Overblog
Suivre ce blog Administration + Créer mon blog
26 avril 2013 5 26 /04 /avril /2013 11:20
A KC-135R refuels an F-15 Eagle photo USAF

A KC-135R refuels an F-15 Eagle photo USAF

April 25, 2013.  David Pugliese - Defence Watch
 

This is written by Jet Fabara (yes Jet) of 412th Test Wing Public Affairs:

 

Known as “The Mighty War Wagon” of the Air Force, the KC-135 Stratotanker has proven to be the core aerial refueling capability for the Air Force for more than 50 years.

With the help of the 418th Flight Test Squadron at Edwards, along with a multitude of testers, the KC-135 Block 45 test team recently completed a series of tests in April to help extend the aircraft’s service life for decades.

 

“There are currently 419 KC-135s and 59 KC-10s that enhance the Air Force’s capability to accomplish its primary mission of Global Reach while providing aerial refueling support to Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and allied nation aircraft. These aircraft also provide mission support including cargo, aeromedical evacuation, personnel transport, and a variety of other specialized missions,” said Maj. John Mikal, 418th FLTS KC-135 Block 45 lead project test pilot. “Increasing the life expectancy of the current Air Force tanker fleet is critical. Ongoing upgrade programs help to ensure there is no gap in these mission capabilities, while the new KC-46 program starts replacing the aging KC-135 fleet.”

 

130305-F-ZZ999-038

 

As part of the KC-135 Block 45 upgrades, Mikal said they included a digital flight director, a radar altimeter, an electronic engine instrument display, and Automatic Flight Control System or Autopilot for Communications, Navigation, Surveillance/Air Traffic Management (CNS/ATM) requirements in order to maintain global airspace access.

 

“Maintenance sustainability was another item that was looked at, which addresses the need to deal with parts that are obsolete, since no one makes the old parts anymore,” said Mikal.

 

“Commercial off-the-shelf equipment or systems will be used to replace the existing analog flight director, radio altimeter, autopilot, and 21 cockpit engine instruments with newer digital technology equipment that will be integrated into the existing avionics.”

 

According to Mikal, the new upgrades will ensure:

  • the extension and improvement of mission capability and sustainability of the KC-135 fleet
  • the new digital avionics technology integrated into the legacy system will increase safety, efficiency and reliability
  • effective replacement of obsolete components
  • the KC-135 meets current and future CNS/ATM requirements, allowing unrestricted operations in commercial and military airspace throughout the world.

 

“The Block 45 modification was needed to extend the KC-135 aircraft as a viable weapon system through fiscal year 2040,” added Mikal. “The Block 45 systems mitigate capability gaps and improve overall KC-135 shortcomings in reliability, maintainability and supportability.”

 

At the initial start of the KC-135 Block 45 program, it was originally estimated that testing would end in March 2011, but the technical challenge of integrating the new digital systems proved to be very challenging, according to the test team.

 

“It took an amazing amount of ingenuity and hard work by the collective KC-135 Block 45 upgrade team, due to the program experiencing a two-month stop in test in early 2012 to determine the cause of a structural coupling event which occurred during flight test,” Mikal said. “While clearing the aerial refueling envelope, the performance of the new autopilot altitude hold was so good, re-adjustment was required to improve stability during aerial refueling coupled flight.”

 

Along with the 418th, the massive, multi-year undertaking required support from more than 90 members to overcome technical hurdles and prevent the very real threat of program cancellation. Of those included, individuals were acquired from the 412th Test Wing, 412th Operations Group, 412th Test and Engineering Group, 773rd Test Squadron, 775th Test Squadron, 370th Flight Test Squadron, 445th Flight Test Squadron, the KC-135 Special Programs Office, Rockwell Collins, Air Mobility Command Test and Evaluation Squadron Detachment 3, AMC Air, Space and Information Operations (A3), and McConnell Air Force Base, Kan.

 

“There were only two KC-135 aircrew in the 418th FLTS when the program started. Eventually, the 418th FLTS KC-135 aircrew numbered four; even so, Test Operations was largely instrumental in supporting the program with their KC-135 aircrew,” said Mikal.

Most notably though was the Edwards team, which was able to complete the final testing $200,000 below cost and three weeks ahead of new schedule through extremely efficient testing and test execution flexibility despite regular scope changes, priority changes, funding rebaseline, weather cancellations, maintenance issues, resource rescheduling/constraints, and the ultimate challenge of addressing the AR oscillation issue with no additional schedule or funding impacts.

 

“In the end, the Global Reach Combined Test Force test team proved to be a pivotal contributor, bringing this challenged program to a successful completion,” added Mikal. “Successful completion of this program has secured the opportunity to field Block 45 to the KC-135 fleet, while preventing the otherwise inevitable reduction in overall mission effectiveness due to avionics obsolescence and CNS/ATM airspace access issues. Without the KC-135 Block 45, 88-percent of the USAF tanker assets would eventually be unable to complete their mission.”

 

It is currently estimated that the first 179 KC-46 aircraft will be delivered by 2028

Partager cet article
Repost0
25 avril 2013 4 25 /04 /avril /2013 07:35
Game Changer: The F-35 and the Pacific

 

April 25, 2013 By Robbin F. Laird - thediplomat.com

 

To understand the real value of the F-35 one must consider its operation as a fleet, not simply as an individual aircraft.

 

It is difficult to discuss the F-35 without actually knowing what the aircraft is and how F-35 fleets will reshape combat. But this is precisely what the budding negative commentary on the F-35 is built on – a lack of knowledge. 

Even worse, the existing 5th generation aircraft is not well known either, because of its limited numbers and its condemnation by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and President Barack Obama as a “Cold War” weapon. One could note that when the latest Korean crisis flared up, those “Cold War” mainstays, the F-22 and the B-2 (which has been flying now for more than 20 years) were called upon very quickly. And the U.S. Air Force (USAF) began to do sortie surge exercises in Hawaii and Arctic exercises in Alaska to increase the quantities of F-22s available for immediate Pacific operations. 

I have had the opportunity over the years to interview many F-22 and F-35 pilots, maintainers and builders as well as the subsystem suppliers of the F-35. Much of the capability of the aircraft, including its multiple integrated combat systems are evolutionary steps forward, and low risk systems, such as the active electronically scanned array (AESA) built by Northrop Grumman for the F-35. 

What is radically new about the F-35 is the fusion of data in the cockpit and the shaping of a new decision making capability within the aircraft and the fleet.  The aircraft permits situational decision-making, not just situational awareness.  It is a C5ISR (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Combat Systems, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance) aircraft, which allows the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) alone to replace three aircraft, including an Electronic Warfare Aircraft with the F-35B. This is also why Singapore has referred to the F-35B as a “cost effective” aircraft.

But understanding the real value of the F-35 one must consider its operation as a fleet, not simply as an individual aircraft. The F-22 was built as an aircraft, which flies in 2, and 4 ship formations, but unlike the F-15, the “wingman” is miles away and not anywhere to be found in visual range. As one pilot put it to me: “When we take off together that is the last time we see each other until we land.”

The F-35 also has the capability to operate miles away from one another, but with a major difference.  The individual airplanes are interconnected, operate in 360-degree operational space, and the machines pass the data throughout the network.  Each individual plane can see around itself for significant distances in 360 degree space, which has already underscored the need for a new generation of weapons, for existing systems such as Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAMs) operate in half or less of the space which each F-35 can see beyond itself.

It is the interconnected C5ISR delivered by the fleet, coupled with the ability to work with the off-boarding of weapons, which shapes a new way forward.  Target acquisition does not have to be limited to weapons carried on board. This means that classic distinctions between tactical fighters doing close air support, air superiority missions or air defense missions become blurred. The fleet as a whole identifies targets for the various mission sets and can guide weapons from any of its elements to a diversity of targets. The reach of the fleet is the key to the operation of the fleet, not the range of individual aircraft.

As General Hostage, the Air Combat Commander, put it during an interview Lt. General (Retired) Deptula and I conducted with him last December:

"The ability of the planes to work with each other over a secure distributed battlespace is the essential foundation from which the air combat cloud can be built.

And the advantage of the F-35 is the nature of the global fleet. Allied and American F-35s, whether USAF, USN, or USMC, can talk with one another and set up the distributed operational system. Such a development can allow for significant innovation in shaping the air combat cloud for distributed operations in support of the Joint Force Commander."

With many Pacific allies already committed to the F-35, and with the USAF and USMC planning to deploy their new aircraft to the regionin the next couple of years, a fleet of F-35s will clearly emerge in the Pacific and shape combat capabilities the next decade out.

The movement of data among the elements of the fleet will be the beginning of the 21st century equivalent to what the U.S. Navy called the “big blue blanket” over the Pacific in World War II.  Clearly, the U.S. will not have the assets to do this by itself, but with the emergence of interconnected fleets this aspiration can come closer to reality.

And with it will be the ability to build the kind of attack-defense enterprise essential to deal with the evolving threats in the Pacific, and the efforts of China to undercut the significant lynchpin role that the United States plays in the Pacific. 

An inherent characteristic of many new systems is that they are really about presence and putting a grid over an operational area, and therefore they can be used to support strike or defense within an integrated approach. In the 20th Century, surge was built upon the notion of signaling. One would deploy a particular combat capability – whether it be a Carrier Battle Group, Amphibious Ready Group, or Air Expeditionary Wing – as a marker to signal its presence and intentions to an adversary. Depending on the adversary’s response, additional forces would be sent in to escalate the threat capability.

With the new multi-mission systems – 5th generation aircraft and Aegis for example – the key is presence and integration able to support strike or defense in a single operational presence capability. Now the adversary can not be certain that you are simply putting down a marker.

This is what former Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne calls the attack and defense enterprise. The strategic thrust of integrating modern systems is to create a grid that can operate in an area as a seamless whole, able to strike or defend simultaneously. This is enabled by the evolution of C5ISR, and it is why Wynne has underscored for more than a decade that 5th generation aircraft are not merely replacements for existing tactical systems, but a whole new approach to integrating defense and offense.

When one can add the strike and defensive systems of other players, notably missiles and sensors aboard surface ships like Aegis, then one can create the reality of what Ed Timperlake, a former fighter pilot, has described as the F-35 being able to consider Aegis as his wingman.

In fact, the ability for forward deployed F-35s to identify targets for surface ships can lead to a renaissance of the strike role of surface ships as well.  Or it can lead to what I referred to early last year as enhancing “the long reach of Aegis.” The F-35 is a global program tapping into the industrial and technological capabilities  of global allies of the United States in a unique way.  Earlier, the Aegis program built a foundation for such an approach, with nearly 25 percent of the deployed Aegis fleet now being non-American.  This led me to coin the term many years ago of the “Aegis global enterprise.”  Combing these two efforts into an integrated attack and defense capability will be game changing. 

As I have written in Proceedings Magazine:

These F-35-Aegis offense and defense bubbles can be networked throughout the Pacific to enhance the capacity of individual nations. They represent a prime example of how one country’s assets can contribute to the reach others, together establishing a scalable capability for a honeycombed force.

Overall, the enterprise lays a foundation for a global capability in sea-based missile defenses and for protecting deployed forces as well as projecting force. Power such as this is increasingly central to the freedom of action necessary for the worldwide operation of the U.S. military and our coalition partners.

In other words, the roll out of the Pacific fleet of F-35s is part of the re-shaping of the U.S, and allied military capabilities for a 21st century strategy.  And such a strategy must be able to deal with the impact of China, Korea, the Arctic opening and the challenge of securing the conveyer belt of goods and services by sea or sea lines of communication (SLOC) defense.

But this does not end the story of the impact of the F-35 on the future. Another key aspect is how the F-35 as a global enterprise can affect global investments in airpower and the growth of capabilities over time. This is a subject broader than a short article can discuss with full justice, so I will emphasize only three key points.

First, what is not often realized is that Lockheed Martin is a 30 percent “prime contractor” standing on the top of a global supply chain. And this supply chain includes many of the world’s best suppliers and subsystem providers. And foreign manufacturers produce more than 20 percent of the aircraft even at this stage as part of the global supply chain. 

