Back to news

December 4, 2023 | International, Land

Backpack jammer prototyped by CACI’s Mastodon passes early Army test

“We’re not sleeping on the last test,” said CACI International's Todd Probert. “We’re continuing to look to new modes of capability.”

https://www.defensenews.com/electronic-warfare/2023/12/04/backpack-jammer-prototyped-by-cacis-mastodon-passes-early-army-test/

On the same subject

  • In a COVID-19 world, system integration is the best approach

    October 30, 2020 | International, C4ISR

    In a COVID-19 world, system integration is the best approach

    Lt. Gen. David Mann (ret.) and Maj. Gen. Francis Mahon (ret.) As COVID-19 is adding “social distancing” and “PPE” to our everyday lexicon and making handshakes a thing of the past, Project Convergence's experimentation with artificial intelligence and integration is moving the U.S. Army closer to the realization that “any sensor, any shooter — or any sensor, best shooter” applies to more than solely the air and missile defense community. Project Convergence is validating the path to success in future combat operations by integrating capabilities of many systems and not solely hanging our hopes on a new, best artillery or aviation or maneuver system. Concurrently, it is validating the need for the Army Integrated Air and Missile Defense system, or AIAMD. “See first, understand first, act first, and finish decisively” was the mantra of Army transformation in the early 2000s, and here we are, 20 years into the 21st century, with AIAMD modernization efforts on the cusp of achieving the first two elements of that axiom — which enables the last two. AIAMD's development has not been easy, but it is essential, as our adversaries have not taken a tactical pause. North Korea is now a nuclear state with intercontinental ballistic missiles and, as recently noted on Oct. 10, other missile initiatives underway. China is creating barrier islands, improving its air and missile forces, and building a carrier fleet. Russia has optimized Syria and Crimea as proving grounds for its capabilities and forces while regularly probing NATO and North American airspace. Iran has fired ballistic missiles against undefended U.S. bases, demonstrated technical and tactical prowess by executing an integrated and complex armed unmanned aerial system and cruise missile attack against Saudi Arabia, and provided nonstate actors an expanded poor man's air force. Cyber, too, is becoming “mainstream” among our adversaries, and two of our near peers are developing hypersonic weapons, as witnessed in Russia's recent Zircon cruise missile test. As the U.S. Army, and the military at large, look to the future, all acknowledge integrating systems achieves a synergistic effect from our limited number of sensors, weapon systems and munitions. Integration closes gaps and seams, and enables the timely application of fires while reducing the cost-per-intercept dilemma. Closed architectures are a thing of the past, as are stovepiped systems. We must leverage each other's data and information and apply the best available weapon to counter threat activities or inflict maximum damage upon an adversary. If the Army's Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense Sensor can provide an accurate launch point for a ballistic missile, shouldn't the Army's Precision Strike Munition or other long-range fires capability leverage this data in real time for an offensive strike? If an F-35 fighter jet detects aerial threats it cannot counter, shouldn't it pass this data via a joint architecture so the joint family of systems can defeat those threats? Project Convergence is endeavoring to expand integration and advance operating concepts to leverage all possible capabilities. It is a logical extension of a key AIAMD modernization effort — the Army's IAMD Battle Command System, or IBCS — which demonstrated impressive capabilities during a recent limited-user test. Patriot batteries executed near-simultaneous engagements against ballistic missiles and low-altitude cruise missiles, while using only Sentinel targeting data provided to IBCS. Multiple capabilities operating as an integrated system — leveraging one element's information and another's lethality to defeat a complex and integrated attack — represents true integration. The Missile Defense Agency's integration efforts with the Patriot and the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense systems, and its recent successful flight test, also demonstrate the power of an integrated approach. Specifically, this capability enables earlier engagements, expanded battlespace, an increase in defended area, flexible firing doctrines, interceptor optimization and the tightening of operational seams. We cannot afford to slow these efforts or take our eye off the objectives and capabilities these programs will deliver. IBCS is approaching a key milestone decision, which will enable low-rate production to begin, execute additional development and operational tests, and field an initial operational capability in 2022. Further integrating IBCS with other Army systems must be a future priority: It is the standard bearer for air and missile defense integrated operations and a key enabler for dealing with complex and integrated attacks. This investment requires sustained support from the Department of Defense and Congress as well as priority funding as we wrestle with flat budgets and COVID-19's fiscal challenges and potential bills. The Army is expected to add IBCS to Project Convergence — a good plan, but this action cannot become a distraction or diversion of resources that slows its development and fielding. IBCS, as well as the integration of Patriot and THAAD, are critical to success in today's tactically and technically challenging operations, which are stressing the force. Our integration efforts must expand to all joint air and missile defense systems and to our allies and partners, who remain essential to our success. AIAMD will also be a major contributor to the Combined Joint All-Domain Command and Control concept and the Air Force's Advanced Battle Management System — two key programs focused on integration at the theater level. COVID-19 has changed our lives in many ways and will levy a bill on our defense budgets. We cannot allow integration programs or initiatives to become COVID-19 casualties because seeing first and understanding first are the most critical elements in managing a crisis and keeping it from becoming a catastrophe. Retired Lt. Gen. David Mann led U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command. He has also commanded Army air and missile defense forces in Iraq, Southwest Asia and the United States. Retired Maj. Gen. Francis Mahon served as the director for strategy, policy and plans at North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command. He also commanded Army air and missile defense forces in Southwest Asia, South Korea and the United States. https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/c2-comms/2020/10/29/in-a-covid-19-world-system-integration-is-the-best-approach/

  • How did the two offerings competing to be the US Army’s future engine measure up?

