Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 33 of 34 FirstFirst ... 23293031323334 LastLast
Results 961 to 990 of 1001

Thread: USAF not F-35 thread

  1. #961
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,527
    House fires its first shot. Likely to be the upper limit for the negotiation position on the 18 NDAA.

    House Appropriations Committee seeks $18B procurement boost


    The House Appropriations Committee released a draft version of its fiscal year 2018 defense spending bill Sunday night that would boost weapons procurement by $18.6 billion above what is sought by the Trump administration and $24 billion more than what was enacted in FY-17.The bill would fund the Defense Department's base budget at $584 billion and its Overseas Contingency Operations account at $74 billion. The base budget funding is $68 billion above what was enacted in FY-17 and $18 billion more than what the Trump administration sought for FY-18. .....


    For shipbuilding, the bill includes $21.5 billion to procure 11 Navy ships, including funding for one carrier replacement, two DDG-51 destroyers, two Virginia-class submarines, and three Littoral Combat Ships;

    The bill provides $2.4 billion for 15 KC-46 tanker aircraft, $9.5 billion for 84 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and $1.8 billion for 24 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft and $1.2 billion for seven P-8A Poseidon aircraft.

    The measure would also appropriate $1 billion for 56 UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters; $117.5 million for 12 MQ-1 Gray Eagle unmanned aerial vehicles, $348 million for 116 Stryker Double V-Hull upgrades, $1 billion for the upgrade of 85 Abrams tanks and $483 million for the upgrade of 145 Bradley fighting vehicles.

    Israeli Cooperative Programs would receive $332 million and the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle would be funded at $298 million.

    National Guard humvee recapitalization would also receive $100 million.

    The bill would provide $84.3 billion for DOD research, development, test and evaluation -- $82.7 billion for base requirements and $1.6 billion in OCO. The base budget portion of the funding is $10.3 billion higher than what was enacted in FY-17.

    "Specifically, this funding will support research and development of: the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter; space security programs; the new Air Force bomber program; a next-generation JSTARS aircraft; the Ohio-class submarine replacement; Future Vertical Lift; the Israeli Cooperative Programs; and other important research and development activities, including those within the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)," according the committee.

    Meanwhile, the committee hopes a $24 billion increase in DOD's operations and maintenance account will help the military begin to address some of its stated readiness problems. The bill would appropriate a total of $241 billion for the O&M account -- $192 billion for base requirements and $49 billion for OCO.

    "Within this amount, the bill includes $1 billion above the request to fill readiness shortfalls, $500 million above the request to invest in facility sustainment, restoration, and modernization programs, and $16.6 billion total for depot maintenance," the committee states.

    The committee was able to offset some of their proposed increase by rescinding $1.5 billion of unused prior-year funding; identifying $1 billion in lower-than-expected fuel costs; and finding $345 million "due to favorable economic conditions."

    The House Appropriations defense subcommittee is scheduled to mark up the bill in closed session Monday night.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  2. #962
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,527
    USAF issues Sources Sought notice for rapid fielding of hypersonic strike weapon



    The US Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC) on 29 June issued a Sources Sought notice for a rapidly-fielded and developed hypersonic, conventional air-launched strike weapon.

    According to the notice, capabilities statements are being sought from potential sources "that are capable of accomplishing systems integration of all the elements of a hypersonic, conventional air-launched strike weapon from existing fighter/bomber aircraft and all respective operations/mission planning and sustainment efforts, to include operational safety, suitability, and effectiveness".

    "Qualified vendors must be skilled in design, qualification, and component/subsystem testing of the critical elements of the hypersonic missile in representative operational conditions. Qualified vendors must be capable in the following fields: hypersonic aerodynamics, aero-thermal protection systems, solid rocket motors, warhead/missile integration, advanced hypersonic guidance, navigation and control, and aircraft integration."

    The notice underscored that the "new weapon system must be designed and analysed for rapid development and fielding". Responses to the notice are required by 14 July 2017.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  3. #963
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,527
    Open Mission Systems supporting Agile Pod payload for the MQ-9 and other applications.



    AFRL plans AgilePod multi-INT pod flight test on MQ-9 Reaper



    The US Air Force (USAF) has disclosed details of a prototype platform-agnostic modular, reconfigurable, multi-sensor payload pod planned for flight testing on an MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aircraft system (UAS) in late 2017.

    Known as AgilePod, the multi-intelligence (multi-INT) pod system has been developed by the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) to demonstrate the benefits of agile manufacturing and a modular open systems architecture approach so as to increase the affordability and flexibility of podded intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities operated by the ISR and Air Force Special Operations communities. As well as owning the prototype, the AFRL also has unlimited rights to the technical data for its design.