This system allows the taping of capabilities, which have been, available in specific nations and unleashing their potential to support global coalitions.  The case of Japan is instructive whereby the participation of the Japanese in building parts for the F-35 means they are building for the global coalition not just for Japan.

Second, the F-35 is built around a global sustainment model. This means that the Singapore F-35Bs will be supported by Singapore who could do the same for the USMC F-35Bs.  The opportunity and ability to build hubs and training ranges in the Pacific with hubs and ranges in Canada and Australia and hubs in Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Alaska, Hawaii and Guam provides an opportunity to re-shape how sustainment can be done in around the world.

Third, Japan, like Italy, is building a final check out or assembly facility for the F-35, which can function, as well as a matience, repair, and operartions (MRO) facility for allies. Although intended to serve their own needs the Italians and Japanese are in effect putting in place maintenance facilities or MRO facilities which the U.S. Air Force, USN and USMC are able to use in two key regions, central to American interests.

Fourth, the weapons revolution necessary to catch up with 5th generation aircraft can be the focus of global, not just American investments. Even though the U.S. has been the core architect for the aircraft, the implementation of the fleet will not be solely and perhaps primarily American. The diversity of global weapon suppliers – European, Israeli, and Asian – will seek to integrate their products onto the F-35 and integration on one set of F-35s makes them available to the fleet.

A totally ignored aspect of the aircraft as a weapon system is weapons integration. The software integration of a weapon on one set of aircraft will be available to the fleet.

This means that the weapons to be integrated on Block 4 software F-35s, which includes the MBDA’s new Meteor Missiles, the Kongsberg Joint Strike Missile or the new Turkish missiles, can be purchased directly by Asian governments for their aircraft as well. This is providing for a global investment in the strike capabilities of the F-35 fleet.

In short, the F-35 will be an important fixture of allied and American defense in the Pacific and will bring Europe and the Pacific together inside the aircraft and arming the aircraft in the years ahead.  It will be a key part of shaping new concepts of operations, which will be essential to the safety, and security of America and its allies in a troubled world. 

Dr. Robbin F. Laird is a Military and Security Analyst, the co-founder of Second Line of Defense, and a Member of the Editorial Board of Contributors, AOL Defense.

Partager cet article
Repost0
25 avril 2013 4 25 /04 /avril /2013 07:20
A US Air National Guard's F-16C aircraft carrying MALD under its wings

A US Air National Guard's F-16C aircraft carrying MALD under its wings

 

24 April 2013 airforce-technology.com

 

Raytheon has been awarded a contract to produce and deliver additional Miniature Air Launched Decoy-J (MALD-J) jammers to the US Air Force (USAF).

 

Valued at $81.7m, the firm-fixed-price option covers Lot 6 on the Lot 5 contract for supply of an additional 200 MALD-J jammers and containers, along with a ten-year warranty to the air force.

 

Raytheon Missile Systems Air Warfare Systems vice president Harry Schulte said: "MALD-J adds a jamming capability to the current decoy function of the MALD that disrupts enemy integrated air defence systems using jamming and radar signature technology.

 

He added: "This weapon will provide unprecedented capability and flexibility to the US Air Force and improve the survivability of our Airmen and their aircraft."

 

Weighing less than 300lb, the MALD-J is an expendable, close-in jammer designed to degrade and prevent an early warning or acquisition radar from establishing a track on a strike aircraft, while also maintaining the ability to fulfil the basic decoy mission.

 

Employed from the F-16 C/D Fighting Falcon and B-52 bomber, the unmanned MALD-J is capable of navigating and operating closer to hostile radars compared to the conventional electronic warfare (EW) systems, thus keeping aviators and aircraft away from enemy's path.

 

Designed to work with and use other EW platforms, the device can function either as a stand-alone system or in pairs, and is also able to loiter in the target area for an extended period of time, ensuring mission completion.

 

The ADM-160 MALD is an advanced, air-launched and programmable flight vehicle designed to confuse enemy integrated air defence systems, by accurately duplicating all combat flight profiles and radar signatures of the US and allied aircraft in the battlefield.

 

Manufacturing work will be primarily carried out at the company's facility in Tucson, Arizona, US, however the delivery schedule has remained undisclosed.

Partager cet article
Repost0
25 avril 2013 4 25 /04 /avril /2013 07:20
General Atomics Demonstrates Advanced Cockpit Ground Control Station’s Capability to Fly Predator C

April 24, 2013. David Pugliese - Defence Watch

 

News release from General Atomics:

 

SAN DIEGO – 24 April 2013 – General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. (GA‑ASI), a leading manufacturer of Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA), tactical reconnaissance radars, and electro-optic surveillance systems, today announced that it has successfully demonstrated its Advanced Cockpit Ground Control Station’s (GCS’) capability to fly Predator C Avenger®. The flight occurred November 15, 2012 at the company’s Gray Butte Flight Operations Facility in Palmdale, Calif.

 

“This flight paired our most advanced GCS with our most advanced aircraft”, said Frank W. Pace, president, Aircraft Systems Group, GA-ASI. “Since 1994, our GCS have amassed over twomillion flight hours. The Advanced Cockpit is the next logical step in GCS progression. Our objective with this GCS is to fully satisfy customer interoperability requirements, enabling any GA-ASI RPA to be flown from the system.”

 

The goal of this Congressionally-directed, U.S. Air Force (USAF)-supported demonstration was to show that the Advanced Cockpit’s open systems software architecture adapts rapidly for other RPA operations. More than two years ago, the system successfully flew the MQ-1 Predator over a three-month period. In April 2012, the Advanced Cockpit flew the SARC-1 UAS under a jointly funded company effort with Strategic Simulation Solutions. This effort demonstrated the system’s ability to control third party RPA. This summer, the Advanced Cockpit is scheduled to fly Predator B/MQ-9 Reaper.

 

“Advanced Cockpit’s wrap-around visual display and multi-dimensional moving map dramatically increases situational awareness, while the integrated digital checklist decreases pilot workload,” said Jason McDermott, the test pilot who successfully handed off control of Avenger from GA-ASI’s legacy GCS to the Advanced Cockpit and controlled the flight during a 3-hour mission. “The combination of these unique features greatly increases the ease and simplicity of mission planning, reduces pilot workload, thereby increasing flight safety.”

 

GA-ASI’s Advanced Cockpit GCS is being designed in accordance with the U.S. Air Force’s Unmanned Aircraft System Command and Control Initiative to enable interoperability with all USAF RPA and the U.S. Department of Defense’s vision for GCS interoperability and commonality as outlined by the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s Unmanned Control Segment Working Group.

 

The Advanced Cockpit GCS features intuitive interfaces designed to make hazardous situations easier to identify, enhancing safety and improving the pilot’s reaction time and decision-making processes. Its ergonomic human-machine interface significantly improves situational awareness and reduces workload so the pilot can more effectively and efficiently accomplish his or her mission.

Partager cet article
Repost0
25 avril 2013 4 25 /04 /avril /2013 07:20
USAF's first of two F-35A JSF fighters arrives for operational testing at Edwards Air Force Base in California, US. Photo: US Air Force photo by Laura Mowry.

USAF's first of two F-35A JSF fighters arrives for operational testing at Edwards Air Force Base in California, US. Photo: US Air Force photo by Laura Mowry.

24 April 2013 airforce-technology.com

 

Northrop Grumman-built multifunction advanced data link (MADL) waveform has successfully demonstrated its ability to advance communication among the F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter (JSF) aircraft during flight testing at Edwards Air Force Base (AFB) in California, US.

 

During testing, the MADL joined the communications, navigation and identification (CNI) Link-16 and variable message format network present on an F-35 aircraft, and the data passed was correlated with information from other F-35 sensors by a fusion system to form a simplified situational awareness picture on the cockpit displays.

 

The testing forms an important element of Lockheed Martin's F-35 Block 2 software release that is designed to offer an advanced mission systems capability at Edwards AFB.

 

Northrop Grumman Information Systems Defense Systems division vice president and general manager Mike Twyman said the MADL performed reliably and displayed an excellent range at multiples of required specifications, while demonstrating ability to connect fifth-generation fighters during flight tests.

 

"This success is a significant achievement for the F-35 program and enabling joint aerial concept of operations," Twyman added.

 

A critical capability of the F-35 CNI avionics, the MADL is a high-data-rate, directional communications link designed to enable coordinated tactics and engagement to help bring significant operational advantages to fifth-generation aircraft operating in high-threat environments.

 

The CNI system provides F-35 pilots with an equivalent capability of over 27 avionics subsystems, including identification friend or foe (IFF), automatic acquisition of fly-to points, and various voice and data communications, while lowering size, weight and power demands on the aircraft.

 

Northrop also manufactures F-35's centre fuselage, radar and electro-optical subsystem, mission systems and mission planning software, pilot and maintenance training system courseware, apart from managing the F-35 industry team's use, support and maintenance of low-observable technologies.

 

Currently under production by Lockheed, the F-35 JSF is designed to conduct ground attack, reconnaissance, and air defence missions with stealth capability.

Partager cet article
Repost0
25 avril 2013 4 25 /04 /avril /2013 07:20
F-16s Step Up For Tardy F-35

 

April 24, 2013: Strategy Page

 

The U.S. Air Force has increased the number of F-16s it wants to refurbish to 1,018. Last year the plan was to refurbish a few hundred of its 22 ton F-16 fighters because their replacement, the 31 ton F-35 was not arriving in time. So far 11 F-35s have been built and another 19 are to be built this year. That’s too slow to deal with number of F-16s that are growing too old to fly. The air force is doing a similar refurb on 175 F-15C interceptors. It may take a decade or more for F-35 production to get to the point where most F-16s can be replaced. Until then the F-16s must be ready to get the jobs done.

 

This is one of several reasons why many nations upgrade their F-16s. Some of these nations are holding off on ordering F-35s (or cancelling existing orders), either because of the high price or doubts about how good it will be. Aircraft manufacturing and maintenance companies see a huge market for such upgrades. Half or more of the 3,000 F-16s currently in service could be refurbished and upgraded to one degree or another. That’s over $25 billion in business over the next decade or so.

 

The F-35 began development in the 1990s, and was supposed to enter service in 2011. That has since slipped to 2017, or the end of the decade, depending on who you believe. Whichever date proves accurate, many F-16 users have a problem. Their F-16s are old and year by year more of them become too old to operate.

 

No matter how late the F-35 is, the U.S. Air Force now plans to refurbish at least a thousand Block 40 and 50 F-16s. The work will concentrate on extending the life of the airframe, plus some electronics upgrades. The air force does this sort of thing frequently to all aircraft models. It's called SLEP (Service Life Extension Program), and this one is special only because it concentrates on very old aircraft and is intended to keep these birds viable for another 8-10 years.

 

Many air forces are finding that it’s more cost-effective to upgrade via new electronics and missiles and, as needed, refurbishing engines and airframes on elderly existing fighters, rather than buying new aircraft. This is especially the case if the new electronics enable the use of smart bombs or more capable air-to-air missiles. One of the more frequently upgraded older fighters is the American F-16. Even the U.S. Air Force, the first and still largest user of F-16s had always planned to do this with some of its F-16s.

 

The F-16C was originally designed for a service life of 4,000 hours in the air. But advances in engineering, materials, and maintenance techniques have extended that to over 8,000 hours. Because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, F-16s sent to those areas have flown over a thousand hours a year more than what they would in peacetime. The current planned SLEP will extend F-16C flight hours to 10,000 or more.

 

The F-16 has proved to be remarkably adaptable and is one of the most modified jet fighters in service. The most numerous F-16 is the C model. The first version of this, the F-16C Block 25, entered service in 1984. The original F-16, as the F-16A Block 1, entered service in 1978. While most F-16s still in service are the F-16C, there are actually six major mods, identified by block number (32, 40, 42, 50, 52, 60) plus the Israeli F-16I, which is a major modification of the Block 52. Another special version (the Block 60) for the UAE (United Arab Emirates) is called the F-16E. The F-16D is a two seat trainer version of F-16Cs. The various block mods included a large variety of new components (five engines, four sets of avionics, five generations of electronic warfare gear, five radars, and many other mechanical, software, cockpit, and electrical mods).

