US military, technology, arms, tactics

[brar_w]

GAO does not report on developmental or operational testing nor has a place in the custody. Dev Testing is done by the service under its own custody and DOT&E merely provides an independent summary of those activities with non binding recommendations . Once the system is ready to formally enter the OT&E phase then the test set up is under the control of the DOT&E which conducts independent (of the service or program office) operational testing which supports a milestone decision. Until that happens, DOT&E reports are nothing more than a highly delayed ball by ball coverage of the discovery -- rectification -- testing/validation loop that is common for all high end technology development. In reporting season, it gets a line by line rebuttal by the program office and the Navy's (or another service) own development testers who are conducting this workup.

January is usually the time when the DOT&E and other organizations begins to selectively leak out its reports (which aren't made public till much later). Them doing so via Tony is sort of a modern Pentagon ritual that repeats itself each year with leaks happening in drips until March / April until they are formally rebutted in a live hearing in sub-committee hearings. There is whole JSF thread somewhere that is full of DOT&E leaks (almost always via Tony/Bloomberg) and line by line rebuttals provided by the service acquisition chiefs, program office, or operators who submit formal replies and then testify under oath. Discovering faults in equipment, technology, and processes , rectifying them, and testing and validating solutions is an important part of development and development testing. Only when this loop is complete and the system achieves a set level of maturity does it formally enter OT&E.

I have provided specific information on the EMALS/AAG ops tempo has SIGNIFICANTLY and gradually increased to a point where the system utilization is now begin to mirror traditional operational usage. This is backed by data on specific steaming events, average launch and recovery cycles per steaming attempt both in the early phases of at sea testing, and in the later phases. This is a deliberate process. They take their time during availabilities to upgrade the hardware and software of these systems and then go back into a steaming event and put it through its paces.

I've cited this before but I figure it is worth repeating. When EMALS/AAG was installed on the CVN-78, they conducted 747 launch and recovery cycles in the first 8 steaming events. In its last steaming event of 2020 (calendar year), CVN-78 was embarked for roughly 10 days and in that single steaming event it conducted 840 launch and recovery cycles. But because the DOT&E reports by Fiscal Year, we won't find details of the December steaming event (the very last) in its official report until January of 2022. But when the program provides a formal status update to Congress it will no doubt use all information because their responses usually come later.

Also worth nothing that CVN-78 has significant testing, and availability periods to go before it embarks on its first deployment. In summary, they will spend a fair bit of time in upgrading what they have to upgrade so that the first-in-class vessel is ready to slot into a cruise and perform the same missions a Nimitz would have on the same deployment. But before they do all of that they will subject her to full ship shock trials next year and then it will go into availability which will be an opportunity to A) Do the last set of system and sub-system upgrades, and B ) Repair any structural or system damage as a result of the shock trials.

Based on what the skipper laid out in the article I posted in the previous page, CVN-78 has 3 more steaming attempts in 2021 before it gets into full ship shock trials. Once that happens she will then go into prolonged availability and then come out and begin to train and work up its air wing and crew and prepare for its maiden deployment which could be in mid - 2022 to late 2023 time-frame.

The US Navy did not want to introduce 21 or so brand new (to it) carrier technologies on a single first in class vessel. In fact, they wanted to spread these technologies out over three ships including some that would have come with the last Nimitz. But the Navy was overruled by Don Rumsfeld. This essentially ensured that the first in class ship will ALSO be the test platform for nearly two dozen small-medium-large technologies that will be the foundation of US CVN operations for nearly a century (when they last of the Ford class carriers will still be around). Hence this long winding process from commissioning the vessel to putting it through its paces and then finally sending it on its way for a 4-6 month cruise. CVN-79 and 80 will not have this issue. They will conduct their builder trials, Navy certification trials and will be handed to the crew to begin working up. Just like any DDG-51 is launched, trialed, accepted and handed over to the crew. First in class vessels are hard to operationalize. First in class vessels neck deep in cutting edge, or otherwise new to the service technology and systems take especially long to bring to operational life.

[Mort Walker]

Why would someone from DOT&E selectively leak such information? One would think it would be a sensitive or classified report to the DCAA and those who leak it on the civilian side would face reassignment, loss of security clearance and termination. On the military side it would be somewhat similar with the added downside of court martial.

GAO's role would come in where once such reports make it to congress, they would task GAO to audit the USN on the testing of CVN-78 through FY22.

[brar_w]

Why would someone from DOT&E selectively leak such information? One would think it would be a sensitive or classified report to the DCAA and those who leak it on the civilian side would face reassignment,

No they are not marked classified. Some are FOUO and others aren't even that. The reports are officially tabled to various organizations as part of the budget process which kicks start in February/March (they are tabled ahead of that). The moment they are tabled they are usually selectively leaked. Almost always, they are either leaked via Tony Cappachio of Bloomberg or via Politico pro but mostly the former. This has become a ritual of sorts for a long time.

The services have become savvy of this and usually there is an end of year program update from each PEO or relevant operator that acts as a counter balance until an official rebuttal is submitted in March/April when the sub-committees schedule their budget process.

GAO's role would come in where once such reports make it to congress, they would task GAO to audit the USN on the testing of CVN-78 through FY22.

The DOT&E reports on testing. GAO has no test custody at any phase of a program. Development testing is conducted by the service and its program office under the program structure (unless otherwise agreed to (like a combined DT/OT structure for example). During this phase, DOT&E has a reporting role only (i.e. the custody lies with the program). They provide a summary of testing (independent of those doing the testing) to Congress during this phase. Once the DT is complete (for an appropriately sized traditional ACAT program only) the testing oversight and operational custody is transitioned over to the DOT&E as per law. DOT&E then controls the Initial or follow-on OT&E and tables a report which leads to a milestone decision by DOD. During this process the program-office and service surrenders all test ownership to the DOT&E team. OT&E has no material impact on an individual services' decision to field or expand a system. That is taken by its own independent operational assessment which is not different for each program and service (its structure isn't mandated in law). OT&E is therefore a milestone decision tool which programs must overcome in order to enter Full Rate production or otherwise go to the next milestone.

OT&E plays a valuable role in that it uses OSD test infrastructure and doesn't impart the sort of tax on the program that one normally would have placed had the same level of rigorous OT&E would have been conducted by the program. For example, the DOT&E determined that for Block - 4 F-35 FOT&E they needed to test the aircraft and its misison system against a simulated dissimilar fifth generation threat. The program had nothing to simulate that. The DOT&E using its own funds started a Fifth generation target program for this purpose (and to support testing other programs) and will complete that program before it does the F-35 block 4 FOT&E. So in this way they get a more robust OT&E than what the program could self-fund given the propensity of the operators to generally bias towards funding development, features, rather than holding testing resource allocation rigid.

They determined a need for 5th generation targets, scoped out the exact need, contracted a team to work on an internal design and are currently testing the target before it is ready to support F-35 and other program testing. So they've sort of taken ownership of niche testing resources which tend to fall through the cracks if left to independent services.



And the finished product:





But prior to OT&E, DOT&E's role is often just that of an observer. And it is here that these games are played. Congress' task is to take the DOT&E DT report and the PEO and service response and form a balanced opinion. Problem with leaks is that the DOT&E report is usually prepared in September/October and tabled to Congress around December-January while the official response from the PEO and service generally lags that by weeks to months. So a section of the media usually has a field day in between. It is a recurring theme in US budget reporting.

GAO is not concerned with doing or assessing the testing. Their role is to audit programs based on reports and material tabled and generated by other agencies.

[Mort Walker]

^^^OK. Thanks. GAO does audit federal agencies for congress and they have audited other DoD programs for financial management, although it may not be during the testing phase or a specific item within the weapon system.

[brar_w]

Absolutely. The GAO is a valuable resource for all federal government and they do necessary work. Their role is to independently assess each one of the main acquisition programs and the overall portfolio. They don't have expertise to take over testing. Whereas the DOT&E has the resources (budget authority and technical expertise) to independently lead operational testing though their non-traditional job of commenting on DT (which they don't have custody of) is often of lesser value and not really their traditional scope. DOT&E has done some pretty amazing work in statistical modeling and fielding the testing resources to test some unique systems like ballistic missile defense and other range infrastructure improvements. Left to their own devices, the services would not have funded these to the same level.

[Mort Walker]

^^^What is DOT&E's budget and number of civilian + military personnel? To do extensive testing and evaluation of complex weapon systems, they would need extensive testing resources along with specialty trained scientific and engineering personnel. I suspect if they are like other parts of DoD, then much of their work is contracted out as long as there isn't a conflict of interest with the prime or subcontractor.

[Mort Walker]

Looks like OT&E, on the USAF side, works with AFRL. On the USN side, it may indeed work with NRL.

[brar_w]

They don't unilaterally control DODs test infrastructure. They a small portion of their own assets but vast majority of their work utilizes DOD test infrastructure that they themselves have a say in modernizing and fielding. In fact they are the sole independent voice in advocating modernization of test and evaluation infrastructure. The DOT&Es role is to, on behalf of the OSD, establish Operational test and evaluation requirements, parameters, capabilities, and execute them for each major acquisition program. Here they have independence. On the reporting side, they are to report directly to the OSD and Congress, independent of the services, on OT&E in support of major acquisition program milestone decisions. Each program is expected to deliver a set of hardware and a pre-determined operational test environment (range infra and synthetic environment) to the DOT&E which then commands and conducts the OT&E. Anything that is outside of their ability to deliver, the DOT&E considers funding from its own budget (like 5GAT I mentioned earlier) though they are free to lean on a service to physically execute that effort.

