the process for getting miniscule tasks which require additional time or money approved for execution is very cumbersome, especially when tied to an aircraft owned by an international operator. That approval process runs all the way to a JPO representative; as of quite recently, one has been assigned permanently to FRC East, which should help the speed of decision-making.

Jeter also described situations in which the JPO demands explanations for why a certain task took five hours of labor instead of four, an unprecedented level of scrutiny that drives inefficiency and takes time. He, Bennett and John Wesley Klor, an F-35 plane captain and airframes work leader at the depot, stressed that the technicians are still working on their first aircraft and have much left to learn about the best ways to perform certain actions on the JSF.

"In the big picture of things, to me it seems like it's a big waste of everybody's effort and everybody's time to worry about those small ancillary bites," Jeter said. "We're dealing with a $130, $150, $180 million aircraft and you're concerned over two or three man-hours worth of labor. To me, we're focusing on the wrong things a lot of the time."

Jeter was also critical of the F-35's Autonomic Logistics Information System, which is meant to manage all aspects of JSF logistics. He said the program remains immature and that ALIS training he received was insufficient. Moreover, it is unlike any other system used at FRC East to handle maintenance and supply chain processes, again giving depot staff large amounts of new material to get used to under significant time constraints. Problematically, one long-identified issue with ALIS is that it takes several minutes to perform basic functions. A vastly improved version of the program is expected for release next spring, according to Lockheed Martin, the prime contractor on the F-35 and ALIS.

Third, Jeter and Klor pointed to challenges with technical data on the F-35. The issue there is not a shortage of tech data, which might be expected given the aircraft's developmental status, but rather a flood of it that has made it difficult for maintainers to know where to turn for concrete information they need.

"The actual quantity of tech data we deal with is astronomical. It's huge," Jeter said. "The drawings and the prints and everything they provide for us are great, because we're used to legacy systems where they were drawn with a square and a rule and you've got this stuff now that's all [computer-aided design] drawn. That portion of it is great, but the quantity of it is huge."

Work remains to be done to build a better channel for communications between the depot in Utah, where Air Force jets are being modified, and FRC East. Moreland, the Ogden ALC official, said a "great partnership" exists between the two, and that they are in constant communication. Jeter said the two have shared some lessons and tips -- particularly as related to a fix to the auxiliary air inlet door and wing root rib that is common across all three F-35 variants -- but that the partnership has much room for growth. "The Air Force has their way of doing business, the Navy has their way of doing business, and even though we're doing the same thing, we don't communicate between the two very well," he said.

Finally, FRC East employees recognized that their depot itself has some resource constraints. ITN observed modification and maintenance hangars servicing V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft, AV-8B Harrier fighters, CH-53 heavy-lift helicopters, H-1 utility and attack helicopters and others, all working at or close to maximum capacity. Bennett recognized that despite the F-35 program's notoriety and importance, the Defense Department units sending those other aircraft to the depot have requirements and time lines they need to meet as well, and it is neither practical nor desirable to pull the best technicians away from those activities to assign them to the Joint Strike Fighter.

"The customers don't want to know the F-35 took one of my best guys," Bennett said. "They don't want to hear it. They still want their stuff on time."

For now, the Pentagon's F-35 depots are only working on A- and B-model JSF jets. Moreland said the first carrier-capable F-35C for the Navy is expected to arrive in Utah in mid-fiscal year 2015.

So now we have to put our money where our mouth is, the price of concurrency will now begin to accrue, is it worth it, well we only have to look to the 100 or so F-35s and the maintainers and flight crew already well along in their transition into this exciting new aircraft to say, yes, no, or maybe? he he he
 
On V-22 Depots:

Posted on InsideDefense.com: May 23, 2014

FLEET READINESS CENTER EAST, NC -- The Navy depot facility responsible for V-22 Osprey maintenance and block upgrades is struggling to hire the people and find the space to accommodate a dramatic uptick in demand from the military, mainly the Marine Corps, as a result of changing budget scenarios.

Like most organizations across the Defense Department, the Navy's eight depots -- known as Fleet Readiness Centers -- were asked to slow down or delay some activities two years ago as a result of sequestration and the tighter fiscal outlook the 2011 Budget Control Act imposed. But when Congress granted the Pentagon relief from sequestration through fiscal year 2015, the services jumped at the chance to fund projects with newly available dollars.