 

The F-16 is the most numerous post-Cold War jet fighter, with over 4,200 built and still in production. During The Cold War Russia built over 10,000 MiG-21s and the U.S over 5,000 F-4s, but since 1991 warplane production has plummeted about 90 percent. Since the end of the Cold War the F-16 has been popular enough to keep the production lines going.

 

The F-16 can also function as a bomber and ground attack aircraft (although not as effectively as the air force experts would have you believe, especially compared to the A-10). It can carry four tons of bombs and has been very effective using smart bombs. In air-to-air combat F-16s have shot down 69 aircraft so far, without losing anything to enemy warplanes. Not bad for an aircraft that was originally designed as a cheaper alternative to the heavier and more expensive F-15.

 

Although the F-35 is designed to replace the F-16, many current users will probably keep their F-16s in service for a decade or more. The F-16 gets the job done, reliably and inexpensively. Why pay more for new F-35s if your potential enemies can be deterred with F-16s. This becomes even more likely as the F-35 is delayed again and again. Finally, the upgrade is a lot cheaper, costing less than $20 million per aircraft, compared to over $100 million for a new F-35. If your potential enemies aren’t upgrading to something like that, a refurbed F-16 will do.

Partager cet article
Repost0
25 avril 2013 4 25 /04 /avril /2013 07:20
Procurement : The Big Ten Go On A Diet

April 24, 2013: Strategy Page

 

The U.S. Department of Defense has 86 major procurement projects, worth $1.6 trillion if all are completed. This figure makes some allowance for cost growth, but those allowances, historically, are usually too low. The $1.6 trillion figure is nine percent less than it was last year and is expected to continue to decline as the defense budget shrinks over the next decade. That shrinkage will come from some projects being dropped, others reduced and fewer new ones arriving.

 

The ten costliest projects in the last year (in terms total project cost as of last year) are;

F-35 stealth fighter $336 billion

F-35 stealth fighter $336 billion

DDG 51 Destroyer $103 billion

DDG 51 Destroyer $103 billion

Virginia class Submarine $84 billion

Virginia class Submarine $84 billion

F/A-18E/F Fighter $59 billion

F/A-18E/F Fighter $59 billion

V-22 Transport $58 billion

V-22 Transport $58 billion

Trident II Ballistic Missile $54 billion

Trident II Ballistic Missile $54 billion

KC-46 Tanker $44 billion

KC-46 Tanker $44 billion

CVN 78 Class carrier $35 billion - U.S. Navy graphic

CVN 78 Class carrier $35 billion - U.S. Navy graphic

P-8A Patrol Aircraft $33 billion

P-8A Patrol Aircraft $33 billion

Littoral Combat Ship $32 billion

Littoral Combat Ship $32 billion

These ten projects represent 62 percent of the remaining cost of all the large procurement projects. These ten projects have already consumed $805 billion.

Partager cet article
Repost0
25 avril 2013 4 25 /04 /avril /2013 06:20
Readiness, Modernization In Flux, Air Force Secretary Says

 

April 25th, 2013 By US Department of Defense - defencetalk.com

 

The Air Force will see few force structure changes this year, but readiness and modernization accounts will be in flux this year and next, Air Force Secretary Michael B. Donley said here today.

 

The secretary also told the Defense Writers’ Group that now is the time for another base realignment and closure process.

 

Readiness and modernization will be problems for the service, Donley said. Air Force readiness has declined since 2003 as the service concentrated on providing support for counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, he explained, and providing combat power for the full spectrum of operations has decayed.

 

“Air-to-air combat, suppression of enemy defenses [and] operations in a contested air environment have not gotten the attention they deserve, and readiness has declined in that respect,” Donley said.

 

The service had been working to rebuild readiness, he said, but sequestration spending cuts have thrown that effort out the window. Troops and aircraft deploying in support of operations are top notch and receive the training, equipment and supplies they need, the Air Force secretary said, but stateside training has been slashed.

 

A flying hour reduction of 18 percent is concentrated in the last six months of the fiscal year, and only to stateside-based units, Donley said.

 

“We are standing down nine fighter squadrons, three bomber squadrons, … and there will be an additional bomber squadron this summer when it returns from deployment,” he added. “It will make the challenge of readiness in [fiscal year 2014] that much harder.”

 

Some of the recovery from this drawdown will take months, but for depot-level maintenance, which the service is deferring, recovery may take a year or more, he said.

 

Modernization remains an overarching problem for the Air Force, the secretary said. The average age of the air fleet is increasing, with some aircraft — B-52 bombers and KC-135 tankers — being far older than their crews, he noted.

 

The Air Force must modernize across the board, Donley said. In addition to its fighters, bombers, tankers and trainers, he said, the service also must modernize satellite capabilities and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities.

 

“Every mission area that you can think of needs to be modernized,” he added.

 

The fiscal situation could be the Air Force’s best chance to eliminate excess infrastructure, Donley said.

 

“It’s a significant forcing function,” he added, noting that Air Force officials estimate the service has roughly 20 percent excess infrastructure by square footage. Eight closures conducted during the 2005 base realignment and closure round, he said, were relatively small.

 

Since then, the Air Force has retired more than 500 aircraft, and the number of personnel has shrunk. The best way to do this is to retire aircraft and eliminate the infrastructure that supports those aircraft, Donley said, but aircraft retirement decisions and base closure decisions are made in separate worlds. The Air Force did do this in a drawdown during the 1990s, he added, but has not since then.

Partager cet article
Repost0
23 avril 2013 2 23 /04 /avril /2013 07:20
Is There Anything An F-16 Cannot Do?

 

April 21, 2013: Strategy Page

 

The U.S. Air Force prefers to use its F-16 fighters for everything. While the F-16 is a capable and versatile aircraft, the main reason for using it so much is because it is so cheap to operate. It costs the air force $23,000 per hour to operate an F-16C. Other fighters are much more expensive. An F-22 costs $68,000 an hour, while an F-15C costs $42,000 and an F-15E $36,000.

 

The only aircraft that beats the F-16C is the A-10C, which costs $18,000 an hour. But the A-10 is not a fighter and is optimized for ground support. The F-16 can also do that, but not as well. The other ground support aircraft, the AC-130U costs $46,000 an hour. That’s why these are being replaced by C-130 transports ($18,000 an hour) with special cargo containers consisting of sensors and weapons similar to those on the AC-130.

 

The F-16, like the A-10 can also drop smart bombs. Both aircraft are much cheaper at this than the bombers. The B-52H costs $70,000 an hour, the B-1B $58,000 and the B-2 $169,000. The problem with the bombers is that with smart bombs you don’t need a lot of bombs. So what the F-16 can carry (a dozen or more, depending on weight) is usually adequate in places like Afghanistan. For an attack on, say, North Korea, the bombers would come into their own, at least for the initial assault when there are a lot of targets to hit.

 

With the right sensors, missiles and electronic weapons plus well-trained pilots the F-16 can beat just about any other fighter out there. For stealth fighters, that would have to include sensors that can handle stealth. But stealth fighters often have the best sensors and electronics as well. Thus against most foes a well tricked out F-16 can do it all.

Partager cet article
Repost0
20 avril 2013 6 20 /04 /avril /2013 16:20
Air Force Combat Talons fly for last time

 

 

Apr 19, 2013 ASDNews Source : US Air Force

 

The Air Force's last four MC-130E Combat Talon I's spread their wings for a final mission from their home at Duke Field on April 15.

 

The Talons will be officially retired in a ceremony at Duke Field on April 25 and the aircraft will then be flown to the "boneyard" at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz.,. April 25th commemorates the 33rd anniversary of the Desert One mission to free the Iranian Hostages - several of the MC-130E's at Duke Field took part in that mission.

 

"This is an emotional and historic day for the Airmen of the 919th Special Operations Wing," said Col. Andy Comtois, 919th SOW commander. "Since our inception, the 919th SOW has primarily been a C-130 wing and, for almost 20 years, a Combat Talon wing. We will miss these great warbirds."

 

The four Talons took off as two 2-ships carrying more than 40 of the Wing's Airmen who had a long association with the Talon I's and wanted to be a part of the historic final flight.

 

"I was glad we were allowed to be a part of it," said Tech. Sgt. Lora Huett, of the 919th Force Support Squadron. "The best part was when they opened up the ramp and took people back to sit on it. It was a beautiful view."

 

Chief Master Sgt. Tom Mason, the wing's new command chief, flew his last mission as a loadmaster on Aircraft 64-551. The chief transitioned to the loadmaster career field when the Talons arrived at Duke in 1995.

 

"I've had many great missions over the years both at home and in war," said Mason. "I don't know that I could have planned a more honorable way to end my career as an enlisted aviator than with the last flight of the mighty Combat Talons."

 

The final flight and the upcoming retirement of the Talons are large steps in the continuing transition to the new Aviation Foreign Internal Defense mission for Air Force Special Operations Command. More than five of the wing's new aircraft, the C-145A, already populate the Duke flightline.

 

"As our future mission emerges, we must say goodbye to the past," said Comtois. "The sun has set on the Talon mission. The 919th looks forward to a new aircraft and a new mission. Our Citizen Air Commandos are more than ready and capable to take on this new challenge."

 

The MC-130E made its first Air Force flight in 1966 and has taken part in every major U.S. conflict since. The Talon's primary mission was to provide infiltration, exfiltration, and resupply of special operations forces and equipment in hostile or denied territory.

 

Secondary missions include psychological operations and helicopter and vertical lift air refueling.

 

by Tech. Sgt. Samuel King Jr.

919th Special Operations Wing Public Affairs

Partager cet article
Repost0
20 avril 2013 6 20 /04 /avril /2013 16:20
F-22s Make Precautionary Landings in Kadena

 

April 19, 2013 by Mike Hoffman - defensetech.org

 

Three F-22s deployed to Kadena Air Base in Japan made precautionary landings over the period of three days in April for various reasons. However, none of the pilots complained of breathing problems that previous pilots had experienced in the fifth generation fighters, Air Force officials said.

 

It’s unclear what caused these precautionary landings, but the result of them have not incurred “unique flight restrictions” for the 12 F-22As deployed to Kadena, said 2nd Lt. Hope Cornin, a spokeswoman for the 18th Wing.

 

Two F-22s made precautionary landings on April 1, while another F-22 made a precautionary landing on April 3, Cornin said. No injuries were reported in any of these incidents.

 

The F-22 remains under a microscope as the fifth generation fighter continues to operate without the flight restrictions the Air Force had placed on the fleet because of complaints from pilots about a lack of oxygen in flight. The service worked for more than two years to figure out the problem and then come up with a solution.

 

Air Force leaders believe they have solved it by replacing the breathing regulator/anti-g (BRAG) valve, installing a new back-up oxygen system and changing the oxygen schedule for the F-22’s onboard oxygen generation system (OBOGS).

 

Plenty remain skeptical, but there have been no reported incidents since the Air Force lifted the flight restrictions to protect pilots.

 

Cornin pointed out that the F-22s involved with the precautionary landings never lost their flight status because of the problems experienced by the pilots.

 

F-22s with the 1st Fighter Wing, JointBase Langley-Eustis, Va., and the 192nd Fighter Wing, Va. Air National Guard, deployed to Japan in January and are scheduled to return to the U.S. this Spring, Cornin said.

Partager cet article
Repost0
14 mars 2013 4 14 /03 /mars /2013 17:20

c130h

 

Mar. 14, 2013 - By BRIAN EVERSTINE – Defense News

 

The congressional mandate for the Air Force to keep 32 additional tactical airlifters will keep a Pennsylvania Reserve base alive and retain 24 more C-130s across all Air Force components.

 

The 911th Airlift Wing at Pittsburgh, Pa., will retain eight C-130s assigned to the base through 2014, Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Pa., announced Wednesday. The C-130s were originally slated to be cut in fiscal 2013 budget plans. Murphy said in a statement that the decision will affect 1,400 active-duty airmen, reservists, technicians and civilians at the 911th.

