BAE Systems Secures $94M Contract to Deliver Advanced Tech to Navy

On the same subject

• 

  October 6, 2021 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  Expansion into the Pacific must come with more defense funds, says British lawmaker

  '€œBritain is only spending 2 percent of its [gross domestic product] on defense. But the threats ahead are collectively greater than the ones from the Cold War when we were spending 4 percent."

• 

  December 16, 2019 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  Slower-than-expected economic growth to help Canada's defence spending numbers

  Lee Berthiaume OTTAWA -- The federal government is predicting Canadian defence spending will inch closer to its NATO promises in the coming years than originally expected -- though not because Ottawa is planning to send new money the military's way. All NATO members, including Canada, agreed in 2014 to work toward spending the equivalent of two per cent of their gross domestic products on defence within the next decade as the military alliance sought to share the burden of defending from new threats like Russia and China. Two years ago, when they unveiled their defence policy, the Liberals said the government would hit 1.4 per cent by 2024-25. But Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan this week said, without providing details, that defence spending would instead reach 1.48 per cent of GDP. An increase of that size could represent close to $2 billion more per year for the military. However, the Department of National Defence told The Canadian Press that there are no new investments on the horizon for the Canadian Armed Forces beyond what's already in the Liberals' policy. Instead, Defence Department spokesman Daniel Le Bouthiller attributed the change to slower-than-expected economic growth over the next few years and more spending on non-military specific activities like veterans' benefits and the Canadian Coast Guard. The government has included such activities in its calculations since 2017 to try to address complaints from the U.S. and other NATO allies that Canada was not investing enough in its military. NATO approved the change. "Approximately two-thirds of the increase from 1.40 to 1.48 per cent is due to increased (other government department) forecasts and one-third due to fluctuating GDP forecasts," Le Bouthillier said in an email. Canada currently spends about 1.31 per cent of GDP -- a common measurement of a country's economic output -- on defence and has no plan to reach NATO's two per cent benchmark, a fact that has made it a target for U.S. President Donald Trump. Trump labelled Canada "slightly delinquent" on defence spending during a meeting in London last week in which he publicly grilled Prime Minister Justin Trudeau about Canada's number before subsequently stepping up his calls for the government to meet the NATO target. "He's not paying two per cent and he should be paying two per cent," Trump said during a meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Dec. 4. "It's Canada. They have money and they should be paying two per cent." The Liberal government has in fact refused to say whether it believes in the two-per-cent target and has instead repeatedly pointed to Canada's contributions of forces and equipment to NATO missions in Latvia, Iraq and other places as a better measurement of its contributions to the military alliance. The spending target is an imperfect way of measuring how much individual countries are contributing, said Stefanie von Hlatky, an expert on NATO and the military at Queen's University in Kingston, Ont. But all allies are facing pressure to show Trump that they are stepping up on defence spending, she said, which is doubly true for Trudeau after his meeting with the U.S. president in London. "I think there's a little bit of pressure now to maybe update those numbers and probably some rejoicing that it looks better on paper," von Hlatky said. "If we're looking to impress Trump with these minor adjustments, maybe it's all for naught. But there is definitely added pressure with every NATO meeting and NATO summit. And we know it's going to come up as long as Trump is president." Conservative defence critic James Bezan accused the Liberal government of playing a numbers game to make Canada look better rather than investing in the Armed Forces. "It's a sad state of affairs for our military heroes when Justin Trudeau can only improve defence spending figures by engineering a made-in-Canada recession and playing a shell game with other departments' budgets to inflate the numbers," he said. This report by The Canadian Press was first published on Dec. 13, 2019. https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/slower-than-expected-economic-growth-to-help-canada-s-defence-spending-numbers-1.4728602