That rapid ebb and flow has caused a tremendous headache at Fleet Readiness Center East, located at Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, NC, which Inside the Air Force visited on May 19. FRC East -- like depots managed by each of the services -- operating similar to an industrial factory, is staffed almost entirely by civilians, and many of its projects take months or sometimes years to complete. That time span, coupled with space constraints and a general shortage of qualified and experienced technicians working on the V-22 tiltrotor aircraft, has made it nearly impossible to re-write program plans that reflect major and unexpected changes in the budget.

FRC East performs routine maintenance, called planned maintenance intervals (PMIs), on the V-22, as well as extensive modifications that convert early-production Ospreys into more capable and maintainable aircraft. That group of modifications upgrades the aircraft from the initial Block A to the newer Block B. The Ospreys being produced now by a Bell-Boeing team are known as Block C aircraft.

Fred Sikes, the V-22 integrated product team lead at FRC East, described the factory's situation in an interview with ITAF.

"In FY-13, we had a total of seven [aircraft inductions]," Sikes said. "We were told that was going to drop to four, and then we were told it could increase to nine. Then it increased to 11, and then in February it went to 17. And they're telling us next year [in FY-15] it could be as high as 20, so you see the magnitude of the shift in a very short time."

The majority of that work involves regularly scheduled maintenance inspections, which tend to take between 50 and 80 days. In FY-15, depot personnel may be asked to perform 10 PMI procedures on site and as many as six elsewhere, such as at Marine Corps Air Station New River -- the Marines' East Coast V-22 training and operations base -- or Hurlburt Field, FL, where the Air Force flies its own CV-22 special-operations Osprey. The other four inductions will cover the Block A-to-B modification, which is scheduled to take a full year and has in practice taken longer than that when done in conjunction with other maintenance, Sikes said.

That is attributable in part to the complexity of the work being done, as well as to the condition of the aircraft coming in for that block upgrade; Gunnery Sgt. Vincent Burgess, a career V-22 maintainer and V-22 integrated product team staff non commissioned officer, said two of the eight aircraft completed so far were so badly damaged or missing so many parts that they had to be barged in to the depot and were not flyable. Repairing, modifying and inspecting one of those aircraft took about two years.

All 20 inductions are funded as part of the military's FY-15 budget request, Sikes said, but that does not automatically mean FRC East can support the request.

For one, the depot is short on space -- it has seven V-22s tightly packed into a hangar that is shared with employees working on the AV-8B Harrier vertical-takeoff fighter, and were more space available, two more Ospreys would be in work. Some real estate being made available in other sites at MCAS Cherry Point, as well as the permanent move of some work to MCAS New River, should help but not fully alleviate this issue, which was exacerbated by the changing amount of work the factory expected to perform.

The larger challenge, according to Sikes, is a shortage of people his team badly needs to increase the rate at which it moves Ospreys through the maintenance cycle. The depot currently employs 43 people focused on the V-22 and is moving to increase its capacity to 71; Sikes said many new hires were identified as far back as November, but the team will likely not be fully staffed until July or August, significantly limiting the amount of work that could be done in the interim. It will then take three to four months for those new hires to become familiar with specific Osprey or FRC East procedures.

Moreover, FRC East purposefully left some positions vacant over the last two years, such as when people retired or were promoted, because of an expected decrease in workload. Sikes said the depot's staffing fell "down to a level we thought was sufficient for the projected workload, and then they changed the goal line on us."

Looking forward at the type of work the depot could be asked to perform, there are a relatively small number of A-to-B block conversions left to do. All of the Block A aircraft still in operation throughout DOD are based at the V-22 training squadron at MCAS New River, which ITAF visited earlier this month; eight of that unit's 21 Block A aircraft have already transitioned to Block B, and the rest will undergo that conversion over the next several years. Beyond that, though, Burgess and Sikes said they thought it likely the Marine Corps would eventually upgrade all of its Block B aircraft to the newer Block C configuration.

Burgess said that potential upgrade would be less invasive to the actual airframe than the A-to-B modification but make significant avionics changes.

There is some potential FRC East staff could be asked to perform more programmed maintenance for the Air Force, which owns a much smaller fleet of CV-22s than does the Marine Corps. Sikes said his team will most likely put four Air Force aircraft through planned maintenance intervals this year, but that number could go up or down in the future.

Sikes also identified a challenge obtaining replacement parts for the Osprey, even though it is relatively new and still in production -- pointing to more serious issues in the future. As a result of problems during the Osprey's development and acquisition phases, DOD did not invest sufficient sums of money in spare parts, logistics pipelines, or data rights, Sikes said. The result has been that some parts that are breaking are not being produced by any commercial vendors, and the Pentagon does not own the data rights to manufacture them in limited quantities, leaving few economical options for repair.