 

The 2013 National Defense Authorization Act created an Intratheater Airlift Working Group to find 32 tactical airlifters to keep through the fiscal year that would be available to assist in the drawdown in Afghanistan. Lt. Gen. Michael Moeller, the deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and programs, briefed Congress Wednesday on the aircraft the Air Force will keep.

 

Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek said although the NDAA directed the Air Force to keep the additional aircraft, it did not provide additional funding for their operation, meaning the service will need to find the funding by reducing other programs.

 

Air Force Secretary Michael Donley said recently that the directive to keep additional tactical airlifters would not reverse Air Force plans to cut all C-27J Spartans.

 

In addition to Pittsburgh, the Air Force will retain two C-130s at the 109th Airlift Wing in Schenectady, N.Y., and the 139th Airlift wing in St. Joseph, Mo. One C-130 will be kept at each of the following: 123rd Airlift Wing in Louisville, Ky.; 130th Airlift Wing in Charleston, W.Va.; 18th Airlift Wing at Little Rock Air Force Base, Ark.; 440th Airlift Wing at Pope Field, N.C.; 910th Airlift Wing at Youngstown Air Reserve Station, Ohio; and 914th Airlift Wing at Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station, N.Y.

 

The NDAA directed the Air Force to keep 358 total aircraft through fiscal 2013, but the service will keep that limit through 2014 to allow time for additional studies and to address sequestration before the fiscal 2015 budget cycle.

 

“Although we were required to retain aircraft only through the end of this fiscal year, we extended the aircraft through FY14 to allow time to complete additional analysis and to coordinate with our stakeholders,” Donley said in a release.

 

For fiscal 2014, the service also will keep eight aircraft that were to be decommissioned from the reserve 934th Airlift Wing at Minneapolis Air Reserve Station. Additionally, the service will retain one aircraft each at Louisville; Charleston; St. Joseph; Niagara Falls; the 136th Airlift Wing in Fort Worth, Texas; the 145th Airlift Wing in Charlotte, N.C.; and the 176th Wing at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska.

 

The service said it also will keep additional aircraft to “enhance mission effectiveness.” Those five are at Little Rock, two for the 189th Airlift Wing, two at the 22nd Air Force Detachment 1 and one for the 19th Airlift Wing, along with one each at the 152nd Airlift Wing in Reno, Nev.; the 165th Airlift Wing in Savannah, Ga.; the 166th Airlift Wing in New Castle, Del.; the 182nd Airlift Wing in Peoria, Ill.; and the 302nd Airlift Wing in Colorado Springs, Colo.

Partager cet article
Repost0
19 février 2013 2 19 /02 /février /2013 13:39

rq-11b-raven-us-army-soldier-launch-lg

 

February 19, 2013: Strategy Page

 

The U.S. Army has over 6,000 micro-UAVs (Ravens and Pumas) and is still finding new ways to use these tiny (under six kg/13.2 pound) reconnaissance aircraft. The army is also evaluating tiny helicopter-type UAVs and several other models similar to the Ravens and Pumas. All this comes a century after aerial reconnaissance first revolutionized warfare. The tiny UAVs are another radical new aircraft technology that is taking air recon to a new level. That level is low, a few hundred meters off the ground. It all began in the American military during the last decade. The aircraft are the nearly 1,798 Raven and 325 Puma UAVs systems in use by ground troops. A complete system (controller, spare parts, and three UAVs) costs $250,000 for the Raven and over $400,000 for Puma. These tiny aircraft have changed how the troops fight and greatly reduced army dependence on the air force for air reconnaissance.

 

Traditional U.S. military aviators, and the 10,000 manned airplanes they operate, are somewhat disdainful of these tiny, unmanned, aircraft. But for the troops on the ground, they are a lifesaver and the key to many victories. This sort of thing has happened before. During World War I (1914-18), when aerial reconnaissance first became a major factor in military operations, it was quickly noted that regular flights over the enemy, despite the risk of getting shot down, provided invaluable information. It wasn't just what the human observer noted, but photographs of what was down there. All this was rather sudden because reasonably cheap and reliable aircraft only began to appear a few years before World War I began. This was not surprising, as the first flight of a heavier-than-air aircraft only took place in 1903. The war spurred even more aircraft innovation. But then, and now, the principal job of aircraft was to be the eyes of the ground forces. The fighters were to protect friendly recon aircraft and attack the enemy ones. Bombers were consistently oversold, and the air force partisans could never accept the fact that bombing was an adjunct to reconnaissance, not the primary mission of the air forces.  Just as the first recon aircraft a century ago changed the way armies fought, the micro-UAVs have changed the way small units of soldiers fight. A century ago the aerial observers reported to generals and their staffs. UAV video goes to platoon or company commanders, or the leader of a small Special Forces team. The lightweight, hand launched Raven UAV can only stay airborne about an hour per sortie, but troops have found that this is enough time to do all sorts of useful work, even when there's no fighting going on. This is most of the time. The heavier Puma can stay up for 120 minutes.

 

In Iraq and Afghanistan, the enemy did not want to confront U.S. troops directly (this tended to get you killed). So there was an unceasing effort to set up ambushes, plant mines and roadside bombs, and fire rockets or mortars at American bases. All of these activities can be messed with by using Raven. U.S. troops know to think like the enemy, and quickly figured out the best ambush positions, or places to plant mines or fire rockets. By sending Ravens over these spots periodically the enemy is put in danger of being spotted. The enemy knows that usually leads to a prompt attack from American mortars or helicopter gunships. These mind games, of sneaking around trying to get a shot off at the Americans, is more stressful and dangerous if the U.S. troops have Ravens. And most of them do.

 

The U.S. Army has over 5,000 RQ-11 Raven UAVs in service. This two kilogram (4.4 pound) aircraft is popular with combat and non-combat troops alike. The army has developed better training methods, which enables operators to get more out of Raven. Combat troops use it for finding and tracking the enemy, while non-combat troops use it for security (guarding bases or convoys). In both cases, troops have come to use the Raven for more than just getting a look over the hill or around the corner. The distinctive noise of Raven overhead is very unpopular with the enemy below and is often used to scare the enemy away, or make him move to where he can be more easily spotted.

 

The current model, the Raven B (RQ-11B), was introduced six years ago, a year after the original Raven entered service in large numbers. This UAV is inexpensive ($35,000 each) and can stay in the air for 80 minutes at a time. The Raven is battery powered (and largely silent unless flown close to the ground). It carries a color day vidcam, or a two color infrared night camera. It can also carry a laser designator. Both cameras broadcast real time video back to the operator, who controls the Raven via a handheld controller, which uses a hood to shield the display from direct sunlight (thus allowing the operator to clearly see what is down there). The Raven can go as fast as 90 kilometers an hour but usually cruises at between 40 and 50. It can go as far as 15 kilometers from its controller, and usually flies a preprogrammed route, using GPS for navigation.

 

The Raven is made of Kevlar, the same material used in helmets and protective vests. On average, Raven can survive about 200 landings before it breaks something. While some Ravens have been shot down, the most common cause of loss is losing the communications link (as the aircraft flies out of range) or a software/hardware failure on the aircraft. Combat losses have been high, as nearly 20,000 have been built and most of those have been lost in training or the battlefield.

 

From the very beginning, the Raven changed the way troops fight. With the bird's eye view of the battlefield, commanders can move their troops more quickly, confident that they won't be ambushed, and often with certain knowledge of where the unseen enemy is. The big advantage with Raven is that it’s simple, reliable, and it just works. The UAV can be quickly taken apart and put into a backpack. It takes off by having the operator start the motor, and then throwing it. This can be done from a moving vehicle and the Raven is a popular recon tool for convoys. It lands by coming in low and then turning the motor off. Special Forces troops like to use it at night, because the enemy can’t see it, and often can’t hear it either.

 

The controller allows the operator to capture video, or still pictures, and transmit them to other units or a headquarters. The operator often does this while the Raven is flying a pre-programmed pattern (using GPS). The operator can have the UAV stop and circle, in effect keeping the camera on the same piece of ground below. The operator can also fly the Raven, which is often used when pursuing hostile gunmen.

 

Last year the U.S. Army began using the larger (5.9 kg) Puma AE UAVs. So far 325 RQ-20A systems have been ordered and most have been delivered. Adopting Puma is part of an army effort to find micro-UAVs that are more effective than current models and just as easy to use. The Puma, a 5.9 kg (13 pound) UAV with a 2.6 meter (8.5 feet) wingspan and a range of 15 kilometers from the operator, has proved to be the next big (or micro) thing the army was looking for. Combat commanders quickly realized how useful Puma is and wanted more, as quickly as possible. This is not surprising as SOCOM (Special Operations Command) has been using Puma since 2008.

 

The army wants to equip each infantry company with a Puma system. That would mean 18 Puma AE UAVs per brigade and nearly 400 for the entire army. These larger UAVs have been most useful in route clearance (scouting ahead to spot ambushes, roadside bombs, landslides, washouts, or whatever). The larger Puma is particularly useful in Afghanistan, which is windier than Iraq and thus more difficult for the tiny Raven to operate.

 

Top speed for Puma is 87 kilometers an hour and cruising speed is 37-50 kilometers an hour. Max altitude is 3,800 meters (12,500 feet), and the UAV can stay in the air for 120 minutes at a time. Puma has a better vidcam (providing tilt, pan, and zoom) than the smaller Raven and that provides steadier and more detailed pictures. Because it is larger than Raven, and three times as heavy, Puma is much steadier in bad weather. Both Puma and Raven are battery powered.

 

Puma has been around for a decade but never got purchased in large quantities by anyone. The latest model uses a lot of proven tech from the Raven (both UAVs are made by the same company). Like the Raven, Puma is hand launched and can be quickly snapped together or apart. Another version, using a fuel cell, has been tested and was able to stay in the air for nine hours at a time. There is also a naval version that floats and is built to withstand exposure to salt water.

 

The army has bought over 10,000 of the 2 kg (4.4 pounds) Raven, but it is mostly used for convoy and base security and less so by troops in the field. Each combat brigade is now supposed to have 35 mini-UAV systems (each with three UAVs, most of them Raven, but at least ten of these systems are to be Pumas). That means that each combat brigade now has its own air force of over a hundred reconnaissance aircraft.

 

Raven, and a thousand slightly larger UAVs, don't get much publicity, but they have a larger impact on combat than the few hundred much larger (Shadow, Predator, Reaper) UAVs. These big, and often armed, UAVs carry out vital missions, but comprise a tenth of the airtime that the micro-UAVs rack up. Moreover, these smaller UAVs have opened up lots of other possibilities. There are already small, single use UAVs that are basically guided bombs. Even smaller UAVs can be used for spying, as well as battlefield recon. These little aircraft are having an enormous impact on warfare, rivaling what happened a century ago.

 

Because of anti-aircraft machine-guns and portable missile systems the air force prefers to stay high (over 3,200 meters/10,000 feet) and let the army and their UAVs and helicopters take care of the lower altitudes. The army has taken on the challenge and succeeded.

Partager cet article
Repost0
13 février 2013 3 13 /02 /février /2013 08:50

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7168/6799925425_bbd3a4f7b0_b.jpg

Photograph by Geoffrey Lee, Planefocus Ltd

 

Feb. 11, 2013 - By BRIAN EVERSTINE  - Defense News

 

JOINT BASE LANGLEY-EUSTIS, Va. — Residents in Hampton Roads are more used to the winds from hurricanes, but for the past two weeks, the skies above Hampton have been churning due to Typhoons — the Eurofighter FGR4s, that is.

 

Eight Typhoons from the U.K. Royal Air Force’s XI Squadron joined the 1st Fighter Wing in a training exercise called Western Zephyr to familiarize pilots and maintainers from both countries on how to better integrate during a joint mission.

 

Distinguished by their prominent canards, Europe’s most advanced fighters have been training alongside a variety of F-16 Falcons, F-22 Raptors, T-38 Talons and Navy F/A-18 Hornets.

 

The pilots and ground crews will then participate in Red Flag at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., this month.

 

On one recent afternoon, three of the Typhoons flew alongside two Raptors to escort F-15E Strike Eagles from Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, N.C., on an air interdiction training mission where they were up against an F-16 and a pair each of T-38s and F/A-18s from Naval Air Station Oceana, Va.

