US military, technology, arms, tactics

[brar_w]

The first 9 attempts to retrieve swarming Gremlins drones failed. Here’s what’s next.

The idea behind DARPA’s Gremlins program is simple: Turn cargo aircraft like the tried-and-true C-130 into motherships capable of launching and retrieving swarms of small drones. But a recent test proves execution of that goal may be easier said than done.

During a series of flight tests that started Oct. 28, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency made nine attempts to recover three X-61A Gremlins Air Vehicles in flight. Each failed, the agency said in a news release, which characterized the effort as “just inches from success.”

The tests marked the first time DARPA has attempted to recover the Gremlins drones — made by Leidos subsidiary Dynetics — via a capture device mated to the same C-130 that deployed the air vehicles. During a successful recovery, the C-130 would lower a docking bullet that helps stabilize each vehicle from the turbulence generated by the C-130. Once in place, an engagement arm would grab the X-61A and drag it into the C-130′s cargo bay.

However, during the October tests, the Gremlins drones were never able to mechanically engage with the docking station because the “relative movement was more dynamic than expected and each GAV, ultimately, safely parachuted to the ground,” DARPA stated.

DARPA’s program manager Scott Wierzbanowski sounded an optimistic note about the tests, saying the challenges encountered were not insurmountable.

“All of our systems looked good during the ground tests, but the flight test is where you truly find how things work,” Wierzbanowski said. “We came within inches of connection on each attempt but, ultimately, it just wasn’t close enough to engage the recovery system.”

Not everything went wrong during the recent demonstrations, DARPA said. Over three flights, each X-61 flew for more than two hours, allowing DARPA to further validate the drone’s ability to operate autonomously. The agency also collected “hours of data” that will help it to understand aerodynamic interactions between the Gremlins drone and the capture device, which program officials will study to understand how the system needs to be modified.

DARPA will then attempt to fly and recover the Gremlins drones this spring.

“We made great strides in learning and responding to technological challenges between each of the three test flight deployments to date,” said Wierzbanowski. “We were so close this time that I am confident that multiple airborne recoveries will be made in the next deployment. However, as with all flight testing, there are always real world uncertainties and challenges that have to be overcome.”

This isn’t the first time there have been anomalies during Gremlins tests. When DARPA first launched the Gremlins aircraft from a C-130A during a November 2019 demo held at Dugway Proving Ground, Utah, an X-61A flew almost two hours while the test team completed every objective, including testing the air vehicle’s data links and deploying the docking station.

But when the time came to recover the drone, one of its two parachutes didn’t deploy, leaving the vehicle to crash to the ground.

Eventually, DARPA wants to demonstrate that it can safely and reliably launch and recover four Gremlins drones within 30 minutes.

Meeting that goal would open up a world of possibilities to the military, allowing the services to deploy swarms of small, inexpensive, reusable drones with different sensors and payloads from legacy aircraft — a capability the Defense Department currently lacks. Those swarms could move closer to adversary airspace and do tasks such as gathering imagery or providing a communications relay without having to endanger human aircrew.

[brar_w]

Major demonstration out in Yuma last week. Valkyrie is moving along quite nicely, being recovered 4 times and has flown for the 5th time. Gateway one, which is a modular, platform independent RF payload that can translate a number of waveforms and transmit in a multiple waveforms and across settable security protocols, was also used (though it did not complete the demonstration on the Valkyrie which they'll have to now repeat in a subsequent onramp) to link USAF F-35's, and F-22's, and USMC F-35B's and USAF F-22's into a common LPI/LPD network leveraging each platform's unique waveform.

The Air Force Research Laboratory, along with partner Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc., completed the successful fifth flight test of the XQ-58A Valkyrie low-cost unmanned air vehicle demonstrator on Dec. 9, 2020, at Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona.

During the test event, an F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning, the Air Force’s two fifth-generation fighters formed up off the wings of the smaller Valkyrie as it continued to fly autonomously in formation. This is a major milestone in the service’s efforts to provide low cost force multipliers in relevant operational environments.

The Valkyrie met 80% of the overall flight test objectives with 100% of the formation flying objectives being met before safely landing in the Arizona desert, according to AFRL XQ-58A Program Manager, Michael Wipperman.

They've taken the large loyal-wingman concept from proposal to reality in just a matter of months. Skyborg, likewise is now just a few months away from its demonstrations with Kratos, Boeing, and General Atomics all expected to deliver their air-vehicles and integrate skyborg specific payloads by May 2021, for capability demonstrations in July 2021.

“As the ABMS attritableONE Product Lead and XQ-58 Valkyrie AFRL Program Manager, I’m proud of the partnership with AFLCMC, the Air Force Test Center, and our Air Force Acquisition and industry partners, and the team’s ability to go from concept to demonstration in six months,” said Wipperman. “This was the fifth successful launch of the Valkyrie, but the first time the platform has integrated a new warfighting capability payload and flown in formation with an F-22 and F-35.”

Wipperman added, “The XQ-58A modularity and ability to carry robust payloads enabled the rapid capability integration into an attritable experimentation vehicle. We’re thrilled with the seamless integration and demonstration of this flight. We look forward to continued capability enhancement at future demonstrations.”

Developed by Kratos Defense & Security Solutions and AFRL as part of the latter’s Low Cost Attritable Aircraft Technology portfolio, the XQ-58A is designed to be a runway-independent, re-usable unmanned air vehicle capable of a broad range of operational missions. The XQ-58A was developed through low cost procurement and is designed to be significantly less expensive to operate than traditional piloted or unpiloted vehicles, while capable of achieving the same critical missions. Taking only two and a half years from contract award to first flight, it is the first example of a class of unmanned air vehicles developed through this time-saving process, which seeks to break the escalating cost trajectory of tactically relevant aircraft.

LINK

[brar_w]

Northrop Grumman started demonstrations of its Medium sized thrust scramjet engine last year. Now Aerojet has also begun testing its 13,000 lb (57.85kN) thrust class scramjet engine. By comparison, the engine on the X-51 produced roughly 1,000 lbs. of thrust.

To fund and begin to qualify two engine manufacturers for this class of scramjet engine (and by extension a vehicle capable of and needing a 13,000 lb class engine) is a good indication that the USAF is quite serious about medium-large vehicles using scramjet.

US Air Force Research Lab demos ‘record-breaking’ scramjet and ‘high-speed’ warhead

The Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) completed a series of “record-breaking tests” of a scramjet engine in November.

The hot-fire tests were conducted on the ground at the Arnold Engineering Development Complex Aerodynamic and Propulsion Test Unit at Arnold AFB in Tennessee, the AFRL says on 15 December. The scramjet engine was developed and manufactured by Aerojet Rocketdyne. The scramjet engine tests come as the AFRL also finished sled testing new “high-speed” warhead technology at Holloman AFB in New Mexico in November. The new warhead appears likely for use on in-development hypersonic missiles. AFRL did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The two technology tests come as the US Air Force (USAF) plans to test launch its AGM-183A Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW) for the first time this December. That weapon is a boost-glide hypersonic missile being developed by Lockheed Martin. The service anticipates starting production of ARRW in 2021.

ARRW’s boost-glide method of hypersonic flight is considered simpler and easier to develop than the air-breathing engine type that is being pursued by Aerojet Rocketdyne and AFRL. Boost-glide hypersonic weapons are pushed high into the atmosphere by a booster rocket, much like an intercontinental ballistic missile. Then, the weapon glides back to earth at hypersonic speeds, until colliding with its target.

Scramjets need a booster to accelerate to Mach 5 – the definition of hypersonic speed – at which point the engine ignites and propels its cruise missile body on sustained hypersonic flight. Because scramjet engines have to ingest and then ignite air travelling at high speeds, the challenge of making the technology work has been compared to lighting a match in a hurricane.

However, hypersonic cruise missiles powered by a scramjets hold the promise of travelling closer to the ground. That would mean an adversary would not see the missile until it rounded the curvature of the Earth. By that point, given the hypersonic velocity of the weapon, it would be too late to shoot down.

AFRL claims Aerojet Rocketdyne’s 5.5m-long (18ft) scramjet engine produced more than 13,000lb-thrust (57.85kN).

“Aerojet Rocketdyne joins the record-setting team for the highest thrust produced by an air-breathing scramjet hypersonic engine,” says Paul Kennedy, AFRL programme manager. “Tests were conducted across a range of Mach numbers demonstrating performance to accelerate a vehicle 10 [times] the size of the X-51, at hypersonic speeds.”

The X-51A Waverider was a pioneering hypersonic vehicle powered by a scramjet, also produced by Aerojet Rocketdyne, that first took flight in 2010.

