Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 32 of 34 FirstFirst ... 2228293031323334 LastLast
Results 931 to 960 of 1017

Thread: USAF not F-35 thread

  1. #931
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,576
    Total numbers on this program are less important than buy rate. From what is known, the build rate on the first 21 aircraft is not very large, deliberately so in order to protect it from other programs. If you are going to increase the total number, ideally you would want to up the build rate and buy them out over a similar production run which may be financially problematic. The fall back option is obviously to extend production but that will take extend production by quite a bit.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  2. #932
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,576
    Courtesy Marauder at Secret Projects
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	sacm-set-2017.png 
Views:	283 
Size:	245.2 KB 
ID:	253680   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	SHiELD.png 
Views:	218 
Size:	821.8 KB 
ID:	253686   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	LCAAT.png 
Views:	221 
Size:	1.50 MB 
ID:	253687   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	HSSW.png 
Views:	229 
Size:	851.7 KB 
ID:	253688   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	HIJENKS.png 
Views:	213 
Size:	1,002.8 KB 
ID:	253689  

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Gray Wolf.png 
Views:	207 
Size:	478.8 KB 
ID:	253690  
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 26th May 2017 at 09:24.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  3. #933
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,576
    Cross Posting from the World Missiles News thread -

    Replying to #341 on that thread

    ST. LOUIS—Boeing conducted four flight tests under the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s (Darpa) Triple Target Terminator (T3) program, Boeing Phantom Works President Darryl Davis said here May 18.
    The test vehicles, about the size of an AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (Amraam), flew “faster and farther” than an Amraam, Davis said, but he did not provide any other details.

    Darpa issued T3 contracts to Boeing and Raytheon in 2010, with the aim of demonstrating technology for a single weapon type that could function as an anti-radar missile, an air-to-air Amraam replacement and a cruise-missile defense weapon. The program has now been concluded, but the Navy now plans to develop a longer-range version of its AGM-88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile.

    Davis also said Boeing will unveil some previously undisclosed Phantom Works programs “in the next month or two,” and that these will be separate from the unit’s work with Saab on the T-X program.

    Below is a confirmation from Aerojet's 2015 SEC filing that the Boeing T3 weapon was indeed using an Aerojet Rocket Shop supplied Ducted Ramjet. As described by Boeing, 4 flight tests occurred in late 2013, or early 2014 against the three target types (Aircraft, ground radars, and cruise missile surrogates).

    This is a bit surprising since Aerojet has had a longer relationship with Raytheon when it comes to this and developed and tested an AMRAAM compatible VFDR motor (image attached) back in 1997 and through AFRL funded work again in the 2000s (seperate from their MARC-R282 for the Navy), but it appears Raytheon demo'd/proposed a different propulsion solution since Aerojet has not claimed them as its customer for its VFDR system in either the 2014, or 2015 annual report or SEC filing and since Aerojet inherited all of ARCs assets, there is no known US design team working on a ducted ramjet for missile application besides them.

    Also, Boeing never intended to offer a VFDR based missile for the NGM so it comes as a bit of a surprise that they paired with Aerojet on the T3 while Raytheon appears to have taken a different track. Another possibility could be that Raytheon never advanced to actual flight tests, and if they had done so may themselve have used the same propulsion that Boeing did.

    It is certainly a possibility, that being an outsider, Boeing felt that injecting company funds to complete a flight test demonstration program was worth their effort, while Raytheon concluded their research with DARPA and never actually entered a flight test program. This could well be the case since no competing propulsion contracts in support of the T3 appear to have been awarded to Orbital ATK.


    We maintain key positions on ground-breaking government hypersonic propulsion demonstration programs such as the Triple Target Terminator ("T3") program, which successfully demonstrated our variable flow ducted rocket propulsion system in flight through three different missions at the beginning of fiscal 2014.

    https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/d...rp201410-k.htm

    On a separate note, as expected Aerojet is also the propulsion supplier for the HAWC and TBG hypersonic programs mentioned above which aims to tet prototypes in a couple of years. This from their most recent SEC filing :

    During fiscal 2016, we experienced growth in our work in the field of hypersonic propulsion with competitive wins on the Hypersonic Airbreathing Weapons Concept, Advanced Full Range Engine, and Tactical Boost Glide concept development programs. We also extended our position in missile defense DACs propulsion as both the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense ("THAAD") liquid DACs and Standard Missile-3 solid DACs achieved significant production volume in fiscal 2016. In fiscal 2016, we also transitioned to production of the new, more-capable Missile Segment Enhanced boost motor for the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (“PAC-3”) missile.
    EDIT: SEC Filings from 2012, confirm that Aerojet was the propulsion supplier for both teams so the conclusion based on open source data points to only Boeing following through with a complete FLIGHT demonstration program against the three target types. This could either by design, i.e. DARPA funded two teams but chose to down-select to one for the flight demonstration phase, or it could be that Boeing invested a larger IR&D portion to see this through.