• 

  October 8, 2020 | International, Land, C4ISR

  Army Seeks Electric Scout By 2025

  SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR. The Light Reconnaissance Vehicle, an off-road truck to scout ahead of airborne and light infantry units, could lead the Army's move to electric motors. But electrifying heavy cargo trucks, let alone tanks, could take decades. WASHINGTON: The Army will brief interested companies Oct. 20 on an electric-drive version of the long-delayed Light Reconnaissance Vehicle and the service's emerging strategy to convert its gas-guzzling formations to electric power. The service is working with a non-profit consortium of more than 200 companies and universities developing clean transportation technologies, CALSTART. But the driving logic here is pure Army green, not eco-friendliness. Tactically, electric vehicles accelerate quicker, run cooler, and move quieter than internal combustion ones – advantages that are all especially valuable for stealthy scouts like LRV. They can also run power-hungry high-tech systems, from sensors to lasers, without needing a bulky auxiliary power unit. Logistically, even if the Army has to recharge its electric vehicles from diesel generators, that would actually get more miles per gallon than putting the same fuel directly into an internal combustion vehicle, because electric motors are much more efficient. So electric power could reduce dependence on long supply lines and vulnerable convoys of tanker trucks, which are prime targets for adversaries ranging from Taliban irregulars to Russian missiles. Army and NATO wargames have shown some alarming vulnerabilities in the fuel supply. What's the timeline? “We'd like to see an Electric Light Reconnaissance Vehicle by FY25,” said Maj. Ryan Ressler, who's leading the effort for Army Futures Command. But electrifying the Army's whole fleet of wheeled vehicles – let alone its heavier tracked vehicles – may take decades, starting with light trucks and gradually working up to heavy armor. “You're not going to go straight to an all-electric [fleet]. The battery density is not there for your combat vehicles,” Ressler told me – at least, not yet. “We would like to see all electric vehicles by 2040,” he said. “There might be potential to have all electric vehicles in the near term, if industry can help.” The Oct. 20 industry day will be the first step toward finding out. From Light to Heavy Ressler hopes to have a formal Abbreviated Capabilities Development Document (ACDD) for ELRV approved “in a matter of months,” he told me. “We see this as the first electrified vehicle for the Army ground combat fleet.” Industry feedback on ELRV – and progress on development, if the program goes ahead – will then inform the long-term strategy for Tactical and Combat Vehicle Electrification across the wider fleet. Ressler's team is now drafting what's called an Initial Capabilities Document for TaCVE. To test those concepts out in practice, he added, “we're looking at other potential candidates for electrification right now.” High on that list is the Infantry Squad Vehicle (ISV) being built by GM Defense, an air-droppable light truck designed to carry airborne troops from their drop sites to the objective. Electric vehicles' innate stealth and reduced dependence on fuel supply would be particularly valuable to paratroopers, who operate on the ragged end of long supply lines. There's already been work done on an electric Infantry Squad Vehicle. “An electric prototype representative of the ISV proved it could be whisper-quiet, achieve sprint speed immediately, and offered excess power for extended silent watch mode exceeding current objectives,” according to an Army Futures Command white paper. LRV and ISV are natural partners. The Light Reconnaissance Vehicle was intended to scout ahead of the vulnerable Infantry Squad Vehicles, helping the unarmored transports avoid a lethal ambush. But the Army decided to delay a purpose-built LRV and use the heavier Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) as a stopgap scout. So it looks like LRV may have a second chance at life. ISV and LRV are both ultralight vehicles, meant to support airborne troops and other light infantry units that can deploy rapidly by air but after that mostly maneuver on foot. But even light infantry brigades have a small fleet of heavy trucks to carry supplies and special equipment. Mechanized units have a host of armored vehicles – 8×8 wheeled Strykers for medium brigades; tracked tanks, howitzers, missile launchers, and troop carriers for heavy brigades – followed by an even larger number of trucks to carry fuel, spare parts, supplies, and other support. There's already been some progress with these heavier vehicles. BAE Systems is developing an experimental hybrid diesel-electric engine for the M2 Bradley troop carrier. BAE's experimented with hybrid-electric armored vehicles for decades, company exec Andrew Rosenfeld told me – they once built a hybrid as heavy as an M1 Abrams tank – but the company's recent boom in civilian hybrid-electric buses has advanced the state of the art. Their engine for the Bradley can move up to 45 tons, and the same basic design could scale larger or smaller to go in a wide range of other vehicles. The hybrid Bradley uses 10 to 20 percent less fuel during a normal mission, he told me, and it can generate 500 kilowatts of power, enough to run an Army field hospital. On the wheeled side, the Army's Ground Vehicle Systems Center (GVSC, formerly TARDEC) converted an Oshkosh cargo truck, the four-axle M977 HEMTT, to hybrid electric drive for a 2019 demonstration. That Tactical Vehicle Electrification Kit cut the HEMTT's fuel consumption by 15-25 percent, according to the Army Futures Command white paper. TVEK also tripled the truck's capacity to generate power. Increased power generation not only allows an electrified vehicle to have more technology on board, like sensors and weapons. Such vehicles could also park, plug in, and power up soldiers' charging kits, field hospitals, command posts, or radar sites – potentially replacing traditional diesel generators. “The very concept of what constitutes a vehicle has changed,” the white paper argued. “Electrification has transformed vehicles into sensor platforms, communication nodes, and mobile computational hubs.” Just as the F-35 fighter is so full of electronics that a former Air Force Chief of Staff called it “a computer that happens to fly,” electrified ground vehicles could become computers that happen to drive – and not just computers, but mobile charging stations as well. Today's complex and vulnerable supply chain must move large amounts of fuel from refinery to tanker to forward depot to individual vehicles and generators. A future system could be much more decentralized, supplying smaller amounts of fuel to hybrid-electric vehicles, which could then generate power to share with all-electric ones. Such streamlined logistics could make a life-or-death difference in wartime. The Army's concept for future combat, Multi-Domain Operations, calls for individual brigades to operate up to seven days without stopping for resupply. That's unimaginable today. Improving fuel-efficiency of internal combustion engines would make for only “marginal” progress towards the goal, the white paper argued. Truly self-sufficient combat units will require largescale replacement of fossil fuel with electricity, potentially drawn from small, mobile nuclear reactors. “It's fundamental to Multi-Domain Operations,” argued retired Lt. Gen. Eric Wesley, who commissioned the white paper when he was Futures & Concepts Center chief for Army Futures Command. He just took on a private-sector job with Flyer Defense, a maker of lightweight off-road trucks that's now developing an electric-drive vehicle with a small, built-in diesel generator to recharge itself. (This isn't a hybrid-electric drive, since the diesel doesn't' drive the wheels; it just charges the batteries). “Moving energy on the battlefield is the biggest challenge commanders will have in the future,” Wesley told me. But if you electrify your vehicle, he argued, it can “become more than just a combat vehicle: It becomes an energy node [in] a distribution network, where every vehicle is part of your energy distribution plan.” Such a decentralized and flexible system, he argues, is much harder for a Russian missile strike to take out than a fuel depot. https://breakingdefense.com/2020/10/army-seeks-electric-scout-by-2025/