    Delivered to the AFRL's Materials and Manufacturing Directorate by contractor KeyW Corporation in December 2016, the AgilePod design is a standards-based modular open systems pod engineered to support rapid multi-INT payload re-configurability, and multi-platform agility. The nearly square 30x30 inch cross-sectional pod size can scale in length from three to five compartments, or approximately 7 ft to 15 ft.

    According to the AFRL, operators can pick the sensor equipment they need for a particular mission tasking and configure the AgilePod on the flight line to accommodate their specific collection needs. Hosting various different sensors in a single pod system is also intended to eliminate the weight overhead associated with integrating multiple pieces of discrete equipment, and decrease the overall logistical footprint.

    There are two different size electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) turret sensor compartments (33-inch and 28-inch) specifically designed to house sensors defined by the Class I and Class II mechanical interface standard for airborne systems, respectively. In addition, there are two different size centre compartments (45-inch and 60-inch) able to support a range of other sensor types and associated equipment, including radar, electronic warfare, signals intelligence, full-motion video, communication systems, wide area motion imagery, common launch tubes for tactical off-board sensing unmanned aerial vehicles, and various other equipment rack configurations.

    The centre compartments support 14-inch and 30-inch Bomb Rack Unit mounting to enableaircraft interface on several types of platforms. The initial pod configuration includes a nosecone, tailcone, and centre compartments (45-inch and 60-inch) with radio frequency transparent skins through X-band.

    Sensor elevators (Class I and two Class II) are provided to deploy turreted EO/IR sensors if needed for low ground clearance, but can be removed to reduce weight.

    Sensors and equipment configurations can be rapidly swapped out to tailor payloads to specific mission criteria. Processing can be performed inside AgilePod compartments, or on board the host aircraft.

    AgilePod was designed, developed, and manufactured in a digital environment, enabling technical data to be digitally captured along every step of the process to create a traceable digital record of design decisions. By capturing the pod's digital thread, researchers can use the information to more efficiently modify the prototype pod design for mission purposes. As future pods are designed, engineers using the technical data baseline will have greater insight to specific design decisions underlying the design and manufacturing process.

    Model-based design, including computational fluid dynamics for aerodynamic load estimates and finite element modelling for structural analysis, facilitated engineering decisions during design iterations for the sensor elevators and pod structural components. The SolidWorks Enterprise Product Data Management digital environment enabled rapid re-design of the sensor elevator mounts, which yielded manufacturing time and significant savings in manufacturing costs.

    The development process also enabled the AFRL team to demonstrate the benefits of agile manufacturing processes in design. Additive manufacturing was employed to manufacture several non-critical flight parts on the pod, ultimately lightening the load. Flexible tooling and the integration of multiple composite components also demonstrated flexibility and speed in manufacturing design.


    ...
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	1000x750_q95.jpg 
Views:	37 
Size:	231.8 KB 
ID:	254449   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	AFRL-AGILEPOD.jpg 
Views:	45 
Size:	1.89 MB 
ID:	254450   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	3079052.jpg 
Views:	40 
Size:	105.8 KB 
ID:	254451   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	p1699863.jpg 
Views:	39 
Size:	25.4 KB 
ID:	254452  
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 1st July 2017 at 22:54.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  4. #964
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,527
    P&W pitching F135, AETD improvements for F-22 engine


    As Pratt & Whitney works with the Air Force and Navy to improve the efficiency of the Joint Strike Fighter's F135 engine, the company is discussing options to field some of those upgrades on the F-22 Raptor's F119 engine.

    Through the Navy's Fuel Burn Reduction program, the company recently validated improvements to the F135 that could provide a 5 percent to 6 percent fuel burn improvement and a 6 percent to 10 percent thrust increase. The company is pitching that upgrade, combined with technology matured through Pratt's work on the Air Force's Component and Engine Structural Assessment Research program, as an improvement package for the F-35 propulsion system. Pratt's F119 Program General Manager Amanda Glode told Inside the Air Force in a recent interview some of those upgrades could be fielded on the F119 because of commonality among the engines.

    The F119 was essentially the foundation for Pratt's F135 design, which is in turn the framework for the company's work on the service's Advanced Engine Technology Demonstration program -- an effort to mature next-generation engine technology. That commonality, Glode said, is of particular benefit to the F-22 because it's such a small fighter fleet.