Their expertise comes in A) the planning phase when a program's testing is being structured so that an independent authority is involved in creating a testing master plan and in ensuring that robust testing is established and retained, and B ) in executing the OT&E phase when they are the independent authority under whose flag the formal OT&E actually occurs.

Budget ebbs and flows based on how many acquisition programs they are supporting or expected to support any given time. Their dedicated funding is $200-350+ Million per year and could be more or less based on various factors. It really depends upon which programs they are supporting that year or which unique test resources they are planning to fund that don't find a home in other T&E accounts within individual services.

[NRao]

Northrop Grumman to Enable New F-35 Warfighting Capability

BALTIMORE – Jan. 12, 2020 – Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE: NOC) has received a contract award from Lockheed Martin Corporation to enable new functionality to protect the 5th Generation F-35 Lightning II multi-role fighter. As part of a collaborative arrangement between Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems and Lockheed Martin, the three companies will integrate Northrop Grumman’s AN/ASQ-242 Integrated Communications, Navigation and Identification (ICNI) and BAE Systems’ AN/ASQ-239 Electronic Warfare/Countermeasures (EW/CM) system for optimal operational utility.

“This arrangement allows us to collectively provide enhanced capabilities without compromising the size, weight or power of the aircraft,” said Howard Lurie, vice president, F-35 programs, Northrop Grumman. “We are proud to be a primary partner of the F-35 team, providing our U.S. and allied warfighters superior combat effectiveness.”

Northrop Grumman's ICNI system provides F-35 pilots with more than 27 fully-integrated operational functions. Using its industry-leading software-defined radio technology, Northrop Grumman's design allows the simultaneous operation of multiple critical functions while greatly reducing size, weight and power demands on the advanced F-35 fighter. These functions include Identification Friend or Foe (IFF), automatic acquisition of fly-to points, and various voice and data communications such as the Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL).

The BAE Systems' AN/ASQ-239 system is an advanced, proven electronic warfare suite that provides fully integrated radar warning, targeting support, and self-protection to detect and defeat threats and enable the F-35 to reach well-defended targets.

“As Lockheed Martin’s electronic warfare integrator for all F-35 aircraft, we’re committed to equipping our customers with advanced capabilities that help them conduct their missions,” said Deborah Norton, vice president of F-35 Solutions at BAE Systems. “Under this collaborative agreement, we will work closely with Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman to enhance the capability of our fully integrated EW system – heightening pilots’ situational awareness and helping them evade, engage and defeat modern threats.”

As the provider for F-35’s ICNI continuously since low rate initial production (LRIP) Lot 1, Northrop Grumman has delivered more than 750 shipsets to date. Components of the new functionality are planned to begin incorporation starting in 2025 (Lot 17) and will include upgraded electronics and software.

Northrop Grumman plays a key role in the development, modernization, sustainment and production of the F-35. The company manufactures the center fuselage and wing skins for the aircraft, produces and maintains several sensors, avionics and mission systems as well as mission-planning software, pilot and maintainer training courseware, electronic warfare simulation testing and low-observable technologies.

To learn more about Northrop Grumman’s role on the F-35, visit the company’s website.

Northrop Grumman solves the toughest problems in space, aeronautics, defense and cyberspace to meet the ever evolving needs of our customers worldwide. Our 90,000 employees define possible every day using science, technology and engineering to create and deliver advanced systems, products and services.

[NRao]

Barrett, Five Other Top USAF Civilians to Leave Posts

Six high-ranking Air Force officials will say goodbye to the service Jan. 14 as they prepare to leave their posts when the Trump administration departs next week.

The Department of the Air Force will bid farewell to Secretary Barbara M. Barrett in a ceremony slated for Jan. 14. Also on the way out are acting Air Force Undersecretary Shon J. Manasco, Comptroller John P. Roth, General Counsel Thomas E. Ayres, acquisition boss Will Roper, and Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Environment, and Energy John W. Henderson, according to the event’s livestream page.

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

Roper, another longtime military employee, came to the department from the Pentagon’s Strategic Capabilities Office in early 2018. He spearheaded a new embrace of commercial industry and rapid prototyping, and has been the top acquisition official overseeing the push to modernize Air Force and Space Force inventories with multibillion-dollar programs like the B-21 bomber and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

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

for what it’s worth: A reporter just confirmed, to my enquiry, that Roper is willing to stay if asked by the Biden Admin

[NRao]

Boeing Awarded Contract for 12 More KC-46 Tankers

[NRao]

A very important development that India needs to follow:

Declassification of secret document reveals US strategy in the Indo-Pacific

The US government has just declassified one of its most sensitive national security documents—its 2018 strategic framework for the Indo-Pacific, which was formally classified SECRET and not for release to foreign nationals.

The full text, minus a few small redactions, is expected to be made public late on 12 January (US east coast time), having originally been cleared for publication on 5 January, prior to the turmoil in Washington.

The release of this document will be rightly overshadowed in the news cycle by the aftermath of the disgraceful domestic attack on the US Capitol, but for observers interested in the future security of the world beyond American shores, it will be of long-term interest and warrant close reading.

Long before historians can debate the Trump administration’s legacy in this vital region, this highly unusual step of fast-forward declassification—the text was not due for public release until 2043— brings an authoritative clarity to the public record.

The slightly reassuring news is that beneath President Donald Trump’s unpredictability, conceit and unilateralism, the policy professionals were striving to advance a more serious and coherent agenda.

There was a plan after all, however incomplete and insufficiently resourced its implementation.

The framework and its covering cabinet memorandum are dated February 2018, a time when the contours of strategic rivalry in the Indo-Pacific were rapidly taking shape.

Although the text would have involved negotiation among agencies, these are technically White House/National Security Council (NSC) documents. Lead authorship can be attributed to the then national security advisor, H.R. McMaster, and, in particular, to the then NSC director for Asia and later deputy national security advisor, Matt Pottinger, who was among officials to abruptly resign last week after the mob assault on the US legislature.

In a covering note explaining his advice to declassify the framework, outgoing National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien emphasises that the strategy has been all about seeking to ensure that ‘our allies and partners … can preserve and protect their sovereignty’.

This confirms that US strategic policy in the Indo-Pacific was in substantial part informed and driven by allies and partners, especially Japan, Australia and India.

Indeed, one of the strategy’s plainest successes was fulfilling the objective ‘to create a quadrilateral security framework with India, Japan, Australia, and the United States as the principal hubs’.

The American framework bears the fingerprints not only of Washington’s December 2017 National security strategy but Tokyo’s 2016 ‘free and open Indo-Pacific’ policy and Canberra’s 2017 initiatives, notably the Turnbull government’s foreign policy white paper and its early action against Chinese interference and espionage.

O’Brien properly notes this emerging convergence, and the common ground among the Indo-Pacific policies of the US, Australia, India, Japan, ASEAN, some key European partners and, increasingly, South Korea, New Zealand and Taiwan. This emerging consensus gives the lie to the Chinese claim that the Indo-Pacific is some American or Australian invention that will ‘dissipate like ocean foam’.

Without saying so, the declassified strategy appears to acknowledge that an effective American regional policy is as much about following as leading. This means steady support for allies and partners, rather than the pursuit of some shaky all-round US primacy.

It also turns out that American officials’ public line about respecting international law, regional multilateralism (such as ASEAN-centric diplomatic institutions) and the sovereign equality of states was not just rhetoric: it was what they were telling themselves as well.

Geopolitical observers worldwide, from diplomats to intelligence analysts, politicians to businesspeople, journalists to scholars, will find much else to unpack and interpret. There’s plenty to report and debate in almost every line of the 10-page document.

Contrary to concerns that the Trump administration was veering to a one-dimensional, military-led external policy, there was a clear recognition of the need for holistic engagement to bolster allies and counter China, across the full spectrum from information operations to advanced technology research and infrastructure investment.

Whether America has the capacity, coordination and will to follow through on such a total strategy is another question. The strength of the plan is also its weakness. It was an effort to exhaustively map out analytical assumptions, preferred end-states, objectives and actions, leaving it open to the criticism that it is excessively ambitious yet leaves things out.

The document is light, for instance, on anticipating the challenge of Chinese influence in the South Pacific, an indication that Canberra’s activism there is an Australian initiative, not a play to please America.

A critical reading reveals some glaring gaps between intent and reality. For example, we see an aspiration to improve relations between Japan and South Korea to put pressure on North Korea, but no sense of how this would be done.

Sometimes the bar was set so high that failure was almost assured. There are aspects where America’s privately stated ambitions—for sustained ‘primacy’, for North Korean nuclear disarmament, for international consensus against China’s harmful economic practices—were at odds with the art of the possible.

In hindsight, this bold vision for US foreign policy failed to take account of the depth of domestic division and dysfunction hampering America’s ability to advance its interests abroad.

At the same time, although it did not anticipate so staggering a shock as Covid-19, the framework’s warnings of China’s affronting assertiveness and the expansive authoritarianism of the Chinese Communist Party under Xi Jinping have proven prescient. They’ve been borne out by events, from the geopolitics of the pandemic and wolf warrior ‘diplomacy’ to the crushing of Hong Kong, intimidation of Taiwan, violent clashes with India and coercion against Australia.

Of course, the decision to release this historic document now will raise speculation as to the motive for it.

At one level, it’s a refreshing and rather radical act of transparency, aimed partly at reassuring allies and partners that, whatever its travails, America plans to double down on the Indo-Pacific.

There was likely much internal debate ahead of the decision to go public but it was probably judged that any risk to America’s interests from showing its hand, such as the frank admission of an imperative to strengthen India as a counterbalance to China, would be outweighed by the benefits and the example of openness.

Whatever else can be said, this reduces the excuse for miscalculation, and makes more glaring by contrast the gap between what Beijing says and what it does.

