Quite Impressive list specially on laser frontbrar_w wrote:Lots of interesting stuff into what programs are likely to be ongoing or in the pipeline under the Missile Defense Agency and allied portfolios. Some interesting stuff on Lasers, EMRG's, and further enhancements of the existing Missile defense systems including -
- Multiple Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV) - An anti-MIRV and decoy system...
- THAAD-ER - Larger envelope
- HELLADS - Laser.
- New S Band radar for detecting Ballistic Missiles in the Asia-Pacific context
- LPD Based Ballistic Missile Defense Ship (BMD Ship)
MOKV -
Full list and description -
http://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/wp-co ... re-BMD.pdf
The RFI for an all new prototype Electro Magnetic Rail Gun System that is an operational bridge and a follow on tot he railgun demonstration next year was issued just a couple of days ago. The fact that the current work is revolving around the ZUMWALT should essentially put to rest the question mark over the 3 ship production requirement. While that may be the case for the -1000 (They could squeeze in a fourth) but there is little doubt that the Zumwalt would be the basis for the next (Burke Replacement) Multi-function DDG with the AMDR radar.Senior Pentagon leaders, technologists in industry and the armed forces, and civilian analysts are advocating a suite of radical technologies for ground-based defense against new air and missile threats, with a number of crucial tests set between now and 2020. Their main motivation is the concern that inexpensive unmanned air vehicles and widely proliferating guided missiles cannot be affordably defeated by conventional interceptor weapons.
The new technologies include ultra-wideband “impulse” radar, hypersonic guided projectiles fired from both conventional mobile artillery guns and electromagnetic railguns, and directed energy (DE) weapons—of both high-energy laser and high-power microwave (HPM) types.
Current and near-term test and research programs include an Army-hosted “bring what you have” demonstration at White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) in New Mexico, set for November, of a mobile laser rated at more than 150 kW power, enough to destroy many missile types, and the first seaborne firing trials of a prototype railgun from the USNS Trenton, one of the Navy’s Joint High-Speed Vessels.
A next-generation railgun is under development, feasibility studies are underway of installing a railgun on the DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyer, and a demonstration is underway to adapt the railgun’s high-velocity projectile to a 155-mm. gun, giving the Army’s M109 Paladin self-propelled gun an anti-missile capability.
Under apparently classified programs, air-defense HPM weapons have been brought to the point where a mobile system is a low-risk venture, one Air Force officer says, and could be used as both a long-range, all-weather target identification system and as a lethal weapon.
Longer-term work includes the Missile Defense Agency’s support of new laser concepts capable of delivering fractional-megawatt power from a high-altitude airborne platform, which could be tested in 2020-25 and would allow stand-off boost-phase intercept of ballistic missiles.
The challenge facing ground-based air defense (GBAD) today, whether in peer-level warfare or in defending cities against terrorist attack or intrusion, is the proliferation of lethal or dangerous threats that cost orders of magnitude less per unit than conventional guided-interceptor missiles.
“Future ground warfare, regardless of type, is going to see a proliferation of guided munitions and advanced weaponry,” Bob Work, deputy defense secretary, told the Army War College’s annual strategy conference in April. “So our ground forces are going to be faced with what many people call G-RAMM—guided rockets, artillery, mortars and missiles.” But, Work added, “right now, we’re firing $14 million missiles to go after a $50,000 missile. It doesn’t make sense. But when you have electromagnetic railguns and powder guns, using the same smart projectiles, now you can start to break the raid.”
Work has called for a large-scale technology program named Raid Breaker to look at ways to protect forward-deployed forces and their logistics systems from guided missile salvos. “The competitor who can demonstrate the ability to defeat the guided munitions salvo competition is going to have a unique advantage at the operational level of war,” Work said. The project’s name is an allusion to Assault Breaker, the 1980s demonstration of a tactical reconnaissance strike complex that—many analysts believe—undermined the Soviet Union’s conventional warfare strategy.
Another threat was highlighted by Frank Kendall, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, at a July 28 Directed Energy Summit here, hosted by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments and Booz-Allen Hamilton. “One of my friends bought a $1,000 drone. It’s got an endurance of a couple of hours. It’s a great targeting system. What happens when terrorists start to use them?” In combat, Kendall noted, a small unmanned air vehicle (SUAV) can vastly increase the lethality of indirect fire.