HIGH-SPEED WARHEAD


As boost-glide and air-breathing engines are making progress, the USAF is also refining the end of a hypersonic missile’s journey: its warhead.

Rivals China and Russia have chosen to put nuclear warheads on their hypersonic missiles. But, the USA says it is committed to keeping its hypersonic missiles conventional. Conventional hypersonic weapons have to be more accurate than nuclear ones because of their relatively smaller blast radius.

That not only creates a navigation and targeting problem, but a detonation timing challenge, too.

Apparently aiming to solve the timing challenge, AFRL says its recent sled tests show progress in detonating a warhead at “high speeds”. The research laboratory does not disclose the velocity of the warhead when it was detonated in ground tests.

“The sled test was a success with the warhead reaching high speeds and detonating at the exact moment intended,” says AFRL.

“A rocket sled accelerated the warhead at high speeds and an electric circuit at the end of the track detonated the warhead precisely on target,” says Michael Denigan, principal investigator for the technology demonstration. “This demonstration gives our industry partners confidence that this smaller warhead solution will perform well in actual flight.”

The AFRL says the warhead is also less than half the weight of a similar conventional munition, while “maintaining the same effectiveness”.

“These warheads take up a lot less space, allowing high-speed weapons to carry more fuel, increasing the distance they can travel,” says Colonel Garry Haase, director of the AFRL munitions directorate.

The USAF is also researching using hypersonic missiles without explosive warheads. Because the weapon’s mass is moving many times the speed of sound, it ought be able to destroy targets on impact due solely to its momentum. However, that type of hypersonic missile requires a high level of precision aim.

[NRao]

In a first, Air Force uses AI on military jet

Defense officials described Tuesday’s test as the first-ever use of artificial intelligence aboard a U.S. military aircraft.

By
Aaron Gregg

Dec. 16, 2020 at 7:34 a.m. CST

The Air Force allowed an artificial-intelligence algorithm to control sensor and navigation systems on a U-2 Dragon Lady spy plane in a training flight Tuesday, officials said, marking what is believed to be the first known use of AI onboard a U.S. military aircraft.

No weapons were involved, and the plane was steered by a pilot. Even so, senior defense officials touted the test as a watershed moment in the Defense Department’s attempts to incorporate AI into military aircraft, a subject that is of intense debate in aviation and arms control communities.

“This is the first time this has ever happened,” said Assistant Air Force Secretary Will Roper.

Former Google chief executive Eric Schmidt, who previously headed the Pentagon’s Defense Innovation Board, described Tuesday’s flight test as “the first time, to my knowledge, that you have a military system integrating AI, probably in any military.”

The AI system was deliberately designed without a manual override to “provoke thought and learning in the test environment,” Air Force spokesman Josh Benedetti said in an email.

It was relegated to highly specific tasks and walled off from the plane’s flight controls, according to people involved in the flight test.

“For the most part I was still very much the pilot in command,” the U-2 pilot who carried out Tuesday’s test told The Washington Post in an interview.

The pilot spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of his work. The Air Force later released photos from shortly before the test flight with materials that referenced only his call sign: “Vudu.”

“[The AI’s] role was very narrow … but, for the tasks the AI was presented with, it performed well,” the pilot said.

Air Force seeks a radical shift in how jets, missiles and satellites are designed

The two-and-a-half-hour-long test was performed in a routine training mission at Beale Air Force Base, near Marysville, Calif., starting Tuesday morning. Air Force officials and the U-2 pilot declined to offer details about the specific tasks performed by the AI, except that it was put in charge of the plane’s radar sensors and tactical navigation.

Roper said the AI was trained against an opposing computer to look for oncoming missiles and missile launchers. For the purposes of the initial test flight, the AI got the final vote on where to direct the plane’s sensors, he said.

The point is to move the Air Force closer to the concept of “man and machine teaming,” in which robots are responsible for limited technical tasks while humans remain in control of life-or-death decisions like flight control and targeting.

“This is really meant to shock the Air Force and the [Defense] Department as a whole into how seriously we need to treat AI teaming,” Roper said in an interview shortly before the test.

The AI “is not merely part of the system. … We’re logging it in the pilot registry,” he said.

Pentagon advisory board releases principles for ethical use of artificial intelligence in warfare

The AI itself, dubbed ARTUµ in an apparent Star Wars reference, is based on open-source software algorithms and adapted to the plane’s computer systems at the U-2 Federal Laboratory.

It is based on a publicly accessible algorithm called µZero, which was developed by the AI research company DeepMind to quickly master strategic games like Chess and Go, according to two officials familiar with its development. And it is enabled by a publicly available, Google-developed system called Kubernetes, which allows the AI software to be ported between the plane’s onboard computer systems and the cloud-based one it was developed on.

On its face, the U-2 seems an unlikely candidate for AI-enabled flight. It was developed for the CIA in the early 1950s and used throughout the Cold War to conduct surveillance from staggeringly high altitudes of 60,000 or 70,000 feet. The planes were later procured by the Defense Department.

Huawei tested AI software that could recognize Uighur minorities and alert police, report says

But its surveillance function is one that has already incorporated the use of AI to analyze complex data. An Air Force program called Project Maven sought to rapidly analyze reams of drone footage in place of humans. Google famously declined to renew its Maven contract following an internal revolt from employees who didn’t want the company’s algorithms involved in warfare. The company later released a set of AI principles that disallowed the company’s algorithms from being used in any weapons system.

Schmidt, who led Google until 2011, said he believes it’s unlikely that the military will embrace fully autonomous weapons systems anytime soon. The problem, he says, is that it’s hard to demonstrate how an AI algorithm would perform in every possible scenario, including those in which human life is at stake.

“If a human makes a mistake and kills civilians, it’s a tragedy. … If an autonomous system kills civilians, it’s more than a tragedy,” Schmidt said Tuesday in an interview.

“No general is going to take the liability of a system where they’re not really sure it’s going to do what it says. That problem may be fixed in the next several decades but not in the next year,” he said.

[brar_w]

^^ The choice of the U-2 to lead the way for this capability is no coincidence. It likely shares some sensor and computers and/or software with the RQ-180 given the mission overlap. And if you want to address TEL and IADS hunting which is a challenge even for the USAF and its vast resources, then an AI enabled wide area sensor carrying HALE platform is an excellent place to start. I suspect there is some work also happening on similar capability around the deeply buried target detection and defeat mission set. Both great places to start with AI and both in very high demand from combatant commanders particularly CENTCOM.

Artificial Intelligence Takes Control Of A U-2 Spy Plane's Sensors In Historic Flight Test

Artificial intelligence-driven algorithms controlled sensor and navigation systems on a U.S. Air Force U-2S Dragon Lady spy plane in a flight test yesterday. The service says that this is the first time that artificial intelligence has been "safely" put in charge of any U.S. military system and appears to be the first time it has been utilized on a military aircraft anywhere in the world, at least publicly.

The test, which took place on Dec. 15, 2020, involved a U-2S from the 9th Reconnaissance Wing at Beale Air Force Base in California. The Air Force has dubbed the artificial intelligence (AI) software package as ARTUµ, the latest in a string of references to the iconic droid from the Star Wars universe, who serves as a sort of robotic flight engineer and navigator, in recent Air Force projects having to do with developments in AI and autonomous flight.

“ARTUµ’s groundbreaking flight culminates our three-year journey to becoming a digital force," Roper said in a statement. “Putting AI safely in command of a U.S. military system for the first time ushers in a new age of human-machine teaming and algorithmic competition. Failing to realize AI’s full potential will mean ceding decision advantage to our adversaries.”

Roper also confirmed the details of the test in a Tweet today. He has been teasing the disclosure of a major Air Force development related in some way to the U-2 since Dec. 6.

"Call sign 'Artuμ,' we modified world-leading μZero gaming algorithms to operate the U-2's radar," Roper wrote in his Tweet about the test. "This first AI copilot even served as mission commander on its seminal training flight!"

The μZero algorithm has been used by computers to play chess, Go, and video games in the past, "without prior knowledge of their rules," Roper further explained in a piece he wrote for Popular Mechanics about this test. The U-2 Federal Laboratory helped integrate the modified ARTUμ version of this software package onto the U-2S aircraft.

In Popular Mechanics, Roper described yesterday's flight test as follows:


Our demo flew a reconnaissance mission during a simulated missile strike at Beale Air Force Base on Tuesday. ARTUµ searched for enemy launchers while our pilot searched for threatening aircraft, both sharing the U-2’s radar. With no pilot override, ARTUµ made final calls on devoting the radar to missile hunting versus self-protection. Luke Skywalker certainly never took such orders from his X-Wing sidekick!

