Australian Government announces Landing Craft Heavy Design to be constructed at Henderson Defence Precinct

On the same subject

• 

  December 18, 2019 | International, Aerospace

  Study: Counter-Drone Systems Proliferate, Challenges Endure

  Graham Warwick Counter-drone systems continue to proliferate on the market, but technical and operational challenges in countering small unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) have not yet been fully surmounted, says a new report by the Center for the Study of the Drone at Bard College, New York. The second edition of the Center's Counter-Drone Systems report lists 537 systems marketed by 227 companies in 38 countries, up from 235 in the first edition published in February 2018. This is despite removing 24 products from the database that no longer appear to be available. Citing a March 2019 solicitation by the Pentagon's Defense Innovation Unit which said “it has proven difficult to identify and mitigate threats using currently fielded technologies,” the report says “dozens of background interviews with military and law enforcement personnel have validated this assertion.” The challenges extend beyond the issue of effectiveness “and include complex questions around safety, practicality, policy and legality,” says the report's author, Arthur Holland Michel, founder and co-director of the Center. When it comes to detection effectiveness, radar may struggle to pick up small UAS flying close to the ground, while cameras might confuse a drone with a bird or aircraft and be degraded by poor weather, low visibility and strong sunlight. Electromagnetic interference may degrade the detection performance of radio-frequency sensors, with many potential sources of interference in urban areas. Radar, some RF systems and electro-optical/ infrared (EO/IR) sensors require line of sight to the drone, which can be problematic in urban areas. Acoustic sensors and RF detection systems rely on a library of sounds and signals emitted by known drones, but given the rapid rate at which drones are emerging on the market “even libraries that are updated often will never cover 100% of the drones that might be operating,” the report says. A major detection issue is the level of false negatives and false positives, the report said, noting that results of FAA testing of counter-drone systems showed distinguishing true positives from false positives in cluttered environments required a high level of manpower. Distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate drone use is another issue. Remote identification technology and the FAA's pending Remote ID rulemaking, “may go a long way to addressing this issue once implemented, but it will not be a total fix,” the report says. There is a short time window available in which to respond to a drone threat and potential dangers posed to bystanders by some counter-drone interdiction techniques. Long-range systems such as lasers and high-power microwaves “could pose a serious threat to aircraft operated above the targeted drone.” In terms of interdiction effectiveness, the report points to results of a 2017 counter-UAS event staged by the U.S. Joint Improvised Threat Defeat Organization that showed the drones were resilient against damage. “More recent C-AUS exercises indicate this problem remains an enduring one,” it says. Jammers have no effect against drones operating autonomously without an active RF link; many signal jammers have an effective range of only a few hundred meters; spoofing systems may not be universally effective; and all kinetic systems may struggle against drones moving fast or in unpredictable patterns. Drone technology, meanwhile, is not standing still, the report says, noting research underway on UAS that can operate in GPS-denied environments, negating jamming, and are capable of actively defeating jamming or spoofing attacks. Consumer drones may soon be controllable via mobile LTE networks rather than an RF link, the report says. LTE drones could be operated at essentially unlimited range and “would be difficult or dangerous to interdict with jamming systems without interfering with ubiquitous cellular communications,” it says. The proliferation of counter-UAS systems will inevitably accelerate the development of technology to render them less effective, the report concludes, by programming drones to maneuver in patterns that make them hard to detect by automatic target algorithms. The report also highlights the challenges posed by drone swarms. “A swarm doesn't have to be dynamic or truly autonomous to achieve these effects: 10 individual drone operators flying 10 drones in unison may just be as difficult to defend against as a true autonomous swarm of 10 aircraft,” it says. https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/study-counter-drone-systems-proliferate-challenges-endure