"Depot-level maintenance, probably even squadron-level maintenance, is a challenge, even though that aircraft is still in production," he said. "AV-8, they're starting to need parts [because of the fleet's age and planned retirement]. V-22, there aren't any parts for a different reason."
 
On Senate & Air Force:

Posted on InsideDefense.com: May 23, 2014

The Senate Armed Service Committee's version of the fiscal year 2015 defense authorization bill includes provisions that would prohibit the Air Force from retiring any legacy E-3 battle management aircraft or transferring MC-12 spy planes.

The bill, which the committee approved Thursday, would also delay a C-130 rebasing effort.

The proposed legislation includes a long list of consequential provisions relating to the Air Force that, if made law, would go against many of the service's wishes and delay for another year several significant force structure changes.

According to a summary of the bill, the legislation would prevent the retirement of the A-10 fleet and alter plans to divest the U-2. It would also require the Pentagon to develop an American rocket engine to replace the Russian-made RD-180 on the Atlas V Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle.

The bill supports the Pentagon's funding requests of $5.8 billion for the F-35 fighter program, $1.56 billion for the KC-46 tanker, and $1.4 billion to procure J-model C-130 airlifters. It would add $25 million for the stalled C-130 Avionics Modernization Program.

In addition, Senate authorizers propose reducing procurement funding for the newly established Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System recapitalization effort by $63 million. They would prohibit the Air Force from retiring five legacy JSTARS aircraft, based at Robins Air Force Base, GA, until the service completes a report on a modernization plan, the summary states. "The bill allows the department to move ahead with its plan to retire JSTARS aircraft subject to a reporting requirement," committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) told reporters on Thursday.

The committee would increase operations and maintenance funding for the E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System fleet by $34.6 million and block the service from retiring any of those aircraft. The Air Force wants to divest seven aircraft to pay for a multibillion-dollar effort to modernize the fleet, which is based at Tinker Air Force Base, OK.

"The AWACS is the eyes and ears of the air, and right now we actually need more," Levin said.

The House Armed Services Committee's version of the FY-15 defense authorization bill, which was passed by the full chamber on Thursday, would save three of those aircraft instead of seven.

The strategic forces subcommittee's mark of the Senate bill, meanwhile, would forbid the Air Force from retiring any unmanned MQ-1 Predator aircraft in fiscal year 2015, although the service does not plan to begin retiring that legacy fleet until FY-16. It would also direct the comptroller general to review the Defense Department's remotely piloted aircraft training program.

The summary released by Levin and Ranking Member Jim Inhofe (R-OK) said the bill would support an increase in intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) efforts within the U.S. Africa Command and U.S. Southern Command areas of responsibility, which could come in the form of more rotations of Air Force ISR platforms to the regions.

The bill would halt the Air Force's transfer of MC-12 ISR aircraft from Beale Air Force Base, CA, to operators at U.S. Special Operations Command until a report justifying the move is provided to the congressional defense committees. "Commensurate with this provision, the bill cuts $40.5 million for MC-12 modifications," the summary states.

The committee would add $11 million in funding to improve SOCOM's fleet of MQ-9 Reapers, which perform ISR and precision-strike missions.

For space programs, the bill would prohibit further procurement of Russian-made rocket engines and provide the Pentagon with "$20 million in funding already appropriated in FY-14 and an additional $100 million to begin engineering design in FY-15" to develop a new engine, the summary said.

The resulting engine program would produce an Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle-class liquid rocket engine for production no later than 2019, the summary states. "There's also language to ensure as much competition as possible between the Untied Launch [Alliance] and SpaceX without breaking the current block buy [of EELVs] because that block buy contract saves us about $4 billion," Levin said.

Another provision in the bill would cut requested funding relating to the storage of the last defense meteorological satellite, DMSP-20, until the Pentagon "certifies to Congress" that it intends to launch that unit.

The committee would add $20 million to the Operationally Responsive Space program, headquartered at Kirtland Air Force Base, NM. That program is planning to launch its fifth satellite, ORS-5, in calendar year 2017, and the committee would require that the service compete the contract for that mission, which would likely involve ULA and SpaceX.

Other directives in the legislation would require the Air Force report to Congress on options for replacing or upgrading the T-1A Jayhawk training aircraft, produced in the 1990s.

The legislation would direct the service to limit aircraft retirements until it completes an analysis of 80 percent of its mission areas, such as ISR or close air support, by the end of calendar year 2014.