    Another interesting but expected tid-bit on this program is that the weapons were likely launched via either the F-15C, or the F-15E since those were the two platforms the USAF sought to seek integration work on from Boeing.

    DARPA and the Air-Force are extremely tight lipped about it as is evident from the fact that nearly 3.5 years later, Boeing hasn't even managed to get an image of its design cleared for release let alone release a short video of the test flights. In fact if one looked at the interview the Boeing executive gave to Bill Sweetman, it does not refer to anything that can't be put together through publicly available information that already existed prior to that in terms of official company filings, contract awards, and budget materials highlighting the work done on the program. Boeing has therefore not managed to get a single piece of extra information approved for public release on this program.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Aerojet-ARCVFDR.JPG 
Views:	83 
Size:	127.4 KB 
ID:	253698   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	2012_10K_Aerojet.JPG 
Views:	68 
Size:	170.5 KB 
ID:	253700   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	GenCorp10K.png 
Views:	75 
Size:	589.5 KB 
ID:	253693   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	GenCorp10K_1 copy.png 
Views:	60 
Size:	180.4 KB 
ID:	253694  
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 26th May 2017 at 18:59.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  4. #934
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,576
    FY-18 budget seeks Next-Generation Strike Weapon for planned sixth-gen fighter

    The Air Force has unveiled the outlines of a plan to develop a next-generation armament for its Penetrating Counterair capability -- a strike package for a yet-to-be-determined sixth-generation fighter -- with a budget line in fiscal year 2018 to competitively assess novel prototype weapons as part of a new project to ensure U.S. air dominance in the 2030s.

    The service, in its FY-18 budget request sent to Congress May 23, is proposing $5.1 million in research and development funding for a new-start program, Future Advanced Weapon Analysis & Programs, to fund an initial project simply titled "armament subsystems."

    The budget request appears to be seed money designed to support early work on the project; the effort does not forecast a funding tail in the Air Force's outyear spending plan.

    In January, the Air Force solicited industry for ideas on a Next-Generation Strike Weapon conveying details of what it is seeking in a classified request for proposals.

    "The Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Armament Systems Development Division is conducting market research for a Next-Generation Strike Weapon analysis of alternatives," the FY-18 budget request states. The service "seeks to better characterize the technological, manufacturing, and business capabilities of the industrial base to develop and produce a materiel solution to address this operational objective."

    The service's FY-18 budget also includes a $4.5 billion, five-year plan to launch a Next-Generation Air Dominance capability, signaling the service is putting serious research and development funding behind a program launched in January to develop a yet-to-be-identified weapon system intended to be a follow-on to the F-22A.

    The Pentagon's acquisition executive earlier this year approved the Air Force to begin an analysis of alternatives for a Next-Generation Air Dominance program, setting in place plans to consider launching a Penetrating Counterair (PCA) technology maturation and risk reduction program as soon as the summer of 2018.

    The new armament project would move in tandem to the PCA analysis of alternatives.

    "The 2030+ Air Dominance Weapon System candidate concepts will develop, refine and integrate technologies into evolving threat scenarios and environments," the FY-18 budget request states. "Studies that refine system concepts and operational/system architectures to include family of systems and system of systems are required in support of the strategic choices."

    The service further plans to conduct technical risk-reduction eduction activities, including experimentation, integration and building "demonstrative prototypes," according to the spending request.