    June 10, 2019 | International, Aerospace

    How did the two offerings competing to be the US Army’s future engine measure up?

    By: Jen Judson WASHINGTON — Cost appears to have played a major role in the Army's decision to pick GE Aviation's T901 engine for its future helicopter engine, based on a look at documents laying out the service's post-award analysis, obtained by Defense News. Yet, other factors not shown could have also contributed to the Army's choice, which the Government Accountability Office upheld following a protest from losing team Advanced Turbine Engine Company (ATEC) — a partnership between Honeywell and Pratt & Whitney. The GAO is expected to release a redacted version of its decision next week, which could shed more light on how the Army decided to move forward with GE. While the cost of GE'S engine seems to have been a deciding factor, the document outlining the service's criteria to determine a winning engine design to move into the engineering and manufacturing development phase states that “all non-cost/price factors when combined are significantly more important than cost/price factor.” According to that chart, the Army said it would primarily measure the engine submissions against its engine design and development, followed by cost/price, followed by life-cycle costs and then small business participation in order of importance. The Army assessed ATEC's and GE's technical risk as good and gave ATEC a risk rating of low while it gave GE a risk rating of moderate when considering engineering design and development for each offering. Both GE and ATEC had moderate risk ratings when it came to engine design and performance. And while GE received a technical risk rating of moderate for component design and systems test and evaluation, ATEC received low risk ratings for both. Almost all other technology risk assessments and risk ratings were the same for both engine offerings. GE scored “outstanding” in platform integration capabilities. Based off the chart, it appears ATEC won, so its likely the documents are not an exhaustive representation of how the Army decided to move forward with GE. While both ATEC and GE offered prices within the Army's requirements, GE came in 30 percent lower in cost. And according to Brig. Gen. Thomas Todd, the program executive officer for aviation, in an interview with Defense News in April, GE was also working on trying to shrink the timeline within the EMD phase by roughly a year. But, in ATEC's view, the charts show it had offered the best value product to the Army. ATEC's president, Craig Madden, told Defense News that the company took the Army's selection criteria laid out in the request for proposals seriously across the board from engineering design and development factors to cost to even small business participation, where it scored higher than GE in the analysis chart. “We did come in higher in cost but this was considered a best value evaluation and not lowest price, technically acceptable,” Madden said. “I think low price is good for a plastic canteen or a bayonet, it's not good for a highly technical turbine engine.” And despite coming in at a higher cost, Jerry Wheeler, ATEC's vice president said, the up front cost in the EMD phase will be higher but the delta would shrink when considering life-cycle costs of both engine offerings. Both ATEC and GE received good technical ratings and were given risk ratings of low. When just going by the chart, GE's four moderate risk ratings in key categories means “they could have disruption in schedule, increased cost and degradation of performance,” Madden said. He added ATEC was also focused on lowering risk, so that, although the Army offered incentives to finish the EMD phase earlier than 66 months, ATEC presented a plan to complete at 66 months with a plan to look at acceleration wherever possible. ATEC is now pushing to be a part of the EMD phase, essentially extending the competition, so that more data on engines can be garnered. The Army had periodically weighed keeping the EMD phase competitive with two vendors, but ultimately chose to downselect to one. For GE, the Army made the right decision and had enough data to do so. “The U.S. Army competitively selected GE's T901 engine over ATEC T900 engine after more than 12 years of development,” David Wilson told Defense News in a statement. “Those 12 years included the Advanced Affordable Turbine Engine (AATE) program, during which both companies ran tow full engine tests,” he said. Additionally, both companies executed a 24-month technology maturation and risk reduction contract where GE self-funded and successfully completed and tested a third engine, a full-sized T901 prototype engine, with successful tests on all components, Wilson said. “We've done three full-engine tests and provided an unprecedented amount of test data to the Army for them to determine which engine was the best to move forward with in EMD,” he added. Funding a second engine through EMD would cost more than twice as much and delay critical Army modernization by at least two years, Wilson argued. https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/06/07/how-did-the-two-offerings-competing-to-be-the-us-armys-future-engine-measure-up/

  • Austal USA awarded contract valued up to US$3.195 Billion for up to seven T-AGOS surveillance ships for the United States Navy

    May 24, 2023 | International, Naval

    Austal USA awarded contract valued up to US$3.195 Billion for up to seven T-AGOS surveillance ships for the United States Navy

    The contract includes options for detail design and construction of up to seven T-AGOS 25 class ships which, if exercised, would bring the cumulative value of the contract to US$3,195,396,097

All news