Regarding the service's plan to retire the fleet of U-2 spy planes based at Beale AFB, Levin said the committee's version of the bill would shift money from the Global Hawk program to the U-2, but it would not prohibit or require the retirement of either platform. The bill would provide more than $62 million to continue modernizing the U-2.

For the A-10, the committee would fund the fleet for at least another year but take away funding for a re-winging effort at least until the next budget cycle.

The House bill would keep both the U-2 and A-10.
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
Happy Memorial Day! Thank you to All those who served .:eek::D

memorial_day_20121213113105_320_240.JPG


memorial_day_300.jpg
 
On Aircraft Inventory:

Posted on InsideDefense.com: May 28, 2014

The Defense Department will shed more than 1,100 aircraft from the military's fleets as part of the fiscal year 2015 five-year spending plan, 8 percent more than projected last year and a harbinger of additional decreases if mandatory spending caps remain in place.

The changes are detailed in DOD's "Annual Aviation Inventory and Funding Plan, Fiscal Years 2015-2044," completed in April. The 34-page report outlines long-term aircraft plans for all fixed-wing and rotatory aircraft, including unmanned systems for all the military services and U.S. Special Operations Command.

Notably, the report omits a key figure provided to lawmakers in prior versions -- an estimated aggregate dollar amount needed to acquire and sustain the entire aircraft fleet over the next decade. For example, last year the Pentagon estimated DOD would need more than $100 billion annually by the end of the decade for all aviation-related activities needed to achieve the planned inventory, including research and development, procurement, operation and maintenance, personnel and military construction.

The FY-15 to FY-44 aviation plan "provides the capabilities needed to meet current and projected national security objectives, while prudently balancing security risks over time and against fiscal realities," the report states. "These efforts will ensure the department procures the right aircraft at the right time to manage risk against existing and emerging anti-access-area denial (A2/AD) threats."

Compared with the FY-14 annual aviation inventory and funding plan, the Defense Department plans to reduce the aircraft inventory between FY-15 and FY-24. The FY-14 plan envisioned a total fleet of 14,854 in FY-15; 14,916 in FY-16; 14,910 in FY-17; 14,912 in FY-18; and 14,816 in FY-19.

The new plan calls for 14,110 in FY-15, a 5 percent reduction; 13,878 in FY-16, a 7 percent cut; 13,820 in FY-17, a 7 percent cut; 13,754 in FY-18, an 8 percent reduction; and 13,667 in FY-19, an 8 percent cut.

The portions of the fleet in line for the most dramatic changes are intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, scout, and command, control, communications and computers aircraft. DOD aims to cut that fleet by one-third in FY-19 compared to last year's plan, from 1,864 platforms to 1,274 -- a reduction of 590 aircraft.

By FY-19, the Pentagon plans to reduce the total fighter-attack inventory by 337 aircraft, 10 percent more than projected a year ago. The Air Force is planning to retire A-10 and F-15C aircraft earlier than originally planned to finance its modernization plans.

The fleet of trainer aircraft will be reduced by 332, a 14 percent reduction compared to the FY-14 plan. Special operations aircraft inventories will be reduced by four aircraft, or 1 percent.

Other parts of the U.S. fleet are slated to grow at the end of the FYDP. The attack helicopter inventory will grow by 96 aircraft compared to the FY-14 plan, an 11 percent boost that would raise the fleet's total to 946. The airlift, cargo and utility aircraft fleet is projected to have 43 more planes in FY-19 than projected last year, for a total of 4,418. Combat-search-and-rescue and aerial refueling inventories each would grow by four aircraft in FY-19 compared to the FY-14 plan, according to the April report.

In March, however, the Obama administration proposed an FY-15 budget that revised DOD's long-term spending plan, trimming growth in planned modernization across the decade and projecting cuts of up to 2 percent in FY-19. The FY-15 budget proposal assumed $115 billion more than permitted under statutory spending caps for defense between FY-16 and FY-19.

If forced to remove the $115 billion from the last four years of the five-year spending plan, the Pentagon would further reduce its aircraft inventory, the report warns. In a separate report to Congress last month on the effects of sequestration, the Pentagon said new aircraft development and procurement spending would be cut by at least $11 billion between FY-16 and FY-19.

Pentagon officials have previously raised questions about the report's utility, prepared by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, noting that such long-term aircraft procurement plans -- especially those beyond the five-year planning period -- are based on considerable speculation about the future security environment, available technologies, yet-to-be-developed operational concepts and future budgets.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Been a Little While.
Ford Carriers Sport New Radars To Deflect Threats

Aviation Week & Space Technology
Michael Fabey
Thu, 2014-05-29 13:54
U.S. Navy says it can thwart Chinese ASBM threat


A version of this article appears in the May 26 edition of Aviation Week & Space Technology.