Like a breaker box for code, the U-2 gave ARTUµ complete radar control while “switching off” access to other subsystems. Had the scenario been navigating an asteroid field—or more likely field of enemy radars—those “on-off” switches could adjust. The design allows operators to choose what AI won’t do to accept the operational risk of what it will. Creating this software breaker box—instead of Pandora’s—has been an Air Force journey of more than a few parsecs.

It's not clear what radar Roper was referring to, as a traditional air search radar is not among the U-2S' typical payloads, though versions of the aircraft have carried them in tests in the past. It is possible that the latest iterations of the Advanced Synthetic Aperture Radar System-2 (ASARS-2) radar imaging system, which Dragon Ladies routinely carry and features two sideways-looking electronically-scanned array radar antennas on either side of a specially designed nose module, could be used to search for aerial threats. U-2s also regularly carry powerful signals and electronic intelligence payloads that can detect, categorize, and geolocate various emitters, including those from hostile radars. It's defensive electronic warfare suite is also among the most capable in the world.

It's also worth noting that the Air Force has been using the U-2S as a platform to test a wide array of advanced software developments in recent months. In October, the service disclosed that it had used a new software package that allowed a Dragon Lady to update its mission systems in flight for the first time ever, something you read about more in this previous War Zone story. At the time, Roper said that this included the addition of new target recognition algorithms onto the aircraft. It's unclear if that code is in any way related to what was employed in this latest flight test. ...

[brar_w]

https://twitter.com/TheWolfpackIN/statu ... 66468?s=20 ---> Indian air-to-air BVR missiles and their western equivalents:

Astra Mk-I :: AIM-120C5

Astra Mk-II :: AIM-120D

Astra Mk-III/SFDR :: Meteor/AIM-260

The AIM-260 isn't a progression from the AIM-120C5 that this journo indicates. Raytheon has long presented this roadmap and a tick–tock model to upgrade the AMRAAM (seeker, GNC in one cycle and kinematics in another etc). The USAF has repeatedly snubbed Raytheon's path to increase the kinematic capability of the AMRAAM via either a VFDR or a dual-pulse motor while keeping the other components on an incremental upgrade path that we currently see with the C7, D and the various upgrades (hardware and software) happening on the C7 and D. In fact Raytheon has already flown such missile types for the USAF and DARPA many years ago. In fact Raytheon even managed to design and do preliminary demonstrations in support of a concept that introduced VFDR into the AMRAAM with zero impact on missile dimensions and packing- something that no VFDR design/upgrade of MRAAM even now has shown to be able to do. Yet no orders. That is a pretty clear indication that the AIM-260 will likely have a fundamental shift in how the weapon is architectured and how it is employed with a strong bias towards 5th and 6th gen. fighter employment concepts which is currently a huge limitation of the AMRAAM and the Meteor.

It will most likely not be a brute kinematic weapon like the path the Meteor or the PL-XX is following. This would have been a requirement had 4-4.5 gen fighters been the primary design drivers. In fact, Raytheon did indeed get a study sanctioned by the Pentagon to look into such a weapon (Long Range Engagement Weapon) despite the AIM-260 already in advanced development when those contracts to Raytheon was awarded. It is quite possible that besides the Super Hornet there may really be no USAF 4+ gen aircraft that get the JATM integrated till perhaps the very end once they've integrated on current and upcoming platforms. The F-16 may never get it.

[brar_w]

Could either be the derivative of its Vanguard Dual Band (X & Ku) radar, or the more restrictive ultra wideband radar program that it is working on with DARPA. Whatever it is, the idea is to have a scalable OMS sensor that forms the back bone of what the USAF calls "Radar-One" and can essentially be derived to fit any platforms across a wide range of missions from air-air, to GMTI/DMTI, SAR and even EW and is OMS hardware standard compliant.

It was interesting to see that the USAF (and the US Army) continued to fully fund the two competing JSTAR replacement radars long after the JSTAR replacement was formally cancelled for lack of survivability. Now with ABMS becoming a reality they seem to want to take derivitives of these sensors and allow them to be mounted on various platforms across manned, unmanned and across medium and large sized aircraft in order to build a distributed and survivable battlespace picture.

Northrop Grumman Demonstrates Successful Open Mission Systems Compliant Advanced Sensor

Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE: NOC) has successfully demonstrated an open mission systems (OMS) compliant active electronically scanned array (AESA) sensor in recent ground and multiple flight demonstrations. For the demonstrations, an advanced Northrop Grumman wideband AESA sensor was connected to an OMS-compliant mission computing system provided by Boeing. After integrating with the Boeing mission computing environment, the AESA sensor was instructed to focus on specific targets, capture and manage data, and communicate the information back to the mission computing system, which was displayed in real-time on an operator’s workstation.

“These demonstrations continue to act as pathfinders to enable further OMS opportunities,” said Paul Kalafos, vice president, surveillance and electromagnetic maneuver warfare, Northrop Grumman. “Using an agile framework, we can quickly develop and adapt complex, multi-function systems to enable multi-mission nodes at the tactical edge of the battlespace, be it Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2), electronic warfare, or intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.”

OMS is an approach based on open architecture design allowing customers to rapidly add new or improved capabilities, regardless of supplier, at a reduced cost. This Northrop Grumman and Boeing joint live flight test demonstrated a key step in continuing the validation and integration of OMS-compliant systems and the ability to successfully transfer relevant active-passive kill chain data.

[NRao]

Fifth-generation aircraft share bi-directional data in military IoT first

Harry Lye
15 December 2020 (Last Updated December 15th, 2020 17:34)

The US Air Force (USAF) has announced it successfully shared data between F-35Bs, F-35As, and F-22 Raptors using the ‘gatewayONE’ communications device.

The stealth fighter jets use different digital ‘languages’ meaning the jets are limited to communicating with each other and command and control centres through legacy tactical data connections.

During the tests, the jets were able to share ‘actionable operational data’ in their native languages through multiple sources for the first time. The test was conducted as part of the USAF’s push to develop the Advanced Battle Management System or ABMS, which has been dubbed the ‘Internet of Military Things’.

The F-35 uses the Multifunctional Advanced Data Link (MADL) and the F-22 uses the Intra-Flight Data Link system. Using the ‘gatewayONE’ payload data can be translated between the two sources and during the tests directly pushed data to the cockpits of the aircraft rather than via a ground operations centre or tactical node.

During the test flights on 9 December, an ‘attritableONE’ XQ-58A Valkyrie uncrewed aerial vehicle (UAV) fitted with the gatewayONE payload, during the flight the UAV also conducted a first semi-autonomous flight alongside the F-35 and F-22.

During tests, nine out of 18 objectives were achieved. Shortly after takeoff, however, the Valkyrie’s communications payload lost connectivity, meaning some targets could not be met.

During the test, the position of each aircraft in the formation was transmitted through gatewayONE, which would allow battle managers to control operations better. The system also allowed ground controllers to pass cues to and from the two aircraft platforms and allowed a cue to be passed from the F-35A to F-22 Raptor in another first.

Bi-directional data was translated between the two aircraft into their native languages and then displayed ‘organically’ on the respective aircraft’s cockpit systems.

Air Force Lifecycle Management Center (AFLMC) gatewayONE programme manager Lieutenant Colonel Kate Stowe said: “Testing is all about pushing the limits of what’s possible, finding out where the toughest challenges are, and adapting creative solutions to overcoming difficult problem sets.

“The real win of the day was seeing the gatewayONE establish a secure two-way translational data path across multiple platforms and multiple domains. That’s the stuff ABMS is all about.”

ABMS is the USAF’s attempt to develop a so-called ‘Internet of Military Things’ and is part of the US Military’s overall push to connect all of its sensors and shooters through Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2) system.

59th Test and Evaluation Squadron F-35 pilot Lieutenant Colonel Eric Wright said: “The gatewayONE payload really showed what’s possible and helped us take a big step towards achieving (Joint All-Domain Command and Control).

“This critical capability provides additional connections between our advanced fighters and other forces and battle managers across all domains. The future is promising, and gatewayONE will allow the F-22 and F-35 to connect to and feed data sources they’ve never before accessed. Those future connections will bring additional battlefield awareness into the cockpit and enable integrated fires across U.S. forces.”

Additional tests saw a communications pathway established between a KC-46 Pegasus tanker and a ground node using commercial internet standards and the transmission of full-motion video to a ground controller from a Marine Corps F-35B.

