September 30, 2020 | International, Land, C4ISR, Security
Mounted on a pair of heavy trucks, the Terrestrial Layer System – Echelons Above Brigade (TLS-EAB) will do long-range jamming for high-level HQs – and fry the circuits of incoming enemy missiles as well.
WASHINGTON: The Army officially asked industry today to help take a big step towards repairing the Army's long-neglected EW corps and countering Russian and Chinese jamming – and it'll have an unexpected missile defense dimension as well.
Boeing and Lockheed are still building rival prototypes for the Army's next-generation cyber/electronic warfare vehicle, the Terrestrial Layer System set to enter service in 2022. The new system, known as TLS-EAB — will be TLS's much bigger brother. The service has set a pretty brisk schedule, talking of fielding something by the end of 2023.
The original-flavor TLS, aka TLS-BCT, will fit on an 8×8 Stryker armored vehicle and accompany frontline Brigade Combat Teams. TLS-Echelons Above Brigade will fill a pair of heavy trucks, probably Oshkosh FMTVs, Army officials unveiled today:
Because it's mounted on trucks, TLS-EAB can be a lot bigger and more powerful than the Stryker-mounted TLS-BCT or the drone-mounted jamming/sensing system known as MFEW-Air-Large. But it will share data with those systems, because they'll be closer to the front line and/or able to fly over obstacles to see distant threats.
TLS-EAB will also link to other Army and interservice systems like the EWPMT command-and-control software and the TITAN satellite terminal. The defensive suite, in particular, will get warning of incoming threats from air & missile defense networks – which we can presume includes the Army's forthcoming IBCS – to “national technical means,” such as spy satellites.
Now, the three Army colonels who briefed the AOC CEMAlite conference this afternoon didn't provide any details on what kind of incoming missiles the TLS-EAB defensive suite is meant to stop. Actually jamming an inbound hypersonic or ballistic missile might be prohibitively hard since those weapons fly so fast – Mach 5 and up – and may only be in range for seconds. But if you deceive the enemy's reconnaissance and targeting systems into shooting at a decoy instead of the real target, it doesn't matter how fast their missiles are — they'll still miss.
It's also worth noting that the Army hasn't locked down the formal requirements for this system – a draft Abbreviated Capabilities Development Document (ACDD) is in the works – and the service intends to leave plenty of leeway for industry to propose out-of-the-box ideas. “These are our initial concept ideas and not intended to constrain or limit the industrial solution space,” said Col. Jennifer McAfee. “Please think of this is a starting point in a long and mutually beneficial conversation.”
That said, all proposals need to rely on an Army-sponsored software framework known as Photon and a set of technical standards known as CMOSS. Both are intended to let the service plug and play components from different vendors instead of getting locked into one company's proprietary solution that's not compatible with other people's innovations. There's also an official Software Development Kit (SDK) to let companies integrate their sensors into the Army-standard systems.
What the Army rolled out today was a draft concept of operations (CONOP) for TLS-EAB, explained the Army project manager, Col. Kevin Finch. Looking ahead, he outlined an ambitious schedule:
If TLS-EAB can stick to that 2023-2024 timeline, it'll enter service along with a host of new long-range Army systems, from howitzers and hypersonics to intermediate-range missiles and missile defense lasers. But between the budgetary hit from COVID and the upcoming election, it's far from certain the Army can afford it all.
https://breakingdefense.com/2020/09/army-wants-new-mega-jammer-in-2023-tls-eab/
March 12, 2024 | International, Aerospace, Land
Northrop Grumman Corporation and Diehl Defence GmbH & Co. KG signed a Memorandum of Understanding formalizing their commitment to work together to support innovative layered air and missile defense capabilities for...
April 21, 2024 | International, Naval
AV’s Switchblade 300 Block 20 loitering munition system (LMS) will provide the Marine Corps with organic, anti-armor/anti-personnel, precision fires capability at the tactical level.