When the next-generation aircraft carrier CVN 78 Gerald R. Ford takes to the seas later this decade, it will face one of the most dangerous threats to the U.S. maritime military behemoth—the Chinese DF-21 anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM).

But U.S. Navy officials remain confident that the technological improvements to the Ford as well as the other ships shielding the carrier from attack should be able to protect the vessel.

The Chinese missile is based on the DF-21 (CSS-5) medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) and gives China the capability to attack large ships—including aircraft carriers—in the western Pacific Ocean, with a range exceeding 1,500 km, or 810 nm.

“The DF-21D is a theater-range ballistic missile equipped with a maneuverable reentry vehicle (Marv) designed to hit moving ships at sea,” the Congressional Research Service (CRS) notes in a recent report.

“Observers have expressed strong concern about the DF‑21D, because such missiles, in combination with broad-area maritime surveillance and targeting systems, would permit China to attack aircraft carriers, other U.S. Navy ships, or ships of allied or partner navies operating in the Western Pacific,” CRS reports.

“The U.S. Navy has not previously faced a threat from highly accurate ballistic missiles capable of hitting moving ships at sea. For this reason, some observers have referred to the DF-21 as a game-changing weapon.”

But zeroing in on a carrier with such a missile is more difficult than it seems, says Rear Adm. Michael Manazir, director of air warfare.

Related
NavWeek: Ford Tour

Eyeing the Ford from the ship’s flight deck, he notes: “People think this is a big target. But they have to get to the carrier and then discern that it is a carrier.”

In addition, the U.S. Navy has a layered network of defensive systems.

“It’s a series of systems,” Manazir explains during a recent exclusive tour of the Ford at the Newport News Shipbuilding yard in the Tidewater part of Virginia. “We want to attack it on the left side of the kill chain.”

Getting to the Ford and its escort ships means also penetrating the carrier strike group, he says. “We use the air defense systems of the cruisers and destroyers to protect the carrier.”

The Ford also has some of its own protection, he points out, including the Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM), a close-in weapons system, as well as the Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program (Sewip) and MK 57 NATO Sea Sparrow missile.

The ship also will be sporting the Navy’s new dual-band radar (DBR), another major technology improvement for the Ford-class carrier that should help provide missile defense.

The admiral, though, acknowledges the Navy is reviewing whether it will continue using DBR for carriers after the Ford or use technological advances to develop a radar more appropriate for the ships.

“The DBR was initially designed for the [DDG-1000] Zumwalt [destroyer],” he notes. “The Zumwalt is a combatant.”

The question, he says, is whether the Navy and industry can use some of the scalable technology employed in the DBR to develop another dual-band suite of S- and X-band coverage that will be more suitable for operations aboard a carrier or amphibious ship.

The Navy has to consider all of the radar and defense capability available in a carrier strike group, he says. “What does a carrier strike group bring? What does a carrier bring? We’re really sharpening our pencils over this. We have to look at all of the technology out there.”

Other technological advancements for the Ford-class ships provide the potential for more shields and weaponry.

For example, Manazir notes, the ship will have the kind of electrical power margins to make it possible to incorporate lasers or other energy weapons aboard the vessels.

The Ford’s electric power distribution grid kicks up about 13,800 volts, compared to about 4,160 for Nimitz-class carriers. Of course the ship needs more juice to power its DBR, Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (Emals) and other systems, but the design allows for even greater capacity.

“If you go to a more electric-centric ship, you have to have big electrical potential,” Manazir says. “The Ford was designed with a 60 percent increase in capacity.”

For Nimitz-class ships, he says, any new technological improvements that require more electricity would mean power-supply redesigns to accommodate the upgrades.

“With Ford,” he says, “it’s already designed into the ship.”

Source URL:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Gulfstream to pitch G650 for JSTARS replacement
By: STEPHEN TRIMBLEGENEVA Source: Flightglobal.com 13:42 22 May 2014
Gulfstream will offer the G650 to the US Air Force as a replacement for the service's ageing fleet of air-to-ground surveillance and targeting aircraft, chief executive Larry Flynn confirms to Flightglobal.

The 30m (110ft)-long G650 can be adapted to meet the USAF's still-emerging requirements for an aircraft to replace the Northrop Grumman E-8C JSTARS fleet, which are based on used Boeing 707s acquired in the late-1980s.