The Air and Space Force’s chief architect Preston Dunlap said: “If fifth-generation platforms are going to be quarterbacks of a joint-penetrating team, we have to be able to communicate with those quarterbacks in an operationally relevant manner and enable data sharing between them, to them, and from them.

“For years people said it couldn’t be done. Today the team turned another page toward making the impossible possible,”

Dunlap added: “In just 12 months, the team has opened the door to a world where we can put the power of an operations centre into the cockpit at the tactical edge.”

[NRao]

Boeing commences T-7A Red Hawk GBTS production for USAF

2 December 2020 (Last Updated December 2nd, 2020 13:52)

Boeing has commenced the production of T-7A Red Hawk’s ground-based training system (GBTS) for the US Air Force (USAF).

This development marks another step towards the delivery of the trainer to the service.

Currently, the company’s teams are involved in the assembly of the first two weapons systems trainers along with a flight trainer.

Work on the systems is being carried out at Boeing’s St Louis, US, site.

Boeing T-7 Programs vice-president Chuck Dabundo said: “The Red Hawk’s training system is arguably the most advanced in the world. It is a game-changer.

“This system is 100% integrated with the pilot’s real-world experience, offering ‘real-as-it-gets’ simulation.

“We are working closely with the US Air Force and look forward to testing and fielding the devices.”

The T-7A’s GBTS is based on an open systems architecture of hardware and digital software that has the capacity to grow along with the needs of USAF.

The simulators are said to be important for pilot training and readiness of the USAF.

It can connect to a T-7A aircraft and provide live virtual constructive and embedded training scenarios.

They feature high-fidelity crew stations that provide dynamic motion seats and the Boeing Constant Resolution Visual System’s 8K native projectors, which offer 16 times the traditional high-definition video clarity (1080p).

Boeing Global Services T-7A Training and Sustainment director Sherri Koehnemann said: “This is the most accurate, immersive experience that any pilot can have outside the aircraft.

“We have integrated the training across the board, including ‘one push’ software updates.

“What a pilot sees in the classroom, on his or her desktop training devices, and in the operational and weapon systems trainers will be what they see in the jet. Future pilots can expect more holistic, immersive training.”

The first simulators are expected to be delivered to the USAF in 2023.

In October, Boeing selected Collins Aerospace Systems’ NAV-4500 navigation receivers for the USAF’s T-7A Red Hawk.

[brar_w]

“For years people said it couldn’t be done. Today the team turned another page toward making the impossible possible,”

This is hyperbolic if not outright BS. Multiple programs have successfully demonstrated F-22 to F-35 bi-directional communication including the unit that is currently inside the gateway one system (when it was part of a BACN and other systems). The advantage of using a gateway one type approach, and in fact the brilliance in the idea, is that it is part of a broader translation system that can be programmed to pick and chose how and when it translates between disparate and even previously unknown waveforms. By setting security protocols you can have one path to communication via Gateway One when you have US aircraft and another when you have allies that can't share those keys or if you dont want to reveal a particular waveform. So its dialable across a bunch of different systems and their hardware and software stack. An in-sync hardware and software upgrade across multiple platforms is not cost-effective or viable (they all have different priorities and timelines) so something like gateway one is worth its weight in gold especially when you can mount it on tactical vehicles, on attritable drones and physically on larger aircraft like bombers and tankers. Currently the USMC and US Army use a ground based MADL antenna system to receive discrete targeting information from F-35's that they use to program their artillery or long range fires (if they don't want J series transmission via Link 16). With a ground based gateway one this gets you one unit that has the hardware and software to talk across disparate systems across completely different bands of the spectrum. So its a very good value. I'd be surprised if the B-21 doesn't have the hardware stack at inception since Northrop is doing both these systems.

[brar_w]

The US Navy has down-selected to one supplier(L3Harris Technologies) for its low band Next gen. jammer solution (100 MHz to 2 GHz coverage). L3 and Northrop Grumman were chosen to build demonstrator pods and Lockheed/Cobham ,Raytheon, and BAE systems were eliminated in a previous down-select in 2018. Barring any protests (and overturns), L3 will now be the sole developer and producer of the low band pod solution for the Growler NGJ system. Between the US Navy, Australia, and possibly the German air-force, L3 could well build over 200 low band pods so its a pretty substantial win for them.

Navy Awards Next Generation Jammer Low Band Contract

The U.S. Navy awarded a $496 million Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) contract to L3Harris Technologies on Dec. 18 to further the Next Generation Jammer Low Band (NGJ-LB) capability.

The contract supports the final design efforts and manufacturing of eight operational prototype pods and four test pods that will be used for various levels of testing and fleet employment to include airworthiness, functionality, and integration with and carriage on the EA-18G Growler host aircraft.

The contract award announcement from Airborne Electronic Attack (AEA) Program Office (PMA-234), the managing office for product acquisition, comes directly on the heels of NGJ-LB entering the EMD acquisition phase, often referred to as Milestone B (MS B ).

“I’m proud of the hard work and determination of the Navy and industry team,” said James Geurts, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition. “The teams work to reduce development risk, inform technology realities, and speed capabilities to the fleet was impressive. The efforts by all those involved enabled the Navy to move forward in a rapid manner to bring this new critical capability to bear for our warfighters, saving years in operational development.”

Geurts signed the MS B Acquisition Decision Memorandum Dec. 8, signifying his satisfaction with NGJ-LB’s proposed cost, schedule and performance intentions.

The program embarked on a Demonstration of Existing Technologies in late 2018, which informed technical maturity of capabilities. Originally the program was approved as a Middle Tier Acquisition Program due to the need for speed to fleet, but changes in policy mandated that the Navy rapidly move the program to a Major Defense Acquisition Program.

“The program did a great job of overcoming all the obstacles that this transition laid in front of them,” said Geurts. “Really a herculean effort that I’m honestly proud to have been part of.”

“NGJ-LB is the next step in the evolution of Airborne Electronic Attack that is needed to meet current and emerging electronic warfare gaps,” said Rear Adm. Shane Gahagan, Program Executive Officer, Tactical Aircraft Programs. “The increased jamming capability that NGJ-LB brings to the warfighter is critical to sustaining the future missions of the Navy and other services.”

NGJ-LB is an external jamming pod that will address advanced and emerging threats using the latest digital, software-based array technologies and will provide enhanced AEA capabilities to disrupt, deny and degrade enemy air defense and ground communication systems.

“Our AEA arsenal continues to expand with the NGJ-LB capability,” said Capt. Michael Orr, PMA-234 program manager. “With the NGJ-LB EMD contract award, we continue our focus on delivering the warfighter an unsurpassed capability.”

NGJ-LB is part of a larger NGJ weapon system that will augment, and ultimately replace the legacy ALQ-99 Tactical Jamming System pods in the low frequency spectrum currently used on the Growler. The weapons system is a joint program initiative with Australia.

[brar_w]

SpaceX launches classified US spy satellite, sticks rocket landing to cap record year

That's launch number 26 for SpaceX, its most ever in a year.

SpaceX launched a clandestine U.S. spy satellite into space for the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) Saturday (Dec. 19) , marking its 26th rocket of the year.

The mysterious payload, called NROL-108, lifted off from Pad 39A here at NASA's Kennedy Space Center at 9 a.m. (1400 GMT) , during a planned three hour launch window.

A used two-stage Falcon 9 rocket carried the spy satellite aloft, as part of a government mission called NROL-108, marking SpaceX's 26th launch of 2020, a new record for the company. Approximately nine minutes after liftoff, the booster's first stage produced some dramatic sonic booms as it made its way back to terra firma, touching down at SpaceX's Landing Zone-1 (LZ-1) at the nearby Cape Canaveral Space Force Station. Today's flight was the fifth launch for this particular Falcon 9 first stage. The booster, designated B1059, previously lofted two commercial cargo missions to the International Space Station for NASA, delivered a batch of SpaceX Starlink satellites into orbit earlier this year, and most recently launched an Earth-observing satellite for Argentina.

Falcon 9 blasted off into a clear blue sky Saturday morning, a stark change from Thursday’s launch attempt. Thick clouds shrouded the rocket from view that day and ultimately an issue with the rocket’s second stage forced SpaceX to postpone the launch.

Several minutes after Falcon 9 leapt off the pad, the rocket’s first stage reappeared in the sky, with the iconic sonic booms you expect cracking overhead as the booster descended to the landing site.