    "One of the things that the 119 will constantly be plagued with is the fact that it's a relatively small fleet," Glode said in a June 19 interview. "So the more that we can create commonality with the other larger engine programs like the 135, it'll enable us to have improved delivery as well as lightweight cost reductions for the 119 going forward. So those are the topics that we consistently try and raise for the Air Force for consideration."

    The company has proposed improvements based on its AETD work that Glode said could be introduced to the engine through a separate upgrade program or through its component improvement program, which the service uses to incorporate small changes to its military engines. CIPs typically are targeted for specific component or hardware improvements whereas an upgrade aims to modify an entire suite of hardware.

    Glode said the service is interested in keeping the F119 current and "incorporating as much upgraded technology as possible." She noted that she hasn't seen indications that leveraging commonality between engine platforms is a "burning issue" for the service.

    In the meantime, the company is in the midst of an aggressive engine overhaul plan. Pratt & Whitney doubled its overhaul rate from 32 engines in 2016 to 64 in 2017, and Glode said the effort is "nearly exactly on plan" in terms of both engine induction and production rates. Under a new sustainment contract effective Jan. 1, 2018, that rate will remain at 64 engines in 2018, increased to 70 in 2019 and then peak at 75 in 2020, Glode said.

    The service considered peaking at a higher rate, but Pratt was able to reduce depot turnaround time so the higher rate was not required, Glode said. She noted that if the service had opted to peak past 80 engines, the company would likely have to add production lines for parts and tooling.

    "For that small incremental amount for a very short duration, that may have been cost prohibitive," she said.

    Glode told ITAF last June that delivering overhauls at such a high rate on a cold production line presents some challenges, most of which the company has now overcome. She noted there are still some parts the company is trying to ramp up to the needed volumes.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  5. #965
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,527
    USAF FYDP Outlay projections based on the FY18 PB18- IHS

    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  6. #966
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,527
    Short clip from the B-21 panel from last years AFA event. RCO boss Randy Walden reaffirmed that the first 21 aircraft (5 lots which I assume will be 1+5+5+5+5) are on a Fixed Price Contract (like the KC-46). The Fixed Price Contract also means that the USAF can't back out of the first 21 aircraft without breaking the deal which sort of makes the program 'politics safe' in the short-medium term (through the mid to late 2020s). Lt. Gen Homes, now the ACC boss also discusses the AS2030 towards the end. Full panel is linked in the clip description.

    Last edited by bring_it_on; 3rd July 2017 at 13:04.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  7. #967
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,851
    Massive delays on next Gen IBCS platform

    http://www.defensenews.com/articles/...nse-commentary
    Thanks

  8. #968
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    217
    What a strange report with no mention of civilian contractor responsible for the delay.
    Last edited by Siddar; 4th July 2017 at 09:58.

  9. #969
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,851
    Does it matter? If software coding is the main challange. Then it does not matter who screw's up. The end results is the same.
    Last edited by haavarla; 4th July 2017 at 10:36.
    Thanks

  10. #970
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,527
    Massive delays on next Gen IBCS platform
    IBCS is a US Army system. Army acquisition and program management is screwed up they'll get IBCS to work eventually and for them its practically OMS and they own the TB and from that sense what it does and can do for them is unique and unchartered territory. It (delay) is also not as significant since a lot of the other stuff that should have been ready by the time IBCS was has been pushed to the right as well as a post BCA shifting of priorities and investment focus. So it wouldn't be till the mid to late 2020s that the US-Army can utilize IBCSs full potential even if they had it out in the field NOW.

    We can discuss it further in the US Army thread if the moderators allow it. Lets try to keep this thread for USAF and aviation matters .
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 4th July 2017 at 11:50.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  11. #971
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,851
    It May be an Army contract. But this IBCS(anti-air detection) is supposed to share the Flow of information across the different defense branches. I know first hand how tricky such program can be..

    Back in Norway we have a major program to field a new secure digital communication system for AF, Navy and army.
    Guess how it fare.. a total mess. Delayed and overbudget.
    Last edited by haavarla; 4th July 2017 at 13:00.
    Thanks

  12. #972
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,527
    Again, let us keep this thread for aviation and USAF matters. I think the title makes it very clear what it is about. AIAMD is a 100% US Army program. We can begin a US Army non-aviation related thread if the moderators allow.