August 3, 2020 | International, Naval
By: David B. Larter WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy is taking major steps in an attempt to shake off years of false starts and setbacks with the Littoral Combat Ship program, an effort Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Gilday said he'd oversee on his watch. In an exclusive interview with Defense News on July 16, Gilday listed LCS as a major priority, saying he will turn up the heat on efforts to get the ship to become a major contributor to fleet operations. “There are things in the near term that I have to deliver, that I'm putting heat on now, and one of them is LCS,” Gilday said. “One part is sustainability and reliability. We know enough about that platform and the problems that we have that plague us with regard to reliability and sustainability, and I need them resolved.” “That requires a campaign plan to get after it and have it reviewed by me frequently enough so that I can be sighted on it. Those platforms have been around since 2008 — we need to get on with it. We've done five deployments since I've been on the job, we're going to ramp that up two-and-a-half times over the next couple of years, but we have got to get after it,” he added. “LCS for me is something, on my watch, I've got to get right.” Gilday's renewed focus on LCS comes after years of fits and starts as the Navy struggled with almost every aspect of the complicated program: from manning and maintaining the hulls, to keeping the gear running or even fielding the sensor suites needed to perform the missions for which they were built. The ship has become a perennial whipping boy for a Congress frustrated by the service's struggle to field new technologies, such as those built into the LCS or the Ford-class aircraft carrier, conceived in the early 2000s. Two of the technologies the Navy has yet to field are the mine-hunting mission module, intended to replace the service's aging minesweepers, and the anti-submarine warfare mission module. Both are years overdue, though they have made significant progress. Getting those fielded is among Gilday's top priorities. “I have to deliver ... both the mine and ASW modules,” Gilday said. “These ships are probably going to [start going] away in the mid-2030s if the [future frigate] FFG(X) build goes as planned. But I need to wring as much as I can out of those ships as quickly as I can.” The LCS program comprises two hulls: a monohull version built in Marinette, Wisconsin, by Lockheed Martin and Fincantieri; and a trimaran version built by Austal USA in Mobile, Alabama. Congress funded 35 of the ships and has commissioned 20 of them, but deploying the ship has been a challenge because of reliability problems with the complicated propulsion systems designed to meet the Navy's 40-knot speed requirement. In 2016, the Navy fundamentally reorganized the program, jettisoning the signature modularity of the program where a single LCS would have a small, permanent crew and switch out anti-surface, anti-submarine or mine-warfare mission packages on the pier depending on the mission. Each mission package would then come with a group of specialists to operate the equipment. After a series of accidents, the Navy sought to simplify the concept; semi-permanently assign mission packages to each hull; and change a complicated three-crews-for-two-LCS-hulls model to a blue-and-gold crewing model used in ballistic missile submarines as a way of boosting operational tempo. The reorg was in response to concerns that the rotational crewing model reduced crew ownership of the vessel, potentially contributing to some of the accidents that plagued the program. One of the major accidents wrecked the then-forward-deployed Fort Worth's combining gear (roughly the same as the clutch on a car) when the crew started up the system without lube oil running. Prior to the Fort Worth accident, the combining gear onboard the Milwaukee encountered problems on the ship's transit from the shipyard to its home base in Florida and had to be towed into Norfolk, Virginia. Mission packages Gilday's goal of fielding the mission modules is well along already, according to two sources familiar with the progress, who spoke to Defense News on condition of anonymity. The mine-warfare mission module is on track for a final test and evaluation by the end of this year, a source with knowledge of the program told Defense News, and the individual components have already passed testing and are in initial low-rate production. End-to-end testing of the mine-warfare mission module is set to begin in fiscal 2021 and is on track to have its initial operating capability declared in 2022, another source said. The status of the ASW mission module, which has been a regular target of Congress-imposed budget cuts, is a little less clear. The next major milestones for the ASW mission package will likely slip to next year due to budget cuts, a source with knowledge of the program said. The