B1059 is only the second booster to land on the ground at the Cape (as opposed to a drone ship at sea) this year. (A third landed on land at Vandenberg Air Force base in California following the launch of the Sentinel-6 Earth-observing satellite for NASA in November.) In fact, it's now the third trip to LZ-1 for this booster, as the veteran Falcon 9 first stage also returned to land after delivering the CRS-20 mission into orbit earlier this year. oday's Falcon 9 launch carried a classified payload into orbit for the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), the government agency that oversees the country’s fleet of spy satellites. Not much is known about the satellite except for the fact that the NRO secured the ride for the top secret cargo through non-traditional means.

Typically, the reconnaissance agency will secure its rides to space via the U.S. Space Force's National Security Space Launch Program, but this time went about it on its own, according to a report from Spaceflight Now.

"In some cases, the NRO uses alternative methods to procure launch services after making a cumulative assessment of satellite risk tolerance, needed launch dates, available launch capabilities, and cost — all with a purpose of ensuring satellites are safely and securely delivered to orbit in a timely manner," the spokesperson told Spaceflight Now.

Another interesting twist is that SpaceX did not conduct a static fire test of its rocket before flight. Typically, the company holds the rocket down on the pad and briefly fires its nine first-stage engines to make sure their systems are working as expected prior to liftoff. It's rare that SpaceX skips this routine test but is not unheard of.

The mission marks the sixth launch of the year for the NRO, and will be the second overall to fly aboard a SpaceX Falcon 9. The first was the NROL-76 mission back in May 2017.

[NRao]

Hypersonics Testing by the Numbers: 6 for 6 At 10 Miles Above Earth

The extreme environmental conditions while traveling at high speeds and at altitudes above 50,000 feet offer a unique challenge.

On Oct. 23, Oct. 29 and Dec. 19 an Air Launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW) instrumented measurement vehicle (IMV) was flown captive-carry on a B-52H out of Edwards AFB, California. These were the fourth, fifth and sixth IMV flights, leading up to booster flight testing.

These successful tests follow August’s instrumented measurement vehicle test and will obtain additional environmental data on the missile and its subsystems in response to those extreme conditions.



“The results from this flight will be instrumental to ensure the subsystems are qualified to the correct environmental levels,” said Mike O’Meara, Hypersonics Chief Engineer at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control.

The missile was built with tactical hardware and instrumented to collect thermal, mechanical and digital data from the flight vehicle through a telemetry stream and an on-board data recorder.

The benefits of a hypersonic weapon include rapid response, time critical capability that will overcome distance in contested environments using high speed and altitude. An operational hypersonic air-launched weapon enables the U.S. to hold high value, time-sensitive targets at risk in contested environments from stand-off distances.



“The program team continues to achieve critical milestones on the incremental path to a successful flight test campaign,” stated David Berganini, Boost-Glide Hypersonics Program Director, Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control.

Lockheed Martin has played a significant role in the research, development and demonstration of hypersonic technologies for more than 30 years. Lockheed Martin has developed deep expertise in the engineering of hypersonic systems and associated challenges through its work with maneuvering reentry vehicles, air-breathing engine design, avionics, and aero/thermal flight sciences.

[NRao]

AEROJET ROCKETDYNE TO BE ACQUIRED BY LOCKHEED MARTIN IN $5.0 BILLION ALL-CASH TRANSACTION

[brar_w]

^^ So two top primes want to have their own rocket shops? Let's see how the regulators respond to that. Rocketdyne was offloaded by P&W which is now part of Raytheon (which is the largest missile OEM in the US and one of the largest in the world). The logical DOD response would be to stand up partner capacity, particularly with Norway's Nammo which is already extensively integrated into the supply chain. Perhaps a Nammo - Raytheon partnership or even merger (beyond current level of program partnership) is on the cards? While Raytheon will have its interests looked after one way or another, this looks like a big big loss for Boeing and its ambitions to be competitive in missiles.

[Mort Walker]

^^^The whole things seems like musical chairs and in the process lots of highly skilled engineers, scientists and technicians have moved around, retired or been laid off. The bad part in all of this is that these companies have a huge corporate knowledge loss.

Rocketdyne merged with North American Rockwell to form Rockwell International after the Apollo program in 1973. Rocketdyne produced the F-1 Saturn V engines. Rockwell International was acquired by Boeing in the 1990s and owned Rocketdyne for some years before selling it to P&W. P&W sold off the Rocketdyne division to form its own company which coincided with the end of the Space Shuttle program. P&W as part of United Technologies was acquired by Raytheon to become Raytheon Technologies. Raytheon themselves got into missile propulsion bigtime after the merger with Hughes Aircraft (owned by Howard Hughes at one time) in the 1990s. The AIM-120 originated as a Hughes Aircraft product.

Lockheed merged with Martin Marietta in the 1990s and with the acquisition of Rocketdyne it puts large rocket motors with a single company. However, I suspect the merger will go ahead since SpaceX is coming up with their own motors and Jeff Bezos is trying to re-engineer the F-1 Saturn V engine.

[brar_w]

While space is probably the long term play here the DOD is unlikely to step in on account of assured and affordable access to space. The likes of Space X, Blue Origin, Astra etc etc are basically there to support a multi-fold increase in DOD launches that it needs to put the sort of next gen military LEO sats in orbit (and to build those too) in the coming year to decades.

Beyond space, this seems to be a missile play. Lockheed takes its missile business very seriously and has a very large IR&D component that it funds almost religiously irrespective of any defense up or downturns. It is no coincidence that they scooped up the entire US DOD conventional hypersonic triad effort at least for version-1 of these weapons. They continued to invest in the core capability even when DARPA and DOD demand was low or non-existent. Aerojet is one of the world's leaders when it comes to ramjet, combined cycle and scramjet and is also closely partnered with them on other programs (like its missile defense interceptors). With Northrop Grumman scooping up Orbital ATK, and announcing grander plans to become the third major US Missile prime (and demonstrating that by winning the next generation ICBM program), Lockheed no doubt had some pressure to do something to maintain and improve its competitiveness.

Raytheon now has to either just live with the fact that it will have to work with rocket teams who are owned by two of its competitors or offload work and create that third viable competitor. It already does that with Nammo on the AMRAAM program for example so there are opportunities to ramp them up significantly more across other programs. But Raytheon will be fine as it has the scale to get those two OEMs to play ball. Its Boeeing which sits at the fringe of the missile business and portfolio that might be elbowed out completely.

So yeah, vertical integration amongst missile primes may be a cool thing now but it may not 15 years from now in which case Aerojet R will again be back in the market. That is fine as it should really be where there is the most value and if it isn't with Lockheed then they'll part ways eventually. But for now, given LM's portfolio, and the upcoming competitive landscape in both missiles, and space, I'm sure they'll have quite a few things to collaborate on at a level that benefits from this transaction. From Hypersonic weapons, to hypersonic defense - That's probably over $100 Billion in long term competitively sourced contracting that they can position for so spending a few billion upfront (most of which is on account of their current book) isn't unreasonable.

[brar_w]

While this program is running out of Woomera in South Australia, posting it here since Boeing is likely going to pitch this design for the USAF's Skyborg competition which requires flying hardware in May of 2021. Given Kratos, General Atomics and Boeing have just 6 months to deliver flying hardware it is quite likely that they are already building their offerings from previous USAF awards or via internal funding.

Since Boeing chose to put a landing gear on its Loyal Wingman, it would be interesting to see how it can compare to the Valkyrie in terms of mission system and even weapon payload. I think Boeing may struggle to get there w/o increasing size which then increases cost which is the most important driver in this program given the attritable requirement. Thought the USAF will most definitely keep 2-3 designs for the long haul (one of the program goals is to have multiple competitors rather than a traditional competition leading to down-select to one) it will likely be inclined to support two significantly different concepts. Not sure Boeing and Kratos are all that different. While the former can be re-used quicker because it can land on a runway, the latter is likely much more simpler to build and more survivable given it doesn't require a runway to either take off or land.



Picture from its taxi tests -

[NRao]

Will Roper

Hey,
@usairforce
. After last week's first #AI flight, our computerized copilot isn't taking a break. We're already training Artuµ for the next mission! Algorithms and autonomy are now taking the baton from stealth. Get ready for an air power relay race.

#AimHigh begins with "AI"

Note: AI agents really cannot be shared between flight articles. They need to be trained - preferably ground up - for each aircraft. (The training Roper mentions here is for the "next mission" - training the dog the next trick.)

[NRao]

Steve Trimble

I’d also like to see it with a full load external munitions and fuel tanks, but you have to start somewhere.

Boeing

⛷ #SuperHornet hits the slopes!
Watch as an F/A-18 takes off from a ski-jump ramp, demonstrating the ability to operate effectively from
@IndianNavy
aircraft carriers.