    But this IBCS is supposed to share the Flow of information across the different defense branches.
    IBCS is doing no work to that end. It is taking in work that is already done and systems and networks that already exist and are already integrated. At its core, it is a program focused on providing an open ended C2 and fire control enabling any US Army sensor (brought in to IBCS) to be able to cue any US Army shooter (brought in to IBCS). This across the AMD mission set begining from Counter UAV, and CRAM all the way up to ballistic missile defense. It has been referred to as the Army's LITE analogous system/concept to Navy's Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air or NIFCCA-Lite as is reflected in its rather modest developmental budget. Most of the sensors and sensor configurations the US Army wants as part of the IBCS (ultimately) have not yet even begun development or are just starting out as programs of record. The only component of the 'original plan' that is fielded is the PAC-3 MSE. Everything else got pushed to the right to absorb budget cuts in their key portfolios.

    While the US Army along with others in the DOD have had a tough time getting a grip on very large software intensive developmental programs and determining accurate costing and schedule expectations the DOTE and GAO have not had better luck predicting their outcomes and timeframes either. In fact they have made similar blunders in predicting the developmental trajectory since things in the digital realm happen a lot faster than purely hardware based developmental test efforts. The USAF and USN have learnt this the hard way and have finally gotten a lot better in accurately designing new starts to reflect this. This is the Army's first attempt at this and they'll come out better at the other end. It is however interesting to see the DOTE take 8 months to prepare a report and 4 weeks later the contractor and EO respond that the report speaks of an older software drop and that there have been two additional major drops since then.
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 4th July 2017 at 15:33.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  13. #973
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,851
    2009, when the U.S. Army started work on IBCS, the hope was that the system would allow the different service branches to work in unison to defeat an incoming threat. Essentially, the oft-repeated line is that IBCS’ open construct would create an “any sensor-best shooter” platform. At least that was the hope of IBCS at its inception.
    Rather, it was the hope.

    Why do i get the impression that The US Army is trying to re-invent the wheel here..
    Could they not just adopt the Navy AEGIS for a land based system.. just like The Russian Navy Redut spilled over to army S-350 System.

    http://www.navyrecognition.com/index...-missiles.html
    Last edited by haavarla; 4th July 2017 at 18:45.
    Thanks

  14. #974
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,527
    Why do i get the impression that The US Army is trying to re-invent the wheel here..
    Could they not just adopt the Navy AEGIS for a land based system..
    The reason should be very obvious. LM owns the TB for AEGIS, and the US Army owns ZERO AEGIS systems. They don't use a SPY-1 derivative land based radar, they don't use any of the AEGIS weapons, and they do not use any other USN assets such as the E-2D and F-18E. AEGIS is a stove piped system, IBCS is the exact opposite i.e. designed to get rid of the stove piping and unlock true fire control level integration among disparate systems originally not designed around this requirement. An Army AMD Battalion currently has 7 unique/disparate BM-C4I systems and IBCS replaces them all with just one, introduces a fire control level connectivity between these disparate systems that offer different capability and have varying technical abilities. This throughout the threat spectrum i.e from a small set up utilizing a sentinel and SLAMRAAM, to a full up IFPC battery supporting the CUAS and CRAM mission, to the Patriot supporting the IAMD mission to the THAAD supporting the TBMD mission.

    To understand AIAMD, and IBCS you need to understand what it is designed to do. It is designed to sit on top of the existing integrated C4ISR networks (which is already integrated and has been operational for some time taking in US Army, US Air Force, and US Navy supplied data) and is designed to create composite fire control links between existing US Army sensors, and existing US Army shooters. One example would be to basically allow a remotely operated AN/MPQ-64 sitting somewhere in the countryside (as deployed) to provide all the fire control data required for a Patriot battery say 50 km out to launch a weapon at a target. Same for other systems such as having the ability of the THAAD's AN/TPY-2 radar to basically step out and take over the role of developing fire control solution in case it has better quality data compared to an AN/MPQ-65 if it indeed has better track of an incoming warhead.

    The aim is to take disparate systems, of different generations, some old, some new, and some not even developed yet, and link them together not only at the C2 level (as in a common integrated picture) but also at the fire control level. None of those sensors are designed to one requirement, some don't even operate in the same frequency and none have been required to provide the similar level of targeting quality data as each other. This is the challenge as what the US Army is doing is creating a synthetic environment whereby they are creating a layer on top of existing disparate systems that solves these issues. Oh and the US Army owns the TB and will do so from the beginning to the end.

    IBCS is not analogous to AEGIS battle management system since AEGIS is merely one part of what the Navy has as its systems. As I had mentioned earlier, if anything it has elements of NIFCCA Lite which also sits on top of and utilizes AEGIS Baseline-9.0 and beyond configurations and is agnostic to whatever comes after AEGIS or what else may be operating on the other side. A case in point is the NIFCCA enabled SM6 guided drone kill using the F-35Bs RF sensor.