There are blunt statements of the intent of ‘defending the first island chain nations, including Taiwan’, ‘denying China sustained air and sea dominance’ inside the first island chain, and continuing to dominate ‘all domains outside the first island chain’.

That said, this is not a strategy for full-blown containment extending right across the economic realm, and it does not seem to anticipate the pace or extent of decoupling since pursued both by Beijing and Washington.

The language is often defensive: not to sunder the US–China economic relationship, but rather to ‘prevent China’s industrial policies and unfair trading practices from distorting global markets and harming US competitiveness’. There’s still acknowledgement of the need to ‘cooperate with China when beneficial to US interests’, although this is so vague that it will make sense for President-elect Joe Biden’s administration to find some early specifics for cautious experiments in partnership.

Sceptical observers may well say that publishing the strategy now, amid a troubled transition, is an obvious play for policy continuity. This is in light of concerns that a Biden administration may not yet be committed to challenging China’s bid for dominance—or indeed to the idea of the Indo-Pacific, at least in its ‘free and open’ variant, as a rallying cry for regional solidarity against coercive Chinese power.

But it’s surely no bad thing to salvage the few achievements of an otherwise grim era in American foreign policy, while laying down some markers for the incoming administration.

Indeed, if the intent all along was to amplify American effectiveness by respecting and uniting allies, then a rounded 2020s evolution of the 2018 Indo-Pacific strategy will stand a significantly better chance of success under Biden than it would have under a second Trump term.

And the document articulates the fundamentals of what in Congress has become a bipartisan position on contesting China’s geopolitical powerplays, supporting allies and partners, and protecting American interests across domains ranging from military and technology to geoeconomics and information and influence.

The declassified framework will have enduring value as the beginning of a whole-of-government blueprint for handling strategic rivalry with China. If the US is serious about that long-term contest, it will not be able to choose between getting its house in order domestically and projecting power in the Indo-Pacific. It will need to do both at once.

As I have argued in my book explaining the Indo-Pacific concept, America cannot effectively compete with China if it allows Beijing hegemony over this vast region, the economic and strategic centre of gravity in a connected world.

AUTHOR
Rory Medcalf heads the National Security College at the Australian National University. Image: US Navy/Flickr.

[brar_w]

Guam hosts Partner Nations in Exercise SEA DRAGON 2021

ANDERSEN AIR FORCE BASE, GUAM – Two P-8 Poseidon aircraft from Patrol Squadron 5 (VP-5), the “Mad Foxes,” and Patrol Squadron 8 (VP-8), the “Fighting Tigers,” joined several partner nations to kick off the multinational anti-submarine warfare exercise Sea Dragon 2021, Jan. 12.

VP-5 and VP-8’s Maritime Patrol and Reconnaissance aircrafts (MPRA) traveled to Andersen Air Force Base in Guam to hone their skills with members of the Royal Australian Air Force, Canadian Air Force, Indian Navy, and Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force.

Sea Dragon 2021 centers on anti-submarine warfare (ASW) training and excellence, to include 125 hours of in-flight training ranging from tracking simulated targets, to the final problem of finding and tracking USS Chicago, a U.S. Navy Los Angeles-class nuclear submarine. During classroom training sessions, pilots and flight officers from all countries will build plans and discuss incorporating tactics, capabilities, and equipment from their respective nations into the exercise.

“As OIC, I am eager for the opportunity to further develop our partnerships with Japan, India, Canada, and Australia while at Sea Dragon 2021,” said Lt. Cmdr. Kyle Hooker, officer-in-charge, Patrol Squadron 5. “The COVID environment will be challenging for all our participants, but I know we will come together to adapt and overcome while executing our goal of Anti-Submarine Warfare interoperability,” added Hooker.

Each exercise is graded, and the nation scoring the highest total points will receive the coveted Dragon Belt award. The belt was formally-introduced last year when awarded to the Royal New Zealand Air Force (RNZAF).

[NRao]

U. S. STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK FOR THE INDO-PACIFIC

10 PAGE ORIGINAL pdf

[Rishi_Tri]

^^ Demands sustained high G maneuvers place on pilots.

[brar_w]

A comprehensive list of F-35 Follow On Modernization upgrades (Aviation Week) :

[NRao]

Second B-21 Under Construction as Bomber Moves Toward First Flight

Artist rendering of a B-21 Raider concept in a hangar at Dyess Air Force Base, Texas, one of the future bases to host the new airframe. Photo: Courtesy of Northrop Grumman via USAF.

Jan. 15, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak
Production of a second B-21 stealth bomber is underway at Northrop Grumman’s facility in Palmdale, Calif., while the first Raider is expected to roll out in early 2022 and fly in the middle of that year, according to Randall Walden, director of the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office.

The Air Force predicted it could fly the secretive B-21 for the first time in December 2021. But in an exclusive interview with Air Force Magazine, Walden said that forecast was always a best-case scenario, and that first flight in mid-2022 is now a “good bet.”

The first Raider hasn’t yet reached final assembly, he said, but is “really starting to look like a bomber.” A second plane, now moving down the production line, will allow the Air Force to vet the airframe, Walden said.

“The second one is really more about structures, and the overall structural capability,” he explained. “We’ll go in and bend it, we’ll test it to its limits, make sure that the design and the manufacturing and the production line make sense.”

Lt. Gen. James C. Dawkins, Jr., deputy chief of staff for strategic deterrence and nuclear integration, said Jan. 14 that the B-21 will be available for service around 2026 or 2027. According to the Congressional Budget Office in 2018, the Air Force estimated the cost of developing and buying the first 100 aircraft at $80 billion in 2016 dollars.

The bomber leg of the nuclear triad is comprised of “B-52s and B-2s, and in another six or seven years, the B-21,” Dawkins said during a Heritage Foundation event on the nuclear-tipped Long-Range Standoff Weapon.

Lessons learned from producing the first airplane are being applied to the second, Walden said. That work is progressing “much faster” as workers figure out how to build the airplane in real life, rather than operating off of a blueprint’s assumptions. The team is creating more space for test aircraft as the two bombers come together, he added.

“It’s looking pretty good,” Walden said. “We’re very pleased with the … very high percentages of efficiency” in building the second aircraft, “as compared to No. 1.”

First flight will only happen after elaborate coordination with Northrop Grumman, major suppliers, and the test community to ensure “that we are ready to go,” Walden said.

“Just like any aircraft program, there’s going to be surprises” during engine runs and other prep work that could affect first flight, he said. “We will correct those as it makes sense.”

Program officials are trying to mitigate the coronavirus pandemic’s effects on the aerospace industry before they can drastically affect the B-21’s progress.

“Suppliers across the country are actively delivering parts to Palmdale and we’re doing what we can to help in that regard,” Walden said. The program is closely working with the supply base to ensure slower parts delivery don’t delay the airplanes at the same rate.

“It seems to be working quite well,” he said.

Spirit Aviation of Wichita, Kan., which supplies aerostructures on the B-21, shifted workers from Boeing’s 737 branch to the B-21 at the program’s request. That bolstered the B-21 effort by repurposing Boeing 737 MAX workers who otherwise would have been laid off, Walden said.

Orders for the MAX have dried up in the aftermath of that airplane’s two deadly crashes and the steep dropoff in air travel during the pandemic.

“The pandemic has slowed us in certain areas, but I think we have compensated,” Walden said. “I don’t think we’ve got significant delays to … first flight.”

Delays on the production line “will be mitigated,” he added, and any changes to the 2022 timeline will be communicated to Pentagon and congressional leadership. He believes the Air Force may bring more details about the bomber to light as its debut flight nears.

Walden also said the program is reducing risk by using a business-class jet as an avionics testbed, working out hardware and software kinks before transferring them to the B-21. Randall said it was analogous to Lockheed Martin’s Cooperative Avionics Testbed aircraft—nicknamed CATbird.

“We’re getting a lot of good feedback” from this effort, Walden said. The business jet is flying “real B-21 software” and helping illustrate how sensors and code will be added into the bomber test fleet.

“In the last few months, we did another successful end-to-end demonstration to further mature that hardware and software, and it’s working quite well,” Walden said. “We’re working not only in the flight test activities, but also working with the government test infrastructure to make sure that what we’re doing, from a system integration point of view, makes sense.”

“We’re preparing ourselves not just for first flight, but ultimately, the subsystem testing that will be required during those flight test phases,” he added.

Hardware and software will be vetted on the ground and in the air, and the bomber development team has “a lot of confidence” about powering up the first aircraft for its maiden voyage thanks to the risk-reduction efforts, Walden said.

As ranking member on the House Armed Services seapower and projection forces subcommittee, Rep. Rob Wittman (R-Va.) is one lawmaker tasked with oversight of the multibillion-dollar program that is among the Pentagon’s top acquisition priorities to counter other advanced militaries. In 2018, Wittman said the B-21 was experiencing thrust issues related to the bomber’s inlet and serpentine ducting.

Those issues were fixed, Walden said.

“Overall, what Congressman Wittman did bring up was an example of one of those ‘surprises,’” Walden said. “We made that work.”

He declined to discuss the technical details of the problem, but said the fix “required some … basic changes to the design, of which we have a good understanding today through ground testing and engine testing.”

“It looks like we have solved it and we are moving forward with that final design,” Walden said.

Raytheon Technologies’s acquisition of engine maker Pratt & Whitney hasn’t caused hiccups for the B-21, and the change has been transparent, he noted.

Walden also reported that the beddown program is going well, saying a recent industry day at Ellsworth AFB, S.D., to discuss military construction and other support projects was a success.