    If the new-start project passes muster with Congress and wins support from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Air Force -- according to the budget proposal -- plans an acquisition strategy that utilizes competitive prototyping through the engineering and manufacturing development phase, suggesting a down-select to a winning contractor would come just before planned production.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  5. #935
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,576
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  6. #936
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,576
    On the topic of SACM, and Lockheed's recent (Feb/2017) disclosure that their CUDA concept is alive and well and that they are currently conducting an analysis for seeker concepts while also developing prototypes for testing - The fact that Lockheed is the only known DOD contractor to be Government funded on an AESA seeker for air defense applications related to the same target set (Raytheon has designed a DARPA funded low cost Ka band AESA seeker for Counter UAV mission however) may have a bearing on their internal selection especially given that they have often referenced to their seeker decision as finding the best coffee-cup sized seeker for the HALFRAAM.

    If they decide to stick an IIR seeker, they would have to likely go outside. Conversely they could go to Boeing for a seeker but that will just put pressure on them once this program advances since Boeing is likely going to show up as a third competitor.

    Their APASS effort concludes in early 2018. In FY16 Lockheed began testing their seeker technology on a test bed.

    Cahill counts seven classes of interceptor in the current hit-to-kill family, ranging from the Miniature Hit-To-Kill (MHTK) semi-active radar-homing counter-rocket, -artillery, and -mortar (C-RAM) interceptor through to the PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) interceptor and THAAD-ER: a two-stage extended-range concept evolution of THAAD. The family includes two significant new developments: a 17-inch (43.2 cm)-long gun-launched missile for 40 mm naval guns; and CUDA, which is a 6 ft-long (5-inch diameter) air-launched interceptor intended to engage tactical ballistic missiles or harder-to-intercept targets.

    "With the gun-fired missile we're currently conducting a combination of wind tunnel tests and firing trials," Cahill said. "A gun-fired missile has to be able to survive some significant g s, so right now we're going through all the tests to demonstrate that our concept survives, that it can be launched and lofted, and that the solid rocket motor will fire and the seeker will survive, and these tests so far are coming up very positive. So this is not a paper design; it is in the prototype stage - building prototype seekers, building prototype airframes, and testing them. We're not quite ready yet to go after a target, but we are rapidly getting there."

    CUDA is at an earlier stage of development, but it is coming along "really well", Cahill noted. "It is defined, modelled, and we are now working hard on the prototype airframes and on the seeker concepts," he said. As the threats become more complex, Cahill added, having highly manoeuvrable hit-to-kill systems in a smaller profile will prove particularly valuable, especially at close range.

    "All of our hit-to-kill developments leverage the basic PAC-3 technology and capability - that combination of seeker technology, advanced attitude control systems, and robust airframe that can turn on a dime and follow a rapidly manoeuvering target - and optimise that combination in a smaller profile," Cahill explained. "With CUDA, you're talking about a PAC-3 capability with a front-end sensor the size of a coffee cup. ~ Interview: Tim Cahill, Vice-President, Air and Missile Defense Systems, Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control ; Jane's Defense Weekly
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 29th May 2017 at 17:36.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  7. #937
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,576
    USAF Orders 72 AN/APG-83 AESA Radar sets for F-16

    Northrop Grumman Systems Corp., Linthicum Heights, Maryland, has been awarded a $243,873,277 predominantly fixed-price contract with cost-plus-fixed fee and fixed-price incentive portions for 72 Active Electronically Scanned Array radars, spares and support services. Work will be performed at Linthicum Heights, Maryland, and is expected to be complete by Jan. 31, 2019. This award is the result of a competitive acquisition with one offer received. Fiscal 2016 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $30,714,025 are being obligated at the time of award. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity (FA8615-17-C-6047).
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  8. #938
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,576
    Air Force, Lockheed ink deal for first entirely JASSM-ER lot


    Lockheed Martin this week won a nearly $414 million contract to build the 15th lot of its Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile, the first batch that will consist only of the extended-range variant.

    Production of 360 JASSM-ER missiles is paid for by fiscal year 2017 funds, the Defense Department said June 1. Work is scheduled to end by Aug. 31, 2020.

    "The Lot 15 contract includes 360 JASSM-ER missiles, data, tooling and test equipment," Lockheed said in a press release Thursday. "These 360 missiles bring JASSM-ER missiles under contract to 910, and to more than 3,000 missiles for JASSM and JASSM-ER combined."

    JASSM-ER cruise missiles can fly for 500 nautical miles, more than two-and-a-half times that of the baseline variant.

    Inside Defense reported in April the company reached an agreement with the Air Force on the price of Lot 15, which will include 360 JASSM-ER units. Inside Defense reported in October Lockheed had expected a deal on that lot in December.