    The US Army has a significant investment in Patriot Configuration 3+, AN/MPQ-64, TPY-2s (through MDAs work), and are building future sensors around upgrades and replacements of these systems. Besides modernization and future variants they aren't looking to wholesale change any of these. In fact the entire point of spending $2.4 Billion in developing IBCS is to produce a connective_tissue (IFCN) that allows existing and future assets to seamlessly link up in the Fire Control sense (not just situational awareness which is already linked at the C2 level).

    The hope was to link existing sensors but develop those further by modernizing them so that future capabilities can be unlocked. Parts of this development was to occur and move together but as I had explained some if not most of it has been moved to the right as money has been taken away from these programs and program-starts moved to the right, some outright cancelled. Some of these systems that are to be brought in are -

    - Sentinel Radar --> Upgrade to a larger GaN Antenna with larger Power Source -- Now at Solicitation Phase

    - A New LTAMDS Sensor - Either an Upgraded AN/MPQ-65 or a new clean sheet Sensor

    - A New Weapon -- This was accomplished with the PAC-3 MSE and is the only thing that they have fielded

    - A New Patriot Launcher (Less manpower, near vertical launch but without sacrificing magazine capacity like MEADS)

    - MEADS to be brought in ( MEADS and IBCS configuration work is on going even though the US Army isn't buying any MEADS system but they value the ability of Germany and Italy to link up with IBCS when needed)

    - THAAD - This was to happen 3 years ago but is now only going to begin around 2020 --> Basically Money and inter service politics. Army wanted to do it earlier but did not want to own THAAD

    - A new long range surveillance radar - performance and requirements yet to be determined

    -- A JLENS or JLENS replacement (Both Surveillance VHF radar, and X-Band FCR)

    In addition all back compatibility with any of the legacy sensors within these systems so you could have 3 generation of patriot radars in there, 2-3 generation of Sentinels etc etc etc with both new variants of these systems and yet to be developed sensors.

    So in a nutshell, through the AIAMD effort you are taking the guts out of old systems, laying the groundwork for new systems, and linking disparate systems so that they are all capable of operating under one integrated fire control network. And while you are doing so, you are ensuring that the TB is owned by the service, and that OMS standards are in place for the future with systems that have not yet even been conceived say in the high energy laser, or EMRG side of things.

    This is easier said then done but they are at it, and there is a huge software component to this which is the bulk of the $2.5 Billion RDT&E budget for this AIAMD program. Like I said, since many of the allied capability enhancements that were to accompany IBCS are delayed because the Army did not invest in developing or acquiring them, the delay in IBCS fielding will not be as significant as it could have been had those tracks outpaced its induction. Only area where it hurts significantly is export, particularly with Poland no doubt to Raytheon and Kongsberg's delight.

    Last edited by bring_it_on; 4th July 2017 at 23:05.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  15. #975
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,527
    USAF prepares to brief laser experimentation plan this summer




    .....Some of the Air Force's experimentation priorities will be included in the Self-Protect High-Energy Laser Demonstrator program -- which could change its testing time line -- though a final decision has not been made, Ross continued. The first phase of the SHiELD concept, a low-power defensive laser, could be copied for experimentation to develop concepts of operations and tactics, he said.

    Rich Bagnell, SHiELD program manager, told reporters June 28 the directed energy flight plan asked for input from all involved with lasers at Kirtland Air Force Base, NM, where the SHiELD program is run, and will prompt experiments that can "advance laser tactics, techniques and procedures early on."

    "The whole experimentation part of it is really being feverishly worked on by the guys that are in charge of the DE flight plan out of the engineering group at Wright-Patterson," Bagnell said. "It does figure in eventually to where SHiELD is going, but right now, the concentration is on making the experiments happen that can maybe inform where we're going on SHiELD. It's an overall strategic direction rather than one that's targeted at a particular program."

    The SHiELD program's laser source contract -- dubbed Laser Advancements for Next-Generation Compact Environments -- will likely be issued this year as well, Bagnell added. Potential competitors include Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Atomics and Northrop Grumman, ITAF previously reported. Northrop won a $39 million beam-control system contract last August, and Boeing can earn up to $90 million through a pod integration contract awarded in December.

    Maj. Gen. John McMullen, vice commander of Air Combat Command, told conference attendees June 27 the SHiELD effort would integrate an external laser pod onto an F-15 in FY-18 before designing an internal system. Following a lower-power test, the service will see whether a high-power laser can shoot down an infrared-guided missile in FY-21.

    The Air Force is building a database that would focus on how the weapon is used, including more details on possible collateral damage. The rules of air-to-air combat will be fleshed out as the technology improves, McMullen said.