Inexpensive guided weapons and SUAVs constitute a cost-imposition strategy—because it is more costly to shoot them down than to deploy them—and conference speakers repeatedly referred to the potential for DE weapons to “reverse the cost equation,” as U.S. Air Force Air Combat Command vice-commander Maj. Gen. Jerry Harris put it. “If I can use 1 liter [0.26 gal.] of fuel [providing energy to a DE weapon] to defend my aircraft against surface-to-air and air-to-air missiles, I’m using dollars to defeat millions of dollars.”
Another revolutionary characteristic of DE weapons and railguns is magazine depth. Rep. Jim Langevin, (D-R.I.) co-chair of the House DE caucus, noted: “Ships that can’t do anything except air defense” [for instance, if most or all of their missile capacity is dedicated to intercept missiles] “are on the wrong side of the cost equation.” Langevin also said industry needs to see more commitment to DE weapons to build a case for investing its own resources.
DE advocates concede that after decades of overpromise and underperformance, concrete demonstrations are needed. (Kendall reminded the summit that he was a veteran of the 1980s fad for lasers.) However, they point to solid progress in some areas and forthcoming demonstration projects: Kendall sums it up as, “We have made a lot of progress, but we’re not there yet.”
[youtube]/watch?t=187&v=XwaGW-x7hS0[/youtube]Propelling an object into a parabolic arc or an orbit is not an easy feat. The basic Delta-V requirement to achieve low-Earth orbit is around 7.8 kilometers per second (km/s). Atmospheric drag, and other factors often require 1.5-2.0 kilometers more Delta-V for the launch vehicle itself, placing the total requirement to reach orbit at around 9.4 km/s. These immense speeds cannot simply be reached by air-breathing engines, nor by the ancient rockets propelled by steam or gunpowder.
A rocket functions by expelling mass backwards at extremely high speeds, utilizing Newton’s Third Law to push the payload in the opposite direction as the thrust. Specific Impulse, another important factor of rocket propellants, is the measure of a rocket or jet engine’s efficiency. This is the impulse delivered per unit of propellant that is consumed, and is dimensionally equivalent to the thrust generated per unit. If a unit of mass, such as a kilogram, is used as the unit of propellant, then the specific impulse has units of velocity. If a measure of weight, such as a pound is used instead, then specific impulse is measured in units of time, such as seconds.
The higher a rocket’s specific impulse, the lower the propellant flow rate required for a given thrust, and thus the less propellant needed to achieve a certain delta-v, as per the Tsiolkovsky Rocket Equation. This equation is commonly known as the “ideal rocket equation” and describes the motion of vehicles that follow the basic principles of rockets. These principles are defined as: A device that accelerates via expulsion of part of its mass with high speed, thereby moving due to conservation of momentum. The equation relates the Delta-V with the effective thrust velocity.
According to this equation, Delta-V is the Effective Exhaust Velocity, multiplied by the natural logarithm (ln) of the initial total mass including propellant, divided by the final total mass without propellant, or dry mass.
Equation for Ideal Rockets
Since rockets often are intended to travel into space or achieve extremely high velocities, typical air-fuel mixtures are nigh impossible. Thus, rocket fuel is known as propellant, the chemical mixture which is burned to produce gasses for propulsion. Propellant consists of a fuel and oxidizer, the fuel being a substance which burns when combined with oxygen, and an oxidizer being the agent that releases oxygen to combine with the fuel. The ratio of oxidizer to fuel is known as the mixture ratio. In modern rocketry, there are three classes of propellant, liquid, solid, and hybrid.
Liquid Propellants
Liquid Propellant rockets are some of the most well-known rockets, examples such as the Saturn V Main Stage, the Space Shuttle, or NASA’s new Space Launch System come to mind. Liquid propellant engines are often very complex, but they do offer many advantages, such as flow control to the combustion chamber, engine throttle control, and shut-off control. Good liquid propellants have a high specific impulse, but also have drawbacks such as large fuel tanks which add mass to the launch vehicle, complicated storage temperatures, or propellant toxicity. Liquid Propellants can be broken down into three sub-categories; petroleum, cryogenic, and hypergolic.