    The Air Force included $441.4 million in its FY-18 budget request to buy 360 JASSM-ER missiles and additional equipment. The service says in the request buying 360 missiles per lot is the most efficient production rate. In total, the service plans to buy nearly 1,800 units from FY-18 to FY-22 and 4,900 JASSM variants over the life of the $5.9 billion program.

    More than 2,150 JASSMs have been delivered from Lockheed's Troy, AL, facility. Lockheed and the Air Force are exploring several upgrades to the missile, including modifying it to carry other payloads and improving its range, navigation and other capabilities.

    The 2,000-pound JASSM-ER is flown on the B-1B, was flight-tested on the F-15 earlier this year and is expected to move to the B-52 later in 2017, to the F-16 in 2018 and eventually to the B-2.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  9. #939
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,576
    A few lines from Aviation Week's recent interview with the Kratos CEO -


    Mako was also the platform Kratos submitted for the DARPA Gremlins experiment, which it recently lost to Dynetics and General Atomics. But what seemed like a setback for the company was also really a win, since Kratos was secretly also the platform provider for Dynetics. Kratos is under strict orders not to disclose which aircraft it is providing: Mako or some other purpose-built drone. The aim of the Gremlins experiment is to launch and recover groups of small unmanned aircraft from a Lockheed C-130 Hercules, and potentially from bombers.....

    The company’s most notable new development is the 3,000-mi.-range XQ-222 “Valkyrie,” which was selected in July 2016 for the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Low-Cost Attritable Strike Demonstration. DeMarco says three aircraft are under construction and the first will fly in the first half of 2018.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  10. #940
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,576
    Multi Role F-15E Shoots down an armed Drone

    A U.S. aircraft shot down an armed pro-Syria regime Unmanned Aerial Vehicle after it fired on Coalition forces in Southern Syria, June 8.

    The pro-regime UAV, similar in size to a U.S. MQ-1 Predator, was shot down by a U.S. aircraft after it dropped one of several weapons it was carrying near a position occupied by Coalition personnel who are training and advising partner ground forces in the fight against ISIS.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  11. #941
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,405
    USAF Orders 72 AN/APG-83 AESA Radar sets for F-16
    This is big news buried in the recent headlines over PCA, B-21, F-35. etc. Finally, the USAF is committing to capability upgrades for the F-16/-15 fleets with APG-83 and EPAWSS. The legacy fleet will be flying at least until the late 2020's (F-15C), and into the 2030's for some of the F-16's and F-15E. Some was obviously funding due to BCA. On the other hand, considering the known delays in the F-35 ramp up and block buys, the service dragged their feet committing to upgrading the F-16 fleet, and backtracked several times on scope and scale of the modernization.

  12. #942
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,576
    The USAF's BCA position was always to prefer F-15 C and E upgrades over F-16 particularly given the ROI on the F-15Es given their age and design life. They will likely commit to a full SABR order beyond these 72 ANG upgrade kits, but likely not to the amount they once wished. I don't think it will get near the F-15C AESA and RMP combined but you never know.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  13. #943
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,393
    Quote Originally Posted by FBW View Post
    This is big news buried in the recent headlines over PCA, B-21, F-35. etc. Finally, the USAF is committing to capability upgrades for the F-16/-15 fleets with APG-83 and EPAWSS. The legacy fleet will be flying at least until the late 2020's (F-15C), and into the 2030's for some of the F-16's and F-15E. Some was obviously funding due to BCA. On the other hand, considering the known delays in the F-35 ramp up and block buys, the service dragged their feet committing to upgrading the F-16 fleet, and backtracked several times on scope and scale of the modernization.
    How exactly is that capability upgrade. will they have CFT so that range is closer to F35 so it can work in same group without extra tankers. how about engine upgrades so it can use more common parts and same ground procedures . I doubt it will have same design cockpit and simulators as F35. These are too old airframes that will increase costs.

  14. #944
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,468
    It's a "capability upgrade" because it's better than what they currently have.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  15. #945
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,165
    USNAvy, not µUSAF, cdunno where to place it.