(embedded vid in the Boeing tweet)

[brar_w]

I’d also like to see it with a full load external munitions and fuel tanks, but you have to start somewhere.

They did fly the initial set of demonstrations with varying payloads and configurations. It's stated in an earlier story breaking these demonstrations.

Technically, if they plan on offering the Block III SH, they don't have to move to EFT demonstrations initially since it will carry CFTs. And the entire reason to flight test on a non IAC representative ski-ramp is to validate internal models so they'll do the amount of testing that they need to validate their internal models and flight controls. The rest will have to be done at INS Hansa, if it ever gets to that point.

[brar_w]

Update on the Extended Range Cannon Artillery program. They are getting close to finalizing the configuration of the Excalibur required to fully support ERCA requirements. Wouldn't be surprised if the XM1113 70 km shots with the long range PGK are also attempted soon with the idea to finalize both configurations and put into production by end of 2021 for 2023 Initial Operational capability.

Army long-range cannon gets direct hit on target 43 miles away

WASHINGTON — The Army’s Extended Range Cannon Artillery (ERCA) system under development hit a target 43 miles away — or 70 kilometers — on the nose at Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona, Dec. 19, using an Excalibur extended-range guided artillery shell, according to Brig. Gen. John Rafferty, who is in charge of the service’s Long-Range Precision Fires modernization.

“I don’t think our adversaries have the ability to hit a target on the nose at 43 miles,” Rafferty told a small group of reporters in a teleconference immediately following the test shot.

The Army has been in a race to extend artillery ranges on the battlefield in order to take away stand-off advantages of high-end adversaries like Russia. The ERCA cannon, when fielded, should be able to fire and take out targets from a position out of the range of enemy systems.

The ERCA cannon takes an M109A7 Paladin Integrated Management (PIM) howitzer chassis and replaces the 39-caliber gun tube with a 58-caliber, 30-foot one. Combined with Raytheon-made Excalibur munitions and an XM1113 using supercharged propellant, the Army has been able to dramatically boost artillery ranges.

In March this year, the Army inched closer to the ultimate goal of 70 kilometers when it took two shots, both reaching 65 kilometers in range.

In this test event, the Army took three shots. The first shot came up a bit short due to very high head winds at a high altitude and the second shot had a hardware failure, but the third shot proved that the service is getting closer to dialing in on the right balance between propellant, projectile design and other factors that play into achieving greater distances, according to Rafferty.

“This demonstration is not a destination,” Col. Tony Gibbs, the Army’s program manager for combat artillery system, told reporters. “This is really just a waypoint in our ongoing campaign of learning as we work to really realign U.S. supremacy in cannon artillery. It’s definitely a big knowledge point for us today.”

Each munition fired during Saturday’s test event had slight differences in design to address how best to design and prepare the round to absorb the high-pressure and force of being fired at 1,000 meters per second from a gun tube of ERCA’s caliber, according to Rafferty.

“What was consistent was the propellant configuration,” Rafferty added. “So we got that propellant configuration, I think dialed in really close down, which is great.”

The first shot, due to the winds, fell short by roughly 100 meters, which, Rafferty said, sounds like a lot, but isn’t when the munition has to travel 70,000 meters. The Army knew the first shot would come up short due to wind, but wanted to take it anyway in order to learn from it.

The second shot, the Army had modified the hardware configuration and experience a hardware failure, Gibbs confirmed. Specifically, the Army added an isolator for the inertial measurement unit, which is essentially a shock absorber to counter the pressure spike in the chamber.

“We did have some concerns with the survivability of that,” Rafferty said.

“Today is really the build up of about a year and a half of testing and analysis that we’ve done on the Excalibur projectile in terms of its ability to withstand a harsher environment,” Gibbs said. “So through a number of tests and analysis, we determined what muzzle velocity is required, what chamber pressures the projectile can withstand and so all that came together in today’s test; we fired it at the right propellant combination to provide the right muzzle velocity to achieve the range.”

Additionally, the Army demonstrated the Excalibur, as it exists in the inventory now, is survivable with a higher muzzle velocity and pressures to get out to 70 kilometer ranges and hit targets directly, Gibbs added.

In the coming year, “we’ll make a lot of decisions and actually start to address them, snapping the chalk line on a few things,” Rafferty said. “We will snap the chalk line on the propellant, we will snap the chalk line on the projectile design and begin to look towards manufacturability, towards production.”

The Army will continue its soldier-centered design effort to include ensuring the configurations for the propellant and charge are something the soldiers can handle and that it doesn’t affect the rate of fire, Rafferty noted. “We obviously don’t want to give them a configuration that’s going to cause them to have to shoot slower.”

And the configuration of projectiles and propellant also has to be optimally stowed in a howitzer to maximize the number of kills onboard.

The Army is looking to nail down its design in 2021, Gibbs said. “The muzzle velocities and pressures that those munitions see is important in the final design choices they make, [but also] for example, the size of the rocket motor, the type of joint holding the rocket motor to the warhead, that ultimately affects the performance in the range that it will get, to include the type of steel that we use affects lethality. You see there’s multiple factors that are in play right now and as we converge on our designs this year, we’ll start to neck down on those choices into our final designs and that we will take into qualification.”

The Army is pushing to get an urgent material and safety releases to field the ERCA system in 2023, Rafferty said.

[brar_w]

Long article on the current US navy thinking on future trainer aircaraft as a complement and ultimate replacement for its T-45. It may end up not requiring carrier take off and landing AT ALL. Possibly EVER. Much like the USAF's plan, they want the trainees to get into their units and types much earlier so they have more time on the type without the overall training time-frame moving to the right.



Why The Navy Is Looking To End Carrier Qualifications Entirely For Its Pilots In Training
The Navy wants to overhaul how it trains its pilots due to recent innovations that have hit the fleet and the prospect of a new jet trainer.

U.S. Navy is looking at ways that a new jet trainer aircraft could help the service to completely overhaul the way it trains its aviators. The planned successor to the current Boeing T-45 Goshawk could be employed across a number of roles in naval aviation — not just training brand new pilots. But above all else, top Navy officers are looking at how the aircraft could facilitate a totally new approach to the way it trains tactical jet pilots.

Speaking in November, Rear Admiral Gregory “Hyfi” Harris, the Director of the Air Warfare Division within the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, said the service is talking to industry regarding the potential for a new training aircraft to grow into a multi-role platform as a future adversary, and potentially as a surrogate training aircraft — a move designed to reduce flight hours on expensive-to-operate front line fleet fighter aircraft. Separately, The War Zone understands that the same aircraft could also herald more even significant changes to the Navy's training pipeline than were previously known. In fact, the advent of the new trainer could result in Naval Aviators tackling their very first flight to the aircraft carrier in a front line strike fighter, after they have already earned their coveted 'wings of gold.'

While this sounds like a ludicrous break in deeply established and proven methodology that would outrage naval aviators old and new, based on our investigation, this isn't entirely the case. New technologies and a number of other factors have made such a proposed change not just possible, but probable. Still, there is bound to be major controversy surrounding such a move, especially considering the deeply ingrained aviator-focused culture within the Navy's air arm.

A new training aircraft


In May 2020, the Navy launched its Undergraduate Jet Training System (UJTS) effort, which is ultimately intended to acquire a replacement for the T-45C Goshawk that is currently used in the advanced pilot training role, including the demanding regime of carrier flight operations instruction. A request for information (RFI) was released to industry on May 14, with a view to acquiring a non-developmental, land-based jet trainer by 2028.

The RFI said that rather than being able to land and take-off from the carrier like the current Goshawk and its predecessors, such as the TA-4J Skyhawk, the new trainer would be limited to conducting Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) and shipboard touch-and-go landings. You can read more about the training aircraft program RFI in this past War Zone piece. However, the program is already evolving and The War Zone understands that the Navy is no longer even pursuing the touch-and-go requirement.

In fact, it is understood that the Navy is evaluating the potential implementation of one of the most dramatic changes ever in the way it trains new pilots in the complex art of big deck carrier operations with their associated arresting gear and catapults. Recent advances in technology mean that the Navy’s whole approach to operations from the aircraft carrier could be changing like never before.

A new approach


Until now, U.S. Naval Aviators have been required to fly manual approaches to aircraft carriers, requiring uncompromising levels of skill and competence, with little margin for error. This requires skilled throttle and control column inputs to nurse an aircraft down onto the deck with precision in order to catch one of the arresting wires.