Petroleum Propellants
Petroleum fuels are those that are derived from crude oil, and consist of a complex mixture of hydrocarbons. The petroleum used as rocket fuel is a highly refined version of Kerosene, called RP-1 in the United States. Kerosene generates a considerably lower specific impulse than some cryogenic fuels, but is generally preferred due to its stability and low toxicity. RP-1 was utilized in the first-stage boosters of Soyuz, Zenit, Delta I-III, Atlas, Falcon 9, and Tronador II. It also powered the main stages of the Energia, Titan I, Saturn I and IB, as well as the Saturn V. NASA’s SLS also intends to utilize a RP-1 and Liquid Oxygen (LOX) mixture.
Cryogenic Propellants
Cryogenic propellants consist of liquefied gases stored at ultra-low temperatures. Most frequently, Liquid Hydrogen (LH2) is used, with Liquid Oxygen (LOX) as the oxidizer. LH2 must remain at a temperature of -253 degrees Celsius in order to keep its liquid form, and Oxygen at -183 degrees Celsius. Due to their low temperature, Cryogenic propellants are very difficult to store over extended periods, and are thus undesirable for missiles that must be kept launch-ready for months at a time. Liquid Hydrogen also has an extremely low density, and requires fuel storage that is considerably larger than other fuels. Despite these drawbacks, the efficiency of LOX/LH2 mixtures make these problems worth it when reaction time and storability are not critical. This mixture is used in the high-efficiency Space Shuttle’s Orbiter main stage, as well as the upper stages of the Saturn V, Centaur and Saturn 1B rockets.
Another, relatively untested fuel combination of Liquid Methane and LOX is higher-performing than other liquid fuels, but without the enormous volume of LH2, which results in a lower overall vehicle mass. LOX/Methane is also clean-burning and non-toxic. Future missions to Mars may use LOX/Methane, since it is believed that it can be produced on Mars. However, LOX/Methane has no flight history, and very few ground tests.
Liquid Fluorine, another cryogenic fuel that has been tested, is a super-oxidizer that violently reacts with anything other than nitrogen and the lighter noble gasses. Thus, fluorine produces impressive engine performance, and can be mixed with Liquid Oxygen to improve the performance of LOX-burning engines, resulting in a mixture known as FLOX. However, despite fluorine’s performance, it has been abandoned by nearly every space-faring nation simply due to the extreme toxicity of the chemical, though fluorine containing compounds, like Chlorine Pentafluoride have been considered for use as oxidizers in deep-space missions.
Hypergolic Propellants
Hypergolic fuels are propellants that ignite spontaneously when in contact with one another, and require no ignition source. This reactivity of hypergolic fuels give them an easy start and restart capability which make them idea for space-craft maneuvering thrusters. Hypergolic fuels also remain in liquid form at room temperature, so they do not pose the same storage problems as cryogenic fuels. However, hypergols are often extremely toxic and must be handled with extreme care.
Hypergolic fuels often include hydrazine, monomethyl hydrazine (MMH), and unsymmetrical dimethyl hydrazine (UDMH). Hydrazine is the most effective as a rocket fuel, but has a high freezing point and is unstable with use as a coolant. MMH is more stable, and gives the best performance when freezing point is an issue, such as deep-space propulsion applications. UDMH has the lowest freezing point, and highest thermal stability in large engines. Thus, UDMH is used in launch vehicle applications even though it is the least efficient of hydrazine variants. Mixed fuels, such as Aerozine 50, which consists of 50% UDMH and 50% Hydrazine, result in higher stabilities and performance than UDMH or Hydrazine alone.
Hypergols are often oxidized via Nitrogen Tetroxide (NTO) or Nitric Acid. In the United States, the nitric acid formula that is commonly used is Type III-A, known as Inhibited Red-Fuming Nitric Acid (IRFNA), which consists of HNO3 + 14% N2O4 + 1.5-2.5% H2O + 0.6% HF. NTO is less corrosive than IRFNA, and provides better performance, but has a higher freezing point and is thus the oxidizer of choice when freezing isn’t an issue. In order to achieve the higher freezing point of IRFNA, and the effectiveness of NTO, the two are often mixed to create Mixed-Oxides of Nitrogen (MON). MON oxidizers commonly include a number, which dictates their percentage of nitric oxide by weight. For example, pure NTO has a freezing point of -9 degrees Celsius, while MON-25’s freezing point is -55 degrees Celsius.