    U.S. Navy Green-Lights New And Improved Super Hornet

    http://m.aviationweek.com/combat-air...d-super-hornet

  16. #946
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,576
    There is a entire section of this forum devoted to Naval Aviation. Regardless, its common knowledge now that the USN isn't done with Super Hornet program, and they are likely not done with the Growler program either and latest testimony on the hill confirms that. Its their only, exclusive strike fighter program and a very important portfolio for the long term health of their fleet into the 20's, and 30s if not beyond. Its also the only aspect of the strike fighter supplier base that they wholly own unlike the F-35 where the wheels are kept spinning by the USAF, USMC, and International partners.

    Expect Block III Super Hornet upgrades to eventually find their way into the Growler fleet, and into future new built Growlers. The Navy needs to beef the "super growler" to cover for the fact that the NGJ Increment 1 is going to have little (if any) weight margins left. Engine upgrades along with CFTs will help there.

    https://insidedefense.com/daily-news...-consideration
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 9th June 2017 at 23:04.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  17. #947
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,166
    Quote Originally Posted by halloweene View Post
    USNAvy, not µUSAF, cdunno where to place it.

    U.S. Navy Green-Lights New And Improved Super Hornet

    http://m.aviationweek.com/combat-air...d-super-hornet
    They are still buying Super Hornets. They are going to be in the fleet for many years from now. Of course they are going to be upgraded.

  18. #948
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,576
    Block III goes beyond retrofits. The Navy is likely to keep the Super Hornet line humming and is also likely to use OCO in the FYDP to flex as a hedge against supply disruptions on account of delays to international orders, or in cases where international orders do not materialize. I just don't see them running a half decent FA-XX, nor do I expect their brass committing the required money to fund something in the short term when they have massive ship building and nuclear recapitalization decisions to make/problems to solve. This means more F-18's in the short term, and more F-35's in the medium to long term as they keep kicking the FA-XX can further down the road.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  19. #949
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,393
    Quote Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
    It's a "capability upgrade" because it's better than what they currently have.
    Capability means carrying more weopons to greater distance at greater speed and turn around time. I doubt these old airframes can generate higher sorties at higher intensity . It is assuming high quality pilots even want get train on these older planes.

  20. #950
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,576
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  21. #951
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,576
    XQ-222, and Lockheed's proposal for the LCAA

    Snippets from a Jane's Article :

    Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works division is also developing attritable aircraft technologies, again with a focus on driving down costs and not just with regards to the aircraft. "The number that is thrown out quite often is the cost of the airframe, but what we've been focusing on is the affordability of the end-to-end solution," explained Joe Pokora, Attritable Aircraft programme manager at Skunk Works, adding, "It does you no good to buy a USD2 million airframe if it costs you more than an F-16 to operate."

    Pokora said that Lockheed Martin has been working to understand where operational, maintenance, and sustainment cost savings can be made for attritable aircraft, which by their very nature will be refreshed at a fairly high rate.

    Pokora believes that there are a number of potential solutions to delivering the attritable aircraft capability, and points to the importance of developing concepts of operations (CONOPS) for these platforms. "What we see as important is understanding how this class of vehicles works in the manned-unmanned teaming space. How do we take these low-cost UCAVs and pair them with tactical and even strategic assets to get an enhanced capability …. I think the air force, as well as Lockheed Martin, don't believe this is a single platform, there are a variety of technologies that we are pursuing that are applicable to clean sheet designs and other platforms moving forward."Pokora noted that Skunk Works has been looking at low-cost platforms for more than 20 years and is leveraging this expertise. "JASSM [Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile] was one of the earlier examples and since then we had the Polecat demonstrator several years ago," he explained. "It is a challenge to balance cost with the payload, with survivability, and all of the different attributes that you'd like with this technology, but that's where we are really trying to engage in this mission space to understand what can we do to maximise utility at the most affordable system."

    The CONOPS, and in particular the introduction of greater levels of autonomy and teaming with manned and other unmanned aircraft, will have a significant impact on the effectiveness of attritable aircraft. Pokora believes, "The interaction with other tactical assets is essential for both the way it operates and as an enabler to lowering the cost, so we don't have to carry all of the systems you need to operate in these very challenging environments."

    "We see that in the future battlespace there's going to be increased teaming between manned and unmanned assets," explained Shawn Whitcomb, Loyal Wingman programme manager at Skunk Works.