 

“The early impressions, across the board, the training we’re getting here is the best I’ve had on the Typhoon,” said XI Squadron Wing Commander Rich Wells, who flew from RAF Coningsby, Lincolnshire, England, to the southern Virginia base.

Bridging the gap

The pilots in the training on both sides say they are the envy of other fliers in their respective services, able to take their countries’ most vaunted aircraft side-by-side and against each other in training.

 

“It’s a pretty cool opportunity,” said Capt. Austin Skelley, an F-22 pilot with the 27th Fighter Squadron who helped plan the joint exercise, called Western Zephyr. “People are really excited and eager to fight with and against Typhoon.”

 

The Typhoon is a unique airframe from the F-22 pilot’s perspective, offering advanced avionics, improved situational awareness and plenty of power in thrust and speed that pilots don’t encounter when going head-to-head against F-15s, F-16s and F/A-18s, Langley pilots said.

 

“The Typhoon offers the F-22 a unique capability that sort of bridges the gap between the fourth and fifth generation,” Skelley said.

 

For the pilots of the XI Squadron, the training is a chance for them to test their abilities against all of the U.S. jets.

“We’re pretty much the envy of all the Typhoon pilots back home at the moment,” Typhoon pilot Flight Lt. Alex Thorne said. “A lot of people are excited to see what the Typhoon can do, but are really excited to see what our jet can do alongside and against some of the platforms here.”

Red air

Planning for the operation began last spring. Pilots began arriving in mid-January, delayed by snow in Britain. Crews have been flying two to three flights per day since late January, beginning with basic orientation flights and essential flight formations, said Lt. Col. Geoffrey Lohmiller, the director of operations for the 27th Fighter Squadron.

 

The pilots moved on to practicing intercepts, close-in visual range maneuvers and basic fighter maneuvers.

Eventually, the Typhoons and Raptors began flying side-by-side, escorting F-15Es on strike missions outnumbered by red (enemy) aircraft, primarily the Navy F/A-18s from Oceana.

 

“It is more red air than we’re generally used to at home, and we’re taking it to the limit of what the jet can offer,” Thorne said. “And when we start to get comfortable, we take it a bit further.”

 

While U.S. pilots get opportunities to fly alongside allied pilots in various large-scale exercises, Western Zephyr is different because the pilots are flying side-by-side multiple times per day, for weeks on end, and debriefing together. This has led to crews becoming more familiar with each other more quickly and able to go over missions in more depth than before.

 

“When we’re able to operate from the same location and within quite small numbers, you are really able to share lessons and take time out to debrief in much greater detail than we’re able to back home,” Wells said.

 

RAF Typhoon flight and evaluation pilots have flown in the U.S. with Raptors, but now advanced F-22 training is making its way to the conventional war fighter.

 

“This is an opportunity to bring the Typhoon into that fold and take it to the next level of training and determine how we work together because the reality is there’s not enough fifth-generation fighters out there,” Lohmiller said.

Lessons learned in theater

While the fighters are the most advanced from their respective countries, they have different abilities and advantages. The agility of the F-22 is what first jumped out to Wells, he said.

 

“Raptor has vector thrust: Typhoon doesn’t,” he said. “What the aircraft can do, it’s incredible. The Typhoon just doesn’t do that.”

 

The Typhoon’s strength, however, is in both carrying weapons and deploying them. With its two Eurojet EJ200 turbojet engines producing 20,000 pounds of thrust each and the distinctive wing and canard layout, the jet is strong in both its air-to-ground and air-to-air formats no matter what it’s carrying. In its air-to-ground role, the jet flies with four beyond-visual-range missiles, a Lightning 3 designation pod, extra fuel tanks, 4,000-pound bombs and two short-range missiles. These can be aimed by the pilot looking in the direction of an adversary and targeting through a helmet-mounted system, Wells said.

 

“As we bolt things to the jet … it still flies like a Typhoon,” he said. “High and fast, and that’s where she loves to be. She loves being at 40,000 feet and supersonic. It’s brilliant in terms of performance and getting places.”

 

These characteristics contributed to the XI Squadron’s involvement in Operation Unified Protector, enforcing a no-fly zone and destroying targets in Libya during summer 2011, experiences the RAF pilots can share with the F-22 pilots who haven’t tested the Raptor in combat yet.

 

“One of the awesome things about being with these guys is learning some of those real-world lessons they’ve experienced recently,” Lohmiller said. “On a coalition level, we can learn lessons learned about missions that we did not participate in and get those lessons combatwise from these guys.”

 

On the ground, maintainers from the XI Squadron and Langley’s 27th Fighter Squadron have been able to shadow each other. More than 150 maintainers and support personnel from the RAF are at Langley working on the Typhoons and shadowing American maintainers to “practice and develop together,” said Squadron Leader Pieter Severein, XI Squadron maintenance commander.

Integrating on the ground

The RAF pilots will head to Nellis and begin orientation flights before the Feb. 25 launch of Red Flag.

 

“U.S. tankers are taking us there, which I hope really shows integration is really significant in what we’re doing,” Wells said.

 

Integration has taken place outside of operations as well. The U.K. crews have made it a point to thank the local pubs in the Hampton Roads area for their hospitality.

 

One of the first orders of business for Lohmiller was inviting the RAF crews to his house to introduce them to American football for the Super Bowl.

 

“Fighter pilots are fighter pilots,” he said. “We get along great.”

Partager cet article
Repost0
9 janvier 2013 3 09 /01 /janvier /2013 17:20

MQ-9 Reaper

 

January 9, 2013 defense-aerospace.com

(Source: Project On Government Oversight; issued January 8, 2013)

 

U.S. Central Command has released some interesting numbers on the performance of modern air systems in Afghanistan; the data do not augur well for our defenses in the next decade, nor for the suitability of the man who appears likely to be the next secretary of defense, former Senator Chuck Hagel -- his admirable iconoclasm toward some national security dogmas notwithstanding.

With the Department of Defense budget looking at no real growth or even reductions in the next few years, there will be a clear need for defense systems that offer more performance for less cost. The data from Afghanistan on what drones are contributing to the war there show that we are getting little but paying a lot, the reverse of what we will need in the future.

These data notwithstanding, drones are the embodiment of what conventional wisdom in Washington holds to be the wave of the future for air power -- the quintessence of the high tech cutting edge that the pundits want more and more of and just the kind of myth that politicians appointed to senior executive branch positions fall for time and time again.





The Pentagon's new leadership needs the wit to recognize that the conventional wisdom on these (and other) systems can be badly wrong, and it needs the moral courage and political dexterity to act, standing up to the embedded material and intellectual special interests in the Pentagon, Congress, and think tanks that leap to the defense of these systems time after time. Without such brains, guts, skill, and, especially, persistence in the next Pentagon leader, our defenses are in for a rough ride -- downhill -- in coming years. In short, we need real deeds from a tough, no-nonsense executive, not just interesting, sometimes iconoclastic words.

The Air Force component of CENTCOM (AFCENT) releases numbers to the public each month on Air Force and allied sorties and weapon releases in Operation Enduring Freedom (which mostly means the war in Afghanistan) for drones and manned aircraft. (Data on CIA drone activities in Pakistan and elsewhere are not included.)

The released data are bad news for drone advocates. They show that in the first eleven months of 2012, the U.S. and NATO forces involved in Afghanistan conducted 1,505 air-to-ground "strike sorties" -- i.e., those that involved the release of at least one weapon. A total of 3,886 weapons were released on those strike sorties -- 3,439 from manned aircraft and 447 from remotely piloted aircraft, or drones (namely, the MQ-1B Predator and the MQ-9 Reaper). In other words, the drones were responsible for just 11.5 percent of the air-to-ground weapons used in the war. Manned aircraft, such as the A-10, F-16, F-18, AV-8B and B-1B, were responsible for the other 88.5 percent. Put simply, in the air war in Afghanistan -- called by some "the Drone War" -- drones did little better than 10 percent of the weapons delivery.

Little as they did in the first eleven months of 2012, they did even less in 2011, when manned aircraft released 5,117 weapons and drones released just 294 -- or 5.4 percent of the total.

The AFCENT data is very sparse on allowing more meaningful comparisons between drones and manned aircraft in the Afghanistan war. AFCENT declined to provide this writer more detail, but it gave some useful data to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in the United Kingdom. That data shows that in 2011, manned aircraft flew almost 24,000 of the total close air support sorties -- whether a weapon was released or not -- and they flew well over 17,000 in the first ten months of 2012. Drones flew 10,300 sorties in the same category in 2011 and 7,600 in 2012. Thus, the manned aircraft are responsible for about 70 percent of the total sorties in both years.

More importantly, manned aircraft are flying an even larger percentage of the strike sorties: aircraft performed 1,743 strike sorties, or 88 percent, in 2011 and over 1,100, or 82 percent, in the first ten months of 2012. Finally, for delivering numbers of weapons during a strike on a target, drones averaged 1.4 weapons per strike in 2012; aircraft averaged twice that.

Nor is there any basis to think that drones have been delivering weapons more accurately. According to DOD's weapons tester, the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, the Reaper, for example, is capable of employing only two types of munitions: the AGM-AGM-114 laser-guided "Hellfire" missile and the GBU-12 laser-guided bomb. Manned aircraft carry a far greater variety, and while CENTCOM has not released the data, anecdotally it appears that most manned aircraft munitions are GPS-guided JDAMs, which have fewer limitations from clouds and weather and other causes than do the drones' laser-guided munitions.

That the drones are responsible for such a small percentage of the air-to-ground war in Afghanistan is the natural result of their inherent limitations. Prominent among them is their tiny payload compared to manned aircraft: The "more capable" drone, the MQ-9 Reaper, carries roughly one-ninth to one-fourth the payload of an A-10 or an F-16.

Nor are the drones cheaper to buy and operate. Using the Air Force's definition for all the components in a Reaper unit, they cost about $120 million to buy, compared to about $20 million for the original A-10 and about $55 million for a modern F-16. A Reaper "CAP," or unit, costs about $20 million per year to operate, compared to $5.5 million for an A-10C for a year or $4.8 million for an F-16C.

In short, with drones like the iconic Reaper, our forces get less performance for more cost -- compared to 35-year-old aircraft designs such as the A-10 and F-16.

These data notwithstanding, drones continue to be the darling of opinion in much of DOD, journalism, and think tanks. Articles repeatedly label Afghanistan as "the drone war," and one think tank drone advocate even referred to the AFCENT information as a "powerful data point" in favor of drones being "here to stay." They may, indeed, be here to stay, but that will be based on politics and hype, not performance in Afghanistan -- and perhaps the affinity of some for what drones are doing in Pakistan and Yemen under CIA control.

Whoever is the next secretary of defense will face a choice. He or she can operate at the policy wonk level, as so many already have, ignoring these kinds of basic nuts and bolts data. When they do so, and are told by in-house advocates of drones (or F-35s, or Littoral Combat Ships, or C-130Js, or almost anything else) that the newest technology is cheap and effective, the secretaries of defense with policy wonk and/or political backgrounds have proven themselves to be undisposed to serious, informed questioning. They end up taking the advocates' assertions at face value and acting on them.

The next steps in this process are as predictable as the sunrise: when some outsider suggests a budget cut, the DOD bureaucracies easily convince the secretary that their "affordable" and "effective" weapon systems will no longer be available. Then, the secretary proclaims the idea of insufficient resources for these pet rocks to be a "doomsday." In doing so, facilitators of business as usual like Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta thoroughly isolate themselves from the fact that the additional cost and low performance of these systems is much of what is driving the budget beyond acceptable levels of spending.

It is easy for the in-house advocates to co-opt the secretary of defense when he or she comes from an institution like Congress, where rhetoric and appearances trump facts, especially if the words are articulated cleverly or forcefully.

Such superficiality is precisely the profile Senator Chuck Hagel had as a member of the Senate. He was frequently in the news saying something interesting, often against the dogma of the Republican Party or even American politics in general. But, quick, tell yourself something he actually did of consequence in the Senate -- legislation or other important actions, not just words. Draw a blank? So did I, and I was watching up close and personal as a Republican Senate staffer for many of Hagel's twelve years there. Beyond the rhetoric, his record is quite sparse.