"We think we absolutely have [the right aircraft] and the government can save a lot of money," Flynn says. Boeing and Bombardier also attended an "industry day" event hosted by the air force last month.

It believes that acquiring a new platform avoids a $10.5 billion bill required to upgrade and sustain the E-8C.

The replacement plan was unveiled earlier this year, but the service is still working to define exactly what it wants and to obtain funding approval.

Documents released by the USAF in early May indicate the replacement aircraft must accommodate a crew of between 10-13 and a belly-mounted radar between 3.9-6m long. That compares with the 7.3m-long APY-7 radar and 18-member crew on the E-8C.

Boeing is expected to offer a ground surveillance version of the next-generation 737, which is already adapted for maritime surveillance as the P-8A for the US and Indian navies.

Although shorter and narrower than the 737, the G650 is still large enough to accommodate the air force's requirement, Flynn says. "The stuff they want to put in it will fit in a 650," he says.

Gulfstream has supplied several versions of the G550 to US and foreign militaries. But the JSTARS replacement is the first known attempt by Gulfstream to offer a militarised variant of the G650, which entered service about 18 months ago.

Gulfstream's bidding strategy is to team with a defence contractor to serve as the integrator, Flynn says.
Automotive engineers explore future mobility, protection
May 27, 2014

By Dan Desmond, TARDEC Public Affairs

Story Highlights
Army design engineers imagine systems to provide a wide range of military vehicle platforms with optionally manned capabilities to increase safety and provide Soldiers with additional flexibility.

High-mobility ground combat vehicles capable of tackling any terrain or environmental condition (track or wheeled) are imagined by Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center systems engineers.
This artist rendering depicts a future combat vehicle assembly line at the Detroit Arsenal. High-mobility ground combat vehicles capable of tackling any terrain or environmental condition (track or wheeled) are imagined by Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center systems engineers.
The first three optionally-manned vehicles in a convoy negotiate oncoming traffic, follow rules of the road, recognize and avoid pedestrians and obstacles. The vehicles use artificial intelligence and decision-making abilities to reroute its direction through a maze of test areas to complete both complex urban and rural line haul missions using the Autonomous Mobility Appliqué System.
Gen. Dennis Via, Army Materiel Command commanding general, and Heidi Shyu, assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics and technology, take their seats in the OCP demonstrator buck during a recent Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center visit. As a safety measure, OCP design provides dedicated storage areas for weapons and gear so they won't be flung around during a blast event.
The May/June 2014 Army Technology Magazine features discusses of future technologies to enhance Soldier capabilities. View or download the issue by following the link below in Related Files.
Related Files
Army Technology Magazine
May/June 2014 Focus: Soldier of the Future
Related Links
Army.mil: Science and Technology News
U.S. Army Materiel Command
U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command
Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center
Army Technology Live
DETROIT ARSENAL, Mich. (May 27, 2014) -- When Gen. Dennis Via, U.S. Army Materiel Command commanding general, visited the Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center earlier this year, he said, "We don't know where the next contingency will be, but there will be another contingency."

Via emphasized that regardless of where, "they're going to expect units to be ready to go with the equipment and materiel needed to accomplish the mission and come home safely."

With that in mind, engineers with the Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center, known as TARDEC, are surging forward with projects to support the Army of the future.

"By improving the current vehicle fleet and developing new capabilities, our engineers and scientists are making progress in shaping the Army of 2025 and changing the way Soldiers in the next generation will fight," said TARDEC Technical Director Dr. Paul Rogers.

FUTURE MOBILITY

Envisioning how future mobility will look and function started with the Mobility Demonstrator. Some of those ideas have spun into other key projects, such as the Combat Vehicle Prototype, known as CVP, and the Ground experimental vehicle, known as GXV. The GXV is a joint project with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA.

Engineers explored future mobility concepts that offer modularity, advanced drive trains and component commonality. They looked at systems such as common chassis, wheels-to-tracks transformation systems, high-power-dense engines, advanced suspension systems, electrified propulsion systems, advanced energy storage systems and advanced thermal management systems. These exercises evolved into future research initiatives, including the GXV.

The GXV has initiated several seedling evaluations involving other Army agencies and academic partners exploring the technical feasibility of advanced -- and in some cases, radical -- mobility concepts and performance assessments for a smaller, lighter, more agile vehicle that could move over previously inaccessible terrain.

