Army testing more effective ghillie suits

On the same subject

• 

  February 21, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  Opinion: Defense Budget’s Resilience Rests On Shaky Foundation

  Byron Callan Some of the main talking points on the fiscal 2021 defense budget request and the plan that accompanies it through 2025 are that it aligns resources with the National Defense Strategy and that this year's budget theme is about all-domain operations. The Pentagon called out priorities to sustain readiness and prepare for future challenges with investment in hypersonics, autonomous systems and artificial intelligence. Given a flat top line, the Defense Department had to make tough choices by making program cuts that have been well-documented and are well-covered by this publication. The outlines of structural changes in how the Pentagon is preparing for the future are indeed visible in the budget request and plan, but it is unrealistic to expect this budget to have completely framed out all that will be done. Increases in research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) spending both in absolute terms and compared to last year's plan for 2021-24 underscore shifts that are underway. It may take at least 2-3 more years to see how some of these RDT&E efforts translate into new programs and will inform how the U.S. will fight in future conflicts. Much as defense contractor management, analysts and planners will focus on the details in the defense budget, it is important also to factor in some of the assumptions that underpin the budget—the foundation upon which it rests. Here there are questions worth considering. The first is the real GDP forecast for 2021-29. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) forecast depends on stable 3% annual real growth every year, which is well above consensus estimates. The U.S. is now in its longest economic expansion ever. Can this be extended into 2021 or beyond? Possibly. Has the U.S. somehow eliminated the risk of recession from a rapid increase in interest rates, another energy shock, a pandemic or a severe economic crisis in other parts of the world? Very likely not. Another questionable factor is the new budget and plan's interest-rate assumptions, as there was a big change from prior projections. The OMB and Congressional Budget Office (CBO) do not disclose how they expect the composition of federal debt by debt maturity to change over forecast periods. They usually provide projections only on three-month Treasury bill interest rates and on the 10-year Treasury note. The U.S. Treasury shows that as of Jan. 31, of the $17.2 trillion in federal debt held by the public, 14% was in Treasury bills with an average interest rate of 1.7%, and 58% was in notes with maturities of 2-10 years at an average rate of 2.1%. Net interest outlays are a mix of the interest the federal government pays to public holders of that debt and the interest it pays to itself on debt held in federal trust funds. One way to think about the debt burden and the interest expense associated with it is to take the net interest outlay projections and divide them by the total debt the OMB or CBO estimates. One of the changes the OMB made in its budget projections was to lower interest rate estimates. In recent years, these projections were too high compared to prevailing market levels, as the OMB and CBO both projected rates would return to “normal” levels. In the OMB's mid-session review from this past summer, the implied interest rate (net interest outlays divided by total debt) was 2.3% in 2019 and rose to 3.0% by 2022 and 3.3% by 2025. In the latest budget and plan, the implied rate is flat—at 2.1% in 2020, creeping up to 2.3% by 2025. This is another questionable factor that could weigh on the foundation of the defense spending plans. If rates do move to higher levels, then outlays will compete with other forms of federal spending. If rates fall further than projected, it may be due to a far weaker economy, which in turn weighs on federal deficits. A final questionable factor is the deficit projections themselves. The Trump administration again plans reductions in non-defense discretionary spending, which Congress has not supported in the last three budget requests. The share of non-defense discretionary outlays as a percent of total outlays drops to 12% in 2024 from 15% in 2019. For defense contractor management, planners, analysts and investors, foundations on which the budget plans are based imply that the structural and programmatic changes in the 2021 budget could be accelerated if deficits and interest rates are higher than the plan presumes. Like a high-rise building built to code in an earthquake zone, the Pentagon's structural and spending changes may make defense better able to withstand future macroeconomic tremors and shifts. https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/opinion-defense-budgets-resilience-rests-shaky-foundation

• 

  June 12, 2019 | International, Naval, Security, Other Defence

  Northrop Grumman Awarded Contract to Provide Marine Corps Full-Rate Production G/ATOR Radar Systems

  BALTIMORE – June 10, 2019 – The U.S. Marine Corps has awarded Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE: NOC) a $958 million contract for Lot 6 full-rate production of the Gallium Nitride-based (GaN) AN/TPS-80 Ground/Air Task-Oriented Radar (G/ATOR) systems. This contract provides an additional 30 units. The program is managed by Program Executive Officer Land Systems. “Northrop Grumman and the Marine Corps have successfully partnered to create a best of ground and airborne radar solution that exceeds the current threat on the modern battlefield,” said Christine Harbison, vice president, land and avionics C4ISR, Northrop Grumman. “G/ATOR is a crucial capability that protects our warfighters and defends against today's threat environment and the threat environment of the future. We are excited to reach the full-rate production decision and continue providing advanced multi-mission functionality that meets our customer's mission needs, protects the warfighter in a rapidly changing threat environment, and has significant margin for capability growth.” G/ATOR replaces five legacy systems operated by the Marine Corps with a single system, providing significant improvements in performance when compared to the legacy radar families in each of its modes. This results in reduced training, logistics and maintenance costs. The AN/TPS-80 G/ATOR is an advanced Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) multi-mission radar that leverages GaN to provide comprehensive real time, full-sector, 360-degree situational awareness against a broad array of threats. The highly expeditionary, three-dimensional, short-to-medium-range multi-role radar system is designed to detect, identify, and track cruise missiles, manned aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicles as well as rockets, mortars and artillery fire. https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/releases/northrop-grumman-awarded-contract-to-provide-marine-corps-full-rate-production-gator-radar-systems