    "We think that the unmanned assets are going to go across a spectrum of size and capability ranges, anywhere from very-unique, very-high-priced platforms down to expendable platforms. We believe that to enable this end state and do it in an affordable way we need to make as common as possible the architecture and infrastructure for the manned and unmanned elements in that battlespace, so that we can maximise the re-use of software and hardware across as many assets as possible."

    Lockheed Martin has placed a significant focus on systems architecture. Whitcomb said, "We invested a lot in open systems architecture, in particular on our own instantiation of the air force's open mission systems architecture standard, we call it our enterprise open systems architecture, so we've developed a compliant software and hardware suite, and that software suite continues to increase in complexity and breadth. What we are working on here is being able to take a common core software environment and capability, and transition it across that spectrum of potential unmanned assets."

    Skunk Works has been furthering its manned-unmanned teaming capabilities through the Have Raider programme with the AFRL. In the Have Raider 1 tests the company employed two F-16 aircraft, one of which operated as a surrogate UCAV, and investigated autonomous vehicle control, autonomous formation flying through a series of tactical scenarios, as well as 'autonomous rejoin', automatic route following, simulated weapons deployment, and BDA.

    The Have Raider 2 trials took place in March of this year at Edwards Air Force Base in California.

    "We started to marry autonomous vehicle control with autonomous battle management," Whitcomb explained. "Here's where you start to get that idea of loosely tethered operations, whether that is a [UAS linked to a] C2 node on the ground or to a manned asset in the air, so you get more autonomous mission execution capability. Instead of a series of tasks we gave desired end goals for a ground attack mission and we let the onboard software determine the best way to go about routing the aircraft through a simulated battlespace and achieving the end state. We also did things like put a series of simulated contingencies in there, we added pop-up threats, ground-to-air threats, had the system recognise there was a pop-up threat and either change the routing, change the prioritisation, or accept a certain level of risk to undertake the mission as it was defined. We also looked at things like loss of communications and how do we want the autonomous system to behave in those situations."

    Whitcomb said that they are also looking at the idea of "dialable autonomy", whereby the level of control can be varied by the operator, from full direct control over flight and other aspects through to a level of autonomy whereby the autonomous system will decide what to do and how to complete a mission and ask the operator if it is cleared to do so. The ability to operate with a high level of autonomy will be key for attritable aircraft going forward, if they are to operate in contested environments, where communications jamming may be prevalent and survivability necessitates electronic silence.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	XQ_222.jpg 
Views:	150 
Size:	89.1 KB 
ID:	254049   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Lockheed_LCAA.jpg 
Views:	151 
Size:	31.0 KB 
ID:	254050  
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  22. #952
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,166
    No doubt about it... the drones are coming.

    It will be very interesting to see how this reshapes air combat.

    For one thing it will probably allow a lot more countries to get back into the air power game. Not only will UCAV airframes be cheaper to purchase, they won't need to fly hundreds of hours a year just to maintain proficiency.

  23. #953
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,576
    There are "setting up the network" costs, and then "defending the network costs" associated with these on top of autonomy but I agree autonomy, and manned-unmanned teaming will greatly enhance and alter how air power is employed. Add to that the costs imposed by preparing for network v network competition and this will fundamentally alter both CONOPS but also how you develop current and future systems.
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 12th June 2017 at 13:10.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  24. #954
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,371
    Nice Mig28U

  25. #955
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,576
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  26. #956
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,576
    Courtesy Graham Warwick

    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  27. #957
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,576
    USAF wants $3.1B to fund prototyping, experimentation over FYDP


    The Air Force expects a ramp-up in experimentation and prototyping activities over the next year, a change of pace reflected in a $500 million funding increase in its fiscal year 2018 budget request.

    The service is asking for $840 million for technology transition in FY-18 and $3.1 billion across the future years defense plan. The funding line includes both experimentation and prototyping efforts, and in FY-18, the bulk of that money -- about $745 million -- will fund prototyping work. The Air Force's FY-17 budget requested only $340 million for prototyping and experimentation.

    An Air Force spokeswoman told Inside the Air Force this week the efforts supported in this year's budget request will help drive key strategy decisions for future budgets.

    "The results of prototype demonstrations and experimentation campaigns allow us to make more informed strategy and resources decisions," Capt. Emily Grabowski said in a June 15 email.

    Because of this, the funding is flexible, and may shift to support "emerging opportunities," she added.