"Operational forces have been limited to the terrain they encounter, and we're researching how GXP could travel over different kinds of terrain," said Paul Decker, deputy program manager for DARPA GXP and Advanced Vehicle Make. "A vehicle with rapid deployability, radically enhanced mobility, lethality and enhanced survivability is within the realm of the possible."

DRIVERLESS MOBILITY

TARDEC demonstrated autonomous vehicle technology at Fort Hood, Texas, earlier this year. Engineers equipped two unmanned Palletized Load System cargo haulers and an M915 tractor trailer to interact with a manned Humvee gun truck escort, negotiating oncoming traffic, following rules of the road, recognizing and avoiding pedestrians and obstacles, and then using intelligence and decision-making abilities to re-route their direction through a maze of test areas to complete both complex urban and rural line-haul missions.

The system may provide flexibility and adaptability to augment Soldier capabilities and protection. Engineers designed the system to provide a wide range of military vehicle platforms with optionally manned capabilities to increase safety and provide Soldiers with additional flexibility.

Equipped with GPS, LIDAR (Light Detecting and Ranging systems) and RADAR, along with a host of sensors and other high-tech hardware and software components, the system's intelligence and autonomous decision-making abilities can be installed in practically any military vehicle, transforming an ordinary vehicle into an optionally manned version.

Another demonstration with more vehicles and more complex notional scenarios is scheduled for later this year.

"We are very happy with the results, but the AMAS must undergo more testing before it becomes deployable," said Bernard Theisen, TARDEC's lead AMAS engineer. "The vehicles and systems are replaceable, but nothing can replace the life of a Soldier. These systems keep Soldiers safe and make them more efficient."

MODULAR VEHICLE DEMONSTRATOR

TARDEC leadership periodically selects a series of innovation projects featuring new technology development with potential to change how ground vehicle platforms are designed. The Modular Vehicle Demonstrator proposes to assemble interchangeable vehicle pods on a common chassis in the 30 to 55 ton weight class, transforming the way the Army produces vehicle fleets.

The concept would allow a common platform and powertrain system as a base, combined with a series of removable pods to assemble mission-specific configurations. The concept would preclude the requirement for vehicle variants built to perform specific missions, such as carrying a squad, hauling supplies, assault or reconnaissance. The demonstrator program even allows for a driverless application.

"It's all conceptual," TARDEC engineer David Skalny said. "The propulsion unit doesn't change. We're looking at a standard unit length for the chassis and you could put together whichever pods you need to achieve the goal. There's a four-man pod configuration, a six-man configuration, and there are pods for carrying ammunition, supplies, a crane or weapons."

The team has transitioned to full-size vehicle testing to demonstrate the chassis, drivetrain performance and armor solutions using an existing mine-resistant ambush-protected hull as a test bed.

"The intent of the program is to design a vehicle with extensive modularity, commonality, adaptability and flexibility to perform a variety of missions," TARDEC engineer Mazin Barbat said. "The ability to quickly reconfigure the vehicle for mission-specific needs would give us a significant advantage in speed and flexibility."

The Army has made meaningful investments in laboratories and facilities to validate these technologies. For example, the Ground Systems Power and Energy Laboratory, which opened in April 2012, provides eight laboratories under one roof to test automotive systems under climate-controlled conditions.

In addition, the Vehicle Characterization Laboratory combines a series of vehicle performance and durability simulator devices. And the soon-to-open Vehicle Electronics Architecture Systems Integration Technology Hangar will allow engineers to address power and electronic integration issues, along with in-vehicle hardware and software solutions verification.

At the heart of this strategy is investment in exceptional facilities and talent to achieve the right technology solutions for Soldiers. "If we are successful as a science and technology community, we will fundamentally change the capabilities future Soldiers have to give them overwhelming superiority," Rogers said.

(Editor's Note: Bruce Huffman, TARDEC Public Affairs, contributed to this article.)

----

The U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center is part of the U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command, which has the mission to develop technology and engineering solutions for America's Soldiers.

RDECOM is a major subordinate command of the U.S. Army Materiel Command. AMC is the Army's premier provider of materiel readiness -- technology, acquisition support, materiel development, logistics power projection, and sustainment -- to the total force, across the spectrum of joint military operations. If a Soldier shoots it, drives it, flies it, wears it, eats it or communicates with it, AMC provides it.
House panel proposes $570B for defense; adds monies for carrier, growlers
May. 29, 2014 - 04:02PM |

By John T. Bennett
Staff writer Navy Times
FILED UNDER
News
Congress & DOD
WASHINGTON — US House defense appropriators moved one step closer Thursday morning to approving $570.4 billion in base and war spending for the Pentagon, including funds for an 11th aircraft carrier and electronic-attack planes.