At a time when its budget is declining and advocates, backed by generally accepted myths, press hard for their particular hobby horse to be protected while others go begging, the Pentagon needs someone with a demonstrated record as a tough, acutely well informed downsizer or as an accomplished infighter against the powerful bureaucracies that run free under politically oriented secretaries of defense. A talker, not a doer, Senator Hagel, no matter how much I may admire his politics, is not the right person.

This is not to say that the other publically mentioned candidates for the job would be better.

As a denizen of the think tank and policy world, Michelle Flournoy -- as intelligent as she seems to be -- has been operating in a world where soft-policy differences are the stock in trade, not bureaucratic fights down in the weeds over the quality of data on performance or costs. As the chief architect of DOD's 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review as the Pentagon's under secretary of policy, she showed little interest in or understanding of how the building actually operates at the basic level.

As undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics and then as deputy secretary of defense, Ashton Carter has shown little ability to master the bureaucracy. In fact, he let slide far more problems than he has done anything meaningful about. That is all too clearly the case with, for example, the Pentagon's most expensive program ever -- the F-35 -- which remains both unaffordable and a gigantic performance disappointment after four years of Carter's ministrations.

The vast chasm between conventional wisdom and reality on drones, their costs, and what is and is not working at the tactical level is replicated in myriad ways in the secretary of defense job portfolio -- from assault rifles to missile defenses to arms control and especially to questions of war and peace.

What we need least is yet another dilettante who specializes in politics of the moment and fancy words.

Partager cet article
Repost0
9 janvier 2013 3 09 /01 /janvier /2013 12:35

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/77/DF-ST-98-01305.JPEG/800px-DF-ST-98-01305.JPEG

 

January 5, 2013 defense-update.com

 

U.S. Air Force officials have decided not to renew a contract with Italian aircraft manufacturer Alenia North America to support and induct the small, Italian-made C-27A transport aircraft into the Afghan Air Force. This is the second U.S. blow aimed at the Italian aircraft manufacturer, after the termination of acquisition of C-27J Spartan by the US Air Force. According to the Air Force, Alenia failed to generate a sufficient number of operational aircraft for effective Afghan Air Force airlift capability. Aviation Week reports.

 

In 2008, the U.S. paid $314 million for the purchase of 20 former Italian Air Force G.222s — designated the C-27A by the Air Force — to give to the fledging Afghan National Army Air Corps, later the Afghan Air Force, an independent tactical transport capability to replace Soviet-era Antonov An-32s.

 

However, their introduction to service has been far from smooth. Only 16 of the aircraft have been delivered to Afghanistan, with four remaining in Italy. Despite a deployed team of contractors, the aircraft struggled with serviceability issues and have been grounded twice — once in December 2011 on airworthiness grounds, and again in March 2012 because of safety issues that delayed the training of Afghan personnel.

Partager cet article
Repost0
11 décembre 2012 2 11 /12 /décembre /2012 09:25

MQ-9-Reaper source info-aviation

 

Dec. 08, 2012 by David Axe – wired.com/dangerroom

 

The Air Force’s multi-billion-dollar drone fleets may have helped against the insurgents of Iraq and Afghanistan. But in a fight against a real military like China’s, the relatively defenseless unmanned aerial vehicles would get shot down in a second. So once again, the air will belong to traditional, manned bombers and fighters able to survive the sophisticated air defenses.

 

At least that’s the Air Force’s official position. Secretly, however, the flying branch could be working on at least two new high-tech UAVs optimized for the most intensive future air wars. Ace aviation reporter Bill Sweetman has gathered evidence of new stealth drones under development by Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman — the latter potentially armed, and both drawing on classified funds. If these robots are real, the Air Force’s drone era is not only not ending — it’s barely begun.

 

To be clear, no one thinks unmanned aircraft are becoming any less vital to Washington’s shadowy counter-terrorism campaigns in Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen and, possibly soon, Mali. Missile-armed Predators, the larger Reapers carrying bombs and missiles, and stealthy, unarmed Sentinel spy drones, operated jointly by the CIA and the military, are still America’s weapon of choice for hunting terrorist leaders. Three years ago then-CIA director Leon Panetta, now the defense secretary, called UAVs the “only game in town” for disrupting the core of al-Qaida.

 

But when it comes to strictly military campaigns — assuming those even exist anymore — flying robots appear to be falling out of favor with the nation’s air combat branch. Earlier this year the Air Force announced controversial plans to scale back its known current and future drone fleets.

 

 Gone would be the Block 30 model of the brand-new, high-flying Global Hawk recon UAV, axed in favor of upgrades to the decades-old U-2 spy plane. Production of the workhorse Reapers was slashed from 48 per year to just 24. Looking ahead, the Air Force cancelled a planned, unclassified effort to develop a jet-powered attack drone, the MQ-X. Indeed, the flying branch abandoned its entire 30-year “roadmap” for future UAV development, which had anticipated a host of new robot designs to ultimately replace most manned aircraft.

 

Publicly, the Air Force is even considering reneging on its promise to make the next-generation heavy bomber now in development “optionally manned,” meaning it could be converted into a large, long-range drone with the flip of a switch.

 

The potential high cost of the dual design is “probably going to make it difficult to afford an unmanned solution,” Air Force Global Strike Command boss Gen. James Kowalski said.

 

Remarkably, it was just four years ago that then-Defense Secretary Bob Gates leaned on the flying branch to finally get serious about pilotless planes, which can fly far longer than their manned counterparts and are ideal for surveillance and attacks missions against lightly armed militants like those in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

Even after (then) seven years of war, motivating the Air Force to purchase more drones — and consequently fewer traditional planes — was “like pulling teeth,” Gates said. To break the logjam Gates had to fire the Air Force’s two top officials and abruptly cancel further production of the air-combat service’s prized F-22 fighter.

 

Now the Iraq war is over and the war in Afghanistan is winding down. All the military branches are revamping their arsenals for an era in which they anticipate fewer long-term counter-insurgency campaigns and more short, high-intensity wars such as last year’s Libya campaign plus the ongoing responsibility of deterring a rising China. “The fleet I’ve built up — and I’m still being prodded to build up, too — is not relevant in that new theater,” Gen. Mike Hostage, head of the Air Force’s Air Combat Command, said last week.

 

In high-stress combat the human brain is still the best computer, and human eyes the best sensors, Hostage said. Drones “don’t have the awareness that a manned plane would have.”

 

The other branches do not share that view. The Army is proceeding with plans to purchase more than 100 copies of its own armed Predator variant. The Navy is pouring billions into a stealthy, jet-powered attack drone that can launch from aircraft carriers. Only the Air Force has looked into the future and stated that current flying robots don’t have much of a place.

 

Instead, the Air Force says it wants more manned planes. Despite flattening budgets the flying branch is sticking with its longtime requirement for 1,763 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters plus up to 100 new bombers. And Hostage says his researchers are trying to define a so-called “sixth-generation” fighter to succeed the F-35 around 2030. That plane will have an on-board pilot, Hostage said.

 

When it comes to drones, “retrenchment returns the Air Force to business as usual,” Lt. Col. Lawrence Spinetta and M.L. Cummings wrote in Armed Forces Journal. But that retrenchment could be a cover. It’s very possible that all the Air Force’s recent backtracking on unmanned warplanes applies only to unclassified efforts. It’s feasible, even likely, that Air Force UAV initiatives are thriving within the military’s $35-billion-a-year classified budget. For sure, the stealthy Sentinel drone that first appeared in Afghanistan five years ago and subsequently spied on Iran and Pakistan is one product of the classified budget.

 

In fact, it makes sense for UAV development for the post-Iraq and -Afghanistan era to favor “black” programs. As America’s wars become more high-tech and its foes more heavily armed, the Air Force will need truly cutting-edge drones — the robot equivalents of the Cold War F-117 and B-2 stealth warplanes, both of which were designed and initially produced in total secrecy in order to protect their pricey new technologies.

 

In a recent article for Aviation Week, reporter Sweetman laid out the evidence for no fewer than two new, jet-powered, radar-evading Air Force UAVs still cloaked in black funding. In 2008 Northrop Grumman, maker of the B-2 stealth bomber, scored a $2-billion Pentagon contract that the company took pains to keep off the books. At the same time, Northrop hired as a consultant John Cashen, the man most responsible for devising the B-2′s radar-defeating shape.

 

The funding and Cashen’s expertise were applied to a secret effort to build a larger successor to the Lockheed Martin-made Sentinel, according to Sweetman. The new drone “is, by now, probably being test-flown at Groom Lake,” a.k.a. Area 51, Sweetman wrote.

 

In parallel, Lockheed could be building a stealthy spy drone meant to fly ahead of the Air Force’s new bomber, helping to jam enemy radars and spot targets for the larger, manned plane. Sweetman called the secret spy drone, which has been alluded to by Pentagon officials, “a real and funded program.” Perhaps coincidentally, in December last year a commercial satellite spotted what appeared to be a previously unknown UAV type at Lockheed’s facility in Palmdale, California.

 

Despite the public statements eschewing old-style drones, it’s possible the Air Force is working hard to field brand-new flying robots better suited to an era of conventional warfare. But it could be years before we know for sure, as any evidence is deeply classified and could remain so. “When the new systems will be disclosed is anyone’s guess,” Sweetman lamented.

 

Today’s drones might have hit their peak, by the Air Force’s reckoning. But tomorrow’s drones could rise to take their place.

Partager cet article
Repost0
9 octobre 2012 2 09 /10 /octobre /2012 17:45

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/Usaf.u2.750pix.jpg

 

October 9, 2012. David Pugliese - Defence Watch

 

This is written by U.S.A.F. public affairs Senior Airman Shawn Nickel:

 

Whether people recognize it by the Snoopy-like nose or by the flat black paint and red lettering on the tail, the U-2 has become an Air Force reconnaissance icon in its 50 years of military operations.

 

Since the first model was assembled in the 1950s, the aircraft’s original, shiny aluminum skin has evolved to the current flat black paint scheme, and its mission has broadened as intelligence imagery techniques have improved.

 

It was originally designed to fly high-altitude intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions during the Cold War to gather intelligence on opposition forces. Today the U-2S flies in support of a variety of missions from ground combat to disaster relief. The aircraft has been updated over the years with a 33 percent larger frame, fiber-optic wiring and an all glass cockpit. These improvements increase the aircraft’s payload and loiter time, making it easier to fly.

 

The U-2′s dynamic airframe can carry approximately 4,000 pounds of equipment, paving the way as a test platform for new technologies. With its immense and diverse payload capacity, it is capable of a multitude of missions. Some pilots describe it as the “Lego” airplane.

 

“It’s like Mr. Potato Head,” said Lt. Col. John, an instructor pilot with the 99th Reconnaissance Squadron. “You just take one part out and add a new one. There are so many new developments running through the works right now. New weapons systems are going to emerge and accelerate the curve of the U-2 even more.”

 

One of the aircraft’s primary missions is to capture imagery via the decades-old, wet-film camera, which is sharp enough to see roadside bombs from 70,000 feet and offers greater resolution than any digital sensors available.

 

“The U-2 started out only carrying a wet-film camera. Now, with today’s technology, I’m alone up there, but I may be carrying 40 to 50 Airmen via data link who are back at a (deployable ground station),” John said.

 

In addition to its other capabilities, the U-2 provides service members on the ground with the intelligence they need to effectively carry out their mission, said Capt. Michael, a 1st Reconnaissance Squadron instructor pilot. This could include acting as an antenna to troops on the ground in Afghanistan or providing detailed imagery during a natural disaster.

 

“We are up there to make a difference,” Michael said. “We are there to make an impact on the troops we support.”

 

For operational security reasons, many details about the U-2 and its mission are unknown to the public. When the airframe was in its infancy, even pilots coming into the program knew very little about it. One of those men is retired Lt. Col. Tony Bevacqua, one of the original Air Force U-2 pilots.