However, the advent of new flight control software has almost done away with the need to wrestle an unforgiving carrier-borne aircraft onto a narrow flight deck. So-called Delta Flight Path (DFP) technology was conceived to help make the F-35C Lightning II far easier to land on an aircraft carrier, even with a pitching and rolling deck. It led to a spin-off program for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler that is known as Magic Carpet, or PLM — Precision Landing Mode. This too features enhanced flight control logic that is designed to make the carrier landing easier and more predictable for the pilot.

In the case of the Super Hornet, PLM is a mode within the autopilot to enable a much smoother profile on the glideslope, all the way to touchdown. From a piloting perspective, it means a dramatic reduction in control inputs. The resulting effect is a lot more “passes” (successful arrested landings) that are safe and consistent.

Data shows that the boarding rate across air wings has gone up significantly since PLM was introduced. As a result, pure manual flying around the carrier has become far less frequent for strike fighter aviators.

This technology works by Super Hornet and Growler pilots engaging PLM as an autopilot mode and they then fly to a ship-referenced velocity-vector that is projected on the heads-up display (HUD) in the cockpit. A different command logic is also activated within the aircraft's flight control system, which is translated to the aircraft's control surfaces. In effect, the Super Hornet or Growler gains direct lift control via modulating its flaps, which can fine-tune the decent onto the carrier's landing area.

When using the system, the pilots still reference the traditional “Ball” on the carrier deck, and use stick inputs to make sure the aircraft is centered, but the jet will fly to the point on the deck where the velocity-vector is pointed, with the ship-referenced PLM accounting for wind, the fact that the ship is moving, and other factors.

Studies showed that Super Hornet pilots who were flying manually made as many as 300 course corrections in the final 18 seconds of their landing approach to the carrier. With Magic Carpet, even new pilots with no experience had cut that down to around 20 corrections.


In addition to the new flight control software, Navy aircraft can make use of the Instrument Carrier Landing System (ICLS) and the Automatic Carrier Landing System (ACLS) to aid safe recoveries, especially in inclement weather. ACLS uses a dedicated radar on the carrier to provide course correction information, but it reportedly lacks the precision necessary to work by itself in all situations. Indeed, many ACLS-assisted recoveries see the pilot still needing to take control and make the final adjustments before landing. The replacement Joint Precision Approach and Landing Systems (JPALS) uses GPS-enabled position information, and it was first delivered to an operational ship in April 2020.

A revolution in carrier aviation


The addition of this automation has revolutionized the way in which the Navy’s modern strike fighters operate from the carrier deck. The resulting effect is that training pilots in the fine art of cat-and-trap carrier operations, and re-certifying fleet pilots during carrier qualifications (CQ), is able to be dramatically simplified with the use of technology.

The Navy’s two Super Hornet Fleet Replacement Squadrons (FRS) are already carrier qualifying (CQing) new pilots coming to the “Rhino” using PLM, without the need for them to fly manual passes. It marks a seismic change in the overall approach to the training of both new and experienced pilots around the “boat.” It also means that the Navy will no longer place such high emphasis on ingraining the style of manual flying throughout carrier pilot training.

New Naval Aviators destined for carrier operations currently begin their training journey in the T-6 Texan II, before moving to the T-45 Goshawk. It is in this aircraft that they will, from day one, fly in a way that prepares them for carrier ops — their ultimate goal.

Currently, new pilots who are destined for carrier-borne types are required to fly a series of FCLPs at the culmination of nearly every training mission. This involves them using a marked out carrier deck on the airfield's runway and flying a circuit pattern and descent rate and speed that is consistent with how it would be flown for real at the boat. This is designed as part of the building block process towards their initial carrier qualifications in the T-45. This approach to training makes for a prolonged course due to the emphasis on carrier-minded flying from the outset — Goshawk students rarely fly a standard straight-in approach.

Notably, the Goshawk is regarded as being the current inventory’s most challenging jet to fly behind the carrier. This is now even more pronounced due to the new landing aids in the Super Hornet, Growler, and Lightning II, a luxury the T-45 does not possess.

Based on the land-based British Aerospace Hawk jet trainer, the T-45, which was introduced in 1991, was never conceived with the requisite handling characteristics to make carrier approaches easier for the pilot, unlike bespoke carrier aircraft such as the Super Hornet. The T-45 is described by aviators as being underpowered and twitchy during the final approach to the deck — though this certainly helps forge skilled hands.

The advent of technology such as PLM is guiding the Navy towards one of its biggest potential changes in the way it trains new pilots. It is evaluating whether to completely remove carrier qualifications from the advanced pilot training syllabus, and would therefore not require any carrier flying from its follow-on UJTS training aircraft. Strike fighter pilots could instead get their first taste of carrier flying once at their respective Fleet Replacement Squadron (FRS).

[brar_w]

A good overview (though it is missing service UPLs) of what was approved in the latest defense bill. The column in the extreme right includes the finalized number of aircraft procured in Fiscal year 2021.

Courtesy, Steve Trimble (Av-Week) via Twitter.

[brar_w]

Another great contrast b/w the size difference between the F-16 and F-35.

F-35s, F-16 Aggressors, KC-135 Tankers Put On Impressive "Elephant Walk" In Alaska

[Mort Walker]

Hold your horses. FY21 NDAA is going to be vetoed by Trump if they don't have repeal of Section 230 concerning social media companies. Can and will the senate override the veto?

[brar_w]

Hold your horses. FY21 NDAA is going to be vetoed by Trump if they don't have repeal of Section 230 concerning social media companies. Can and will the senate override the veto?

Both the chambers are sending it to him with a veto proof majority. Does he want to buck the trend and veto it? I don’t know. Will it matter ? No. They’ll pass it right back and send it back to him so he’ll have to sign. So it’ll be a stunt and will have no material impact on the bill, or any language in it. They’ve already begun working on the FY22 process so if the WH wants to play a game I don’t think anyone will be very concerned.

[Mort Walker]

^^^The FY21 NDAA fight will be in the senate. If McConnell wants to override, he will start the process. I think correctly that Trump should veto the bill.

[brar_w]

^^^The FY21 NDAA fight will be in the senate.

In case of a veto, both chambers will have to re-vote on the same bill they voted for with better than 2/3 majority just a week or so ago. So it's not just the Senate.

If McConnell wants to override, he will start the process. I think correctly that Trump should veto the bill.

More than 85% of the US Senate voted for the current bill which had nothing that Trump was seeking around the section 230 etc etc (and politically and logically it is an absurd demand to link to the NDAA). Even in the more partisan house, more than 80% of the members voted for it. This despite countless tweets and time spent on news channels threatening to override in case XYZ. NDAA is just about the most bi-partisan action that Congress does in its entire business. This is the reason why the Congress doesn't tolerate (or entertain) riders in the NDAA that can scuttle the whole thing.

So what will this silly game get Trump? Nothing really but let's see. He has around 24-hours to decide either way. If he sends a veto, Pelosi and McConnell will just call for a special session and attempt to pass it with a veto proof majority before the current bill expires. Currently these votes are scheduled for the 28th and 29th if it comes to that. If the bill doesn't pass, they would have to start over again in the new Congress which will go against the will of the two chambers as expressed in their on-the-record vote (by overwhelming majority). And they will just get the same bill all over again but just delayed funding national security in the meanwhile. Trump will be out of office in a couple of weeks but elected Senators will have to justify whey they didn't pass funding for the troops, including pay-rises, despite expressing overwhelming majority to do so..over section 230 (something that they didn't want linked to the bill). That's not going to go down well with them. The bill is already one full quarter late.

So as far as military funding (quantity and mix etc) is concerned (political gimmickries aside) this bill is done. Trump's own OMB is itself now considering the FY22 process with a PB22 needing to be presented in March.

[Mort Walker]

Military programs have long lead times programmed into their budgets like many agencies. Agencies with OMB and congress are already in discussion about budgets out to FY23. It’s not the end of the world like defence contractors make it out to be. DoD budget continues under the FY20 CR like the rest of the US government. Already 1/3 of FY21 is complete on FY20 CRs.

I haven’t read the 4500+ pages of the FY21 NDAA bill. It may have some nuggets of good information in it, along with some hidden pork.

The only way congress is going to pay attention to the administration on the repeal of Section 230 of the 1996 Telecommunications Decency Act is to stick it to the passage of the NDAA.

[saip]

Brar_w,
What is Legion of Merit and why is this awarded to Indian PM Mr Modi? I thought it is mostly for Army Personnel of other countries. I can not find any civilians/citizens of other countries previously awarded this. So, what gives?