The Air Force plans to spend about $300 million on military construction projects for the B-21 in fiscal 2022, Walden said, and $1 billion over five years. The service requested $2.8 billion for the plane’s research and development in fiscal 2021 alone, though the price tag is still evolving.

[brar_w]

As the demonstration program is winding down, an update on the 2-3 year effort on the V-280.

Have to say that the V-280 is one of the most well executed US defense technology demonstration program that I have ever observed. Not only have they swept through what the US Army wanted, they've done a ton of stuff over and above that and still continue to demonstrate capability that they weren't originally required to do at this phase of the effort.

They are now building their prototypes that follow on from the technology demonstrations and absorb more of the better defined US Army performance requirements and are closer to what the US Army wants in an operational system (the tech. demonstration requirements were pretty simple - just demonstrate aircraft that could go 2x the distance and have 2x the average cruise speed of current gen. of helos they were replacement).

[NRao]

(The PopularMechanics article is behind a pay wall)

Interested in knowing what digital engineering, @usairforce aircraft, @F1 racing, and art history (?!) have in common? Check out my Op Ed in @PopMech. Like @montypython said, "And now for something completely different!" Winking face

Exclusive: The Air Force's Secret New Fighter Jet Uses F1-Style Engineering. The mysterious sixth-generation plane came to life in just one year. This breakthrough tech helps explain how.

[brar_w]

Beyond Line of Site control of an MQ-9 without the use of SATCOM:

General Atomics Demonstrates Beyond Line of Sight (BLOS) Command and Control Over HF Using MQ-9

General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. (GA-ASI) completed the first Beyond Line of Sight (BLOS) High Frequency (HF) Command and Control (C2) demonstration for an Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS). The HF C2 capability does not require a Satellite Communications (SATCOM) link and is capable of providing BLOS connectivity up to 8,000 miles, depending on transmit power and link geometry.

“We demonstrated a BLOS assured Command & Control capability that can be used in contested or denied environments,” said GA-ASI President David R. Alexander. “GA-ASI is committed to developing a flexible UAS architecture with assured C2 that is relevant in a broad set of mission scenarios.”

For the demo, GA-ASI integrated the U.S. Government’s Collaborative Operations in Denied Environment (CODE) autonomy software into the Open Operational Flight Profile (OFP) of an MQ-9A Block 5 Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) and flew the MQ-9 using improved diagonal tails with conformal HF antennas incorporated into the leading edges.

GA-ASI’s MQ-9 housed a FlexRadio Systems’ FLEX-6600 HF software-defined radio and associated hardware to translate and execute an autonomous mission plan. GA-ASI created a specialized HF software adapter to manage the unique latency and throughput constraints of the HF waveform to demonstrate BLOS command and control of the RPA.

The demonstration was flown out of Laguna Army Air Field/Yuma Proving Grounds on Dec. 16, 2020. The MQ-9 was commanded from Austin, Texas approximately 1,000 miles away over an HF C2 link. This capability enables an operator to task the MQ-9 without needing SATCOM, providing a means to operate in SATCOM-denied, contested environments.

[brar_w]

Off the California coast, the US Navy tests hunting subs with an aerial drone

The U.S. Navy and General Atomics in November used sonobuoys dropped from an MQ-9A Block V Reaper to track a simulated submarine target on a U.S. Navy Pacific test range, in what GA says is the first time an aerial drone has deployed a self-contained anti-submarine warfare system.

The Reaper deployed a mix of 10 sonobuoys – deployed to measure water conditions and monitor for targets – then received and transmitted the data in real time to a monitoring station at Laguna Flight Operations Facility located at Yuma Proving Grounds in California.

The test was part of the development of the MQ-9B SeaGuardian drone, which is part of a research and development project in conjunction with the Navy’s Naval Air Systems Command. If the Navy can make this concept of operations work, it has the potential to significantly lower the cost of submarine hunting and free up larger, more expensive manned sub-hunting platforms such as the P-8A Poseidon, to act as a command-and-control platform.

The Reaper managed to acquire and track an expendable anti-submarine warfare training target for three hours using General Dynamics UYS-505 acoustic processing software.

According to a General Atomics readout of the test, the MQ-9B SeaGuardian will have four wing stations available to carry up to four sonobuoy dispenser system pods, packing up to 40 ‘A’ size or 80 ‘G’ size sonobuoys.

“This demonstration is a first for airborne ASW. The successful completion of this testing paves the way for future development of more Anti-Submarine Warfare capabilities from our MQ-9s,” said General Atomics Aeronautical Systems President David Alexander in a statement. “We look forward to continuing collaboration with the U.S. Navy as they explore innovative options for distributed maritime operations in the undersea domain.”

Doing airborne anti-submarine warfare is an all-around cheaper way to do ASW than with multiple P-8As, which cost much more per flight hour, said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and senior fellow at Hudson Institute who co-authored a recent ASW study that looked at this concept.

“What it does is it allows now the P-8 doesn’t have to be the only thing that delivers the sonobuoys,” Clark said. “So the P-8 can start to step back to be more of a [command and control] platform, it doesn’t have to service all sonobuoy fields.

“Right now what has happened is a P-8 goes out, drops all the sonobuoys and hangs around burning flight hours while it monitors the sonobuoy field. And of course, you’ve got to have multiple P-8s to be able to cover the area. Whereas with this idea, you could have MQ-9s doing the deploying and the servicing of the sonobuoy field at a much lower flight hour cost.”

The limitation is that the P-8As have a much larger capacity for sonobuoys, which over large areas means they’ll still be important, Clark said. But with the support of drones able to receive and process data, you won’t need to risk as many P-8As to service the sonobuoy field, making the whole operation cheaper.

“It really breaks the cost structure of the current ASW concept of operations,” he said.

[NRao]

Biden’s Defense nominee embraces view of space as a domain of war

President-elect Joe Biden’s pick for defense secretary Lloyd Austin told lawmakers Jan. 19 that China is the United States’ “most concerning competitor” and in written testimony identified space as a growing national security concern.

“If confirmed, I will ensure the space domain is carefully considered across the range of upcoming strategic reviews,” Austin said in a statement submitted to the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The SASC held a nearly four-hour confirmation hearing for Austin a day before Biden’s inauguration. He would be the nation’s first African-American secretary of defense. To get confirmed, Congress has to approve a waiver because Austin has not been retired from the military for seven years as the law requires. While some lawmakers said they oppose providing such a waiver, Austin is expected to be confirmed.

In prepared testimony, Austin called space “an arena of great power competition” and endorsed the prevailing thinking in the national security space community that U.S. systems have to be more resilient and survivable against anti-satellite weapons.

“Chinese and Russian space activities present serious and growing threats to U.S. national security interests,” Austin stated. “While Russia is a key adversary, China is the pacing threat.”

Austin did not weigh in on whether it was a good idea to establish the U.S. Space Force and U.S. Space Command — both strongly championed by the Trump administration. He said a military space reorganization had been advocated for years by independent commissions, lawmakers and multiple administrations.

“If confirmed, I will assess the current structure to ensure the defense space enterprise is postured to advance our national security objectives most effectively,” Austin testified.

He noted that the DoD space enterprise is “still not well integrated with other services and terrestrial commands, and there are several other challenges that will need to be addressed.”

More broadly, given the importance of space in as an engine of economic competitiveness, he said “it is essential to continue developing best practices, standards and international norms of behavior in space.”

Austin warned that commercial activities in space are a concern to the military because of the congestion and the possibility of collisions in orbit.

He noted that thousands of new satellites will be sent to orbit in the coming decade, most privately owned and operated. This creates a risk to the United States “in the sense that the government needs to ensure that they do not collide with expensive and exquisitely capable government assets.”

None of the senators during the hearing asked Austin any questions on space policy. Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) brought up the recent decision by the Trump administration to move the headquarters of U.S. Space Command from Colorado to Alabama. Heinrich represents one of the locations — Kirtland Air Force Base — that competed to host Space Command.

Heinrich criticized the selection process and asked Austin to commit to “take a close look” at how the decision was made. Austin said he would do so.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) pressed Austin on his ties to defense contractor Raytheon, where he served on the board of directors. Austin said he will recuse himself from all Pentagon business involving Raytheon for the entire time he’s in office. “I’m sensitive to the appearance concerns you raise,” he told Warren.

Austin said the coronavirus pandemic currently is the nation’s greatest challenge and he would support a greater Defense Department role in the response to the crisis.

Austin’s hearing was the last one chaired by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) before control of the Senate shifts to Democrats. Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) will chair the SASC in the new Congress.

“That transition will take place very peacefully,” Inhofe said to chuckles in the room.

[NRao]

586th FLTS accomplishes Air Force first in development of Kubernetes

Jan 18, 2021

The 586th Flight Test Squadron, 704th Test Group, Arnold Engineering Development Complex, has taken Kubernetes supersonic.

During a flight test Dec. 11, a pilot and flight test engineer with the 586th “Roadrunners” flew a T-38 Talon with operational flight program, or OFP, software utilizing the Kubernetes framework installed on the instrumentation system of the aircraft. While Kubernetes has gone airborne previously on U.S. Air Force aircraft, the 586th FLTS is the first to fly an aircraft utilizing the system at supersonic speeds, an example of the Air Force continuing to push beyond the expected uses of the technology in the commercial environment.

“We have demonstrated that Kubernetes can be deployed on Air Force aircraft,” said Capt. Trevor Breau, assistant director of operations for the 586th FLTS. “Kubernetes enables rapid software development on the order of weeks instead of years. The faster software turnaround times allows the software developers to rapidly respond to user feedback and dynamic threats. Kubernetes also offers better stability by running a backup simultaneously. If a system were to fail, Kubernetes will automatically switch to a stable version without any obvious transition seen by the user.”