Hydrazine is also used as a monopropellant in catalytic decomposition engines. In these engines, a liquid fuel is decomposed into hot gasses with the presentation of a catalyst. Decomposing hydrazine produces temperatures in excess of 1,100 degrees Celsius, and a specific impulse of 230, or 240 seconds. Hydrazine commonly decomposes into either mixtures of hydrogen and nitrogen, or ammonia and nitrogen.
Solid Propellants
Solid Propellant motors are the simplest of all rocket designs, and hearken back to the days of gunpowder rockets in China’s Three Kingdoms Period (220-280 AD). These rockets consist of a casing, usually steel or some other high-strength metal, filled with a mixture of solid propellant components (fuel and oxidizer) that burn at a rapid rate, expelling gasses through a thrust nozzle. When ignited, solid propellants burn from the center, outwards to the sides of the casing. The shape of the center channel determines the rate and speed of the burn, thus providing a simple means to control the thrust. However, unlike a liquid propellant engines, solid propellants motors cannot be shut down, and will burn until all their propellant is exhausted. Some avid Kerbal Space Program players may understand this concept and have found themselves at the business end of a runaway solid booster rocket one too many times. There are two families of solid propellants, and these are known as homogenous, and composite. Both homogenous and composite propellants are dense, stable at room temperature, and very easily stored.
Homogenous Propellants
Homogenous propellants consist of a simple base, or double base. Simple base propellants use a single compound, typically something along the lines of Nitrocellulose, which has an oxidation capacity and reduction capacity. Double-base propellants commonly consist of Nitrocellulose and Nitroglycerine. Homogenous propellants have very poor specific impulses, usually no greater than 210 seconds under normal conditions, but their main advantage is that they do not produce traceable fumes and are therefore commonly used in tactical ballistic weapons. They are also often used to perform basic functions such as jettisoning spent parts, or separating stages from one another.
Composite Propellants
Composite propellants are heterogeneous powders that use a crystallized or finely ground mineral salt as an oxidizer, such as ammonium perchlorate. This mineral salt often constitutes around 60 to 90 percent of the mass of the propellant. The fuel itself is typically aluminum, and is held together via polymeric binders such as polyurethane or polybutadiene, which is also consumed as fuel. Additional compounds are sometimes added, such as catalysts to increase the burning rate, or chemicals to make the powder easier to manufacture. The final product is a rubber-like substance, with the texture and consistency of a common pink eraser.
Composite propellants are typically identified by the time of polymeric binder used, such as Polybutadiene Acrylic Acid Acrylonitrile (PBAN) and Hydroxyl-Terminator Polybutadiene. (HTPB). PBAN formulas give a slightly better specific impulse, density, and burn rate than formulas utilizing HTPB, but PBAN propellants are considerably harder to produce and requires an elevated curing temperature. HTPB is also stronger and more flexible than PBAN, but both formulas result in propellants that deliver excellent performance, and are extremely reliable in both mechanical and burn properties. These types of fuels have been used on the Titan, Delta, and Space Shuttle launch vehicles as strap-on propellant rockets in order to provide extra thrust at lift-off. The Space Shuttle had the largest solid rocket boosters ever built, each one containing 500,000 kilograms of propellant, and producing 3.3 million pounds of thrust.
Hybrid Propellants
Last, and sort-of least, we have Hybrid Propellants. These engines represent a middling group that exists between both solid and liquid propellant engines. One component is solid, typically the fuel, while the other, typically the oxidizer, is liquid. The liquid is injected into the solid component, whose fuel reservoir also serves as the primary combustion chamber. The advantage of these engines is their high performance, similar to solid propellants, though with the moderation and restart capabilities of liquid fuel engines. However, it is difficult to make this process work with extremely large thrust capabilities, and thus the hybrid propellant engine is rarely built. Most recently, a hybrid engine burning Nitrous Oxide, and HTPB rubber powered SpaceShipOne, which won the Ansari X-Prize.
Rocketry is a complex science, but all-the-more interesting to study if you've got the spare time, or the interest. For the reader's enjoyment, I've included a few graphs comparing every fuel that the article has spoken about with one another, as well as popular rockets.
PROPERTIES OF ROCKET PROPELLANTS
ROCKET PROPELLANT PERFORMANCE
POPULAR ROCKETS AND THEIR PROPELLANTS
NASA ground tested its High Power Electric Propulsion (or HiPEP) ion thruster in 2003 and set the fuel efficiency record of 9,000 seconds (give or take 200 seconds) of specific impulse, which is a measure of thrust or efficiency.
