美 공군 고등훈련기 (T-X) 도입 사업 관련 AW&ST 기사

 

 

 

Blue Sky Training

Money permitting, USAF could use simulator advances to rethink fast-jet training with T-X

Aviation Week & Space Technology, 11/28/2011

 

Training and simulation technologies have evolved dramatically since the Pentagon purchased its last fast-jet trainer in the 1960s. This opens a world of possibilities for the U.S. Air Force with its forthcoming T-X to fundamentally overhaul how it prepares pilots for the F-22 and F-35.

 

But the budget drama unfolding in Washington could mean the Air Force will find itself short of the money to take full advantage of these advances for a T-38C replacement in the near term.

 

Several indicators point to a delay in the T-X project to develop the next fast-jet trainer. Gen. Edward Rice, who heads the Air Force Education and Training Command (AETC), said in September that the service has some “flexibility” in how long it can wait to start a new program. Though his predecessor, Gen. (ret.) Stephen Lorenz, had acknowledged this fact, he also pushed more aggressively for the T-X program to begin soon because of the risk of a catastrophic failure on the Northrop Grumman T-38C, a fleet averaging 43.5 years in age.

 

Though the average age of a U.S. Air Force T-38C is 43.5 years, the service is wrangling with when it can afford to begin a program to replace the fast-jet trainers. Rice, by contrast, opened the door to supporting a delay. He was likely preparing the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Congress and industry for an inevitable slip to the T-X due to pressure to cut programs and produce near-term savings to support federal debt reduction. However, one former service official notes that “every time we push it to the right, we are assuming more risk” of a failure or safety issue on the T-38C.

 

In addition, in October, a scheduled Defense Acquisition Board review of procurement strategy options for the T-X was tabled indefinitely, pending more work to determine the depth of cuts to be undertaken by the Pentagon. The Air Force has, however, conducted an analysis of alternatives to support a T-X procurement and senior service officials are pushing to take advantage of available technologies rather than pursuing a clean-sheet design.

 

Despite wrangling over funding and timing, the T-X program represents a significant opportunity for the Air Force to reimagine fighter-pilot training because of the introduction of new aids, such as immersive simulators, and networking tools that allow for real-time assessments of student performance that have not been possible with the T-38C system and its ground-based adjunct.

 

Ultimately, these new technologies would allow the Air Force to change how it uses the simulator. Today, it is mostly a tool to prepare students for time in the T-38C cockpit, but a new approach could call for students to actually develop and practice some skills almost exclusively in the simulator, says John Gillis, undergraduate flying training pipeline manager at AETC.

 

“If you put together a product with a lower amount of flight hours [needed], enabled by the latest technology and high-fidelity simulators, . . . in a future state, you spend less dollars per pilot coming through,” says Col. Kenneth Griffin, chief of the flying training requirements division at AETC. But the graduate is “a more capable, highly trained pilot.” Some skills that could be taught mainly in a high-definition simulator are basic formation flying, night-vision goggle use and flying low-altitude routes.

 

If the Air Force opts to begin the T-X sooner rather than later, there could be an unprecedented and unintended effect for the winning contractor team. The international coalition knitted together to develop and buy the F-35 could unify the Joint Strike Fighter nations that have yet to commit to a new trainer around a more like-minded approach based on the USAF decision. This could allow partners to capitalize on economies of scale and ensure uniformity for training pilots headed for service in the F-35. One interesting dynamic, however, is that two of three expected T-X bidders are from F-35 nations already embarking on new fast-jet training programs: Italy, buying the Aermacchi M-346, and the U.K., purchasing the BAE Systems Hawk Mk. 128.

 

Movements in industry to further define the teams vying for the contract are unlikely to take place while the Air Force struggles with the larger budget questions. BAE has selected Northrop Grumman to be its stateside manufacturing lead in offering a system based on the Hawk. A Lockheed Martin/Korean Aerospace Industries team is offering a T-50-based proposal, and Alenia is planning to propose an M-346-based concept.