• 

  July 6, 2020 | International, Aerospace

  US Air Force delays timeline for testing a laser on a fighter jet

  By: Valerie Insinna WASHINGTON — The U.S. Air Force's long-planned test of an airborne laser weapon aboard a fighter jet has been delayed until 2023 due to technical challenges and complications spurred by the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, its program head said. The Air Force's Self-Protect High Energy Laser Demonstrator program, or SHiELD, had originally planned to conduct its first flight demonstration in 2021, but the test has been pushed two years back, said Jeff Heggemeier, SHiELD program manager for the Air Force Research Laboratory. “This is a really complex technology to try to integrate into that flight environment, and that's ultimately what we're trying to do with this program, is demonstrate that laser technology is mature enough to be able to integrate onto that airborne platform,” he told Defense News in a June 10 interview. “But even things like COVID, and COVID shutting down the economy. That has impacts.” Beyond that, the future of using laser weapons aboard fighter aircraft is even more unclear. The goal of SHiELD was to give combat jets a way to counter missiles shot by an enemy aircraft or by air defense systems on the ground. But in May, Mike Griffin, the Pentagon's undersecretary of defense for research and engineering, noted that he was “extremely skeptical” that an airborne laser could be used for missile defense. Asked what that meant for SHiELD, Air Force acquisition czar Will Roper acknowledged that the service is rethinking how it could best use directed-energy technologies. Perhaps the most optimal use for SHiELD wasn't onboard a fighter, he said. “What I've told that team is, let's have a dialogue,” Roper said during a June 9 event hosted by the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies. “Let's understand the different power levels and what they should correspond to, and let's not make the highest power level that we can dream up and the mission that's the sexiest be the thing that drives us.” “What I expect to get laser weapons to the goal line has been the humble, but important and very worrisome small drone threat. They continue to show up, they're difficult to attribute — we don't know who is sending them to our installations and tests and things of that nature, and we can't afford to shoot missiles at them,” he added. “So this is a perfect threat to make laser weapons real, and once they're real, we'll do what the military does. We'll look to scale the power.” Heggemeier said there are many ways the Air Force could spin off laser technologies developed by the SHiELD program, but it's critical the service continue with development so it can gauge the maturity and usefulness of the capabilities. “I think it's important for us to first remember what the whole point of SHiELD is. The whole point of SHiELD is not an acquisition program where we're turning out hundreds or tens of these laser systems for operational use. What we're trying to do with SHiELD is exactly answer those questions of: ‘Is laser technology mature enough to go on an airborne platform? Have we solved enough of those technical challenges that this is now a feasible thing?' Because there is that concern.” He also drew a distinction between the tactical, self-defense capability a SHiELD laser would give combat aircraft versus a more powerful laser capable of intercepting highly-advanced ballistic missiles, as the Missile Defense Agency has proposed. “You're not talking about these really, really long ranges. You're talking about a shorter range and different targets just to protect yourself or your wingman,” Heggemeier said. “Missile defense can mean a lot of things. Some of those missile defense missions are very, very hard, and some of them aren't quite so hard.” For now, at least, the Air Force's investment in directed energy remains stable. The service's budget lays out cash for high-energy lasers in multiple funding lines. For fiscal 2021, it requested $15.1 million for basic research and $45.1 million for applied research for high-energy laser technology, as well as another $13 million for high-power, solid-state laser technology. In FY20, the service received $14.8 million for basic research and $48.2 million for applied research for laser technologies. SHiELD is comprised of three elements: the laser itself, which is being developed by Lockheed Martin; the beam control system made by Northrop Grumman; and the pod that encases the weapons system, from Boeing. Heggemeier said the pod is under construction, with integration of the laser and beam control system planned to start next year. “A lot of the challenge is trying to get all of this stuff into this small pod. If you look at other lasers that are fairly mature, we have other laser systems that some other contractors have built that are ready to be deployed. But these are ground-based systems, and they are much, much more mature,” he said. In April 2019, the Air Force Research Lab conducted a ground test with a surrogate laser system — the Demonstrator Laser Weapon System, or DLWS, now in use by the Army. The demonstration involved the successful downing of several air-to-air missiles. “It turns out the DLWS system, when you take everything into account, is a really good surrogate for the laser power on SHiELD,” Heggemeier said. Because both SHiELD and DLWS generate similar amounts of energy on target — in SHiELD's case, Heggemeier would only say that it amounts to “tens of kilowatts” — the surrogate test gave the lab a good idea how the laser physically affects a target. In 2019, the team conducted a flight test of a pod with the same outer mold line as the one under development by Boeing. The pod was mounted to an aircraft — Heggemeier declined to specify the model — and flown around Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, to help measure how vibrations, the force of gravity and other environmental factors might influence the performance of the weapon. Air Force Magazine reported in 2019 that aerial demonstrations of SHiELD would occur onboard an F-15 fighter jet. https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/06/30/us-air-force-delays-timeline-for-testing-a-laser-on-a-fighter-jet/