Patrick Neumann, the Australian doctoral student at the University of Sydney, recently smashed that record by creating an ion thruster with a fuel efficiency record of 14,690 seconds (give or take 2,000 seconds), the University of Sydney's student paper the Honi Soit first reported. Even by conservative estimates, Neumann's ion thruster (dubbed the Neumann drive) blows NASA's system out of the water.
that SM6 is just a real nice missile. It can even be used to hit other ships. very versatile.brar_w wrote:SM6 vs SRBM
We estimate that these U.S. aerospace and defense companies generated $324.0 billion in sales revenue in 2010, with $15.6 billion
in net income after tax at an average pre-tax reported operating profit margin of 10.5%. This margin percent metric was below average, when compared to other industries in America.
When the F-16 was being produced at a high volume its price was extremely competitive to similar systems in similar economies. In fact its price was much more affordable to the M2K for example and even the SAAB offerings at the time. However previous volume of production only impacts O&S and upgrade costs not production costs. A tiered supplier base surges to meet demand when it is high but then scales down as the demand reduces. As such the cost of the aircraft at any given moment is largely a function of its projected demand and production volumes. I have shown you the model of the Super Hornet, High demand (>600 aircraft) and a relatively high production rate leaving a APUC of around $50-$60 in purchase year dollars or around $70 million in Today year dollars (for products purchased in the 90's even). As mentioned before the cost of advanced aerospace projects is a mixture of component cost and labor and local 'cost of doing business' expenditure. The first portion i.e. components such as metals, electronics etc are largely fixed. Titanium costs about the same, Composites cost about the same are pegged on international demand and supply for such components. Labor costs are a function of the strength of your economy but we all know that larger production volumes tend to reduce (significantly) touch labor required due to the efficiency curve. All in all you can compare the Typhoon and the Super Hornet, similar industrial projects but huge price difference - primarily due to capability and the cost of the aerospace project - i.e. more optimized supplier base and large volume of production.IF larger production number translated to lower cost then F-16 after thousands of production numbers would be available at much lower cost like $30 million and not $60 and C-17 wouldnt cost us $4-5 billion for the large orders churned out earlier.
The Russians have been firing a relatively new cruise missile called "Kaliber," using it for the first time in combat.
That's true enough, but there'll be hurdles when we develop the Astra Mk2 as well. Assuming the Mk1 effectively enters service in early 2017, its unlikely that the next iteration would be ready within three years flat, even if development proceeds very smoothly. An apt example being the Akash Mk2 effort.Karan M wrote:The 2003 date is irrelevant. If you see the program, the entire missile had to be redesigned but it was, and successfully. Subsystems had to be designed but they are available now. Next, the two pulse motor is on the LRSAM. Building blocks now exist. But a price has to be paid for taking up something of this nature for the first time & we have overcome those hurdles.
That would be a guess. There are reports stating the Astra Mk2 will be a minimal redesign of the Mk1 with more range, basically keep as much of the Astra Mk1 as possible bar the motor and some software tweaks.
- The problem with the Meteor is the same as that with most MBDA products; the lack of volumes. There's nothing to suggest that core design is unusually expensive. The scale is also the reason why the MICA costs 30% more than the heavier longer ranged AMRAAM.Take a look at the cost of the SFDR equivalent, the Meteor, versus simpler designs. Its a gold plated solution. IOW, the SFDR derivative for us may be useful for extreme long range shots against high value targets like AEW&C but unaffordable for mass deployment in the thousands. We'll probably take a few hundred SFDR type missiles but an Astra Mk2 is what will be bulk deployed.. the Israelis have come to a similar conclusion and are proposing Stunner derivatives for A2A.
That's like saying if one has Agni-1 what's the point of having a Pragati or a Prithvi, since a missile that can go upto 600 odd km can surely take out targets at 100 odd km too or 300 odd km. But it becomes un-affordable even keeping the strategic/non strategic bits apart.
The point is the hurdles would be a fraction of what we face with a SFDR. Astra Mk2 is basically a reengineered Astra with max common subsystems and minimal changes (propulsion apart).Viv S wrote:That's true enough, but there'll be hurdles when we develop the Astra Mk2 as well. Assuming the Mk1 effectively enters service in early 2017, its unlikely that the next iteration would be ready within three years flat, even if development proceeds very smoothly. An apt example being the Akash Mk2 effort.