    He added the service is open to either fielding a sixth-generation fighter jet with a laser onboard from the start or installing that capability after the penetrating counterair platform fighter enters combat.

    "As we get into the 2023-ish time frame, we'll look at where we are with SHiELD and the capability, and somewhere close to there, we'll have to make the decision to snap the line to go with or without, depending on how mature the technology is," McMullen said at the conference.

    Bagnell told reporters at the conference the program is talking to Air Combat Command and the AFRL about a potential phase three of the program, which may include long-range offensive capabilities. Whether the Air Force can achieve an offensive laser depends on whether a lower-power, defensive laser is successfully developed and can form the basis of a more advanced weapon.

    "ACC is coming in in the next couple months to talk about setting those requirements so that we can gauge the scope of the program," Bagnell said June 28. "Once we gauge the scope of the program and we determine whether the funding sources are available for us to do it, then we'll move forward. The rest of the Air Force I know is concerned, because they keep talking to me about it, and we are working on making that come together. But we want to be methodical in the sense of we want to make sure that we have requirements that we believe can be achieved with the technology advancements that we want to happen, and then we'll move on."

    An analysis of high-value aircraft is proving out what it would take to fly a laser on platforms like cargo or tanker aircraft. Bagnell said the Air Force will study what a laser weapon could offer for those aircraft and potential requirements for transitioning the technology from a fighter jet.

    "We haven't done a full inventory of all the hard points on all the aircraft to determine whether we have to shrink the size of the system, which would be harder," he said. "We do know that none of the heavies would have to go to the flight speeds that the fighters would, so that might be easier. . . . They may have different threats that they are most concerned with, and some of those threats could be more difficult or easier. We just don't know yet, though we're doing our homework now to determine what's the right approach for each aircraft."

    ITAF previously reported Air Force major commands including ACC, Air Mobility Command and Global Strike Command are developing requirements for directed energy's use on their aircraft and how those designs might differ. Air Force Special Operations Command chief Lt. Gen. Brad Webb also wants to flight-test a laser on the AC-130 for a proof of concept as early as FY-18.

    Bagnell added the service won't know for months whether a laser can defeat targets at a range that keeps aircraft out of harm's way, or whether the first integration aircraft should be able to eject the laser pod if it becomes dangerous.

    "Right now, we haven't decided yet what the overall form is," Bagnell said. "If safety requirements mean that we have to be able to jettison the pod, we'll jettison the pod. It'll be an expensive pod to jettison."
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 7th July 2017 at 12:22.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  16. #976
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,318
    Do we understand right that the concerns with provisioning a jettisoning/podded capability are with the usage of high capacity batteries on a manned aircraft?
    This could get the attention of investors lured in many crazy flying car projects.
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 8th July 2017 at 08:35.

  17. #977
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,527




    Last edited by bring_it_on; 8th July 2017 at 13:27.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  18. #978
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,318
    USAF fly over Paris for Bastille day commemorations:



    Source
    The Washington Post
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 15th July 2017 at 15:44. Reason: Don't mess your Fr history on a British forum !

  19. #979
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cemetery Junction
    Posts
    13,420
    Don't you mean Bastille?
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  20. #980
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,318
    Obviously.
    The culprit promise to spent the rest of the national holidays w.e singing A ça ira, forcefully sober...
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 15th July 2017 at 15:43.

  21. #981
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    183
    RT featuring an article with Pierre Srey about the F-35.

    Sounds like Russians are getting a bit worried about the new British carrier (RT is a good test of what the Russian government are scared about today). I guess it's with good reason though.

    https://www.rt.com/uk/396521-f35-fighter-jet-problems/

  22. #982
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,441
    Wrong thread mate. This is the "USAF NOT F-35 Thread"
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  23. #983
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    183
    Oops

  24. #984
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,527
    The "18 SAR" executive summary on the F-22 Increment 3.2B Progress -

    During development flight test in late CY 2015, significant display blanking and weapon bay door anomalies were
    discovered. Government / industry team root cause analysis attributed these problems to software issues, and by the end
    of summer 2016 the team completed corrective actions for both anomalies. The corrective actions for both the display and
    weapon bay door anomalies successfully completed developmental flight testing in March 2017, and the associated watch
    items and deficiency report are closed. Display stability is now better than fleet average.

    Two successful Air Intercept Missile (AIM)-9X Block II Live Fire shots were completed on November 1 and 22, 2016 and a
    successful AIM-120D Live Fire Shot on February 8, 2017. The Capstone Live Fire event was successfully accomplished
    with simultaneous AIM-9X and AIM-120D shots on April 19, 2017.