 

Since the jet was developed at the height of the Cold War, it was used extensively over the Soviet Union, Cuba, and other opposition countries. Bevacqua said every precaution was taken to keep the technology from leaking into enemy hands.

 

“I volunteered for an assignment I knew nothing about, and they wouldn’t tell me anything about the U-2,” Bevacqua said. “The aircraft was state-of-the-art back then; no one in the public knew about it.”

 

This first class of pilots had to learn everything about the aircraft from the ground up. They developed the first U-2 training program in a matter of weeks, much of which is still used today.

 

“Before I joined the Air Force, I’d never even built a model airplane, but we trained hard to learn everything about the U-2,” he said. “After weeks of being the first pilots in the U-2, we became the instructors for the second class of pilots.”

 

The program is considered an exclusive group, with less than 80 current U-2 pilots.

 

“There are more people who have Super Bowl rings than there are U-2 pilots,” said Lt. Col. Stephen Rodriguez, the 1st Reconnaissance Squadron commander. “There are less than 1,000 pilots in the history of this program. That’s less than some airframes train in one year.”

 

After flying for years in other military airframes, a pilot from any U.S. service can apply to fly the U-2, Rodriquez said. Following a strict interview process, he sends these prospective aviators on a series of training flights to test the pilot’s aptitude.

 

“We interview applicants to screen for airmanship, maturity and ability to adapt to the U-2′s unique landing characteristics,” he said. “Allowing inter-service transfers brings lessons from outside the Air Force, which helps us at operating in a joint environment.”

 

Although the pilots are the face of the U-2′s mission, hundreds of Airmen behind closed doors in windowless buildings exploit, disseminate and transmit the information the aircraft collects. These Airmen provide mission-essential assistance to commanders around the globe.

 

“To be able to support the warfighter from the U.S. is a great feeling,” said Master Sgt. Sean, the 9th Intelligence Squadron flight lead. “We contribute to the mission downrange whether we deploy and support the efforts with manpower and bullets or we support it through ‘intel’ from home station.”

 

The U-2 is at a high operational tempo and with the program schedule to endure through 2040, there are no signs of slowing down. U-2 pilots will continue to provide timely, relevant and persistent high altitude ISR to meet the needs of the nation’s leaders to support the current fight and any future challenges our nation may face.

Partager cet article
Repost0
17 juillet 2012 2 17 /07 /juillet /2012 17:30

GAU-23-30mm-Mk44-Bushmaster-automatic-cannon-ac-130.jpg

 

July 17, 2012: Strategy Page

 

The U.S. Air Force has officially accepted the modified 30mm Mk44 Bushmaster automatic cannon as the GAU-23. For the last three years, modified (and continually tweaked) Mk44s have been operating on a dozen U.S. Air Force AC-130 gunships and, more recently as part of the U.S. Marine Corps Harvest Hawk ("instant gunship" via several pallets of sensors and weapons) version of the KC-130J tanker.

 

The 30mm Bushmaster cannon weighs 157 kg (344 pounds) and fires at 200 or 400 rounds per minute (up to 7 per second). The Bushmaster has 160 rounds available, before needing a reload. That means the gunner has 25-50 seconds worth of ammo, depending on rate of fire used. Each 30mm high explosive/incendiary round weighs about 714 g (25 ounces, depending on type.) The fire control system and night vision sensors, enables the 30mm gunners to accurately hit targets with high explosive shells. Earlier SOCOM AC-130 gunships are armed with a 105mm howitzer, a 25mm and 40mm automatic cannon. But the two smaller caliber guns are being phased out of military service. The air force is now equipping its gunships just with smart bombs and missiles as well as one or two GAU-23s.

 

The big thing with gunships is their sensors, not their weapons. Operating at night, the gunships can see what is going on below, in great detail. Using onboard weapons, gunships can immediately engage targets. But with the appearance of smart bombs (GPS and laser guided), aerial weapons are now capable of taking out just about any target. So gunships can hit targets that were "time sensitive" (had to be hit before they got away), but could also call on smart bombs or laser guided missiles for targets that weren't going anywhere right away. Most of what gunships do in Afghanistan is look for roadside bombs, or the guys who plant them. These gunships want to track back to their base, and then take out an entire roadside bomb operation.

Partager cet article
Repost0
12 mai 2012 6 12 /05 /mai /2012 11:55

Air-Sea-Battle-Strategy.jpg

 

May. 11, 2012 By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS– Defense news

 

The Air Sea Battle (ASB) concept initiated by the U.S. Navy and Air Force is an effort to make the most of the combined military capabilities of the U.S. The objectives are to carry out the strategies of U.S. commanders and defeat those of an enemy — traditional goals to be sure, but the ASB concept brings together a much wider matrix intended to match capabilities and threats in more efficient ways.

 

Observers tend to view ASB as aimed at specific threats — China and Iran — while Pentagon leaders insist the concept can be adapted to any adversary. In a May 10 blog post, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jon Greenert avoided mentioning any specific country, but began with a reference that can quickly be interpreted as aimed at Iranian threats to close the Strait of Hormuz at the entrance to the Arabian Gulf.

 

“There’s been attention recently about closing an international strait using, among other means, mines, fast boats, cruise missiles and mini-subs,” Greenert posted. “These weapons are all elements of what we call an ‘Anti-Access/ Area Denial (A2AD)’ strategy.”

 

The attention on Air Sea Battle comes as the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, plus Germany, prepare to meet on May 23 with Iran in Baghdad to discuss security concerns about Iran’s development of nuclear facilities. Without significant guarantees about Iran’s intentions, Israel has been preparing a possible military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, an event, Iran has threatened, that would cause a closure of Hormuz.

 

The ASB concept, Greenert wrote, was developed to defeat A2AD strategies such as the closure of the strait.

“This concept identifies how we will defeat A2AD capabilities such as cyber attack, mines, submarines, cruise and ballistic missiles, and air defense systems and, where applicable, ‘natural access denial’ such as weather, pollution, natural disaster, etc. The concept also describes what we will need to do these operations, especially as the threats improve due to technological advancements,” Greenert posted on his blog.

 

ASB, he explained, relies on tightly coordinated operations that cross operating “domains” — air, land, sea, undersea, space and cyberspace. ASB concepts include submarines hitting air defenses with cruise missiles in support of Air Force bombers; F-22 Air Force stealth fighters taking out enemy cruise missile threats to Navy ships, or a Navy technician confusing an opponent’s radar system so an Air Force UAV can attack an enemy command center.

 

The concept is also being used, Greenert posted, “to guide decisions in procurement, doctrine, organization, training, leadership, personnel and facilities.”

 

Reflecting the joint outlook at the core of ASB, Greenert also advocated for two key Air Force procurement programs.

“The joint force needs the new Long Range Strike Bomber to provide global reach and stealth as well as the new KC-46 tanker, upon which our patrol aircraft and strike fighters depend,” Greenert wrote. “These investments complement the other capabilities of Air Sea Battle such as the Virginia-class submarines, UAVs, Ford-class aircraft carriers, and long-range weapons.”

 

With Gen. Norton Schwartz, Air Force chief of staff, Greenert will continue his ASB discussion May 16 in a public event at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

 

Greenert’s ASB posting can be read by clicking here.

Partager cet article
Repost0
1 mars 2012 4 01 /03 /mars /2012 08:15

30mm-PGU-15-Projectiles-photo-ATK.jpg

 

Feb 29, 2012 ASDNews Source : Alliant Tech Systems, Inc

 

ATK was recently awarded a  fourth contract option to produce 30mm PGU-15A/B cartridges for the U.S. Army Contracting Command, Rock Island Contracting Center (RICC), Rock Island, Ill.   The order is a part of a multi-year contract originally signed in July 2007. ATK's worldwide sales of 30mm ammunition in the current fiscal year now exceed $29 million.  

 

ATK's 30mm PGU-series target practice ammunition is specially designed for training applications.  These cartridges, currently in use with the 30mm GAU-8/A Gatling gun on the U.S. Air Force A-10 Warthog close-support aircraft provide cost-effective, ballistic-matched training rounds for improved warfighter performance.

 

"We are proud to continue our role as the primary provider of PGU-15 ammunition in support of the U. S. Air Force's A-10 aircraft," said Dan Olson, Vice President and General Manager, ATK Integrated Weapon Systems. "This round plays an integral role in training A-10 aircrews to develop and maintain essential air-to-ground combat skills.  ATK supports this program through the delivery of high quality products, outstanding value and great customer service."

 

ATK's Mesa, Ariz.-based Integrated Weapon Systems division will produce the rounds at its facilities in Radford, Va. and Rocket Center, W. Va.  Delivery of the optioned rounds is set to begin this year.

Partager cet article
Repost0
14 février 2012 2 14 /02 /février /2012 17:50
U-2 Defeats The Robots Again

photo USAF

 

February 14, 2012: STRATEGY PAGE

 

The U.S. Air Force, faced with substantial budget cuts, has cancelled orders for 18 RQ-4 Global Hawk UAVs. At the same time, the retirement of its U-2S reconnaissance aircraft has been delayed once again. Last year it was decided to keep the U-2 in service until 2016. Now the U-2 will keep flying until 2020, or later. The reason is the continued failure of the RQ-4 to prove it can replace the manned U-2. Moreover, the air force has been battling the RQ-4 manufacturer for years over reliability, capability and price issues. The basic problem was that the Global Hawk was never able to come close to the capabilities and reliability of the U-2. Although the U-2, which entered service 56 years ago, carries a pilot, it also carries more weight and has more than twice as much electrical power (for more capable sensors) than the RQ-4. The air force will keep over 50 RQ-4s in service, but the cancelled RQ-4s is a wakeup call to the manufacturer to do better, or lose even more sales.

 

It wasn't just the U.S. Air Force that was havening problems with the RQ-4. South Korea wanted to buy several of them, but eventually backed off as the price kept going up and delivery dates became increasingly vague. Instead of having their own long range recon aircraft, South Korea is looking for smaller substitutes. This might be Israeli Herons or American Reapers. Meanwhile, U-2s will continue to watch North Korea. The three American U-2s stationed in South Korea generally carry out one sortie a day. The cameras and electronic eavesdropping gear can record or photograph North Korean military activity up to a hundred kilometers north of the DMZ (the DeMilitarized Zone) that separates the two Koreas. In an emergency two or even all three U-2s can be put in the air.

 

Its popularity is running the U-2s ragged. Several U-2s have been in service over 40 years and spent nearly 30,000 hours in the air. One of these aircraft had made three belly (landing gear up) landings, requiring extensive rebuilding after each incident.

 

 

With a range of over 11,000 kilometers, the 18 ton U-2s typically fly missions 12 hours long. All U-2s have been upgraded to the Block 20 standard, so they can be kept in service until the end of this decade. Or at least until the 13 ton Global Hawk, or some other UAV is completely debugged and available in sufficient quantity to replace it.

 

The U-2 has been in service since 1955 and only 86 were built, of which 26 remain in service. Less than 900 pilots have qualified to fly the U-2 in that time. The heavy use of the U-2 has been hard on the pilots. Missions can be as long as 12 hours and pilots operate in a cockpit pressurized to conditions found at 9,600 meters (30,000 feet). This puts more strain on the pilot's body. That, and the fact that they breathe pure oxygen while up there, means they tend to be completely exhausted after returning from a long mission. U-2s also fly missions daily over the Middle East and Afghanistan.

Partager cet article
Repost0
27 janvier 2012 5 27 /01 /janvier /2012 08:25
USAF, Army Still Squabbling Over C-27J

Photo: C-27J Team

Jan 26, 2012 By Amy Butler - aviation week and space technology

Washington - U.S. military officials are keen on saying they never intend to fight the last war. This is their way of indicating a focus on future conflicts, not on the past.

Apparently, this sentiment does not apply to the interservice skirmishes at the Pentagon. The U.S. Army and Air Force are in the final throes of hashing out an updated agreement on the time-sensitive, direct-support airlift mission, the latest chapter in a years-long saga over how to ship supplies to remote soldiers despite two wars and one stunted buy of Alenia’s C-27J.

