Platform May Be the Key to Aerial Common Sensor Decision

By RICHARD R. BURGESS
Managing Editor

In an age of sophisticated warfare systems, the platform — a ship, aircraft or vehicle — is considered merely a “bus” that moves its mission sensors or weapons to the area of operations.

However, in the competition to develop and build the next-generation airborne intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) system for the Army and Navy, the performance qualities of the “bus” may be as influential as those of the sophisticated sensors within. Competitor teams for the contract, headed by Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, propose aircraft with fundamental differences in speed, range, payload and national origin.

The ISR plane, called the Aerial Common Sensor (ACS), is being designed to replace several existing aircraft, including the Army’s RC-12/RU-21 Guardrail planes and the Navy’s EP-3E long-range, land-based electronic reconnaissance aircraft. The Army’s Program Executive Officer for Intelligence, Electronic Warfare and Sensors will select one industry team to proceed with a 66-month system development and demonstration phase to cost $680 million through fiscal year 2009. The selection may come as early as this month. Initial operational capability of the ACS is scheduled for 2009.

The ACS concept is to incorporate a broad spectrum of sensors into one platform, including electro-optical and infrared sensors, synthetic aperture radar, electronic intelligence and communications intercept receivers, and a moving target indicator. The data collected could be processed on board the aircraft by the mission crew or linked to other platforms or the Distributed Common Ground Station, a deployable processing station for sensor data downlinked from airborne ISR platforms.

The aircraft will operate at altitudes above 37,000 feet, fly at speeds in excess of 400 miles per hour and conduct mission profiles of eight or more hours with an internal mission/crew payload of about 14,000 pounds. The ACS must be deployable anywhere in the world within 72 hours and sustain operations for 30 days with minimal support.

The Army plans to field 38 ACS aircraft between fiscal 2008 and 2017 at a cost yet to be determined by the Department of Defense, according to Army spokesman Tim Rider. In addition to the aging Guardrails, the ACS is to replace the service’s RC-7 Airborne Reconnaissance-Low aircraft fleet.

The Navy’s concept of operations indicates a requirement for 14 to 19 ACS aircraft. Initial deployment for the Navy is planned for fiscal 2012. The first two aircraft will be acquired in 2008, followed by two more in 2009.

The Navy has not yet released an estimate of the cost of its participation in the program, but has requested $24.9 million in research, development, testing and evaluation funds for fiscal 2005.

The service has been involved in the ACS program since last year as an interested partner and will formally join it after an Interim Program Review scheduled for October or November.

Navy Capt. Steve Eastburg, program manager for the ACS at the Naval Air Systems Command, said the service conducted a “requirements reconciliation” and “found very little difference” between the operational requirements of the Army and Navy. The only significant change needed by the Navy was to increase the mission crew stations in the aircraft from four to six. This was done to ensure that enough crewmen were available to provide direct threat warnings while monitoring enemy air-defense and antishipping environments likely to be encountered in air and naval operations.

The Navy currently flies 11 overworked EP-3Es and is in the process of converting five more P-3C patrol aircraft to the EP-3E configuration to allow for a fleet of 16, including 12 operational aircraft and four for maintenance or modification. Replacement of the EP-3E fleet by the ACS would be completed by fiscal 2014.

With a crew of only two pilots and six sensor operators, the ACS will operate under a different concept of operations than the EP-3E, which carries a crew of 24. A higher degree of automation in digital signal processing in the ACS will allow the crew to handle the on-board sensor analysis workload. In addition, the ACS will be able to transfer data during the mission to ground and ship stations for analysis and fusion, allowing more thorough analysis by intelligence centers and therefore requiring fewer analysts on the aircraft. This data transfer would be accomplished through satellites and a variety of data links.

Wes Colburn, Lockheed Martin’s deputy vice president for ISR systems, envisions the ACS as an independent, “robust” system that does not have to be reconfigured for each mission, and can rapidly deploy ahead of ground forces and operate with minimal or no outside support.

Northrop Grumman is leveraging its experience with the Guardrail and Airborne Reconnaissance-Low programs, as well as the E-2C and E-3 radar warning aircraft, the E-8 Joint Strategic Attack Radar System and the company’s Global Hawk unmanned reconnaissance plane. The company’s proposed ACS mission suite includes, for example, the I-band electronic sensor installed in the Global Hawk.

Lockheed bases its ACS entry on the Embraer ERJ145, maintaining that its performance “meets or exceeds ACS requirements.”

The ERJ145 is a popular airliner; 750 are operated by 35 commercial airlines from many hubs. Embraer claims it achieves a 99.7-percent availability rate. In addition, military ISR versions are flown by Brazil, Mexico and Greece.

Lockheed Martin emphasizes the affordability of its ACS concept, particularly in up-front acquisition costs and low operating costs. The engineering of the bulged antenna fairings, which would be included in the ACS design, has been completed for foreign customers, with costs already absorbed by Embraer.

The G450, built by General Dynamics’ Gulfstream unit, includes Gulfstream’s Enhanced Vision System, an infrared camera built by Kollsman that projects its view on a Honeywell-built head-up display, enabling the pilot to land on a totally darkened airfield at night, a feature that would lend itself to operations in undeveloped areas and for covert missions.

General Dynamics spokesman Kendell Pease acknowledges the G450 is a higher-priced aircraft, but said its performance will result in lower life-cycle costs and greater capability. The G450 — which is larger than the ERJ145 — has more room for growth in mission systems, Pease said.

The U.S. Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Coast Guard all fly versions of the Gulfstream, which also has special military roles in the Japanese Coast Guard and Israeli and Swedish air forces.

William R. Adams, vice president for airborne surveillance systems at Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems, said the G450 would arrive in theater faster than similar jets and could operate without any logistics for up to 15 days in theater. He said the G450 would operate higher and longer on station than comparable jets, allowing the G450 to fly above weather and congested air traffic corridors and outside of anti-aircraft defense envelopes. The higher ceiling — 45,000 feet — gives sensors at least 20-percent greater coverage than the stated requirement, and allows for a steeper lookdown capability, reducing the effect of terrain masking.

Both teams point out the worldwide webs of logistic support available to their respective aircraft. Both competitors acknowledge that a “buy America” interest by some in Congress may influence the selection of a single contractor for further development of the ACS. Lockheed Martin officials said 70 percent of the parts for the ERJ145 will be built in the United States, with final assembly to be performed at a new plant in Jacksonville, Fla. The fuselage, wings and empennage will be built by foreign firms, and the engines provided by Rolls-Royce, half-owned by U.S. parties. The aircraft — complete with the necessary antenna fairings — will be flown to L-3 Communications in Greenville, Texas, for installation of its mission suite.

Gulfstream will build the G450 at its plant in Savannah, Ga.; most of its components will be U.S.-built. Rolls-Royce will provide the engines. The mission suites would be installed by Northrop Grumman in Melbourne, Fla.