Kubernetes, according to kubernetes.io, is an “open-source system for automating deployment, scaling and management of containerized applications.” The system is also portable across infrastructure providers, providing potential for making software portable across aircraft platforms.

During a previous testing event, the 586th FLTS successfully installed and ground tested the hardware and software, including meeting a milestone necessary to proceed to flight testing.

Testing requires balancing risks. Test personnel have to mitigate safety risks, while working to ensure they obtain the necessary data to inform acquisition decisions, which drives down financial risk for the Air Force.

“We demonstrated live updates to the software without any interruption to the system,” Breau said. “This is critical for an aircraft to be able to receive and implement updates while in-flight.”

Test is an important step along the way of moving a new concept or design from the theoretical to the operational. Test can prove if a new design works as stated and if it meets a mission need.

The flight test was built upon this notion and demonstrated that the OFP installed in the Kubernetes system operated as expected under flight conditions, such as altitude, attitude and speed – an important contribution to the efforts across the Air Force to employ Kubernetes.

“I’ve been dreaming for ten years about real-time or near real-time updates to aircraft software, and that dream is starting to become a reality,” said Dr. Eileen Bjorkman, executive director, Air Force Test Center. “This could be a huge leap forward in accelerating change for the Air Force.”

The OFP that was tested is for the T-38 Advanced Workstation, or TAWS. It was developed utilizing Kubernetes by SkiCAMP, a Platform One software factory. Platform One is a DOD DevSecOps Enterprise Services team, and part of the larger effort of the Air Force to shift to the Agile software development methodology. The Agile methodology is more flexible compared to the previously preferred Waterfall methodology. Agile allows for requirements and solutions to evolve as developers and customers collaborate.

“The lessons learned in developing the TAWS system are being applied to Kubernetes projects on other platforms, such as the C-12J (Huron) and Test Pilot School’s F-16 VISTA (Variable Stability In-flight Simulator Test Aircraft),” Breau said.

Col. Jeffrey Geraghty, AEDC commander, applauded the efforts of the 586th FLTS.

“Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. (Charles) Brown’s strategy is to Accelerate Change or Lose,” Geraghty said. “With this Kubernetes flight, the Roadrunners of the 586th have accelerated change. They demonstrated that U.S. Airpower can operate at speeds faster than any adversary’s OODA loop.”

The OODA loop stands for observe-orient-decide-act. It is a central paradigm in modern warfare strategy, articulated relentlessly by the late-strategist Col. John Boyd.

Advancements made by the combined efforts of the 586th FLTS and SkiCAMP will also be shared with the other Platform One software factories to help further the advancement of Kubernetes implementation.

“Once again, the pioneering spirit of the Air Force Test Center is on display, in this case driving measurable progress toward agile OFP development,” said Maj. Gen. Chris Azzano, commander, Air Force Test Center. “The 704th Test Group and 586th Flight Test Squadron have a long history of breaking barriers, and I’m confident their innovation will be instrumental in moving this critical technology to the next level.”

[Philip]

The USN has stopped all deliveries of itx LCS surface combatants until a major problem with its transmission system and faulty bearings are sorted out on its existing LCS combatants. The system comes from the German co. Renk, famous for such gear and has been a long-standing supplier to the IN too. A design flaw is thought to be the reason. No estimate of the cost of retrofit is currently known. The
LCS combatants were supposed to deal with littoral warfare tasks
but were lightly armed. New ships are to have a decent weaponry upgrade and will enable them to play a key role in hhotspots like the ICS,etc.

[brar_w]

Renk had been quietly working on a fix hoping that it would be tested and absorbed into the fleet without it blowing up on its reputation and that of the vendors who have sourced components from it. However, with the FFG(X) Frigate about to get into production this fall, and the US Navy now having leverage over its design and some of the supplier base (of which Renk is currently still a part), they probably now have enough leverage to force this issue and light a fire under Renk's engineering team and to push Fincantieri to do the same now that they'll have un-accepted ships piling up at their yard at a time they are doing the biggest CAPEX investment this particular facility has ever seen (in preparation for the Frigate). With rumours abound that the FFG(X)'s eventual production rate could get close to 5-7 ship's a year (split over two yards), to mirror that of the peak O-H Perry class ships, there is quite a bit of incentive for Renk to get these out or risk being on the wrong end of the contracting stick for something that will likely be a significant buisiness for it over the next 2-3 decades.

[NRao]

AWST article behind pay wall

A big USAF fighter fleet shake-up is possible later this year. New F-16 orders are being seriously discussed. Skyborgs could replace adversary air jets. All part of a TacAir portfolio review now underway.

An F-16 (rear), flying alongside a stealthy F-35, may add “some wonderful” new capabilities to the Air Force’s future fleet, an Air Force official says.
U.S. Air Force officials are talking about ordering new Lockheed Martin F-16s two decades after signing the last production contract. A review of the tactical aircraft portfolio now underway is set to deliver another Air Force acquisition shake-up in the fiscal 2023 budget request, with F-16s...

[brar_w]

The US Air Force needs roughly 100 new built tactical fighter aircraft delivered each year to modernize and keep pace with its need to reduce the average age of its tactical aircraft fleet. This is just to "break even" and not grow the force-structure which would be required to confront China. It will never get to 100 aircraft a year if they buy F-35A's and F-15EX's. With that combination they are at best sitting at 60-80 aircraft a year depending upon budgets which forces them to hold on to aircraft longer which makes sustaining and operating them even tougher and does not make modernizing them (given the residual life) worthwhile. So they can't justify an upgrade and can't retire them so that is just a sub-optimal situation to be in.

This year (Fiscal Year 21) they got just 72 which is about 30 short of what they need and is also likely a short term (3-5 year) high-point given other more pressing priorities (like B-21 and the ICBM). In its last force structure assessment, the US Air Force determined it needed 7 additional fighter squadrons and there is no way in hell that its budgets can sustain that growth by buying F-35's or F-15's or a 6th generation fighter. So it is quite feasible that they grow the low end of the fleet and reserve the upper end of the fleet for the F-35 and NGAD.

If what Trimble is reporting on the NGAD is true (i.e. it would be ready to enter production by 2026) then it would bring additional options. I say they should buy a couple of hundred F-16's, continue to buy the F-35A at 60/year (maximum) and compete the F-35 with NGAD starting the second half of the 2020's. Not all of those F-16 Block 70/72s would be new though as I think that they could easily eat into some of the F-15EX program by transitioning a few ANG squadrons to F-16's instead of the F-15EX. Outside of Pacific focused ANG squadrons there is no real benefit that the F-15EX brings compared to the F-16V. The F-16 will be significantly cheaper to buy and operate.

Having the F-16 Block 70 (V), F-15EX, F-35, and possibly the NGAD (by 2026) being in concurrent production does give them a lot of options to adjust acquisition based on budget priorities.

Here is one option:

- Replace F-16's with F-35A's plus growth (7 squadrons) and replace A-10's with F-16 Block 70/72's (instead of F-35A's as is currently in the long term plan)
- Replace F-15C's with F-15 EX's (that's already in the plan)
- Retain F-15E and F-22A OR replace F-22A's with NGAD and keep F-15E's till the natural end of their airframe lives.

This means they need around 1,200-1,400 F-35A's and around 250 odd F-16's staggered over a longer time-frame. They can use the money saved to buy NGAD units and address other priorities like upping the B-21 program of record.

Having these options is a good problem to have, especially when tactical fighters are probably not the best investment priorities in a "China fight" scenario which requires a bomber and P-ISR dominant force backed by a lot of interoperability and long range fires (it's going to come down to a silo/tube/missile fight eventually).

[NRao]

Will Roper to whoever replaces him at Air Force: Stay agile

JAN 19, 2021 | FEDSCOOP
As the Air Force‘s top technology and acquisition official departs the Pentagon at the end of the Trump administration, he’s leaving with a final message: Stay agile or lose to China.

Will Roper, the assistant secretary of acquisition, technology and logistics, expects to move on soon, given that he’s a presidential appointee and the incoming Biden administration has not clarified his fate at the DOD. His more than two years in the role saw many changes, like the creation of Pitch Days, AFventures and other programs, but the one he said he is most proud of is the cultural shift to be more agile and technology-driven force.

Those changes are important, Roper says, because warfighting is now a world of data, IT and agility where winners and losers will be determined by who leans harder into tech.

“You have to be ready for disruption,” Roper said in closing a one-on-one interview Thursday with FedScoop after his final press round table.

And with that in mind, “the role of the service acquisition executive is now different,” he said as the interview wrapped up. “There has to be different people for at least a period of time.”

What he means is that for now, acquisition chiefs should be more like him, with deep technology expertise that extends to modern software development. Just being an expert in contracting or procurement isn’t enough, Roper said.

The need for change is driven by the new form of great power competition between the U.S. and China — an adversary Roper said will always draw his attention, whether he’s working inside or outside of government.

The list of important topics, Roper said, includes software development, cloud, Kubernetes technology and other software development processes. He said he drew on his experience in those areas daily to carry out his duties as the top buyer for the Air Force and Space Force.

Roper also pointed to specific programs that he believes should remain a priority in the next administration:

ABMS

One of the programs that needs disruption and a continued drive for innovation, he said, is the Advanced Battle Management System. The family of systems is the Air Force’s technical contribution to the Joint All Domain Command and Control (JADC2) concept where all networks are linked, data is ubiquitously shared and a military internet of things could be controlled by iPad-wielding generals.

Roper has been one of the program’s biggest boosters. He has evangelized it in press conferences, webinars and before a skeptical Congress. One of his last meetings will be with the Rapid Capability Office, the group that he recently designated to be the program executive for ABMS.