The agreement is being made between the chiefs of staff of both services. At issue is how the time-sensitive airlift mission will be handled; this includes the shuttling of small loads of supplies to forward Army units in the field.

The outcome of this cargo rub between the two services could be the first of many such roles-and-missions scrapes. As the Pentagon looks to save money by killing some programs or nixing new ones, the Army and Air Force are also on a crash course regarding the small fleets of tactical, fixed-wing intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft that each have procured since the start of the Iraq invasion in 2003. In the case of the General Atomics Gray Eagle and Reaper UAS, the developmental Enhanced Medium-Altitude Reconnaissance and Surveillance System (Emarss) and MC-12W Project Liberty aircraft, the services operate very similar systems. In at least one case—with Emarss and the MC-12W—lawmakers have suggested that only one service manage a unified fleet.

As it did with its rotary-wing fleet, the Army is trying to reduce the number of unique airframes in its tactical ISR fleet, says Maj. Gen. Anthony Crutchfield, who heads up the Army Aviation Center of Excellence at Fort Rucker, Ala. “We have a plan to divest of some of the different types of aircraft [and shift to] fewer single airframes.” Without saying which aircraft would be let go, Maj. Gen. Tim Crosby, the Army’s program executive officer for aviation, says the service must “pick those that have been the best bang for the buck.”

Though Crosby notes there is still more work to be done on this, the airlift debate is raging.

“The concern is the logistics part,” says Crutchfield. “What we have to sort out is: ‘Who does that?’”

If this sounds familiar, it is.

The last installment of this tug-of-war took place in 2005 when, during his first major speech to the Air Force Association, the then Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Gen. T. Michael Moseley, announced he wanted a new light cargo aircraft. This was considered odd as the Army was in the midst of setting up its future cargo aircraft program, which was then crafted to replace old C-23 Sherpas and provide more immediate access to commanders for cargo support. At the time, the Army moved ahead with its own program because it felt that it had lackluster support by the Air Force to properly back its needs.

Underscoring the need for direct-support activities were the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that called for distributing supplies around small, remote Army outposts. Not only were the Sherpas aging, they lacked pressurized cabins, making it difficult to operate them at high altitude in places such as Afghanistan, says Col. Patrick Tierney, director of the Army’s aviation directorate.

Moseley’s push, along with his similar and later move to take over the Army’s burgeoning UAV force, was seen as an abrupt roles-and-missions grab by the Air Force in the midst of these two wars. In the case of the cargo aircraft role, the USAF won.

At the direction of then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in 2009 the Air Force took over authority for the C-27J buy and control of the direct-support mission; service officials said they would combine the use of C-27Js and C-130s to provide cargo lift for the Army (though Army officials had long complained that C-130 support was inefficient owing to underloading of these larger aircraft).

Army officials say that in actuality, the CH-47 Chinook fleet has been unduly burdened in providing timely support because the helicopters are used to shuttle goods from C-130s that land at hubs to the remote locales where soldiers are stationed.

“The major rub to us is responsiveness and not efficiency,” says one Army official who requests anonymity. “When a part is needed at the front line, it flies” and shouldn’t have to wait for enough requests to fill a C-130, the official adds. “We are more about effectiveness than efficiency, and [the Air Force is] more about efficiency than effectiveness.”

So, the questions now are: What is the right number of small cargo-lifters for the direct-support role, and how should the mission be managed?

Though both branches agreed to USAF control of the mission in the 2009 pact, the Army is now insisting that language be added to clarify its needs—specifically emphasizing responsiveness, especially when parts or supplies are called for at forward-operating locations.

USAF Lt. Gen. Herbert Carlisle, deputy chief of staff for operations, acknowledges what he calls a “natural tension” for Army commanders wanting quick support.

The outcome of this deal will directly impact how soldiers at such sites are supported in Afghanistan.

Army officials had long argued that an Army officer must oversee this mission to ensure that its commanders’ needs take priority; the fear is that the USAF will de-emphasize Army unit requirements against the more strategic priorities of regional cargo movements. USAF, however, has long countered that it best knows how to provide airborne logistics support across a fleet of aircraft, including the C-27J, C-130 and C-17.

In 2009, the Air Force conducted a demonstration of the direct-support mission using C-27Js and C-130s in Iraq; this validated the service’s plans for a mix of the two for the mission.

Two C-27Js were deployed to Afghanistan in late July 2011 and quickly started flying operational direct support missions, Gen. Raymond Johns said last fall. The C-27Js are apportioned to Army officials there via Tacon (tactical control), although USAF pilots fly the missions, but the C-130s are not. This means the C-27Js are specifically set aside only for intratheater/direct-support missions under Army authority. Though C-130s are used for this mission, they can be reassigned elsewhere in the area, if needed, Johns said.

Army officials are less than satisfied with the Air Force’s delays in delivering C-27Js to the field. At least six were to be in Afghanistan by now, and why they have not been deployed is the “golden question,” the anonymous Army official said.

One industry official says the Army is “trying to hold the Air Force’s feet to the fire to do what they signed up for” in the 2009 pact.

Alenia has delivered 13 of 21 C-27Js on contract. Originally, Alenia officials projected the U.S. market for the C-27J (including Army/Air Force buys) to support as many as 125 aircraft. Tierney said that in 2005, the Army’s projections set a low risk of handling the mission with a fleet of 78 C-27Js and a moderate risk at 54. When Gates shifted the C-27J program from Army control to the Air Force, the buy shrank to 38 aircraft.

The sharp reduction in procurement numbers prompted Alenia to scrap its plans to open a final assembly facility in Florida; the aircraft are being delivered from a plant in Italy.

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz indicated during a recent testimony to Congress that the C-27J faces termination—possibly before all 38 are delivered—due to fiscal pressure. Service officials contend that maintaining a separate fleet for this mission adds to its spending for unique training and logistics, whereas a C-130-based mission could build off of an existing infrastructure. It is unclear whether the service would keep the C-27Js already delivered or divest of them entirely.

Numerous lawmakers and governors associated with states slated to host C-27J Guard units have written to Schwartz, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter advocating the program. Some of them argue not only for the national security advantages of the aircraft but also note that without those units, jobs in their districts will be in jeopardy.

Meanwhile, Crutchfield notes that the Army’s C-23 Sherpas still support war operations. Without better direct support from USAF, the Army would have to pay $350 million to keep old C-23s operating, and they would still lack a pressurized cabin, Tierney says. Carlislie expects the updated pact to be signed in days.

Partager cet article
Repost0
8 janvier 2012 7 08 /01 /janvier /2012 09:00
U-2s Ends A 22 Year Mission

photo USAF

January 7, 2012: STRATEGY PAGE

On December 18th, the last (for the moment) American U-2 mission was flown over Iraq. These missions began in 1990, after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and continued until December, 2011. The last decade has been the busiest for the U-2 in decades. Because of the spy satellite quality sensors carried by U-2s, and a limited number of spy satellites up there, there was always more demand for U-2s sorties than could be provided. Three years ago, for example, two 41 year old U-2s achieved a record 25,000 hours in the air. One of these aircraft had made three belly (landing gear up) landings, requiring extensive rebuilding after each incident.

With a range of over 11,000 kilometers, the 18 ton U-2s typically fly missions 12 hours long. All U-2s have been upgraded to the Block 20 standard, so they can be kept in service until the end of this decade. Or at least until the 13 ton Global Hawk is completely debugged and available in sufficient quantity to replace it. The U-2 has been in service since 1955 and only 103 were built, of which 26 remain in service (plus five two-seat trainers). The current U-2S aircraft were built as TR-1s in the 1980s, and later refurbished and renamed U-2S. Fewer than 900 pilots have qualified to fly the U-2 in that time.

The heavy use of the U-2 has been hard on the pilots. Missions can be as long as 12 hours and pilots operate in a cockpit pressurized to conditions found at 10,000 meters (31,000 feet). This puts more strain on the pilot's body. That, and the fact that they breathe pure oxygen while up there, means they tend to be completely exhausted after returning from a long mission. U-2s fly missions daily over the Middle East, Afghanistan, and Korea.

This wasn't supposed to happen. Six years ago the U.S. Air Force wanted to retire its U-2s and replace them with UAVs like Global Hawk. But Congress refused to allow it, partly for political reasons (jobs would be lost, which is always a live political issue) and because some in Congress (and the air force) did not believe that Global Hawk was ready to completely replace the U-2. This turned out to be correct. New Global Hawks continue to appear but there is so much demand for the kinds of recon work the two aircraft can do that both pilots and robots will coexist for a while. But eventually the old reliable U-2 will be retired.

Partager cet article
Repost0
26 décembre 2011 1 26 /12 /décembre /2011 08:20
U-2 Holds Out Against The Robots

 

 

December 24, 2011: STRATEGY PAGE

 

The U.S. Air Force has again delayed the retirement of its U-2S reconnaissance aircraft. Now the U-2 may remain in service until 2016 or later. The reason is the continued failure of the Global Hawk UAV to prove it can replace the manned U-2. Congress wants the Global Hawk to pass tests proving it can do everything the U-2 can before the U-2, which entered service 56 years ago, is retired.

 

For the last five years the U.S. Air Force has been trying to replace its manned U-2 reconnaissance aircraft with the RQ-4 Global Hawk. This has not worked out well. In addition to the problems with Global Hawks' reliability and dependability, another issue has been in the superiority of the sensors carried by the U-2. So why not just install the U-2 sensors in the Global Hawk? The problem here is weight and space. The U-2 is a larger and heavier aircraft, and even with a pilot, has more carrying capacity. Air force suppliers keep promising that they have the problem solved but after several generations of Global Hawk sensor redesigns and improvements, it will still be a few years before the Global Hawk will be competitive and the U-2 will be out of a job.

 

Then there's the UAV software, which has still not matched the capabilities of pilots. The humans still have an edge over robotic systems, especially when it comes to emergencies. But another advantage that the U-2 has is that it has been around for half a century. Its quirks and foibles are well known. The Global Hawk is not only new but is also the first of a new kind of robotic aircraft.

 

Global Hawk has crossed the Pacific, from North America to Australia, using onboard computers to run everything. While impressive, Global Hawk still has a tendency to get into trouble unexpectedly and not know how to recover. More work needs to be done on the software and, to a lesser extent, the hardware used by Global Hawk. Since no one can (or at least will) swear when Global hawk reliability will be up to acceptable standards plans are being made to keep the U-2s around for a while longer - just in case.

 

This popularity is running the U-2s ragged. Two years ago, for example, two 41 year old U-2s achieved a record 25,000 hours in the air. One of these aircraft had made three belly (landing gear up) landings, requiring extensive rebuilding after each incident.

 

With a range of over 11,000 kilometers, the 18 ton U-2s typically fly missions 12 hours long. All U-2s have been upgraded to the Block 20 standard, so they can be kept in service until the end of this decade. Or at least until the 13 ton Global Hawk is completely debugged and available in sufficient quantity to replace it. The U-2 has been in service since 1955 and only 86 were built, of which 26 remain in service. Less than 900 pilots have qualified to fly the U-2 in that time.

 

The heavy use of the U-2 has been hard on the pilots. Missions can be as long as 12 hours and pilots operate in a cockpit pressurized to conditions found at 30,000 feet. This puts more strain on the pilot's body. That, and the fact that they breathe pure oxygen while up there, means they tend to be completely exhausted after returning from a long mission. U-2s fly missions daily over the Middle East, Afghanistan, and Korea.

 

This wasn't supposed to happen. Five years ago the U.S. Air Force wanted to retire its U-2s and replace them with UAVs like Global Hawk. But Congress refused to allow it, partly for political reasons (jobs would be lost, which is always a live political issue) and because some in Congress (and the air force) did not believe that Global Hawk was ready to completely replace the U-2. This turned out to be correct. New Global Hawks continue to appear but there is so much demand for the kind of recon work the two aircraft can do that both pilots and robots will coexist for a while. But eventually the old reliable U-2 will be retired.

Partager cet article
Repost0

Présentation

  • : RP Defense
  • : Web review defence industry - Revue du web industrie de défense - company information - news in France, Europe and elsewhere ...
  • Contact

Recherche

Articles Récents

Categories