mission module has been integrated into the LCS Fort Worth and testing began last fall. It's unclear if the testing will be delayed or interrupted if the Navy is able to carry through its plan to decommission the first four littoral combat ships. For the Independence variant — the trimaran hull — testing for the ASW mission module is slated to be installed on the LCS Kansas City, but there is no fixed date yet, according to a Navy official. Missions Aside from the issues with a buggy propulsion train and the delayed mission modules, Gilday said he was happy with where LCS is with regard to manning, and said the blue-gold crewing was giving him a lot of availability to play with. “I do think we have it about right with manning,” Gilday said. “We were honest with ourselves that the original design wasn't going to do it. I really like the blue-and-gold construct because I get way more [operational availability] than I would with just the single crew. “So I can get these ships out there in numbers doing the low-end stuff in, let's say, 4th Fleet where I wouldn't need a DDG.” The Navy deployed the LCS Detroit to South America — the 4th Fleet area of operations — last year on a counternarcotics mission, and it returned earlier this month. Those are the kinds of missions for which the LCS is perfectly suited, Gilday said. “I can deploy these things with a [law enforcement detachment] and a signals intelligence capability, and I can do that on LCS with carry-on gear,” Gilday said. “It's the right kind of platform for that. Also in 5th Fleet, those maritime security missions that we were heavily sighted on in the late 1990s and early 2000s: They still exist, I'd just prefer to do them with an LCS instead of a DDG if I can.” But without getting more reliability out of the propulsion system, even the low-end missions the Navy wants of the LCS will be a challenge. The heart of the issue seems to lie with long ocean transits, such as the one from San Diego, California, to Singapore, where the ships are supposed to be forward based. Cutting back on that transit, and the wear it puts on the ship, should be core to the Navy's strategy to getting more from LCS, said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. “The propulsion architecture's unreliability means you are going to have to come up with a different way to deploy the ship that doesn't require every deployment to be transoceanic,” Clark said. “By the time the ship gets to Singapore, it needs a lot of work done to it and your deployment time is cut down by the fact that you have to repair the ship once it arrives. Then it has to return to the U.S. So both those trips are so fraught that the Navy ends up devoting a lot of time and resources to it.” One alternative would be to forward-station the ships for a longer period of time than the 16-24 months the Navy envisioned, and place them in Sasebo, Japan, rather than Singapore, Clark said. Sasebo has always been in the cards for LCS as a home for the mine-warfare LCS hulls. When it comes to the delays on the mission modules, Clark said, the Navy should consider fielding those capabilities in the mine-warfare mission module that are already workable, or consider an alternate structure based on the model used by the Explosive Ordnance Disposal technicians. “The other thing they need to do is come up with a way for the mine-warfare capabilities to the degree they are available. And come up with the concept of operations for that, meaning the warfare folks in San Diego would need to come up with concepts for the equipment they do have rather than what they want to have,” he said. As for the ASW mission module, that might be something the Navy will want to revisit, he added. “They need to decide if the ASW mission package is going to be part of LCS,” Clark explained. “The ASW module is the module with the most proven capability in it and is the one that would offer the best improvement in LCS contribution to the fleet. “But it's also the most expensive. And if LCS is not deploying, then why spend the money on it? And with the frigate coming along, it's going to be doing the same missions with the same kind of systems, so why invest in the LCS version?” What is clear is that leadership from the upper echelons of the Navy should help move things along, Clark said. “It's good to hear Gilday is taking it on,” he noted. “But I think part of that is going to be accepting that we're never going to get where we wanted to be on LCS, and accepting second best is probably the best way to get the most from LCS. “You'll have to say: ‘We accept the fact that we're not going to have a full mine-warfare mission module. We accept that we'll have to deploy them forward and eliminate these long transits and ASW is probably out the window.' So it is about making hard choices like that and taking the heat.” https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/07/31/the-us-navy-is-preparing-a-major-surge-of-lcs-deployments/