 

As affordability is paramount for the T-X — the former service official hopes for an aircraft that will cost less than $25 million apiece — the Air Force is weighing the cost and benefits of buying various technologies in today’s constrained budget environment. At issue is how many expensive flight hours would be needed to train a student versus how much work can be done in ground-based simulators and classrooms.

 

Advances in immersive simulation technology give the service at least the option of handling more skills-training on the ground than ever before for this mission area. This is part of the reason the Air Force is able to replace 433 T-38Cs with roughly 350 T-X aircraft, the former Air Force official notes. Additionally, though, the Air Force is shrinking its fighter force structure, reducing the demand on pilot production.

 

While simulators are expensive to buy up front, the former Air Force official notes that with the T-X’s life expected to be at least 40 years, the benefit will come over time in reduced operations cost. Today, T-38C training is tilted roughly 71% in favor of cockpit time, with 95.7 hr. required; only 38.2 hr. are required in a simulator.

 

“The more mature simulation gets and the more real it gets, the more opportunity you have to save money and to more cost-effectively train,” says Robert Wood, who is leading BAE’s Hawk campaign.

 

Some skills, however, such as executing high-g maneuvers, conducting air-to-air refueling and using night-vision goggles, can be honed on the ground but must ultimately be tested in the cockpit, and these are among the key parameters for the aircraft portion of the forthcoming T-X bids.

 

Companies vying for the work agree that pilots graduating from a T-X course will be better trained and more prepared to take on the challenging task of piloting F-22 and F-35 aircraft, which demand a new level of mental acuity, dubbed an “information management” requirement by the Air Force, to manage an unprecedented amount of data being piped into the cockpit. This higher level of preparation is largely due to the training and simulator technologies that, while used in civil aviation for years, will be new to Air Force fighter-pilot students.

 

Among these new technologies is a networked environment, which is ubiquitous in everyday life today but post-dates the older training environment fighter-pilot students still use.

 

However, the technology can dramatically impact how training courses are taught, how students are assessed and even how syllabi can be improved over time, says one industry executive. “Today, with the learning management tools we are using, we can see how a student is responding to the instructional material, how the group is responding to the instructional material and how effective the instructional material is,” says another executive.

 

An example on the ground is a basic takeoff in a desktop tool; the courseware grades in real time how well the student is following procedures and gives real-time feedback on performance. In the more complex cockpit setting, data links connecting aircraft allow for students to conduct live air-to-air engagements and, without the use of a radar, to train as though an onboard radar and radar-guided weapons are in use. The system uses a database to assess the engagement and determine if a kill took place immediately, according to BAE officials. This allows for students to retrain to a scenario immediately while in the air if needed. In the T-38C, much of the assessment work takes place on the ground after landing.

 

Finally, the overarching T-X information backbone can track the progress of students and the courseware in a quantitative fashion, the first industry executive says. If a course appears to trip up students consistently in a particular spot, instructors can rework it to improve the instruction.

 

Another benefit of networking is that upgrades can be inserted into the system holistically. Today, some T-38C ground-based coursework uses more modern versions of what is available in the aircraft.

 

BAE’s contracts and subcontracts director, Raymond Piselli, says his company prefers to refer to the database capability as “emulation” for pilots rather than simulation. The database would allow for instruments in the cockpit of the Hawk, for example, to produce the symbology that a pilot would see in a fighter; this would be tailored for the U.S. to work with the F-22 and F-35 symbology.

 

This capability was on display during a two-ship training flight this month at NAS Oceana, Va., in which this Aviation Week reporter witnessed several long- and short-range air-to-air scenarios from the backseat of a Hawk Mk. 128 emulating a MiG 29 Fulcrum — the opposing aircraft emulated a Typhoon. During the engagements, a radar picture was displayed without an onboard radar; it was crafted using GPS locations relayed via data link and the use of data that depicts how both aircraft and their respective air-to-air weapons operate. Andy Blythe, who piloted the emulated Fulcrum, said the real-time kill assessments allow for more immediate learning for the pilot as opposed to having to recreate a scenario after an engagement to determine which skills need improving.