There's lots to suggest the core design is expensive. The amount spent on the program has to be recovered -all paid out of a fixed price contract!- The problem with the Meteor is the same as that with most MBDA products; the lack of volumes. There's nothing to suggest that core design is unusually expensive. The scale is also the reason why the MICA costs 30% more than the heavier longer ranged AMRAAM.
Its hardly going to be as expensive as the Meteor because the Stunner is in volume production too but the Israelis got Uncle Sam to fund a huge chunk the development costs, so they can definitely price it competitively. US AIM-120s are irrelevant for us or the discussion unless they too field SFDR. Its not like we will ever field them in plenty on our core Russian or Indian platforms or that we even want to.- AFAIK the Israeli may opt for a Stunner derivative to protect their domestic industry (same as the Python). The product will inevitably be more expensive than whatever replacement to the Aim-120 that the US fields. In fact, it may end up pricier than the Meteor too, unless it can secure substantial export orders (the Meteor has already been earmarked for the JASDF, more will follow).
The whenever is the important part and in fact, economies of scale in favor of the Astra series may render the SFDR too expensive for the job. An IAF may well take cheaper Astras with (say) more advanced seekers rather than more longer ranged missiles, if its platforms edge towards LO. The SFDR could remain as a viable option for ARMs or SAMs plus a limited number of long range AWACS killers and the like.- The Meteor is intended to replace AMRAAM-inventories in toto with the countries operating the Eurocanards. In India too, one can be sure that the desi-Meteor will supersede the Astra Mk2 whenever it becomes available.
The Agni-Prithvi example completely applies because its not merely warhead delivery but ALL factors. The Agni is well nigh non interceptable, even if the Prithvi being waypoint driven and having a shaped trajectory, is also very hard to intercept. Its time on target is better. Its more mobile and survivable being solid fueled. However, the Prithvi is less expensive and that counts.- The Agni-Prithvi example doesn't really apply since the impact of a warhead delivered at a 100 km range both system is near identical. In contrast, a SFDR type missile will be more effective than its conventional analogue in all parts of the flight envelope (except perhaps at WVR). As far as cost is concerned, the greater complexity will need to be weighted against the efficiencies gained by the production of a single-type (lower overhead + higher volumes).
he tweets today:SaiK wrote:what the heck is this?
In July, the Defense Department announced that it had been given the okay by the State Department to sell 1,500 missiles to Lebanon for $245 million.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/p ... power.html
Lockheed Martin Takes Laser to Higher Power
begins production of a new generation of modular high power lasers this month. The first laser built using the modular technique will be a 60-kilowatt system for a U.S. Army vehicle.
The Army has the option to add more modules and increase power from 60kW to 120kW as a result of the laser’s modularity.
“With modular lasers, the possibility of a complete system failure due to a single-point disruption is dramatically lessened. Production is also affordable due to the ease of reproducing module components
precision pointing and control, line-of-sight stabilization and adaptive optics – essential functions in harnessing and directing the power of a laser beam – and in fiber laser devices using spectral beam combining. .....
a family of laser weapon systems with various power levels tailored to address missions across sea, air and ground platforms.
Boeing is offering the U.S. Navy a plan that includes continued long-term production of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet to alleviate a major projected shortfall in the service’s strike-fighter numbers and keep the force capable until a replacement is fielded, in the mid-2030s or later.
The Navy’s oldest Super Hornet fleet will reach its 6,000-hr. design lifetime in 2017. The rest of the fleet will follow at approximately the rate they were acquired—around 40 per year—but the Navy can afford 20 Lockheed Martin F-35C Joint Strike Fighters each year, at most, and may buy fewer than that.
To fill this gap, Boeing is inspecting high-time Super Hornets in support of a service-life extension program (SLEP) that would extend the fighter’s life to 9,000 hr. But Navy commander for aviation Vice Adm. Mike Shoemaker said in August that maintaining the force through a SLEP alone is “not an inconsequential challenge.” If no new F/A-18s are built, rebuilt Super Hornets could account for 60% of the strike-fighter force by 2030, Navy documents show. Industry officials say that SLEP will not be enough: “It helps,” says one, “but it doesn’t get you there.”
The answer is a “holistic, integrated solution” combining SLEP, new production and upgrades, according to Dan Gillian, Boeing’s F/A-18E/F and EA-18G programs vice president.