    The production Operational Flight Program (OFP) was released for flight test on March 15, 2017. A final clean-up OFP is
    currently in-work with a June 20, 2017 release to flight test in support of Initial Operational Test and Evaluation scheduled to
    begin August 14, 2017
    .

    The Low Rate Initial Production I and II contracts were awarded February 28, 2017. The advance procurement option for
    FRP was awarded March 28, 2017.Milestone C was briefed and approved by the Service Acquisition Executive on August 2, 2016. The program is on track for
    a FRP decision review in July 2018.There are no significant software-related issues with the program at this time.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  25. #985
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cemetery Junction
    Posts
    13,420
    Obviously.
    The culprit promise to spent the rest of the national holidays w.e singing A ça ira, forcefully sober...
    From which the 14th foot took its motto in 1793 - ça ira. One of my family (brother of one of my ancestors) was in the 14th (2nd batallion) from 1808 until 1827, despite getting a bullet through his thigh at Corunna.

    A bit off topic. Sorry.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  26. #986
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,318
    Interesting and refreshing bit of history. Thanks.... and congrats. [/offtopic]

  27. #987
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,527
    I had posted an article covering Lockheed's future plans for the JASSM and JASSM-ER/LRASMs a couple of pages back. The USAF has finally moved ahead with some of those -

    U.S. Air Force Awards Lockheed Martin $37 Million For New JASSM-ER Wing Design



    Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) received an Undefinitized Contracting Action for $37.7 million from the U.S. Air Force for continued development of a new wing design for the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile – Extended Range (JASSM-ER).

    The new wing design will add greater range to the cruise missile, which currently has a range of more than 500 nautical miles. Analysis on an enhanced wing design began in March 2016.

    "We've developed a novel design that provides additional standoff range to further increase pilot survivability in an Anti-Access-Area Denial threat environment," said Jason Denney, program director for Long Range Strike Systems at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control. "Our customers trust our already proven design and we look forward to enhancing its capabilities for warfighters."

    The current phase of the design work is progressing as anticipated and is on schedule to be incorporated into production lot 17.

    Armed with a penetrating blast-fragmentation warhead, JASSM-ER can be used in all weather conditions. The stealthy 2,000-pound cruise missile employs an infrared seeker and enhanced digital anti-jam GPS receiver to dial into specific points on high-value, well-fortified, fixed and relocatable targets. The B-1B carries JASSM-ER. Integration on other aircraft platforms is ongoing. More than 2,150 JASSM and JASSM-ER missiles have been delivered.
    More details from the previous article -

    In a May 18 email from a spokeswoman, Jason Denney, Lockheed's long-range strike systems program director, said the notice marks the start of a development effort to improve JASSM-ER performance.

    "Lockheed Martin has already started looking at the engineering and aerodynamic improvements for future wing designs to support increased range," Denney wrote. "Additional studies, testing, and qualification will include software and hardware upgrades, as well as a new missile control unit to support the missile upgrades."..

    Alan Jackson, vice president of strike systems at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, told ITAF a "rather dramatic" increase in JASSM-ER range could be delivered at a date "not too far in the future" but did not provide a figure.

    Last October, Denney told ITAF Lockheed is pursuing a block upgrade program to improve range, GPS-denial, survivability and payload capabilities. The company is experimenting with laminar flow wings, which allow for uninterrupted airflow without friction, to boost JASSM-ER's farther than its current range of more than 500 nautical miles. In addition to several survivability initiatives, Lockheed is exploring ground- and star-based navigational techniques and inertial measurement unit improvements that could kick in if the guided missile loses its GPS connection. JASSM could also be modified to carry payloads like other missiles or small unmanned aircraft instead of its 1,000-pound warhead.
    Meanwhile, the current program of record is still at 2866 missiles for the USAF not counting the LRASM-A. Whether LRASM is selected for OASuW Increment 2 and whether USAF buys any Increment-2 weapons remains to be seen.
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 20th July 2017 at 09:57.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  28. #988
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,527
    Some serious money towards S&T and R&D for future systems across the USAF aviation portfolio. These are unrelated to the adaptive engine awards from last year (to GE and P&W) -

    Air Force awards $1.2B in engine technology contracts


    The Air Force this week awarded General Electric a $409 million contract to support next-generation engine technology development, the latest in a string of awards to airframe and engine developers.

    Since June 30, the service has awarded more than $1.2 billion in indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts to three companies -- GE, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman -- for the Next-Generation Thermal Power and Controls program. To date, each contract has been worth up to $409 million, service spokesman Daryl Mayer told Inside the Air Force July 13. The program expects additional awards in the near future.