[brar_w]

Military programs have long lead times programmed into their budgets like many agencies. Agencies with OMB and congress are already in discussion about budgets out to FY23. It’s not the end of the world like defence contractors make it out to be. DoD budget continues under the FY20 CR like the rest of the US government. Already 1/3 of FY21 is complete on FY20 CRs.

There's a difference between programming in the FYDP and actually presenting a budget which is the job of the White House and usually happens in late first quarter (calendar year) or thereabouts. This requires rolling up individual service budgets, other congressionally mandated tasks (like preparing programmatic documents which must be released within XX days of budget presentation) etc etc. And most importantly it is the new-starts that you have to work through each year. That is the what the ask of the executive leadership is. So yes, if the OMB is fast at work at FY-22 process which should happen by March or thereabouts (a formal presentation of the budget to Congress). So yes, while this silly veto game is being played on twitter, a large part of the executive is moving into FY-22 because everyone knows that one way or the the other the NDAA will get enacted in the coming days. And the same with Congress. FY-21 NDAA is a done deal. The specifics of the bill won't change.

DoD budget continues under the FY20 CR like the rest of the US government. Already 1/3 of FY21 is complete on FY20 CRs.

Yes and CR's are damaging because it funds to current and not requested levels. It is sub-optimal. And CRs do not fund new-starts so result in delays. I take it that this is still the view of the Trump administration (though who knows whether it is still valid) since it is a point that the administration has made repeatedly in the past.

I haven’t read the 4500+ pages of the FY21 NDAA bill. It may have some nuggets of good information in it, along with some hidden pork.

Yes it is a normal budget. The democratic process requires the Congress to pass the NDAA and the President to sign it and turn it into the law of the land. The NDAA uses the president's budget as a baseline and evaluates the UPL's also submitted by the the current disposition. It then engages in a long negotiation to come to a consensus that can pass both chambers. This year too, despite Trump's tweet storms etc they did the same i.e. negotiated and appropriated something that not only had veto proof majorities in both the chambers but had votes well in excess of that.

So the Congress with overwhelming majority basically rebuked the threat of a veto. Now if the WH wants to continue this then it can have at it. Any POTUS has the right to veto a bill that has passed by a veto proof majority but as far as this thread is concerned (or my original post), the current language and the appropriated money stands. That's not changing. Whether it becomes law tomorrow or on Januar-1 or January-20 hardly matters. It will become the law. Nothing the lame duck administration can do will change that.

The only way congress is going to pay attention to the administration on the repeal of Section 230 of the 1996 Telecommunications Decency Act is to stick it to the passage of the NDAA.

Clearly the current NDAA passage vote is indicative of how seriously Congress took the threat :

House : Passed 335 to 78
Senate : Passed 84 to 13

[Mort Walker]

Brar_w,
What is Legion of Merit and why is this awarded to Indian PM Mr Modi? I thought it is mostly for Army Personnel of other countries. I can not find any civilians/citizens of other countries previously awarded this. So, what gives?

Wikipedia is your friend:
It is presented to Commanders in Chief and military personnel. I would say this is rather nice of Trump to present this award on his way out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recipient ... n_of_Merit

[Mort Walker]

Clearly the current NDAA passage vote is indicative of how seriously Congress took the threat :

House : Passed 335 to 78
Senate : Passed 84 to 13

Yes. This is why I said the fight for the FY21 NDAA potential veto would be in the senate as McConnell can schedule the override if he wants. Pelosi is anti-Trump to the point of hurting the country, so she would schedule an override very quickly. The FY21 NDAA will get passed now or at the end of January. The question is, does the executive branch want to fight it out while clearing out of office?

Yes and CR's are damaging because it funds to current and not requested levels. It is sub-optimal. And CRs do not fund new-starts so result in delays. I take it that this is still the view of the Trump administration (though who knows whether it is still valid) since it is a point that the administration has made repeatedly in the past.

The FY20 NDAA was $738 billion vs. $740 billion for FY21. A CR won't really be as damaging to DoD as compared to the damage to other operational agencies which have fractional budgets. If the can was kicked to the end of January when the new administration starts, and if the Dems get a 50-50 position in the senate, they may slash the FY21 NDAA. So a veto and its override is a possibility.

[brar_w]

So as I said nothing in the spreadsheet posted above is going to change. Veto gimmicks aside. The fate of the NDAA (its composition) was sealed the moment it was passed by a >80% despite Twitter threats from trump. And comparing last years enacted to current year CR is missing the point. Programs aren’t funded at uniform levels and thus individual line items can’t remain the same and nor do payment schedules. The simplistic comparison of taking last years vs proposed also fails to account for new starts which are illegal during a CR.

This is why I said the fight for the FY21 NDAA potential veto would be in the senate as McConnell can schedule the override if he wants.

If trump veto’s tomorrow, the house plans to re-vote on the 28th and the Senate on the 29th. It is incumbent on both Pelosi and McConell to honor the will of an overwhelming majority of their respective legislators. This isn’t even remotely controversial- it in fact, is a bi-partisan bill which is why it takes so long to develop and pass it even without any POTUS tantrums.

[Mort Walker]

The NDAA itself is not controversial, but tying it to the repeal of Section 230 is. I’m personally hoping for a Trump veto to bring SM bias into the limelight. It has implications world wide whether or not the veto is over ridden. As it may give enough attention where the GoI will do something similar to pass anti national legislation to fine or ban FB and Twitter.

New contracts are allowed by agencies during a CR. DoD’s application of FAR maybe the issue here, but that’s more of an internal administrative policy. What you can’t do without funding is exercise contract options. You can see for yourself on beta.sam.gov. The NDAA has pork for nearly every congressional district. Only cranks like the Squad oppose it in the House and useful cranks like Rand Paul in the Senate.

[brar_w]

As I wrote earlier, nothing in the section 230 or whatever is related to the NDAA. It is a political move of someone who is going out of the WH very soon. It has no bearing upon the composition of the FY21 NDAA which was what I had originally posted, in particular as it related to the aviation procurement component. It could have had a bearing if an overwhelming majority of Republicans in the house or the senate had sided with Trump. But they didn't. That is what nearly 85% of the Congress voted to provide and that is what will be included (that and other adds like the Turkish F-35's for the USAF that are over and above this). The rest best belongs in the non military thread or some other political discussion on social-media, rand paul or the squad etc in the general section. Just my 2 cents.

[Mort Walker]

FY21 NDAA has been vetoed. I still haven’t looked the bill to see how different FY20 and 21 NDAA are. They seem fairly close, and also need to see what changes have been done to the O&M budget.

[NRao]

House Approves Defense Bill By Veto-Proof Margin, Despite President Trump's Threats

Dec 8, 2020

..............

But despite Tuesday's passage, there's no guarantee Congress can override the move if there is a veto. For example, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy told reporters while he would vote for the bill on Tuesday, he won't vote to override a Trump veto later.

"I don't believe Republicans, in our work with the president always, that you vote to override a veto," McCarthy said.

The move pits top House Republican leaders on opposing sides of the debate. On Monday, Wyoming GOP Rep. Liz Cheney told a Capitol Hill pool reporter that the House should fend off the veto attempt.

"We've got to pass the NDAA and the president should not veto it," said Cheney, who is the House Republican Conference Chair and a member of the Armed Services Committee. "And we should override."

............

[brar_w]

FY21 NDAA has been vetoed. I still haven’t looked the bill to see how different FY20 and 21 NDAA are. They seem fairly close, and also need to see what changes have been done to the O&M budget.

NDAA has been passed by Congress and enacted into law for 59 straight years. So it is likely that they will just pass it right back with a veto-proof majority (again) on the 28th and 29th. This wasn't something that passed 51% to 49% because Republicans in the house and senate were just dying to line behind Trump's request around non-defense related matters. This was passed in both chambers with over 80% and very large Republican support. In fact just 20% of the Republicans in the house voted against it. In the senate, just 5 of the 53 republicans opposed it.More Dems opposed it in the Senate than Trump's own party senators.

While you do sift through the entire budgets for 2020 and 2021 do let me know if you find 2021 new-starts in the 2020 budget and whether each and every program in the 2020 budget is funded to exact same dollar amount in the 2021 budget. Just taking a look at the last years appropriations and this years not_yet_enacted appropriations and assuming it must be the same because the topline number is similar(ish) isn't how things work. CRs are disruptive. Not as disruptive as government shutdowns but disruptive none the less. Successive democrat and republican (including Trump's admin) officials have made this point at the highest level. A CR is largely considered "keeping the lights on" funding. You can't copy paste last years appropriations and claim that things are all fine. There is a reason why we have an NDAA each year and why for nearly 6 decades, this bill has been enacted into law without a gap.