• 

  September 12, 2019 | International, Aerospace

  DSEI: British, Italian defense companies jump on Tempest

  By: Sebastian Sprenger and Andrew Chuter LONDON – BAE Systems and Leonardo on Wednesday formalized a partnership agreement to cooperate on the Tempest next-generation combat aircraft, following a pact signed between the U.K. and Italian governments late Tuesday afternoon. The inclusion of Italy in the ambitious project marks the third partner nation, following Sweden, that the British were able to sign. And BAE officials on hand here at the DSEI defense trade show hinted that more could follow soon. Leonardo brings with it a smattering of Italian companies, including Avio Aero and Elettronica, adding to the team of MBDA and Rolls Royce already onboard. BAE Systems chief Charles Woodburn said both nations and their respective industries are “committed” to seeing Tempest through. The program is envisioned to be a sixth-generation, aerial combat system featuring manned planes, drones, sensors and weapons working in unprecedented collaboration. The two countries already work together on the American-led F-35 as well as the Eurofighter Typhoon. Advancing those programs is also an explicit objective in the new partnership between London and Rome. A statement released by the UK Ministry of Defence Wednesday morning framed the government agreement – signed by Simon Bollom, the head of Defence Equipment and Support, and Lt. Gen. Nicolò Falsaperna, Italian Secretary General of Defence – as a broad pledge to cooperate on matters of “combat air capability.” The idea is to “deepen discussions on Tempest military requirements,” come up with a “road map” for feeding advanced Eurofighter capabilities into the future program, and facilitate an industry ecosystem to make it all happen, according to the statement. “The U.K. and Italy have a proven 50-year track record of working closely together on Combat Aircraft development and support through the Panavia Tornado and Eurofighter Typhoon programs,” reads the defense ministry statement. “Both governments confirmed a common desire for a strong industrial base to develop key capabilities and boost prosperity in both nations. The agreement also paves the way for closer industrial collaboration, including through shared industrial entities such as Leonardo and MBDA.” Leonardo CEO Alessandro Profumo lauded the joint Tempest effort as an “ambitious and strategically important” program. Joining it this early in the process, he said, would allow his company greater say in future decisions. The U.K.-Italy venture comes as France, Germany and Spain are working on their own version of Europe's next-generation weapon, the Future Combat Air System. With much pomp and circumstance accorded here to the Tempest effort, including promotion under the banner of the Royal Air Force and a full-scale mockup sitting prominently in the exhibit hall, the continental counterpart appeared more of a distant theory in comparison. The FCAS program, led on the industry side by Airbus and Dassault, has been dogged by a fundamental disagreement between German and France about the exportability of its envisioned components. Berlin taking a more restrictive stance than Paris when it comes to potential buyers in the Middle East. Following Spain's recent inclusion in the program, the Madrid government has designated electronics specialist Indra as the national industry lead, a move that left the Spanish Airbus division feeling burned, according to sources. Trade show attendees here associated with the FCAS program brushed aside the notion of Tempest as the more concrete proposal, noting how Brexit would cast a shadow of uncertainty on the UK's budget, not to speak of Italy's ongoing financial troubles. At the same time, the U.K.-Italian-Swedish and the Franco-German-Spanish efforts make for formidable competition in a continent where military budgets are limited. Asked by a reporter how he sees the two programs play out over the next ten years, Profumo only stated the obvious: “Two programs are more expensive than one.” So where might the British turn next in their quest for international partners? Woodburn, the head of BAE, told Defense News that talks with other possible partners are ongoing. "We are in discussions with other nations, but what it shows is there are plenty of people who want to join the team although they may be different types of partners to the ones we have right now," he said. Leonardo U.K. boss Norman Bone said Team Tempest hadn't stopped talking to core companies but were also looking at partners who bring other benefits. “We haven't drawn the line on industrial capability but maybe there are partners who bring money and markets in exchange for technology transfer,” said Bone. Enzo Benigni, the CEO of Elettronica, said his company's participation in Tempest is a crucial milestone for the company. “It's a partnership that will last 40 or 50 years,” he told reporters. https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/dsei/2019/09/11/british-italian-defense-companies-jump-on-tempest

• 

  June 19, 2019 | International, Other Defence

  15 extra pounds of gear can be the difference between life or death in a firefight, this Marine officer’s research says