“I have given them a recipe and done a lot of sous chef-ing,” he said of the hand off.

The creation of an acquisition strategy was one of the program’s sticking points on Capitol Hill. Congress was unwilling to give the program its multi-hundred-million-dollar request because lawmakers say it lacked strategy. The Government Accountability Office had dinged the program for the same reason. But Roper insisted in his interview with FedScoop that the timing was right and the program’s overall development was inline with the agile processes he wants the DOD to continue once he is gone.

“If we had tried to do this a year ago, everything would have been fictitious,” he said of designating the RCO as PEO and finalizing the strategy on his way out the door. ABMS has been developed through a series of events that aimed to test the whole eco-system of technology, instead of having a piece-by-piece approach where parts of the system are procured and then scaled up. The last major test event Roper oversaw in September was the “birth” of the military internet of things, he said.

“I think we made the pivot at the right time,” he said.

IT as a warfighting system

Another one of Roper’s main phrases he liked to repeat was the need to consider IT as an integral part of warfighting. ABMS runs on IT, he said, and so should the rest of the future of military systems.

“IT and connectivity may be the most important thing” to sustain, he said. Much of the funding of technology competition has been poured into research and development dollars, an important step but not the full-picture, he added.

To continue to recruit young airmen and to sustain advancing technologies, dollars needed to be allocated to not only developing new technology but also to investments in back-end systems, he said.

“Buying the lowest-price technically-acceptable solutions, a tech company would never do that,” he said. Implicit in that: neither should the Air Force.

[brar_w]

Interesting since the UAI based integration will also mean that it will be cleared for the JASSM-XR which will be operationally deployed by the time the F-35 gets UAI and thus JASSM series of weapons.

A 1,500+ km ranged stealthy cruise missile is a more than handy capability to have even if you are carrying it externally.

Lockheed Martin Progressing Towards LRASM Integration On F-35

“There is warfighter interest in both JASSM-ER and LRASM, and Lockheed Martin is working to ensure outstanding weapon standoff and effects. Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control and Lockheed Martin Aeronautics are completing key risk reduction actions in order to provide the warfighter with increased capabilities in accelerated timeframes. We are currently investing in F-35 integration efforts for JASSM-ER in areas such as the digital transformation of elements of smart factory assets. Also, initial fit checks for LRASM on the F-35 have been completed. Planned integration efforts will continue through 2021.”

[NRao]

US Air Force's Roper views supersonic transportation as service's next “Prime” technology

20 JANUARY 2021

by Pat Host

The US Air Force’s (USAF’s) outgoing acquisition chief has laid the foundation for supersonic transportation, which is a flight faster than Mach 1 (1,236 km/h at sea level) but slower than Mach 5, to be the service’s next “Prime” technology.

Will Roper, the outgoing assistant secretary for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (AT&L), told Janes on 19 January, his last day in the position, that the USAF’s executive office for presidential aircraft and executive airlift is working with AFWERX, the service’s small business outreach effort, on supersonic transport. Roper wants to leverage the service’s certification and mission sets to accelerate the market for this technology and increase confidence in it in the same way it approached Agility Prime, the service’s electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) technology programme.



As he leaves the USAF at noon ET on 20 January, Roper said it will be up to the service this year under new President Joseph Biden, who takes office on 20 January, to decide whether to implement his strategy.

“I think all the ingredients are there for another successful family member to join,” he said.

The USAF has issued small business contracts to Exosonic, Hermeus, and Boom Supersonic for work on a potential supersonic executive transport aircraft. Roper said the service is evaluating whether it makes sense to bring these various contracts into one programmatic purview, the way it did with Agility Prime.

[brar_w]

From the IN thread:

The USN is most likely to field RG and lasers first on its warships this decade

The US already fields lasers on warships. USS Portland is deployed with such a capability (see video and images below).And DDG-105 also has a HEL which got installed back in late 2019.

Currently, 1 DDG-51 is being outfitted and will also deploy with a laser weapon this summer. 8 more DDG-51's Flight IIA's have options for a laser weapon built into the original contract. If exercised then they will have the first 11 ships outfitted with HEL by 2023 (USS Portland + 10 DDG-51 IIA's). Folks may not remember, but much of the work towards a "navalized" High Energy Laser system in terms of ruggedizing it for a shipborne and at-sea (salt and other considerations) environment, and the aero-optical environment of defeating targets over water, was done way back by the USS Ponce when it had a laser weapon deployed on it years ago. So they aren't taking land based systems and trying to figure out naval use but feeding off of what they learned from the experience with USS Ponce. Also, both the Portland, and the HELIOS on the DDG-51 features the laser weapon integrated into the combat system itself as opposed to a stand-alone implementation as was the case with the Ponce trials. So on the DDG-51, AEGIS will treat the laser weapon much like any other option at its disposal to defeat a particular threat.

Hypersonic likewise will be deployed on submarines. In about 3-4 years time, submarines will deploy with the IR-CPS system . They want intermediate range hypersonic capability (3000 km or more) and not the short - medium range stuff. Hence submarines first as the weapons are too large to go on surface combatants until new vertical launch cells are developed. No short-range "hypersonic" weapons are planned for naval vessels. But a Mach 5+ class weapon capable of both surface and land attack is going to be fielded by 2023 in the form of 21" SM-6 1B but that is neither BGV nor an Air-Breathing scramjet so I won't bucket it under "hypersonics" as the term is currently used. Scramjet missiles will likely only be outfitted on carrier strike fighters as lack the range to earn their way into a VL cell at the expense of longer ranged fires.

Railguns are a bit of a dead end as far as shore based attack is concerned. No one needs that mission bad enough to add that many requirements and cost to a warship design to accommodate that sized of a railgun for that mission (where you are looking at 200+ km projectiles like HVP). But you change the requirements, and look at a Railgun from a ship self-defense (cruise and ballistic missile defense) perspective then the aperture begins to open significantly in terms of what future designs can accommodate it. This is because for that mission the railgun itself does not need to be as powerful as the demonstrator the US Navy built. But even then, there are very few ships in the world that currently have a space, weight, power and cooling margins to support a railgun. So railgun implementation will very require the next generation class of combatants as back-fitting on existing ships (with the exception of the Zumwalt class) is not going to be practically possible. Lasers don't have those limitations. With few exceptions, lasers can be successfully backfitted with the power level scaling being determined by ship design power margins. If the margins are small then you will have smaller magazine and lower power which is still useful in dealing with UAV's, and other short range subsonic threats (and as dazzlers). If you have more power and storage margins then you can scale up to 100s of kW's and then you have cruise missile defense capability. The core components are very similar and architecturally the HELIOS (what is going on the DDG-51 class) is very similar irrespective of whether a 60 kW HEL is fielded or a 300-kW version is fielded.

USS Portland live-testing its laser weapon system:



USS Dewey (DDG - 105 ) fitted with its laser weapon:

[brar_w]

By my estimate, the Lots 15-17 negotiated contract should be in excess of 450 aircraft with firm orders for non US users and firm options for US services that will be definitized on a year by year basis (Lot 15 at the time of concluding the deal and 16 and 17 each year after that much like they do now). The US budget for FY-21 already funds 96 aircraft (which will be part of the LOT-15, the first lot under this 3-year deal) so that gives us a 3-year range of between 250-300 aircraft for the US assuming everything stays flat or even has a downward pressure to account for inflation (i.e. real topline reduction by single digit percent). Another 150 or thereabout to account for partner and FMS customers. I don't think they'll quite get to 500 in this three-year deal but they could get pretty close if a few of the partner/FMS decisions to add additional aircraft quantities falls within this order period.

Next F-35 Contracts Under Negotiation, Deal Expected by Late September

The F-35 Joint Program Office, Lockheed Martin, and Pratt & Whitney are negotiating prices for the 15th through 17th lots of Lightning II fighters and engines, aiming for a deal by the end of September.

The contracting strategy is to negotiate a “base year” contract for Lot 15, with “two single-year options (Lots 16 and 17),” a JPO spokeswoman said. While the air vehicles are under negotiation, the “propulsion Lot 15-17 proposal is currently in technical evaluation,” the spokeswoman said. Although Lockheed quotes prices publicly for F-35s with engines included, the government negotiates with the engine maker separately. The Lightning II is powered by Pratt’s F135 turbofan.

The strategy likely buys time for the F-35 to finally exit engineering and manufacturing development and be declared ready for full-rate production, a milestone postponed last month for the third time by former Pentagon acquisition and sustainment chief Ellen Lord.

The Lot 15-17 contracts will also mark the first major deals for the F135 engine conducted with Pratt under the ownership of Raytheon Technologies, which formally took over the engine maker in April 2020. Pratt was previously owned by United Technologies.

The program office expects to conclude both the air vehicle and propulsion talks within fiscal 2021, the spokeswoman said. Lot 15 air vehicles “are planned to be fully funded and awarded in FY’21,” but the Lot 16 and 17 options would be exercised in fiscal year 2022 and 2023, respectively, “when funding becomes available.”

The Lots 15-17 contracts were originally expected to include a multi-year “block buy” agreement including the U.S. However, by law, the U.S. cannot enter into a multiyear procurement arrangement for a weapon system until it has passed Milestone C, or full-rate production. The F-35 most recently was supposed to clear Milestone C in March, but Lord postponed that declaration until further notice, due to ongoing challenges integrating the F-35 with the Pentagon’s Joint Simulation Environment—a wargaming system that helps Pentagon leaders decide on optimum force sizes for various weapon platforms. Lord’s move leaves it up to the Biden administration to declare whether and when the F-35 is ready for full-rate production.

When the Lot 12-14 contract was announced in October 2019, Lord said the F-35 had completed 90 percent of the tasks necessary to pass Milestone C.