    Pratt & Whitney will likely receive one of those future awards -- the service on July 11 announced an award to the company, but retracted the announcement July 12 saying "the contract has not yet been awarded."

    The program's goal is to "develop revolutionary and innovative technologies" by the 2024 time frame and to improve the Air Force's understanding of the thermal, power and controls requirements for future propulsion systems, according to the contract announcements. The notices state the work will help "prove technological feasibility and assess operability and producability of thermal, power, and controls components and architectures through proof of principal demonstrations."

    Program officials would not provide much detail about the scope or the number and value of future awards, but the contract announcements note the service received seven bids for the effort.
    More Information on the Next-Generation Thermal Power and Controls (NGT-PAC) :

    Next generation fighter aircraft are likely to require an unprecedented level of advanced capabilities in order to ensure air superiority in contested environments. These capabilities, which include advanced electronic attack, high-power laser, and future low-observability features, are expected to require as much as 10x higher power levels than current tactical systems.

    These power system demands requirements present multifaceted electrical and thermal challenges in an integrated flight worthy system. Modern vehicle design factors including composite aircraft skins, higher efficiency engines, and highly embedded vehicle systems compound these challenges. This solicitation seeks research in order to better understand the challenges and opportunities of, and advance the state of the art in, next generation aircraft thermal, power, and controls.
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 21st July 2017 at 23:31.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  29. #989
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Columbia, MD
    Posts
    11,527
    More on NGT-PAC -

    Background:
    In order to better optimize future aircraft, it will be necessary to analyze and evaluate all aspects of the aircraft as an integrated system from conceptual design through prototype demonstration. Desired system capabilities exceed what can be provided by superposition of individual mission subsystems into an air platform and engine(s) designed purely for individual component performance. Technologies for power, thermal, and control must be developed as part of the integrated air platform and engine system. This ability for continued refinement through- out the aircraft design cycle, from system concepts into detailed design validation to demonstration and test, will allow development of a more capable and efficient aircraft.

    Airframer Objective:

    The objective on NGT-PAC is to conduct research to study, develop, demonstrate, integrate and transition power, thermal and controls technologies coupled with vehicle propulsion. Advances in these technologies will allow the development of the next generation of UAVs and manned aircraft. The goal of this effort will be to conduct basic, applied, and advanced development research on UAVs, Air Dominance, ISR, hypersonic and mobility platforms. Offerers will be required to examine the aircraft impacts of integrating a high power laser into an existing fighter or bomber aircraft. The best scientific and technological solution is required for this acquisition.

    Engine Objective:

    The objective of NGT-PAC is to conduct research to study, develop, demonstrate, integrate and transition power, thermal, and control technologies for air platforms that take advantage of capabilities offered by, and minimize the limitations of, existing and future engine technologies. Advances in these technologies will allow the development of the next generation of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and manned aircraft to be fielded. The goal of this effort will be to conduct basic, applied, and advanced development research and demonstration on UAVS, Air Dominance, ISR, hypersonic, and mobility platforms. Offerers will be required to examine how dual spool power extraction (DSPE) would be retrofitted into a current fighter or bomber engine. The best scientific and technological solution is required for this acquisition.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

  30. #990
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,318
    Dual Spool Power Extraction (DSPE) Patent from UTC* (one of a kind I guess):

    A power extraction system (12) for a gas turbine engine (10) comprises a low spool generator (30), a high spool generator (32) and a power controller (34). The low spool generator (30) extracts power from a low spool (14) of the gas turbine engine (10), and the high spool generator (32) extracts power from a high spool (16) of the gas turbine engine (10). The power controller (34) receives power extracted by the low spool generator (30) and the high spool generator (32) and distributes the received power to provide an uninterrupted steady state power supply (SS) and a transient power supply (T) larger than what is available individually from the low and high spool generators (30, 32). In embodiment of the invention, the power extraction system includes an engine controller (20) that operates in conjunction with the power controller (34) to increase inertia energy of the low spool (14) and high spool (16) to increase electric power supply, while engine excursion is reduced and consistent engine thrust is maintained
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSPE_PatentUTC.jpg 
Views:	7 
Size:	21.4 KB 
ID:	254875


    *
    GE becomes the third company with a position on the Next Generation Thermal, Power, and Controls contract alongside Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. United Technologies Corp. subsidiary Pratt & Whitney was announced July 11 as an awardee but the Defense Department subsequently said July 12 that spot had not been awarded yet.
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 22nd July 2017 at 06:56.

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