Notably, the lower chamber’s Appropriations Defense subcommittee’s mark of a 2015 military spending bill does not mention the Air Force’s A-10 attack plane fleet, which service officials are proposing to retire to save money. House and Senate authorizers found budgetary offsets to block the move, and the full House Appropriations Committee still could follow suit when it marks up the bill.

Aides say the bill should be approved by the subcommittee and sent to the full committee Friday morning. It includes a $491 billion defense appropriations bill and a separate $79.4 billion overseas contingency operations (OCO), or war funding, section.

The subcommittee also found $2.1 billion in eyebrow-raising items to nix and create savings, including $592 million that the Pentagon overestimated it needed for civilian personnel costs.

The House is in recess next week. An aide said the full Appropriations Committee likely will take up the defense bill the following week.

As has become the subcommittee’s annual custom, it briefly stepped out of line Thursday with warnings by establishment House Republicans that current military spending is too low. A subcommittee summary of the legislation released with the bill notes in its opening paragraphs that its 2015 funding levels would equal “an increase of $4.1 billion above the fiscal year 2014 enacted level and $200 million above the president’s request.”

Unlike some House Armed Services Committee leaders, the subpanel’s chairman signaled the $570.4 billion would be enough to maintain America’s military advantage.

“This subcommittee has worked in a bipartisan fashion to provide the Department and intelligence community with the resources needed to maintain and modernize the best equipped and most capable military in the world today and in the future,” Defense subcommittee Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen, R-N.J., said in a statement.

“In addition, we have established priorities that will enhance readiness for our military so they remain prepared to protect America in an increasingly dangerous world.”

For weapon systems, the HAC-D bill would provide the Pentagon $91.2 billion to send to arms manufacturers, $1.6 billion more than the Obama administration requested.

Specifically, it calls for $5.8 billion next year to buy 38 Lockheed Martin-made F-35 fighters, four more than requested.

Following the lead of the House and Senate Armed Services committees, the House Appropriations defense subpanel wants to maintain an 11-aircraft carrier fleet. It found $789 million to shift toward refueling the USS George Washington, which would keep that number of flattops in the active rotation.

In a big win for Boeing, the HAC-D bill shifts $975 million for the 12 EA-18G Growler electronic warfare jets the Navy wanted but opted to exclude from its 2015 request. Another win for the Chicago-based company is the $1.6 billion the subpanel is proposing for the Air Force’s KC-46A aerial tanker program.

“This [weapons] funding will help ensure our nation’s military readiness by providing the necessary platforms, weapons, and other equipment our forces need to train, maintain our force, and conduct successful operations,” states the subcommittee’s summary.

In a further win for the Pentagon and US arms makers, the bill proposes $63.4 billion for weapons research and development, nearly $370 million above the 2014 enacted amount and $171 million more than the administration sought.

That includes fully funding the Pentagon’s requests for the F-35, KC-46A, the Air Force’s new long-range bomber program, the Navy’s unmanned carrier-based drone aircraft initiative, the sea service’s next-generation submarine, the Army-Marine Corps Joint Light Tactical Vehicle effort, the Navy’s P8-A multimission maritime aircraft initiative and the RQ-4 Triton drone aircraft program for the Navy and Air Force.

“These activities will help to advance the safety and success of current and future military operations, and will help prepare our nation to meet a broad range of future security threats,” the subcommittee said.

During numerous hearings about the 2015 defense spending request, senior civilian and uniformed officials warned lawmakers that ongoing sequestration cuts would make the military less ready to do a number of missions around the globe.

To that end, “the bill includes an additional $1.2 billion to fill readiness shortfalls, [and] $721 million to restore unrealistic reductions in the president’s request to facility sustainment and modernization,” according to the summary.

The bill’s inclusion of the $79.4 billion for the OCO accounts comes one day after senior White House officials took to cable news to describe the cost of keeping President Obama’s desired 9,800 US troops in Afghanistan next year: $20 billion.

The administration is expected to request more than that amount for operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere, however.

Lawmakers have expressed frustration for months about their inability to get a sense of just how large the 2015 OCO fund would need to be, saying senior administration officials have been uncooperative on that topic.

On Wednesday, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., echoed members of both parties in saying White House officials “are very hard to work with.”

During a forum at Washington’s George Washington University, Rogers said getting any notion from the White House about the OCO figure has been “the most frustrating” experience he can recall.■
 
Top