U.S. partners in the F-35 program are already participating in a “block buy” arrangement with Lockheed Martin.

The $34 billion October 2019 contract, which covered Lots 12-14, achieved Lockheed and the JPO’s longstanding goal of getting the unit cost of the F-35A below $80 million a copy. That contract, the largest yet for the fighter, included 478 aircraft; 291 for U.S. military services and 127 for foreign users. It also marked a 12.8 percent drop in the price of the Air Force version of the Lightning II over Lot 11. Engine costs had only declined 3.5 percent versus the previous lot.

Lots 15-17 will likely involve a slightly larger number of aircraft.

Industry officials said they expect smaller cost reductions in the F-35 from now on, as the production line is nearly at capacity and peak efficiency. The 2019 contract was the “big bang” deal, said one, in which Lockheed “pushed it” to get the unit cost below $80 million. At that price, the fifth-generation F-35 costs less than fourth-generation types like the F-15EX, but its operating cost remains significantly higher.

Lockheed missed its delivery quota of F-35s in 2020 by about 20 airplanes, due to delays incurred by the COVID-19 pandemic. Michele Evans, former Lockheed aeronautics vice president, said in the fall the company expects to gradually make up those missed deliveries by around 2023, noting it did not want to disrupt the production enterprise for a brief surge to get back to par.

[NRao]

Not sure if they will happen, hope they do, but here goes:

(A great ride with Roper)

Will Roper to whoever replaces him at Air Force: Stay agile

Written by Jackson Barnett
JAN 19, 2021 | FEDSCOOP
As the Air Force‘s top technology and acquisition official departs the Pentagon at the end of the Trump administration, he’s leaving with a final message: Stay agile or lose to China.

Will Roper, the assistant secretary of acquisition, technology and logistics, expects to move on soon, given that he’s a presidential appointee and the incoming Biden administration has not clarified his fate at the DOD. His more than two years in the role saw many changes, like the creation of Pitch Days, AFventures and other programs, but the one he said he is most proud of is the cultural shift to be more agile and technology-driven force.

Those changes are important, Roper says, because warfighting is now a world of data, IT and agility where winners and losers will be determined by who leans harder into tech.

“You have to be ready for disruption,” Roper said in closing a one-on-one interview Thursday with FedScoop after his final press round table.

And with that in mind, “the role of the service acquisition executive is now different,” he said as the interview wrapped up. “There has to be different people for at least a period of time.”

What he means is that for now, acquisition chiefs should be more like him, with deep technology expertise that extends to modern software development. Just being an expert in contracting or procurement isn’t enough, Roper said.

The need for change is driven by the new form of great power competition between the U.S. and China — an adversary Roper said will always draw his attention, whether he’s working inside or outside of government.

The list of important topics, Roper said, includes software development, cloud, Kubernetes technology and other software development processes. He said he drew on his experience in those areas daily to carry out his duties as the top buyer for the Air Force and Space Force.

Roper also pointed to specific programs that he believes should remain a priority in the next administration:

ABMS

One of the programs that needs disruption and a continued drive for innovation, he said, is the Advanced Battle Management System. The family of systems is the Air Force’s technical contribution to the Joint All Domain Command and Control (JADC2) concept where all networks are linked, data is ubiquitously shared and a military internet of things could be controlled by iPad-wielding generals.

Roper has been one of the program’s biggest boosters. He has evangelized it in press conferences, webinars and before a skeptical Congress. One of his last meetings will be with the Rapid Capability Office, the group that he recently designated to be the program executive for ABMS.

“I have given them a recipe and done a lot of sous chef-ing,” he said of the hand off.

The creation of an acquisition strategy was one of the program’s sticking points on Capitol Hill. Congress was unwilling to give the program its multi-hundred-million-dollar request because lawmakers say it lacked strategy. The Government Accountability Office had dinged the program for the same reason. But Roper insisted in his interview with FedScoop that the timing was right and the program’s overall development was inline with the agile processes he wants the DOD to continue once he is gone.

“If we had tried to do this a year ago, everything would have been fictitious,” he said of designating the RCO as PEO and finalizing the strategy on his way out the door. ABMS has been developed through a series of events that aimed to test the whole eco-system of technology, instead of having a piece-by-piece approach where parts of the system are procured and then scaled up. The last major test event Roper oversaw in September was the “birth” of the military internet of things, he said.

“I think we made the pivot at the right time,” he said.

IT as a warfighting system

Another one of Roper’s main phrases he liked to repeat was the need to consider IT as an integral part of warfighting. ABMS runs on IT, he said, and so should the rest of the future of military systems.

“IT and connectivity may be the most important thing” to sustain, he said. Much of the funding of technology competition has been poured into research and development dollars, an important step but not the full-picture, he added.

To continue to recruit young airmen and to sustain advancing technologies, dollars needed to be allocated to not only developing new technology but also to investments in back-end systems, he said.

“Buying the lowest-price technically-acceptable solutions, a tech company would never do that,” he said. Implicit in that: neither should the Air Force.

[brar_w]

‘Defiant X’ is the meaner, pointier Sikorsky-Boeing pitch to replace Black Hawk

Sikorsky and Boeing have unveiled a refined vision of the Defiant compound coaxial helicopter, the team’s ultimate pitch to replace the U.S. Army’s Black Hawk helicopters with a speedy Future Long Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA).

The companies have released splashy renderings of the “Defiant X” and a video showing it performing demanding battlefield duty — cruising through forested ravines with an underslung artillery cannon, landing troops in combat formation — but were cagey with reporters about how the new design improves on the SB>1 Defiant prototype currently flying.

Images of Defiant X reveal a noticeably pointier nose cone, relocation of the engine exhaust outlet from aft of the main rotor assembly, lateral reshaping of the airframe and tail boom and chevron-style tail fins. All are enhancements to the existing design that reduce Defiant’s thermal signature and improve aerodynamic handling, according to the Defiant team.

Defiant X also has a tricycle-style landing gear with one wheel under the cockpit and two wheels aft whereas the operational protype Defiant sported two front wheels and a tail wheel that protruded down from its tail boom. The new configuration “improves stability and landing and taxiing in combat and austere environments,” according to the Defiant team.

The signature coaxial, counter-rotating main rotor system and eight-bladed aft pusher propeller configuration remain essentially unchanged, thought some refinements to the rotor hubs may have been made to enhance aerodynamic efficiency, according to Jay Macklin, Sikorsky’s director of Future Vertical Lift business development.

Changes made to the Defiant are the result of data “flowing back and forth with the Army,” Macklin said in a Jan. 22 conference call with reporters. Macklin did not divulge much about the Defiant’s redesign, except to say the “X” iteration includes speed, survivability and other “enhancements” of capabilities demonstrated by the SB>1.

“Working very closely with the Army on requirements maturation, we’ve looked to optimize our design to what the Army’s looking for and you can see different changes to the aircraft that we believe provide the best level of performance,” Macklin said. “It’s a journey that we’re on with the Army.”

None of the renderings provided by the Defiant team show weapons mounted on the aircraft.

Macklin said Defiant X is a “combat weapon system that builds on the handling qualities and transformational capability proven by all of the data that we’ve produced out of CD&RR as well as the team’s technology demonstrator.”

Heather McBryan, director of sales and marketing for Boeing’s Future Vertical Lift programs, said changes were made to the “mold line” of the aircraft and that its aerodynamics are balanced with thermal signature. “The nose cone is a good example of what we’re doing with aerodynamics and I’m not saying that won’t change, but that’s where we are at today,” McBryan said. .

“We’re really driving a purpose-built solution to not only focus on the Army’s mission, but we’re also providing provisions for growth, improved supportability and innovations for a maintenance-friendly design,” McBryan said.

Despite recent refinements, Defiant X has the same footprint as the SB>1 Defiant demonstration aircraft, which was designed to fit in the same operational footprint as the Black Hawk. Macklin would not discuss aircraft weight, but said the aircraft is “very similar” to the existing Defiant demonstration aircraft.

“As you look at a photo of this aircraft and then you look at Defiant, I mean, there are some changes, but I think what’s important is the basic configuration of the aircraft is the same,” Macklin said. “It’s important to see that this aircraft, this technology, can take these kind of design iterations without a wholesale design or significant change. It’s making the product better in conjunction with our Army partners.”

Defiant and its prime competitor — Bell’s V-280 Valor advanced tiltrotor — resulted from the Joint Multirole Technology Demonstration (JMR-TD) program the Army launched in 2013. Both teams are operating demonstration aircraft and using the data collected to refine their FLRAA pitches under competitive demonstration and risk reduction (CD&RR) contracts awarded by the Army.

Sikorsky, the incumbent manufacturer of the UH-60 and now owned by Lockheed Martin, has promised to deliver scalable compound coaxial helicopters that can dramatically improve on the performance of conventional rotorcraft. Sikorsky has so far scaled its X2 technology — the basic configuration of counter-spinning, coaxial rotors paired with a clutched aft pusher propeller — from the 10,000-pound (5,000 kilogram) S-97 Raider to the 30,000-lb. (15,000 kg) Defiant.

Defiant has logged 1,500 hours in Sikorsky’s systems integration laboratory (SIL), and 135 hours on the ground-based propulsion systems test bed (PSTB). After a rocky start, Defiant roared through a series of test milestones in 2020.

In the two years since its first flight, the demonstration aircraft has performed 31 test flights, accumulating 26 total flight hours, according to the Defiant team. With two-thirds prop torque and engine power, Defiant has achieved 211 knots in straight-and-level flight and 232 knots during a descent.

Sikorsky and Boeing can be forgiven for playing performance characteristics of their aircraft close to the vest. Not only is the FLRAA competition ongoing, but the Army has not formalized its requirements. The Army is expected to release a formal request for proposals on FLRAA later this year, with a contract award expected in 2022 for one of the two industry competitors continuing to production. First delivered of FLRAA are expected by 2030.

Currently flying SB>1 prototype:



Defiant X (the heat signature suppression with the exhaust changes is quite prominent here as are the other aero modifications):



This is not the first time Sikorsky has blended the exhaust like that (Image of a Comanche below):

[brar_w]

U.S. sends carrier into South China Sea as Chinese bombers fly near Taiwan

The U.S. sent an aircraft carrier strike group into the disputed South China Sea the same day China dispatched a fleet of 13 warplanes — including nuclear-capable bombers — into the southwestern corner of Taiwan’s air defense identification zone (ADIZ).

The dispatch of the USS Theodore Roosevelt strike group to the waterway on Saturday was seen as an implicit message to China just days after the inauguration of U.S. President Joe Biden amid a lowpoint in Sino-American ties.

It was unclear if the timing of the Chinese moves near Taiwan and the Roosevelt entering the South China Sea were related, but satellite imagery and tracking websites appeared to show that the carrier had transited the Bashi Channel between Taiwan and the Philippines the same day. The distance between the bombers and the carrier group would have put it within striking distance of Chinese YJ-12 anti-ship missiles, which some of the warplanes have reportedly been outfitted with.

The U.S. Indo-Pacific Command said in a statement Sunday that the carrier strike group was “on a scheduled deployment to the U.S. 7th Fleet to ensure freedom of the seas.”

The strike group was conducting “maritime security operations, which include flight operations with fixed and rotary-wing aircraft, maritime strike exercises, and coordinated tactical training between surface and air units,” the statement added.

[NRao]

15 hours ago:

USAF U-2S Dragon Lady 80-1087 from Osan AB, South Korea entering the South China Sea. (USS Theodore Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group is nearby).

Another tweet, same author:

[brar_w]

USN begins I-Stalker LREOSS fits to carriers

The US Navy (USN) has revealed initial installations of its Improved Stalker (I-Stalker) Long Range Electro-Optic Sensor System (LREOSS) on two Nimitz-class nuclear-powered aircraft carriers (CVNs).

The l-Stalker programme, also known as AN/SAY-3, is a rapid deployment capability for fleet urgent operational needs (UONs) to support the security and protection of USN ships through the provision of improved shipboard situational awareness capabilities to combat fast attack craft/fast inshore attack craft. The system replaces the earlier Stalker LREOSS system, which is itself a modular, portable, form/fit replacement for the NATO SeaSparrow Missile System (NSSMS) MK 6 Low Light Level Television (LLLTV).

Stalker was developed to enhance the USN’s ability to detect, classify, identify, and determine hostile intent of potential threats to its ships, with experimental prototypes originally tested on CVNs and large amphibious ships from 2008. In response to a counter-swarm UON raised by US Naval Forces Central Command in 2010, a sole-source contract was awarded to Ball Aerospace in September 2012 for a single Stalker (NSSMS MK 6 MOD 4 LLLTV) Independent Mount (IM) experimental prototype system and eight Stalker (NSSMS MK 6 MOD 3 LLLTV) Director Mount (DM) developmental prototype systems (the IM configuration being deployed on ships not having the NSMSS missile system). A second sole-source contract to procure 12 DM systems, three IM systems, and upgrade eight of the developmental LREOSS prototypes to a production configuration was let to Ball Aerospace in April 2014.

More on I-Stalker:

“The I-Stalker provides 24/7 surveillance imagery, aiding the operator to provide situational awareness to support determination of intent for both own-ship and own-ship deployable assets that can be applied to counter surface and airborne threats,” she says.

“It provides the fleet with threat recognition, identification, and intent and multiple threat and swarm differentiation, and tracking in radar denied environments such as weather, electromagnetic interference (EMI), and jamming, and passive threat tracking to maintain readiness and avoid rules of engagement conflicts.” LINK

[brar_w]

The US already fields lasers on warships. USS Portland is deployed with such a capability (see video and images below).And DDG-105 also has a HEL which got installed back in late 2019.

Currently, 1 DDG-51 is being outfitted and will also deploy with a laser weapon this summer. 8 more DDG-51's Flight IIA's have options for a laser weapon built into the original contract. If exercised then they will have the first 11 ships outfitted with HEL by 2023 (USS Portland + 10 DDG-51 IIA's).

Slight correction. The ODIN which is a lower power High Energy Laser system (meant to blind sensors mostly) is actually being fitted on more destroyers than I had anticipated. Currently, it is already active on at least 3 DDG-51 class ships - DDG-105 (mentioned earlier), DDG-106, and DDG-111.

HELIOS which retains ODIN's dazzler capabilities but also ups the power to physically destroy UAV's and FAC's is going on board one DDG-51 class ship right now and that ship will deploy later this summer. Another HELIOS is being installed on a land based test site. 8 additional HELIOS units are on option so in total between ODIN and HELIOS we could see more than dozen laser equipped Burke class ships. USS Portland as I mentioned is already deployed with a High Energy Laser. So in total, between 13-15 High Energy Laser equipped ships could be deployed by 2023 or so. Additional HEL installations are planned but not yet funded. We should learn more about those plans (even talks about outfitting the smaller surface combatants) in this year's upcoming budget submission.

DDG-111 with ODIN installed:



Same on DDG-106:



Interestingly, all three of these DDG-51's have mostly operated in the Pacific and two are often supporting the 7th fleet. DDG-105 will be deploying with USS Carl Vinson in the coming few weeks which will a landmark Carrier cruise for the US navy that will introduce many firsts for both the support group and the air-wing.

[brar_w]

Add that to the collection of Flankers, Fulcrums, S-300's and other Air Defense kit -

The United States Smuggled A Russian-Made Pantsir Air Defense System Out Of Libya: Report

The U.S. military reportedly spirited a Russian-made Pantsir-S1 air defense system out of Libya last year, after it was captured from forces aligned with rogue general Khalifa Haftar. The operation had the immediate ostensible aim of preventing the system from falling into the hands of any number of militant and terrorist groups in that country, but there would also be clear intelligence benefits from obtaining a largely intact example of this system, which Russia operates and has also exported widely.

British newspaper The Times was first to report the covert mission, which it said took place in June 2020. A U.S. Air Force C-17A Globemaster III transport aircraft is said to have flown to Zuwarah International Airport, situated to the west of Tripoli, to pick up the Pantsir-S1, which it then flew to Ramstein Air Base in Germany.

It's not clear exactly what model of Pantsir-S1 was reportedly recovered. Haftar's Libyan National Army (LNA) received a number of these systems by way of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which purchased a distinct version that uses German-made 8x8 MAN SX truck chassis. Pictures had also emerged last year reportedly showing examples of the standard Russian type, which uses an 8x8 KAMAZ-6560 truck chassis, and is also the primary export configuration, in service with the LNA...

[NRao]

AFRL holds new directed energy wargaming event

Maj. Daniel Liu, an F-15E weapon systems officer from Seymour Johnson AFB, N.C., participates in the Air Force Research Laboratory Directed Energy Utility Concept Experiment held at Kirtland AFB, N.M. Jan. 11-15. AFRL's Directed Energy Directorate held the capstone event to evaluate the capabilities of directed energy for the future battlefield. (U.S. Air Force photo/Todd Berenger)


KIRTLAND AIR FORCE BASE, N.M. – The Air Force Research Laboratory Directed Energy Directorate recently held its newest wargaming, modeling and simulation event at Kirtland Air Force Base.

The Directed Energy Utility Concept Experiment, or DEUCE, under the leadership of the directorate’s wargaming team, brought together F-16 pilots, F-15E weapon systems officers and an Airborne Warning and Control System air battle manager, with the goal of evaluating the capabilities of directed energy for the future battlefield.

“DEUCE exposed our visiting warfighters to airborne laser weapon systems and how they might be used to counter threats to accomplish air base air defense and platform protect missions,” said Teresa LeGalley, AFRL/RD’s wargaming and simulation lead.

“We engaged the warfighters in several battlefield scenarios. They gave us some excellent assessments, identifying where there is potential military utility of directed energy weapons.”

Capt. Scott Seidenberger, from the 552nd Air Control Wing at Tinker AFB, Oklahoma, served as the DEUCE Air Battle Manager. He explained the importance of the exercise to the operators and to the research being done at AFRL.

“The DEUCE event was a great opportunity to integrate operators into the research and development process,” Seidenberger said. “In this series of simulations, we were able to bring our operator experience to test advanced capabilities to meet the high-end threats we face today.”

“As a command-and-control subject matter expert, I was able to help better align AFRL's modeling and simulation to what we would expect to see in the operational environment,” Seidenberger explained. “And as communicated by the Air Force's most senior leadership, we need to stay agile in our technological development if we are to accelerate change!"

LeGalley said AFRL sees exercises like DEUCE providing valuable operator inputs and engagement evaluations to supplement technical analysis.

“Together, they provide critical information to the Air Force in evaluating how to implement new technologies,” LeGalley said. “It also gives warfighters insight into emerging technologies and how they may be used.”

Maj. Daniel Liu, an F-15E WSO from the 4th Fighter Wing located at Seymour Johnson AFB, North Carolina, found DEUCE to be a valuable experience.

“This is a terrific exercise and good opportunity to see what warfighting can look like in the future.” Liu said. “We don’t get that many opportunities to work with AFRL. I look forward to sharing what I learned at DEUCE with the younger pilots and WSOs in our unit.”

AFRL expects to hold at least two DEUCE events each year on various directed energy technologies and scenarios.