Boeing’s plan—which does not envisage cuts to the F-35C buy—would continue new production well into the next decade. SLEP and new production create opportunities to insert upgrades into the fleet while increasing the payback period for the initial investment. The company is no longer using the Advanced Super Hornet name but instead is briefing the Navy on an “enhanced Hornet flightpath,” with a menu of possible upgrades including conformal fuel tanks, an improved engine and a widescreen cockpit.
The company is in the process of slowing production down to two aircraft per month, the level at which it can maintain current prices. Current orders will keep the line open until 2017, but Congress’s final markup adds another 12 Super Hornets in the 2016 budget. Boeing is in “good discussions” with another Super Hornet export customer, Gillian says. Other industry sources say a 24-30-aircraft deal with Kuwait—a split buy with Eurofighter for Typhoons, a deal announced in September—is close to being finalized.
Those orders would sustain production through 2019, Gillian says. Boeing is still in competition in Denmark, planning bids in Belgium and Finland and would be in a strong position if Canada opens its requirement to competition after the Oct. 19 federal election.
With the planned Super Hornet SLEP, Boeing and the Navy are hoping to avoid the problems the service has found with the F/A-18A-D “Classic” Hornets. About half the Navy/Marine Classic inventory is in “out of reporting” status today, either because they are in the Navy’s depots (at Jacksonville, Florida, or North Island near San Diego) or out of hours, waiting for the SLEP.
The SLEP has overloaded a depot system that was never designed to cope with it, Boeing says, but another major issue is corrosion, which differs from aircraft to aircraft and is often invisible until they are inducted into SLEP. The depot then needs to order specific parts while the aircraft occupies a line position.
The plan Boeing intends to offer the Navy expands capacity by establishing a separate contractor-operated SLEP line, with NAS Cecil Field near Jacksonville—where Boeing already performs high-flight-hour inspections—as a likely location. Northrop Grumman, which builds the center body section where many repairs are concentrated, would be involved.
But with the high rate of SLEPs—and each taking about a year—life extension alone will not fill the gap. The Navy has a notional strike-fighter force of 40 squadrons—four for each of 10 carrier air wings. The service is short of fighters today, a Boeing executive says, but the problem is masked because the Navy is short one carrier until the new USS Gerald R. Ford is commissioned, and other carriers are taking longer than usual to complete their routine overhauls. As the carrier fleet recovers, the shortage will become more apparent. Add-on Super Hornet buys since the early 2010s have alleviated the shortfall, Boeing says, but not prevented it.
The problem has been exacerbated by the 2010-11 slip in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program and by delays in the F-35C ramp-up, the latest in the fiscal 2016 budget proposal. This cut 16-20 aircraft from the fiscal 2016-20 Future Years Defense Program and set a peak buy of 12 aircraft in 2020.
Filling the fighter gap with more F-35s—costing 80% more to buy and operate than the F/A-18, according to Boeing and government numbers—is unlikely to be an option as long as budgets are limited. The Navy may cap F-35C buys at as few as 12 per year in the 2020s, against a planned 20, according to internal documents. Shoemaker confirmed in late August that “budget numbers may force us to a number between 12 and 20.”
Navy aviation has been the bill-payer for other Navy department procurement accounts, one executive says. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus has ring-fenced shipbuilding accounts, and the Marines have protected their F-35B and Bell Boeing V-22 buys. In the fiscal 2016 budget the administration sent to Congress, non-Marine aircraft buys were at a record-low 25 units, although Congress has increased that number.
Other palliatives have been proposed, including the greater use of live, virtual, constructive training and the Magic Carpet landing guidance system (expected to reduce the number of carrier-landing training sorties), but Boeing analysis shows they will not provide sufficient early relief to make a large dent in the problem.
The initial version of the SLS will produce 8.4 million pounds of thrust from its two solid rocket boosters and four hydrogen-fueled RS-25 engines, making it the most powerful U.S.-made rocket in history. It will stand 321 feet tall and lift at least 77 tons — or 70 metric tons — into low Earth orbit.
The first SLS configuration, known as the Block 1 version, will fly on an unpiloted test flight to lunar orbit with NASA’s Orion capsule in 2018. The second SLS, possibly with the bigger upper stage, is expected to fly by 2023 with astronauts on another flight to lunar orbit.