  By: Shawn Snow The weight being humped by grunts into a firefight with a sophisticated adversary like Russia or China could be the difference between mission success or going home in a body bag, according to one Marine officer's award-winning research. Marine Capt. Courtney Thompson said computer simulations she ran showed that just adding 15 pounds to the “bare essential” fighting load carried by Marines resulted in an additional casualty on the battlefield when Marines were pitted against competent shooters. The Corps' fighting load varies between 43 to 62 pounds depending on the level of body armor a Marine wears. Military body armor protection ranges from level II to IV. Thompson's simulations were run with level II body armor — protection capable of stopping a 9 mm round. The weight range includes a carried weapon. She told Marine Corps Times in an interview that the results of the simulations were “eye opening," especially in light of a 2017 government watchdog reported that detailed Marines and soldiers were carrying between 117 pounds to 119 pounds on average. When she ran the simulations and added more weight “casualties just went up,” Thompson said. And “the better the [enemy] shooter got, the more the difference in weight mattered." In a near-peer fight, Thompson said, Marines will need to move faster on the battlefield to survive and win. “The slower they are, the higher the chance they have of getting hit," she said. But it's not just about reducing a Marine's exposure time to being shot, smaller weight loads aid in more precise shooting and quicker target engagement times. A 2018 report from Washington D.C.-based think tank Center for a New American Security, explained that heavy combat loads “not only slows movement and increases fatigue” but decrease “situational awareness and shooting response times.” Moreover, a 2007 report from Naval Research Advisory Committee on Marine combat loads recommended an assault load of just 50 pounds. As the Corps focuses on the near-peer fight, the weight carried by Marines into battle is a topic that will need to be front and center for Marine commanders, Thompson said. Thompson's research, which won the Military Operations Research Society Stephen A. Tisdale Thesis Award at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, has the attention of officials at the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory — where the Corps has been exploring ways to boost combat power while also reducing the weight burden on grunts. Marine Corps Times has reached out to the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory for comments on this research. Marine Corps Systems Command said its “Gruntworks” team spoke with Thompson about her research. The team handles the integration of equipment for Marine rifle squads. Thompson, a combat engineer, said she came up with the idea after seeing how “gassed” her Marines got during training as a result of operations tempo and weight. “I thought if I could quantify weight in terms of casualties and probability of mission success, that's what the Marine Corps understands,” she said. Thompson's computer simulations relied on Australian human subject data and infantry demographics supplied by headquarters Marine Corps. The Australian data was used because of the Australian Defence Department's rigorous study on its tiered body armor system, Thompson explained. The Marine infantry data included physical fitness and marksmanship. The individual Marines within the simulated 13-man rifle squads “represented the average for that rank for all 0311s [Marine rifleman] in the Marine Corps,” she said. Thompson said she ran the simulations nearly a million times. Thompson's research showed that reducing the weight burden carried by grunts could save lives and win battles. But she didn't make any prescriptive adjustments to the Corps' combat gear load outs. She told Marine Corps Times that she didn't want to “limit” a battlefield commander's decision-making. The Corps' various fighting loads are broken down in its infantry training and readiness manual into four different groups, fighting load, assault load, approach march load and sustainment load. The load type is dependent on the mission at hand. Thompson's research was aimed at the fighting and assault loads. The fighting and assault loads include combat gear for the “immediate mission” and the “actual conduct of the assault,” respectively, according to the Corps' infantry manual. The assault load weight varies between 58 pounds and 70 pounds based on level of body armor. The weight range includes a weapon being carried. The training and readiness manual excludes the weight of a weapon in its gear break down. Thompson isn't calling for particular pieces of gear to be thrown off the packing list, but she said commanders should throw the entire list in a pack, wear it, and “see if it is a reasonable amount of weight.” The Corps is already making a number of changes to reduce weight. Some of those include a new lightweight helmet, lighter body armor for counterinsurgency conflicts and polymer ammunition. But Marines also are packing on weight with new tech like tablets and drones, which have been dished out to rifle squads. At the end of the day, Marine commanders have a delicate balance of weighing risk verse capability, and it wont be easy for commanders to forgo pieces of equipment on a mission to lighten packs, Thompson explained. A commander “can't prove the lives they saved” from taking a particular action, Thompson said. https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2019/06/18/15-extra-pounds-of-gear-can-be-the-difference-between-life-or-death-in-a-firefight-this-marine-officers-research-says/