 

Each of the contractors say this technology is available in their offering, and Griffin says it is of interest to the Air Force. While Alenia and BAE are outlining their simulators and tools, Lockheed Martin officials are holding off on decisions about training devices until the actual request for proposals (RFP) is out, says Tom Quelly, global training and services director for Lockheed Martin. The company is providing the full-mission simulators for F-35 pilot training at Eglin AFB, Fla. But the system is very high-end and may exceed what the Air Force is willing to budget for the T-X. Quelly says Lockheed Martin will draw from work on the F-35 and C-130, as well as its experience with Babcock International in the Ascent joint venture that provides ground-based training for the Royal Air Force’s recent Hawk buy. (The aircraft and ground-based portions were procured separately.)

 

BAE plans to announce its ground-based training system subcontractor soon.

 

Boeing is on a team with Alenia under Singapore Technologies Aerospace to provide an M-346 training system to Singapore’s air force. CAE Inc. is on Alenia’s team for the Italian delivery and is supporting the company’s U.S. marketing plans; a formal announcement on the team is likely to come after the Air Force issues its RFP.

 

Lockheed Martin’s aeronautics sector is leading the company’s bid, backed by the global training systems sector with the ground-based training work.

 

Higher-fidelity training, especially simulation of cockpits employing sensors (radars and targeting capabilities) as well as defensive systems, could also help the Air Force “download” some training from the F-22 and F-35 units, says Ted Thompson, F-15 and F-22 training program manager at AETC. Some skills associated with the F-22 cannot now be replicated in the T-38C, forcing the service to use the F-22s, which have high per-hour flying costs, for proficiency development.

 

“Today’s pilots don’t see advanced sensors until they get to the F-22,” Griffin says. The T-X aircraft will not be required to contain those sensors, but pilots will become familiar with using them because of the simulation technology advances.

 

To address this shortfall in the near term, the Air Force took the unusual step in 2009 of contracting with Lockheed Martin to form a “bridge course” of F-16 work designed to fill the capability gap between the T-38C and F-22. The course includes eight flights in the F-16, says Thompson. The service has spent millions on this capability to date and expects to keep the contract active until the T-X is fielded.

 

Ultimately, however, shifting training from the F-22 and F-35 to a T-X would be a significant change for the Air Force. An example of this is taking place now in South Korea, which is fielding the T-50. Quelly says the air force there plans to shift about 50% of the training hours now handled on the F-16 into the T-50. Blythe says the U.K. is doing something similar in fielding the Hawk.

 

The T-X is expected to relieve some pressure on the F-22 force and the F-35 once it is fielded, allowing those fleets to spend training time on more exquisite skills or, possibly, recode more aircraft for combat rather than training. With no future dual-seat fighters planned, students must be as skilled as possible before taking the controls of an F-22 or F-35.

 

Griffin says the Air Force is continuing to refine its plans for fielding the T-X, and the fiscal 2013 budget going to Congress in February will “clarify” the way ahead for the T-38C replacement’s timing.

 

 

Recent Fast-Jet Trainer Sales  (Competitions are pending in the U.S., Poland and Israel)

 

Alenia Aermacchi M-346

First Flight                         July 2004

Italy                                   15

Singapore                          12

United Arab                        48

Emirates                            (contract pending)

 BAE Systems Hawk Mk. 128*

First Flight                         July 2005

Australia                            33

Canada                              22

South Africa                       24

Bahrain                              6

U.K.                                  28

India                                  123

*968 Hawks have been sold, including earlier versions.

Lockheed Martin/KAI T-50

First Flight                         August 2002

South Korea                       142 (including trainer, flight demo and light combat versions)

Indonesia                           16

            

Source: AW&ST

 

 

  Korean Aerospace Industries (KAI) T-50 Golden Eagle ⓒ Katsuhiko Tokunaga

 

  KAI T-50 Golden Eagle ⓒ Katsuhiko Tokunaga

 

  KAI T-50 Golden Eagle ⓒ Katsuhiko Tokunaga

 

  Alenia Aermacchi T-100 Master (prototype) ⓒ Finmeccanica

 

  Hawk AJT (Advanced Jet Trainer) ⓒ BAE Systems

 

  Hawk AJT ⓒ BAE Systems