    The Air Force in recent years has been working to establish a more robust developmental planning process, forming enterprise-level teams to study possible gaps in the service's threat posture in various areas. The service's first team considered capabilities the Air Force may need to counter threats in 2030 and beyond. In a study released last June, recommended a number of efforts the service should pursue to mitigate possible capability gaps. That study has driven analysis, prototyping and experimentation work and has injected some momentum into ongoing technology transition programs.

    Grabowski said the increase from FY-17 to FY-18 is driven largely by an acceleration of the service's Adaptive Engine Transition Program and a corresponding study directed by last year's Air Superiority 2030 analysis. That program aims to develop advanced engine technology to reduce fuel burn and increase efficiency.

    The increase also would support FY-18 prototyping for hypersonics, attritable aircraft technology and an effort called "Spectral Halo Pod." Grabowski could not provide additional information about the program, noting the prototype work is classified.

    For experimentation, the service asks for about $87 million in FY-18 to support a number of efforts, including potential follow-on demonstrations following light-attack experimentation slated to occur this summer. It would also fund directed energy and multidomain command and control efforts as well as other campaigns stemming from the Air Superiority 2030 study, Grabowski said.

    She noted, again, that while the service estimates it will support these efforts, the work is "pre-decisional" and needs could shift based on ongoing analysis.

    "The Air Force has a notional allocation of this funding for various experimentation efforts; however this information is pre-decisional," she said. "The nature of experimentation is specifically designed to deal with technology transition opportunities as they arise throughout the fiscal year, which could result in adjustments to the content and prioritization of this funding."
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  28. #958
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,166
    We get it, you have a blog and want some traffic.

  29. #959
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,877
    The ambitious F-35 project from Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon seems to have stalled!!! What is the way out now? What Happened to F-35 Project from Lockheed Martin?
    1/ This is not an F-35 thread, read the title
    2/ Do some research next time before writing.

  30. #960
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,576
    Electronic Attack Jet Analysis of Alternatives Coming in July

    The Defense Department will likely wrap up its analysis of alternatives on a new Penetrating Electronic Attack aircraft within a month, Pentagon electronic warfare guru Bill Conley told attendees at an AFA Mitchell Institute program June 22.

    Conley, who’s the deputy director of electronic warfare in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, said that while it’s true the PEA will probably “turn into” an Air Force program, the AOA is a joint affair. “We’re answering this question” of stand-in and standoff electronic warfare “holistically, but then it will turn into service-specific investments,” Conley said.

    He said he “would personally advocate we move away” from dividing up the mission areas—and responsibilities—for stand-in and standoff EA/EW between the services. He believes it’s likely that tools developed for one mission may work very well in the other, but stovepipes would hinder such applications. The “whole idea … of ‘how dare you come into my cylinder of excellence’ … we need to break away from that,” Conley said.

    Retired Gen. Hawk Carlisle said in February he anticipated the Air Force would inherit the stand-in EA mission once the F-35 and PEA are up to speed, and that the Navy would likely get the duty for standoff, regional EA. Carlisle, who was head of Air Combat Command at the time, suggested it’s unlikely the services would undertake another joint aircraft program like the F-35 to meet the requirement.

    Conley also said that of DOD’s $70 billion research, development, test, and evaluation budget, $5 billion is going to electronic warfare; roughly a tenth of what the 10 biggest telecom companies spend on ensuring connectivity.

    “Candidly, I think we will be outpaced by the commercial world” unless the Pentagon adopts more flexible and adaptive architectures, he said.

    Conley noted that adversaries are strong in EW and it is probably unrealistic to expect to achieve “dominance” in spectrum warfare, but that the US should shoot for “superiority” instead.

    The writing of doctrine for EW is a “delicate dance,” Conley observed, because it would be easy to be either too prescriptive of how to do it—hampering innovation—and also too easy to be excessively hands-off and allow “25 more years” of uncoordinated effort, which led to the creation of the Pentagon’s Electronic Warfare Executive Committee. Formed in 2015, the committee meets about quarterly and includes heavy hitters from all the services and OSD as well as the chiefs of US Strategic Command and US Cyber Command. Conley said they are collectively working to ensure that EW is an enterprise-wide effort from now on.
    I could be mistaken but as part of their portion of the analysis, the Navy was looking at right sizing the Growler fleet from its currently sanctioned strength of 160.
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 23rd June 2017 at 17:38.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES