Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Military / Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Last post by bobbymike on Yesterday at 11:49:20 pm »
Air Force plans hypersonic strike weapon contract award for late 2017

Quote
The Air Force wants to start work this year to put a hypersonic, conventional strike weapon on fighter and bomber aircraft, according to a July 21 Federal Business Opportunities notice. The service plans to award a contract to one of five companies in the first quarter of fiscal year 2018.

Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and Orbital ATK are the only companies that could meet the Air Force's needs in a reasonable amount of time, the FBO notice states. The service asks for a hypersonic, GPS- and inertially guided strike capability to fire against high-value fixed and moving targets in denied environments. Each weapon would use an undisclosed government-issued warhead.

The development and integration contract will span all work through the engineering and manufacturing development phase, according to FBO. A June 29 FBO post noted the weapon would be flown on existing aircraft and that companies need to design and analyze the new system for rapid fielding.

The Air Force did not respond to questions about the hypersonic strike effort by press time (July 24).

Notice of Contract Action (NOCA) - The Long Range Systems Division (AFLCMC/EBJ) intends to solicit proposals from limited sources and award contracts for the development and integration of an air-launched hypersonic conventional strike weapon (HCSW) with both fighter and bomber aircraft platforms.  Integration will include mission planning operations and support.  The HCSW will provide a prompt (Hypersonic/Hypervelocity), precision strike capability against high-value, time-critical fixed and relocatable surface targets in a single or multi-theater challenged (A2/AD) environment. It will utilize Global Position System (GPS)/Inertial Guidance System (INS) for navigation and terminal guidance with a Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) warhead.  It is anticipated that the contract will be awarded in the 1st quarter of FY18.  The contract will include all necessary effort through Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD).


This effort will be awarded using other than full and open competition to the successful offeror under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1), as implemented by FAR 6.302-1 - Only One Responsible Source and No Other Supplies or Services Will Satisfy Agency Requirements, among the limited sources. Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon Missile Systems, and Orbital ATK (Arizona) are the only firms that appear to possess the necessary capability within the Air Force's time frame without causing an unacceptable delay in meeting the needs of the warfighter.
Should be awarding multiple contracts for multiple designs IMHO to maximize competition and invigorate the industrial base for high speed weapons research.
2
To bullshit:

Air Force 1 can go way beyond the limits of an everyday commercial aircraft. The air crafts top speed is 1,126 MPH. While normal flights fly at 30,000 feet, AF1 goes to 45,100, an impressive 15,000 feet higher.

Well, in fairness, the main error there was that they confused km/h with mph. The VC-25s maxes out near 1,126 km/h; that's right around Mach 0.93. They're also failing to realize that commercial jets can fly rather higher than 30,000 ft, but it is true that the VC-25 can operate happily at 45,000 ft. The speed is a mistake, but it's not a shocking error to make for people who aren't super-involved in aviation.
3
Military / Re: Gerald R. Ford Class CVN
« Last post by sferrin on Yesterday at 06:17:04 pm »
If you have a reference available regarding the "unusual alternative configurations examined" for aircraft to be launched from Ford class carriers could you share them so that we all might gain better understanding of how EMALs was selected.  Thanks in advance.

He wasn't speaking of EMALS specifically but the class in general.  Ford is actually quite tame compared to some configurations considered.
4
Military / Re: Standard SM-3 News & Dev.
« Last post by sferrin on Yesterday at 06:16:00 pm »
What makes me scratch my head is how they were able to test Spartan at least 24 times and Sprint nearly 50 (with 42 of the latter being over a period of only 3 years).  Imagine how "proven" and reliable GBI and the rest would be with that kind of attention devoted to them.
5
Military / Re: Gerald R. Ford Class CVN
« Last post by Triton on Yesterday at 05:09:02 pm »
If you have a reference available regarding the "unusual alternative configurations examined" for aircraft to be launched from Ford class carriers could you share them so that we all might gain better understanding of how EMALs was selected.  Thanks in advance.

"CVN-77, CVX, and CVN-21 Design Studies"
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,809.0.html
6
Military / Re: Gerald R. Ford Class CVN
« Last post by VH on Yesterday at 04:56:38 pm »
If you have a reference available regarding the "unusual alternative configurations examined" for aircraft to be launched from Ford class carriers could you share them so that we all might gain better understanding of how EMALs was selected.  Thanks in advance.
7
Military / Re: Standard SM-3 News & Dev.
« Last post by marauder2048 on Yesterday at 04:33:53 pm »
FTM-21 which featured a salvo of two SM-3 Block IBs against one ARAV-C++ was stated to cost $31 million in total (range, target, interceptors, sensors)
The per unit cost for SM-3 Block IB for that period was ~ $12 million.  Couldn't find a unit cost for ARAV-C++ but the SM-3s alone constitute
at least three quarters of the total test cost.

8
The Bar / NASA Jets Chase The Total Solar Eclipse
« Last post by sferrin on Yesterday at 03:48:22 pm »

9
Military / Re: Gerald R. Ford Class CVN
« Last post by Colonial-Marine on Yesterday at 03:30:28 pm »
Considering some of the unusual alternative configurations examined earlier in the program I am also unimpressed by all of the hand-wringing over all of the risk involved in CVN-78.
10
Military / Re: Gerald R. Ford Class CVN
« Last post by Triton on Yesterday at 02:45:47 pm »
Well so much for that "oh noes it's the end of everything!" problem. Well done to the software team getting it worked out, on to the next problem.

Yep.  Hasn't stopped the Chicken Littles from running around, "oh, nos the Ford was way, WAY too many steps forward" and wringing their panties about "risk" though.  They'd have had us build more Nimitzs until the end of time.

Just add another $2.5 billion to the cost and another three years to the schedule during a period of sequestration.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10